20VC: Inside Sequoia's Investment Committee: Lessons from Don Valentine, Doug Leone and Alfred Lin | How the SpaceX and Citadel Deals Went Down | What Sequoia Specifically Looks for in Founders with Julien Bek

Everyone thinks that we're just waiting for the phone tearing for the next anthropic to call us to invest. Let's completely false. Everyone at Sequoia is a hunter. If you look at founders, you like versus founders who make money as a two by two matrix, your job is to figure out in which part of the quadrant we make money. The best investments in all the funds are always the companies where the sponsor had the highest conviction. We are only as good as our next investment. That's not an easy jump. If you want an easy job, you go do something else. Predates to Sean when he brought in the SpaceX investment, we vote on companies. I think someone voted a one. I think right now, if you're going to invest in a new neolamp, you're basically investing in the quora in the stumble upon when Facebook X came about. This is 20 VC with me, Harry Stabbings. Now, I am so excited for the show's day because I get to welcome one of my oldest friends to the show. Yeah, he's a partner at Sequoia, which just raised $10 billion in new capital to bet on the next generation of winners in the AI wave. He's also an incredible human being. You'll hear more about why in the show, but this episode is incredible because it is a behind the scenes glimpse into what makes Sequoia so special. How they find great companies, how they win them, how they pick them. It is a incredible view into what makes the great so good. This is Sequoia, like you've never seen Sequoia before, and it was again one of the most special interviews for me to be able to sit down with one of my oldest friends. But before we dive into the show today, founders face a different set of challenges at every stage of growth. For Sid's shade, co-founder and CEO of D matrix, JP Morgan delivered the guidance and expertise to help navigate what came next. He credits JP Morgan's high touch approach with supporting D matrix as it grew and expanded internationally, whether you're in the early days or expanding into new markets, JP Morgan helps startups navigate complexity with real confidence, offering personalized guidance and deep sector expertise. Find out how JP Morgan helps founders at JP Morgan.com/growwithoutlimits. JP Morgan is the bank of the innovation economy. While JP Morgan supports growth, Korgi protects it. My world rodent arresting first line gets your ass covered with Korgi insurance, and I'll tell you why if you're running a business right now, you already know this pain all too well. Getting insurance, it's really slow, it's confusing, and my word, it's full of paperwork. Well, that's exactly why Korgi is here to change the game. Korgi is the first and only insurance carrier designed specifically for tech companies, allowing you to get covered in minutes instead of days. Korgi provides essential coverages for all growth stages, such as D&O. E&O liability, cyber, commercial, general liability, and more. Get your ass covered. I love the way we say "ass" with Korgi insurance alongside thousands of other startups at Korgi.com/20VC today. That's Korgi.com/20VC, you won't regret it. While Korgi covers risk, flex gives you room to move. Business owners run their whole financial life on flex, one platform from business revenue to their personal spend, float every purchase for 60 days, tap capital that grows with your revenue and pay vendors in 170 countries across 32 currencies, plus the whole back office, bills, expenses, accounting, all in one place. So you spend less time reconciling and more time growing. That's why thousands of owners use flex, named one of fast companies, most innovative companies of 2026, visit flex.1. That's F-L-E-X dot O-N-E and use the code 20VC. You have now arrived at your destination. Dude, we have known each other. I was trying to think, I think it's been like eight, 10 years. Almost 10 years, yeah. You were young back then. Yeah, you were in Excel and you were very nice officers and I was just joined at Tomaco, I think, and we were both very young and we were like, wow, it worked. But I want to start because I think a lot of people will hear you now and think, wow, so quite a partner and wow, but there's something in particular about the relationship that you have with your parents and how you look after your father, which I think is an embodiment of what a great human you are. So can you just tell me a little bit about that before we dive into all the intellectual nerdy shit because I want people to know you a little bit first. Yeah, look, my dad suffers from a condition, rheological condition that showed up in my early 20s. I have no siblings. So when that happened, I started looking after him. He's very unusual, my dad. He comes from a family of four, grew up in rural France, stopped school when he was 13. You know, he did that to put money on the table for the rest of his family. I saw him care for his parents when they were aging and I just looked up to that. He's quite unusual. He's an astrologer. Yeah, no, an astrologer astrologer. So I always saw him kind of take a different path. And when his disease starts showing up, yeah, I was there for him. And I know you've done the same for your parents. So, do you know, I, I, I specialize in binary statements that get me, you know, either loved or hated, but I think one of the biggest pieces of bullshit advice is you've got to do it for you. Everyone who says that, I think he's just talking out their ass. I do most of the things for my mother. I did, you know, I adore my mom and I actually think you can achieve great things when you do it for someone else and that should be hailed and ordered, not do it for yourself always. Yeah. My opinion is that if you have your clearer values, everything else is easy. It might be painful in the moment to stick to them, but it's just at least you have mental clarity about what you're doing. And it doesn't matter how much work you put in. You just know you're doing it for the right reasons. Absolutely. And the core value that we have is liquidity. I don't think that's true. Did you see I tweeted the other day when the patterned Alfred were on TV and they said they were asked about Sean McGuire's tweets and I said Alfred's comment was the best I've seen, which is, well, we look at the balance sheet of Sean. And I just thought when summarizing someone, we look at the balance sheet of X is like the greatest way to discuss like that person. I got in a lot of trouble for that. You did. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Anyway, I want to dive into Sequoia a little bit. You joined from Excel. I want to know what did you not know about Sequoia before joining that you now know having been there for several years now? Yeah, I've been there three years and I've been doing venture capital for 10. I think Sequoia operates really like a sports team. Maybe you've heard that story before, but this is my first day ever. At Sequoia, I'm in California. I visited the office before, but I wake up early jet lag and I show up to the office at maybe 4.30, 5 am something ridiculous like that. I felt obviously very happy about myself. I started the office that day. And as I approach the building, I see some light inside. And as about to push the door, I see a man on the other side. And he looks at me and where the deep voice he goes, what are you doing here? So early and I'm also prized, but with pride, I tell him, I'm here to take my first call. What are you doing here so early? And he's like, I've already taken my first call. And then he just walked off and he was just so happy about it. Still, you know, lost the game. And I was dug that was dug. Yeah, of course it was. Oh, Doug, is that just like the Americans being built differently? Do you see everyone else at Sequoia do that? I'm feel you have to do the same. It's at it. I don't think so. We just hire people who are built like that. Doug is Italian. He's European by roots and immigrated to the US when he was very young. And I've only known him for a couple of years, but I'm pretty sure he was always like that. And I want to play a dodge ball with him. What does everyone think they know about Sequoia that they actually get wrong? Everyone thinks that we're just waiting for the phone to ring for the next and thropic to call us to invest. That's completely false. We were 11 people a couple of months back in the early team. That's basically what a football team is. And everyone's just scoring on the field. It doesn't matter how long you've been there. Everyone expects you to perform. In fact, the younger you are, the more people expect experience people to perform because you just need them more. It's very competitive out there. And we think that people need to behave exceptionally well as individuals, but when as a team, that's really important. I don't think that people understand that as much. I'll give you a story to illustrate it. Constantine Bueller, my partner helped us lead the investment in Citadel securities, Ken Griffin's company. They had never taken outside capital. The reason we were able to invest is Constantine built a relationship with Ken since he was a student. He had been his mentor for years and years and Constantine never gave up and just kept asking, can we invest? Can we invest until Ken Kangly said yes? Can I ask you, in that case, what does that deal look like? I mean, there's not super seriously or glibly, but just Constantine come to IC on Monday and be like, I have a new startup for us. It's called Citadel with Griffin. I think we should put in a $250 million check. How does that actually go down? I was in there for the Citadel investment, but I've seen it happen with, well, more recently, we're in thethropic with special companies like that. Yeah, $2.5 billion. Do you not respect so much about that, Jack? Is like, I think the hardest thing to do is