How To Make Money in Venture | Josh Kopelman, Co-Founder of First Round Capital

Venture Fund Analysis Framework

Josh Kopelman has developed a proprietary framework called the "venture arrogance score" to evaluate whether venture fund business models are realistic or overly ambitious.

The Two-Number Formula:

1. Fund Size - Total capital raised (e.g., $7 billion fund)
2. Ownership Percentage - Expected stake in portfolio companies at exit (trending toward 10% today, down from 30% twenty years ago)

Mathematical Reality Check:

• Per Fund Turn: $7B fund ÷ 10% ownership = $70B in company value needed
• For 4x Returns: $70B × 4 = $280B in total exit value required
• Annual Requirement: If raising every 3 years = ~$90B per year in exits needed

Market Context:

• Total US Venture Exits (Last Decade): $1.9 trillion total
• Annual Average: $180 billion per year
• Annual Median: ~$100 billion per year
• Best Year Ever (2021): $700 billion in exits
• Recent Reality (2023): Only $60 billion in exits

The Arrogance Factor:

A $7 billion fund targeting 4x returns would need to capture 50% of all venture value created annually - despite no fund in history repeatedly capturing over 10% of total market exits.

Timestamp: [4:54-7:54]

Dramatic Scale Transformation

The venture ecosystem has undergone massive expansion over the past 20 years, fundamentally altering competitive dynamics and capital availability.

Fund Proliferation:

• 2004: Fewer than 850 active funds
• 2024: Over 10,000 funds operating
• Active Investors: Grew from ~1,000-2,000 to over 20,000 check writers

Market Impact:

• For VCs: Significantly more competitive environment
• For Entrepreneurs: More capital sources and funding opportunities
• Overall Effect: Broader access to venture funding across more ideas and stages

Institutional Evolution:

The venture asset class was largely created by David Swensen at Yale, who backed First Round early on. The original model involved university endowments accepting 10+ years of illiquidity in exchange for 20%+ IRR returns.

New Capital Sources:

• Traditional LPs: University endowments with long-term horizons
• New Entrants: Sovereign wealth funds and larger institutional investors
• Different Expectations: Newer LPs may accept 12% IRR and 2x returns instead of 25% IRR and 4x returns
• Scale Focus: Emphasis on total cash returns rather than percentage returns

Timestamp: [0:19-2:55]

Scale Over Alpha Strategy

The venture industry is potentially undergoing a transformation similar to what Blackstone accomplished in private equity - prioritizing massive scale and consistent returns over maximum alpha generation.

The Blackstone Model:

• Philosophy: "It's not about alpha, it's about scale"
• Strategy: Accept lower percentage returns in exchange for managing vastly larger amounts of capital
• Result: Higher absolute dollar profits despite lower IRR

Comparative Mathematics:

Traditional Venture Approach:

• $1 billion fund at 30% IRR = $300 million in profits

Blackstoneification Approach