to turn down a company and then be willing to have the mental flexibility to pay multiples of it later and get over your own ego about turning it down. - Yeah, we call that revisiting our priors. It's very important that you update your priors if the environment's changed. And I think it came from the realization that if AI is gonna be still transformative, we are just on the foothill of this incredible exponential. And now we're three years into AI and we've seen that exponential starting to play out. And suddenly we realize the human brain is just not very good at dealing with exponentials. We can think very well linearly, but not exponentially. And in this case, I think we underestimate the company in the early days. - Dude, I think we all underestimated outcome sizes being what they are. Like anthropic and open AI being a trillion dollars as quickly as they have been. I don't think anyone anticipated. - Do you remember when it was about chasing the billion dollar company? - Oh my God. - And years ago. - Which is amazing. By the way, I get chastised for this. I get chastised for everything to do about fucking cool-y cafe. You're a hustle porn. - I'm fine cafe, you're like, you just shoot me. I agree, which is why I say something which gives most people like shivers, which is a billion dollars could just be the new series A. If you think about it, we used to do a $50 million post at series A, hoping you'll become a billion. Now you do a billion and it becomes a $20 billion company. Same blunt multiple. - That's extrapolating the power law, right? - Well, you have to be in the once matter. - Exactly. And picking has never been harder because you have just so much more volume of companies. - Push on that one. Well, I think when you are at a billion dollars in valuation, say, and you're doing 50 million in revenue, or 30 million in revenue, choose your number, you're significantly de-risked. You've got enterprise customers most often. There's real data. I'd much rather do that than the series A, where you're three, four million in revenue, priced at three to five hundred million. - Yeah, absolutely. The difference is that some of these billion dollar rounds happen before there's does anything else. Sometimes you have what the market wants you to pay, and then I think founders are also looking for company building partners. So you can invest. If you build trust with the founders, you can invest really. - Have you done any of the neon apps? - Personally, I haven't. We invest in a bunch of them. I think right now, if you're gonna invest in new neolab, you're basically investing in the Quora in the stumble upon when Facebook X came about. - That's my opinion. It's not shared with everyone, but that's the way I think about it. The only way you invest in a truly novel company is either if you back an end of one founder. You know, recently, we backed a company called Inefable here in the K was a large seed round, as you mentioned. - David Silver. - David Silver. - And he's an end of one researcher going after a very different type of architecture. So if it works, it's completely massive because they're not trying to do the exact same thing, but better, they're trying to be different. That's the prerequisite now, I think, to be one of the successful neon labs. - Do you agree with me that Series A is the hardest place to be investing today, given price to progress, and then competition? - I think that Goldpost is moving. It depends on which sector you're investing. In hardware now, for instance, which is the new thing that's consensus, physical AI, the time to get validation is just a lot longer. And so you have to invest early, hoping that those companies can get through those phases of experimentation. And so instead of measuring these companies of how quickly they get from zero to a million in AR, you have to look at how quickly they get to a working prototype. But you're moving atoms not bits. It's just a lot harder, it takes more time. And they just need a bit more capital. So I actually think that we'll see more collaboration because of that, funds will want to work with other capital partners to help those companies get to those milestones. - Are you less ownership centric than you were before? You mentioned that the collaborative element. I find that we're able to work more with other people, given outcome size of the expanding. You don't need to have the 20% that you used to when it was a cap $1 billion upside. Are you less ownership centric than you used to be? - No. No, I tell you why, it's simple. It's just the outcomes are growing. It's also more capital intensive. But most importantly, it's your time. In your career, you can make 20 investments. Some people do more than that. That's just not my style. I partner with two, three founders a year. And so in my career, I can expect to do basically beyond the board of 20 companies. I'm not going to short myself. I'm going to work really hard for those founders. What I pitched them is that I'm going to be basically their co-founder. They decide how to run the business, but I sit in the passenger seat, then I help them close their first customers, close their top hires. Literally, I cannot do that with more than a handful of companies. If you look at Relate, we met with 17 public companies CFOs since the start of the year. Some of them have become customers. - How do you do that when you have 200 companies with 2% in each of them? It just doesn't work. It's a different model. - It's a totally different model. I completely agree with you. There are many different personalities within Sequoia. - Who is the best saucer in the firm? Like finding companies. They didn't need to pick them, didn't they? Just who is the one who finds really interesting shit time and time again? - Time and time again. If I have to pick, I'll pick Dean Meyer, my partner who sits in Telvieve, basically lives on plane. He's just a phenomenal human being. He was a professional football player for multiple years. So he has the competitive juices of messy, but coupled with the technical depth of someone who's been working in tech his whole career. And that's a very dangerous combo. I don't know where that comes from, but he's just amazing at reading people. He's just got this ability to connect with founders, both like the very young spikey people, but also some of the guys who sold companies for billions of dollars. - You know, people like Dean, he's been very, very popular, I agree. Who's the best picker? Who, when they have it in front of them, is able to deconstruct companies best? That one's easy. Luciana Lissandro, my partner, who actually brought me into Sequoia, we worked together at Excel before. So I've worked with Luciana for most of my career now. When I met her, she had just invested in Diluvru, then she did Framer, then she, Juan Sequoia did Penny Lane stark more recently. It's just banger after banger. And if you look at the pattern, there's no pattern. It's just across categories. She's just been able to reinvent herself, from consumer to software to physical AI and defense. That'll be my pick. - Does it get really tough when you're at Sequoia? Because the upside just needs to be bigger than other fun. Like, you know, Sean is bringing his SpaceX and you're like, you're near us and my unbelievable companies. And you're like, you know, it's really hard, but it's part of the job. It's not meant to be easy. Otherwise, everyone else would be doing it, right? Our partnership discussions are sometimes very fierce. We push each other like you have no idea. Credits to Sean when he brought in the SpaceX investment. We vote on companies. I've seen wars, of course. I've seen threes, never seen a two. I didn't even know we could do one. I didn't even know it was on the scale. But what happened is after that proposition occurred, he didn't give up, he just kept pushing. He forced all the partnership to fly over to see it with their own eyes. We ended up doing a smaller investment that led to big investment. And now a couple of years later, that's one of the best investments in the history of the firm. So the point is, it's all about conviction. Every off site, we look at our fund returns dating back from decades ago. And it's very intimidating. You're looking at this sheet with those phenomenal returns. And you think, how am I going to contribute to the same degree or more? And every time we try to be cute to look at the numbers, well, maybe if we increase the ownership there and the dollars there. But as we're always reminded, the best investments in all the funds are always the companies where the sponsor had the highest conviction. That's just the one thing that's been so, that happened time and time again across funds. Were the best deals controversial? When you look back across them, is it like, ah, actually, no, they were a lot of your consensus or they were controversial? Not all of them. I think where you turn small dollars into big dollars, they have to be controversial. I was in there, but I heard the Airbnb story multiple times over where I think Brian Chesky had been turned around by most other firms. And he came to Sequoia and Sequoia led a seed investment that was, I think, one of the highest money on money return that we've made. It was controversial, sleeping on air mattresses on people's floor and turning them marketplace, sound like a pretty bad idea. But that turned out to be something very different. In actually having conviction, not just at the beginning, but to keep investing in those companies. You know what we're going to talk about, I'm packing founders, but one thing I read about Brian, I didn't know him, but one thing I read about him was he actually became obsessed with medieval lodgings and how people used to travel and stay in group stays and the historian that he is. And I actually found that fascinating. I find that actually when you look at the Colossians as well, they're real historians and truly great founders often historians of their sector. I didn't know that story, but that doesn't surprise me. Now listen, before we dive into a couple of lessons from each, I'm going to say two statements and you can discuss them with me. So queer just pays up for deals. That a wrong statement to find yourself paying the most, do you get discounts? What do you think? I was very surprised to hear that question. You know, we tried to partner with founders as early as possible. And in fact, what you find is because of this high bar, we partner with only so many companies every year. and we're going to be doing this. When we do what I see in practice is that there's often capital that's happy to pay premium to that valuation. We're early stage investors at heart and so for us trying to partner as early as possible remains the priority, but there are other firms that may be investing later stages that like to come in early. They are willing to pay a premium. Align to that. Why don't you have found that I bat Brandon from Macau. He went like quite viral with this which I thought was fucking brilliant for square marketing and I didn't know why you guys didn't do more with it. Where basically he said like oh no one talks about it and I'm not just in Brandon here. It's true. But people don't talk enough about the trance rounds that the square keep doing where the square get in at one price and then there's an inflection and there's like a next round done at the same price. Like to me, that's just a phenomenal way to lock in ownership and money for the company. Is that how you guys see it and you're like yeah, we want to push that more? I've only seen that happen a handful of times and I think that's probably giving us too much credit. In his case, Brandon's built a phenomenal business. We haven't had the chance to partner with him but in some of the cases where we did invest, it's a supply and demand problem. The founders are building a special company. Why would they not commend premiums after someone has invested? By the way, I think this is a great thing. I would retweet it with like yes, the power of brand if I was secure because I've done like five deals with you where I'm either in the first round with you and I'm grateful or I'm in the second round afterwards where I'm slightly less grateful but I'm still happy to be in the company. But I didn't think it's a bad thing. Yeah, look, I think the difference is also people are conflating different things are happening. The multiple rounds that happen and you know, we used to have seed and series S, series B and I think the milestones to get from one to the other used to take you 18 months. Now you can move so fast with AI that things happen so quickly and so it's only normal that you commend a much higher valuation in a short amount of time if you've proven yourself to be right. Is the triple triple double double dead? You know, before we used to do one to three, three to nine, nine to 18, 18 to 36. Yeah. And that was good. Now, that's still great for a company and we're not at all belittling that. But you have a lovable, alegora, a you name it and they go to 100 million in a year. Yeah. Okay. So on that one, I have a strong view. I don't know if there'll be three years, maybe five, but this will come back. I tell you why first people are conflating again, two things. Some are new markets and some are replacement markets. In the case of a CRM company, they might be AI native, but they're still having to replace a core system of record for business and some of them are growing really quickly, but they still have to replace something here. You were talking about companies that are in a complete green field market three years ago. There was nothing. And suddenly you have the capabilities that can replace basically what a human can do. And so actually those companies are growing vertically in a few years from now, most of the customers out there will have a solution and will hit a replacement market. And so you'll compare those companies with these other ones, apples to apples, but right now it's apples and oranges and no one's really being attention to that. But our job is to play the game on the field and we can put money in one home or another home. And if we can put our money in a home which is much faster growing in a new market, we have an opportunity cost of that capital, which is why I want to put it that wrong. I disagree with that. I'll tell you why the outcomes will be crystallized in 10 years on average, maybe more. The best companies tend to stay private longer, that's what the data suggests. But you're making a decision that will impact the business over the next three years. So it may be true that they can attract more capital in the short term, but ultimately what matters to you is how much ownership you have and how big the company can get. And that will be true only when that investment crystallizes in almost guarantee that will happen for the biggest outcomes in markets that are more mature as opposed to markets that are completely greenfield. And I think this is actually the joy of venture, though, where we can be different. What I see is a more liquid secondary market than ever before, which is also extremely frothy and because of mine not being sequir, rare moment of humility from me, I can sell much more easily than you. And so I can sell into a liquid secondary market at a various, you print price, I think in a way that you can't in a shorter time frame. That may be true, but you have 500 million fund. That's a lot of money to do secondaries. I've got multiple sales. I'll tell you back then. My dear friend, we are just a humble podcast that also happens to partner with great founders. Exactly. Exactly. It's not a good story. Yeah, it's true. It's not that Lumber's ruin a good story. Final one before we touch on like founder, reading an assessment, I do just want to go into like, there's so much mysticism, opacity on how a deal gets done and it's sequir. You have a weekly IC meeting. Is it global? Does everyone come? Is everyone invited? Is there a meeting for like just part and Alfred to like sit by a fireplace and strategize? How does it actually work to get a deal done? It's funny because we're willing to, it's our like fifth decade running. And probably for five decades, we've been doing Monday ICs in person or on Zoom, we've been adapting the same recipe. What's interesting is that we're actually experimenting with new approaches. We're trying to do things a bit more asynchronously. Well, first, yes, everyone is invited. But what's interesting is we're experimenting with a new approach where we actually each have to contribute asynchronously after a memo gets shared and everyone can call up an IC if they want to get everyone's opinion. The reason for that is an IC is a great format for fast thinking. Speaking asynchronously is great for slow thinking and so if you can get the benefit of both, you're hopefully going to make better decisions. In an IC format, we're each contributing one after the other. It's kind of a sequential kind of rhythm whereas, you know, in this case, we contribute each of us in a document and at the end, we reach a decision altogether. You can call an IC, but that helps us get the best from the partnership. Does every entrepreneur pitch the IC? How do you make sure that the partners have enough data to have an informed opinion? Yeah, yeah. The founders still pitch. It's very important. So, they will still pitch the entire IC? Yeah. Quite a fucking nerve, right? It sounds crazy. But I told you we're, we're now 12 people in the early team about the same number and a growth team. So, it's not that big. So you'll say to an entrepreneur, hi, Nick, you're pitched with the ICs at 6pm, I had a help beforehand. This is how I'd orient it. You give them the prep. Yeah, I try not to prep them too much. You need to see the essence of the people if they, if you give them a script, no one's going to see what you're seeing. Do you see a really wide variance in what you saw before versus the IC? In other words, do people get super nervous and change much? Do you see what I mean? Yeah, sometimes we joke, maybe you make decisions without the IC. Yeah, it is true. It does change. But it also, it's a signal and then you decide as a sponsor what you do with that signal. Did you have questions about the founder being commercial or a good communicator? If you bond the IC, maybe your questions were founded. And so that IC then happens. Yeah. And you said they're about signal. Then we, and cool, entrepreneur goes away, continues to build his business or her business. And then we vote a yes or a no, we give it a 1 to 10. What happens now? Yeah, well, first we, we give feedback independently of the discussion so that we know before the discussion where people are like the boss. And so that's a vote. And then we have a discussion after discussion, everyone votes. And the sponsor is equipped to make the decision they want with that information. So you can still do it. You can still do it. So Alfred votes one, terrible, one of the worst presentations I've seen and you can still press green. Yeah. If you press green, it's a bad investment. I'll see how long you're in stigma. You've got to have some serious conversions. Better be a better investment. Wow. Yeah, but it's not an Alfred voted one thing. The reality is a bit different. Do you know who voted what? Yeah. Yeah, you know. But that's super important to tell you why because if you want to be a good company building partner, it can't be Harry's investment or Julian's investment. It needs to be a sequoid investment. In this case, I need to be able to call up Luciana. I need to call up George or Stephanie to say, can you make that introduction to that amazing connection you have that, you know, it's quite cherished. It's big bullet for them. They're going to make that introduction in a heartbeat. Is there any politics? Maybe I'm just, I mean, I am insecure and weak, but like, you know, someone, so someone said the, the term front stepping, which is the opposite of back stepping. And I love that. I think that's just the way you're being very direct with your partners. Does anyone take it personally? Like, do you have to caveat it a bit? Like, I always try and say to all partners, like, hey, in the IC, there's no emotions. But when I say, this is a, like, they won't face song cause it'll take it personally. How do you remove the emotion? Is there emotion? Do you have to call people up afterwards? I'm sorry. We definitely have heated discussions, yeah, for sure. People can violently disagree, but ultimately, again, I go back to, this is all signal for the person who's sponsoring the investment to decide how much conviction they have in the investment they want to make. And ultimately, you know, yes, the feedback may be tough, but that's not an easy jump. If you want an easy jump, you go do something else. And it's a feature. It's not a bug. People to come in with courage and if they don't have courage, they won't take risk and we'll have media career investments in the portfolio. I think it's important that it shows that, like, representative and honest, but I don't ever want to do a founder bashing for sure. And so I like to say I found a praising on the flip side. If he's thinking about it, he's thinking about it. of them I see where founders just come in and just crushed. What one comes to mind? So that happens. What we do in those cases, we find it weird. First, if everyone's a seven or eight, quite dangerous, you guys look, founders know what we want to hear. The best founders are able to retrofit the narrative that they think is going to land with investors and that can be dangerous. So in those cases, we try to have a devil's advocate. So we asked someone to play the devil's advocate and say, okay, what is wrong about that investment? What are the things that if it goes wrong, we try to write the pre-mortem of that investment before we make it. And we try to spar around that conversation because in a couple of years time, one of us may have to deal with the consequences of that. I want to go back a step, though, because I was assuming that a sponsor likes to deal enough to take it there. If you go back to unpacking what makes a great founder and found a reading, you said before that reading founders is what, to be fair, your partner said this, reading founders have quickly become a superpower. What do you do? Do you think that makes you good at reading founders help me? Well, first, you have to be vulnerable with founders. Otherwise, they won't open up and that's all the signal you need. And you do that very well, actually. My job is in 30 minutes, I have to figure out what's special about this person and what might make them exceptional. And I cannot make a mistake because this job is so unforgiving, not when you invest in the wrong company, but when you don't invest in the right companies. So it's a mission mistakes, not commission mistakes. And basically, you have 30 minutes to figure out what's their spike. And my way of doing this is to open up first. They all expect to be pitching Sequoia and they want to tell the story of their company. But what I want to hear is the story of the individual. And for that, I start sharing about my story. I tell them how it was like growing up with parents who split up where my mom was the successful business woman with a nice view over Lake Geneva, but I was doing a week there and a week back with my dad where we slept on the mattress in a one bedroom apartment and how it was fine. You know, it was fine. I tell them how when my mom had cancer, when I was six years old, I remember having to put myself to sleep because she was just too tired. But you know what, a year later, she beat the disease and kept running her business. You know, all these things are just like, everyone has a story like that. I know you have many of them yourself. So I don't want to use that to weaponize it. But it's more that I think that's the beauty of the job. Otherwise, you're just in a transaction all the time. Here, I'm just so curious to understand what makes that person who they are that I just want to ask all these questions. So I completely agree. And I think you have to bring that vulnerability to expect it back. My question to you is we're in such a transactional world where rounds and company momentum, it's also transparent thanks to podcasts like this. People can game it. And I've said before about what do I look for? I sound awful, but like great gamers often broken relationships with parents. How do you actually determine if it's kind of genuine? Yeah, or not. You just have to ask quite multiple times. I remember this year's the first year I uncovered a fraudulent founder. It was very interesting because I remember in the first meeting, that person said, you know, our numbers are going from zero to seven of AR and basically six months in pretty hot category. You know, in his introduction, he told us how he came from a small village and unfavorable country. And how he got an offer to go study at Stanford and decide to turn it down to go study at another university. And you just have to ask why? Why did you do that? It's amazing. You got the grades to get accepted in one of the most competitive programs on the planet. And yet you decide to leave it to do something else. Why? And they may be very good reasons, right? But what's interesting is just seeing the body language, the tempo of the conversation accelerating the founder being nervous. And just think, okay, that's not strange. So you just register. You don't end the call. You give them the benefit of the doubt. But it turns out a couple of days later that founder, my partner, George and I are on our way to the airport at five in the morning to go see that founder. And on the way to the airport, he tells us that he had something happen and he had a family emergency and he had to cancel our meeting. Later that day, we received messages from very respectable investors who were investors in the company who told us that he had come out as a front. I remember that day I sent a message to all our competitors about that because I do think it's important that in those times where there's so much opportunity, you also have people who take advantage of it for the wrong reasons. And that was for me a clear case. It's exactly what you said, the know what to expect. They know what you want to hear and they're just going to say to you in a hurry program and take away. So that's why I ask you five times and you'll get to the bottom of it. It is hard, especially when we are as open as we are about what we look for. So I totally get like, it's arrogance bad. It's one that I just I'm not sure because you can just, this sounds awful, but sometimes the dooshes are actually really good. Is it bad? I'll go back to the Don Valentine quote. If you look at founders you like versus founders who make money as a two by two matrix, your job is to figure out in which part of the quadrant we make money. And he used to tell that too many of our partners and it's not because you don't like the founder that they won't make you money. And arrogance might not be something you like, but it might make them very good at what they do. It's maybe the cost of their spike, but that's why you have to go back to their spike first. If there was no spike in your using that to hide a weakness, that's the sign you want to look for. Can you tell me about a founder misread that you have, which may be changed how you think about founder reads? So like I wouldn't choose to Chris at Grenola. Yeah. First ever investor that he met. And honestly, he wasn't that articulate and he wasn't a great salesperson and it was a loose idea. The references were the most unbelievable ever from working with him, but I just couldn't get behind something where it was very loose. And there wasn't much of a sales presentation or charisma or anything. I learned to focus more on references than almost anything else. It preceded. So first, I really agree with your last statement about references. We do that extensively. I'll come back to that in a second because I think there's an important point there. Yeah. On your question around a founder misread, I had lunch with Anton Osica from Lavable before he founded the company. I just didn't see it. I'll tell you one thing that I learned from that is I didn't come to the meeting with a plan. I just had lunch with him and it was three of us in him. We were just chatting and I was not intentional about asking the right questions to figure out what made him special. And I underestimated him at the time. It's hard. You know what's also hard there, actually, and which I think is important. He's Swedish and he's a thoughtful sweet. And what I mean by that is Matt is a LaGoura. I know you're a sequer. It's about team Harviet, sequer. But Matt is like an aggressive sweet. He's like an American sweet. And Anton is a thoughtful sweet, a product or a sweet. And so he's less decorative in his opinions, but this was earlier. How does your read change for country? French are not very good salespeople generally speaking. They don't push with the same marketing showbiz of Americans. How does your read vary by country? I think that that part is very important. I remember the first ever diligence I did at Sequoia was for a company called Tacto in our portfolio. And I called up a bunch of their customers who were what we call middle shant. Those are, you know, small businesses that composed most of the company's economy, right? We always asked the NPS question at the end on a skill of zero to ten. What do you think of the product? And it was just so consistently saying seven. I remember asking, oh, why not more? Because we can always do better. Very German. And I remember when the memo came out, one of my partners said, oh, why do you think the references are not more positive? And I said, oh, they're German customers. And basically, I remember telling my partners, if they're French or German, you add one or two points. If they're Americans, usually you want to retract one or two points on the other hand. Yeah. So that's also the beauty of investing here is that you're just going to take the local nuances into account. Do you find any commonalities in childhood? Again, maybe I have an unhealthy tail bent towards like childhood trauma, broken relationships with family, fat kids. I was a fat kid. Everyone loves Augusta's group. Are you a ripped adult? But do you have any preferences? The problem is if you try to pattern match people, you will just not invest in the right people. That's what I found. Your job is just to figure out where does this person sit on the intercept? And what is their future looking trajectory? If you meet a very young founder, you cannot compare them to an experienced operator. That's apples and oranges. And the best thing you can do to figure out their future trajectories is understand on what trajectory they're on. So going back to their past, if you stop just at their professional history, you know, in some of these cases, they've been working two years. But you have so much richness if you go back, you know, the first 15 or 20 years of their life. And I'll give you an example. I met two founders, French founders, both went to Polytechnique, most competitive technical program in France. And, you know, I could have said, oh, these two guys are equally good. What was interesting is when I started digging into their childhood story, one of them was the son of private equity tycoon, who had also gone to to politics. technique. Well, the other one had been abandoned by his parents when he was born and spent his childhood going from one care home to the other. That's terrible, but at the same time, it just shows you how much distance that person travels to get where they are. And it doesn't mean that they'll continue on that path, but at least it tells you a lot about their existing trajectory. And so your job is just to figure out if they're going to continue on that path or not. I totally agree with you, distance traveled, unlike the shit they have to go through to get to where they were today is materially just more to agree to. I always love it then when you check their kind of name of the library and you're like, oh, it's also your father's name on the library. That helps usually. I did think Shoshaz that you were, you know, whatever. Okay, there's Doug Leoni. There's Pat Grady, there's Alfred Lindner, Sean McGuire. I'm going to choose one lesson from each. Start with Doug. What's the one lesson you learn from Doug? The one lesson from Doug is a question he asks in interviews. He starts by asking who is your best reference and why? What's interesting there is usually founders tend to say there's this person and this person and they're very happy to share all the great things these people have to say about them. And as they finish, you ask the counter question which is who would be your worst reference and why and see their calls change. People answer that honestly, I honestly. What's interesting is how they answer the question. I've had founders be very direct about who the worst references were and what was amazing is then I called those people and you just get a lot of texture. I'm not looking for perfection. I'm just looking for clarity. Do you know who your last reference would be? No, I have so many. That sounded so like the GFC goes, ah, I think mine would be near class at Tomlake. Oh really? I think he'd say I was like, you used us. And I was by the way, like when I was at Tomlake. You were also 17 years old. I know, but I just couldn't understand why am I on a call at midnight when it's not my firm. This makes no sense to me. Exactly. But the worst employees make the best founders. You became a founder. Which is why references are really hard? Actually, for me. Okay, I love that. I'm going to steal that. Just on the reference point, you know, you asked me about Sean. He has this elo methodology framework where if you've played chess, elo is the score you get attributed, depending on how good you are. And it's exponentially harder to get to a higher score because you have to beat better and better people to get there. And so his point is that if, you know, your 2400 rated player, which is extremely good outlier territory, you're much more likely to be able to judge who another outlier is. And I think in the case of chess in 10 moves, a 2400 rated player can tell another one. But if you asked someone who's a 2000 rated player will be unable to tell the difference, is this same with references? You want to ask exceptional people if someone is exceptional, not good enough people. And that's often the problem with references. I get you. But I'm, I, again, I didn't need to be people in mind because I'm saying that's so exceptional. But like when I speak to Tourism at Helsing or Alan Fee's, obviously too exceptional entrepreneurs, I've never met anyone they like. They never, anyone like that. They're amazing. You have to do it. They're like, at best, yeah, they were okay. That's really hard. Like, do you not find that? Well, like the best people just have, I don't know, I can't get it. You have to entangle their personality from their accomplishments. And maybe in those cases, the personality got in the way of the accomplishments. Okay. Yeah. Doug is great. Love that. What about Pat? Oh, Pat, it's got this great framework. People are like vectors. And vectors are the product of their direction and magnitude. Direction is why are you doing this? Why are you so motivated about that? Where are you going? The magnitude is how ambitious that person is. Are they going to go through the pain to keep doing what they're doing? I find that framework just so simple as always with Pat. Because if you try to understand the person's direction and their magnitude, it's going to help you a lot just to predict where they're going next and their trajectory. You know, one thing I always remember Pat telling me is that people think that we're so great. Every single company that goes public, we have seen at some point in their journey. That just shows you how many we've missed. We must always bring energy, bring preparation to every single company meeting we have. It's never enough. I just love that humility. Like, this is this fucking Pat Grady. I don't need Sequoia now. To have that humility, I just thought it was awesome. Again, my first day at Sequoia, we were all asked to write this one sentence. We are only as good as our next investment, and we have that printed on the wall now. It was very intimidating to write that the first day at Sequoia, very humbling. So that's the focus. I think you can just see it in the way people behave. God, you'd be pissed if you're sure, McGon, you're just being like, I just did space ice. Come on. Get me a break. Come on. He's different. Alfred Lynn. Alfred Lynn, the latest piece of wisdom that I loved from Alfred, was do not mistake an outlier operator for an outlier founder. That's very easy to make. You think someone did really well at this company. They've done so many things. They've launched these new products. Everyone liked them. That might make them an outlier operator. It might not make them an outlier founder. Very difficult when the CV is as gold-plated as your open AI, your deep mind, and I think we're all falling for the CV, trapping a lot of ways today, especially with a lot of the heavy AI plays. Final one is Sean the ELO one, or is there another one? The ELO one. Yeah, I'll give you another one from Sean that I liked. Everyone thinks of people as either IQ or EQ. IQ is the intellectual horsepower. EQ is the emotional horsepower. He has these two other dimensions. One is judgment. The other is political coefficient. And basically, if you think of judgment as how you're able to find solutions in complex systems, and same with PQ. It's the ability to navigate politically complex systems. His argument is that judgment is actually more important than IQ, and PQ is more important than EQ. He's got amazing PQ. I go back. The balance sheet of Sean is relatively undeniable. Very funny. Which of those four is the best reader of founders? Well, it depends on the founder. If it's a young technical founder, I would ask Alfred Sean. If it's a more commercial founder, I would actually ask Doug or Pat. But again, you mentioned those four names, but we have 11 people and actually think, for instance, like Bogomill, he is amazing at reading people. So for some founders, I would definitely bring Bogomill. If it's a company in FinTech, I would bring George because he just knows all of them. He's very calibrated. Listen, we've covered a lot about Sakura and what makes Sakura what it is. In terms of where we invest, you said something to me before, and I want to spend some time on it. You said agents for the new customer. What does that fundamentally mean? What should we take away from agents being the new customer? Yeah. We're three years into AI and we're already at parity in terms of agent traffic to human traffic. I think it was cloud flare this morning said that in five years from now, we'll have one thousand times the amount of agent traffic to human traffic. Again, we're not good at thinking exponentials, but if we're on the foothill of the exponential, we better act as it will be. My thesis is that on the demand side, you have a new customer that we're not treating as good as human customers as the agent. Today, we have agents delegating tasks mostly out of convenience, but tomorrow, as the AI gets smarter, it will be because they're just making better decisions. If you have a 500 IQ AI, of course, they're going to make the decision on your behalf because that's just a rational thing to do. Today, we've basically built these interfaces, whether it's on desktop or mobile, that are basically a layer that sits between your business and the customer intent, and you're trying to translate that customer intent into dollar for your business. But if you abstract it, it's just a layer, right? What we've been extremely good at is optimizing that layer for 20 years, about a UI, about a onboarding, about a sign-up, that payments workflows, 100%. You end up with a pixel-perfect website that's amazing at converting humans, but now we need to think of a bit's-perfect platform that's good at converting agents. What changes, then, in that world? What should founders take from that? Now, what do we look for that changes? Does UI become completely irrelevant, then? How do we think about that? Yeah, UI is obviously the first thing that people think about, but there's the thinking-fast answer, and there's the thinking-slow answer. The thinking-fast answer is, UI is going to zero. Agents are able to swap your product in a minute, and there will be no brand loyalty, and they'll be arrested at the bottom. The thinking-slow answer is quite different. Agents are very similar to humans. They have biases. They have biases in their pre-training, based on what data they were scraped. They have biases in their post-training, because they were post-trained by humans who were annotating. And so, what you see is that the agents are already very biased. They go to CloudFlare and Versel when they're looking for a hosting solution. In fact, you have hedge funds for buying data to understand how agents are making decisions, because that may influence the stock price of these companies. And so, we need to understand, just like we did for customers, what are those biases, and how do agents make decisions, and how that may differ across the different model providers, but also, depending on what product or service you're trying to sell. We're just at the very beginning of that transition. In the portfolio, we have a company called Profound that's the answer to SEO for the modern marketer. They help you make your business visible to people who are using China interfaces. It's AEO Answer Engine Optimization. Is the AEO, so we have a business to peak AI in Europe. My question to you is, is the AEO Answer Engine Optimization Business the same as agent to human in terms of traffic when you compare AEO to SEO? That will AEO be a significantly larger market than the SEO market. What I would say is just we have to consider that it's not just a new category. It's a new economy. You're just going to have a parallel economy for agents, just like you have a parallel economy for humans. In that new economy, you will have new categories created. AEO is one of them. How do you determine what is in that new economy versus what is not? I would have traditionally said, honeymoon for my wife would be in the, I'm going to keep it in the old economy. I don't know, dude, I invested in a desio with you guys, with Constantine and Francis from Sondar. I don't think they're that far away from making an amazing agent experience that could do everything that I would want to do. How do you determine which is in which? You still have a human in the loop when you're booking your holiday, but very quickly agents will just make their own decisions. You still want to decide where you're going on holiday. They might have made the best plan, but if you are the one who's going on that holiday, you want to have a say. The difference is right now, there's 80% of the databases are written by agents. Why would humans have a say as the AI has become so good that they can pick better than humans? That's the distinction I would have. So does that destroy software margins then? If everyone's able to switch super quickly and it could be a race to the bottom on price, agents are optimizing for a load of different preferences, do we just lose margin? Let's provide it. So what happens then? I don't think that's true because that's assuming that you have no switching cost. The reality is you may have no switching costs for very, many old things like, okay, you might want to book different plane tickets. That's easy to swap provider, but if you've picked a database, you've been building in that database. There's data gravity, there's enterprise controls, there's all the things that enterprises care about. That will remain something you build with trust and trust you build it over time. That will remain true no matter what. When you look at like a real it, it tells us to large enterprises, some of the biggest in the world, the way that they buy, is that really going to fundamentally change and is it going to fundamentally change as quickly as we think? I'm always conscious of being I'm not that young anymore, neither are you, sorry mate, but I'm always conscious of being exuberant and then I'm always reminded you always overestimate what happens in a year and underestimate what happens in town. Enterprises won't move that fast. They don't buy as quickly as we think they do. Agents buying and just like, they don't have slack mostly. How do you think about like agent willingness to engage in that new buying behavior? Yeah, I mean like everything in the adoption curve, this will sit somewhere else on that one. Right now what you're seeing is agents are very good at picking tools that are connected with coding because that's where agent applications have really reached human parity, but you haven't reached that level in other functions as much. And yeah, today I think that will be probably just further out the spectrum. Can I be a, I'm going to be humble again, maybe date is date this is, this is becoming a bad bad habit. I don't know in a lot of cases, which is durable, which application provider will survive. It feels so transient. And I feel a lot more certainty when I invest in fireworks, when I invest in McCore, when I invest in Clickhouse, the infrastructure that I know whoever wins at the top layer in the app, Blair wins, but they're going to use fireworks, they're going to use Clickhouse, they're going to use McCore to get there. Do you know what you sit around the table as a partnership and go, God, the infrastructure layers much easier and better. We want to be there. We invest in both. I think the human brain is not very good with exponentials, but it is also not very good at understanding that holding ideas in tension, you can hold opposing ideas in tension and still be correct, because those truths will materialize at different times. In the case of fireworks, they're ripping, and they're ripping because we're just at the beginning of the AI revolution, they built the best product and they appeal to the best customers. So they're running away with the market. At the same time, you know, you mentioned really before they're signing up the next generation of software companies now outside of software. And those companies will build their entire finance teams on top of relics in a couple of years from now, this will compound into a very large and sticky business. And so do we invest in one or the other? No, we invest in both because we think that both companies can be really big. Funny, one of the things that I love to see when I'm investing is the percentage of customer base that is non-start-up or non-traditional attack oriented, because when you have like four motors in Idaho using it and you're like, wow, that's a weird one. How did they find out about you? Yeah. What's the usage like? It's a really, really good sign for me. It's funny you say that because in the case of relic, we had the board meeting recently and they have this thing they called Project Iowa. And it's basically appealing to companies outside of tech. And this is the fastest growing segment in the business. And we have carwashers and regular auction companies signing up. So that was a very interesting turning point in the company that you're both able to appeal in the taste makers in AI, but also to the company that your uncle's running, you know, with his wife. And that's really important because you want to participate in the real economy, just not just in the AI economy. Demortions matter less today given the expansion of outcome sizes, whether we look at fireworks or Ligora Harvey and putting them together, lovable wrap, margins are lower right now than they were traditionally in more mature software markets. Do we just not mind because markets are bigger? So on that point, very important, we're in transient phase where most of the human facing applications still benefit from operating at the frontier. At some point, your customer support agent does not need a 200 IQ agent to change your plane tickets to Hawaii, right? What will remain true is that machine to machine interactions still benefit from 500 IQ AIs. And as we shift from customer facing applications to machine facing applications, operating at the frontier will matter less and less for the first group and more and more for the second. And I think right now everyone's wondering what should we do with open weight models for some of these applications where the frontier of what open source gives us is already good enough and they should absolutely start thinking about that and we're encouraging portfolio companies to do that. For the ones where we're still not at human parity, you absolutely want to be operating on the frontier and it might be worth investing at an even negative gross margins to earn the customer's trust and build a superior product to your competitor. Speaking about kind of margins building superior products to competitors, you went viral, which is very exciting to you. You went viral for your post on like the services economy being in the next trillion dollar economy. And you're my dear friend and I love you and I read it and thought my word, what a load of wordwank. We just was like, "Oh, parallel to the chat GBT, make them more efficient and I'm well done." Yeah, what am I missing? Like, I love the way I have it written down in much more articulate ways. What am I missing when it's like services in the next trillion dollar economy that we should pay attention to? Sure. Yeah. So the prediction was that the next trillion dollar company will be a software company that masquerades as a service business. It's very important in the masquerading because they cannot be a service company. Does that make sense? It does. So what would that look like? Sure. We're in the 30 year of AI. The first wave was about co-pilots. So it's companies that are helping human workers be better at their job. The reason we started there is the models were just not good enough to do the entire job. But as you've seen in coding this year, we're reaching human parity if not more. So the agents are able to complete tests and to end. And so instead of selling a tool that can help you achieve an outcome, you can sell the outcome directly. And that, I think, is very interesting to go back to the accounting example. Today, you might buy a quick book for 2K, but you span 15K to close the books with your accountant. So what if you can just sell the outcome of the closed books instead of selling the software alone? And I think that's really important because you have typically across the board a 1 to 6 dollar ratio between how much you spend on tool relative to how much you spend on the service. And the question I was asking is how do we figure out the categories that will be able to capture the 6 dollars where others are still focused in competing on the 1 dollar? The conclusion is there are some categories that are already getting there. People may not realize but customer support is already in this phase. I call it the autopilot category. You have already a billion dollar in AR in this category where outcomes are solved. And the way it works is, you know, we have a company called Sierra. They're an AI for customer support and customer experience. A typical way they go see a customer who has X number of tickets to resolve a new airline. And they know that today they have human agents that are entering these tickets. And for every ticket resolve, they might spend let's say $50. While Sierra comes in and they say, well, we will resolve those tickets for let's say a fifth of the price. At the beginning, the customers may want to see how it's working. So it starts as a co-pilot, but very quickly it moves to an autopilot. The beauty with that is effectively the AI is running the entire workflow end to end and is able to collect a fee from the outcome it's generating, not from the tool that it's selling. Totally got that. I think it's very easy to do in customer support based environments, whether it's very clear resolution or no resolution or TBD. What do you do in this ambiguity sales tools? It wasn't actually all marketing tools. It wasn't actually that touch point. It was a different touch point. It's only really possible and super clear to find all markets. No? Yeah, it's very hard and that's why unfortunately we haven't seen many companies yet do that. And the combo is one, the models are still getting better and better. But two, as you said, there's still a lot of human judgment involved in those decisions. And so my framework is you have intelligence which is what the models are really good at. Things are verifiable. How much do we spend for this in that month? And then you have the human judgment. People call it taste. People call it the sum of the small experiences you have interviewing someone, the body language they have, are they leaning back or into the chair that may lead you to ask a different question that you would have had in your preparation. That's something that's very hard for an AI to pick up because it was not in your training data. But today what's interesting is those tools that stars co-pilots. They're basically in the judgment loop. And if they're building the right product, they will be able to harness that judgment so that the judgment of today is the intelligence of tomorrow. When we say the $1 to $6 spent, Microsoft open AI anthropic, every frickin provider is putting a huge amount of money into like the services and implementation side of that business. And we know what actually just seeing traditional enterprises more than ever cry out for help to implement AI. It's interesting you say that because the stat is we've never seen so many system integrators and for deployed engineers being hired in the workforce. And that's a direct correlation with the point we made, which is you still need human judgment and hands to do a lot of that work. And in the case of service now, I think they've never hired so many system integrators. You and I are investors in a company called Octor. That's an AI for software implementation. They work with some of the largest software vendors where they basically help their employees supercharge their implementation team. And it's just amazing how much leverage you can get. One person can do the job that 10 person who are doing before, but you still have the human in the loop. And I think that point is very important. I think what people didn't understand from the article is that it's not because you go from co pilot to autopilot that you remove the human completely. What I'm just proposing is that we can build companies that will have software like margins, even though there are still humans that are making the judgment calls. The difference is that you start with lots of humans, low AI, and you end up with lots of AI, low humans, simple frameworks, you know, incredibly reassuring for humanity. She will have smaller teams arguments. Oh, absolutely. But the thing that people also don't realize is there will be new jobs. You're just shifting the bottlenecks somewhere else. I do get you, but I do think the speed of transition is fast and it's ever been like, when you see, you know, the agrarian revolution or the industrial revolution, it took 10, 20, 30 years to buy, train, and then deploy machinery on farms in the middle of France, when an update to, you know, Gemini can remove a whole generation of designers in terms of like movie posters. That's worrying. In six months, core code became from 20% of Andre Capathe's workload to 80%. In practice, the data shows that we've never hired more software engineers. That's true. And so you see, you have opposing ideas that can hold true at the same time. The realization is, Jevon's paradox, you're making building much cheaper. And so it turns out that people have lots of ideas and, you know, we can't underestimate human creativity. And in this case, people are just building more. Yeah, I find that exciting for you and I who are investing in those companies. Will you invest in a services business that plans to turn into a software business? I know it sounds crazy, but it's like, Hey, we're collecting the data. We're understanding workflow. Yes, we're clearly getting as close to our customer as possible to build the software product. No. So I always tell you, when I have low medium and high conviction, what I'm saying here, I speak to you medium and high, I will not invest in one of those companies for the following reason. I think you can make money in that business. The reality is, I've only seen it in my career. The best companies are able to concentrate talent. And you're just not going to get frontier talent, wanting to work for an old service business that's kind of travesty into an AI company. They might have data, but not necessarily the data, because it's just really hard to harness the right data to make these businesses work. So I actually think you should just build it from first principles. The best founders always figure out how to get distribution. They will have the talent. So if they can build the best product, customers will vote with their money in by that product. You sit in Europe, but you work with the US partnership in a lot of ways. Do you see the promiscuity of US employees in terms of their willingness to move? You said about people wanting to work at X or Y. I find US employees incredibly promiscuous in terms of jumping hot company, hot company, hot company in Europe, I think we're much more loyal. It's certainly in the labs. I think there's a lot of jumping around in the labs. Yeah, people have very short tenures. And yeah, we just don't have that in Europe as much. It must be so confusing for your email. Yeah. You update your Netflix every time. I think they probably keep the emails just in case they come back. My come back. Can you keep Karen at Open AI just in case? What the fuck is traditional private equity, Fox? I actually think they might do very well by investing into those companies that have the data and so on. And won't be able to hire a frontier talent, but they'll build very fine businesses. They just also do not seeking the same outcomes that we seek. We want to back the next trillion dollar company. I think it's unlikely that's a private equity back company. It's true. I think the only thing that will vary is just like, do they have the ability to do more deals? Because so many of them underwater with shit deals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's true. When you're dealing with five Titanic's, are you really willing to let another flower blossom? Yeah. Yeah. Listen, dude, I want to do a quick fire with you. So I say a short statement. You give me your immediate thoughts. What's the most overfunded category? Probably legal. I think there's just so many me twos in this category, whereas I think that the winner is already in existence. I'm obviously biased, but I think Harvey is very well positioned because they have the widest distribution. And yeah, I just don't understand investors willingness to invest in the end competitor. I will naturally say I think that Gora is obviously going to win, but I think it's going back to your point. I think slope is what's important. I do agree with your overfundedness, but I kind of don't in a way actually do because I think illegal is a very horizontal, broad market. We're in a business called Solventaligence. It's IP law, very specific for patent lawyers. Yeah. That is so different to a lot of what Harvey and LaGora do to the extent that both Harvey and LaGora founders are invested in it. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah. And so I really think it's actually you will see the unbundling of law. Now, will Solvent be as big as Harvey or LaCora? No. But still multi billion. Really interesting. Underfunded category that should be funded more. They call it BCI brain computer interfaces. That's where all the smart kids are going. So I'm a big believer that you should just follow where the smart people are going. Ten years ago, the smart people were going to MLNI. Ten years from now, we'll see those companies probably blossom. That's the next frontier. The best agent company outside of Sequoia. So the best agent company outside Sequoia is probably cursor. Wonder in one of the most important markets. But second, where there was a lot of chatter around AI rappers. They were the first company to really understand that you could post-trained models and actually go deeper into this stack. And that's a 60 billion dollar deal happens. Do you guys sit around and say, well, they joined the portfolio company, so the halt. The best angel who doesn't get enough credit. Gloria from Puzzle, I think deserves a lot of credit. She's got incredible nose and works extremely hard for her founders. What myths haunts you most? I think probably trade republic. So we're in business with trade republic. But I looked at the seed before I joined Sequoia. I remember telling the founder, Christian, I don't think you're going to succeed because Revolut is going to smoke you. The point is like, it turns out that they barely compete and they're both building amazing businesses. I feel to understand it was not winner-takesaw market. I underestimate the size of the category. You know one of the most BS reasons to miss a great company is, well, people will use you at the start, but then when they become bigger, they'll just build their own, the classic stripe or such APIs or whatever. They just never happen for infrastructure in particular. It's just painful. Why would I do that? What found a trait do you refuse to compromise on? Intensity. Intensity is important. It's too hard. to build a big business, you need intensity. Which fund, when you hear or competing, do you go, oh shit, we need to bring our A game? I don't think we can be condescending and say we don't bring our A game no matter who the competitor is, but I know you want names. Can I answer with a story? Yeah. So I never lost a deal, uh, an investment in my time at Sequoia, but I've lost investments before. I lost my first investment two weeks into the job, or when I started in venture a long time ago, and that company was a revalute, incredible, incredibly painful. I think index and bulletin did that round, if I remember correctly, but basically the story is I'm two weeks into venture, like you have like 20 years old, I don't know anyone, and I call up the one person and no inventor capital, Cia from Seatcamp, and he tells me you should come to that page, we have 10 companies, and I thought, oh great, 10 companies, that's amazing. That was the only criteria that I was given, and I show up to this run-down place in East London on a basement, and there's 10 founders pitching. One of them is Nikolai from Revalute. Another one of them is Daniel Dynes from UI Path. Think about the concentration of EV that was just in that day, and they're both raising their seed and series A. I think Nikolai was the most obvious founder call I've had in my career. It was just so obvious how intense he was, and I proceeded to camp out of his office and earn every wharf, and I just tried to identify him in the crowd every day because he wouldn't respond to my emails. My colleague and I ended up having a meeting with Vlad, his co-founder, and after trying to convince them to invest, they said that they would go with a competitor, and I was really crushed. I remember thinking this could be bigger than PayPal, what we'll see time will tell, but it's I think a fantastic business, but at that time I tried my chances, and I said can I invest personally in the company, and they begrudgingly pointed me to an SPV, but I was penniless at the time, and even though I had the opportunity, I didn't know how to fund the commitment, so I remember calling my mom on the way back, like your mom, she's always been there for me for business decisions, and she said, that sounds like a pretty good idea, how about I give you the money, but we'll do 50/50. Ten years later, I've only kept buying shares in the business, I haven't sold one, but my mom just sold most of her shares, and she just retired at 74 years old, and so I was joking with my partners that they could only hire the second best investor in the back family, because my mom went all in on revenue to the seriously. What multiple was that? I'm not asking for money, but just like, well, it depends out with evaluation, but we entered at $200, no, $180, $200 million, I think the latest valuation is over $100 billion. Just how your mom to have one line on her track record. Yeah, exactly, revenue, part, my job. Exactly, exactly. Well done, mom, that you know what? It's not about who finds it, it's about who gets the cash in the end of the track. That's unbelievable. Do you know what? This is why I'll be forever unhappy, you know, when I was singing those situations, only I put double my tracks on. That's amazing enough. Well, I earned 30K at the time, so it was really bad. Actually, at the time, I worked for this guy, Ollie Samoa, who was the founder of Rocket Internet, and he's amazing for us, so when you things, but everyone knows he's a very tough negotiator, and so when I joined his company, I said that I wanted more than 30K, and he refused, and so I actually was able to negotiate that I was going to be able to invest in the company in order to make enough money to survive from the investments, and actually, you know, those angel checks are, you know, pretty healthy these days, preceding at your Albert Revolut. Yeah, but my mom still has the the best track record. She missed all the bad ones. That is fantastic. What do you believe that about venture capital, most of the Zicoa partnership would disagree with? Oh, the funny thing is, people love to say Zicoa believes X and Y, but we actually have very different opinions. There's no house view on AI, you know, I can post this article about services being the new software. Well, simultaneously, you'll have David Khan talking about the $600 billion dollar question, and simultaneously, Pat and Sonia saying, this is a GI, you know, does that make it hard then, because I'd be annoyed if I believe in the services element, and then another one of my partners puts out a piece saying something very different and opposing. I'd worry that the founders that I'm trying to attract with mine are reading theirs going, well, we're not going to go to them. Yeah, but at the same time, you know, you cannot be blunt. You want people to seek you out for who you are and what people forget about a brand, which is like the best brands make you feel something exactly the worst is four against Nike or Adidas Apple Windows, you feel something. We're trying to invest in spiky people, so we have to be spiky ourselves. Final one, what are you most excited for about the next five years of AI, about what will change, what will happen? Again, I think it's what I told you before. We're still in this phase where AI is maybe 120 IQ within latest tests, but when we get to 500 IQ AIs, we'll, you know, maybe find cures for your mom or my dad's disease. We'll find things are just so transformative to humanity that it will make all these things we worry about today's sound completely insignificant. So I'm actually, I'm not from the world of science, but I'm very excited about companies that are helping push the frontier of life sciences, biology, and the great thing is actually in London, we have a lot of focus on that, you know, just sort of demos is post, and it's great to have these big brains focusing on these problems. So I'm actually really excited about that. I couldn't agree with you more in terms of what it could do for chronic conditions. Dude, I've so enjoyed this. I so appreciate the friendship that we have. It's like, again, almost 10 years, which is terrifying and there's some feel rail, but you've been an amazing friend to me and I really appreciate you. You're my brother. Thank you, sir. But before we leave you today, founders face a different set of challenges at every stage of growth. For Sid's shade, co-founder and CEO of Dematrix, JP Morgan delivered the guidance and expertise to help navigate what came next. He credits JP Morgan's high touch approach with supporting Dematrix as it grew and expanded internationally. Whether you're in the early days or expanding into new markets, JP Morgan helps startups navigate complexity with real confidence, offering personalized guidance and deep sector expertise. My world brought an arresting first line. Get your ass covered with Korgi insurance and I'll tell you why. If you're running a business right now, you already know this pain all too well. Getting insurance, it's really slow, it's confusing, and my world is full of paperwork. Korgi provides essential coverages for all growth stages, such as D&O, Eando liability, cyber, commercial, general liability, and more. I love the way we say ass with Korgi insurance alongside thousands of other startups at Korgi.com/20VC today. That's Korgi.com/20VC. You won't regret it. Business owners run their whole financial life on flex. One platform from business revenue to their personal spend, float every purchase for 60 days, tap capital that grows with your revenue, and pay vendors in 170 countries across 32 currencies. Plus the whole back office, bills, expenses, accounting, all in one place. That's why thousands of owners use flex, named one of Fast Company's most innovative companies of 2026. Visit flex.1. That's F-L-E-X. O-N-E and use the code 20VC.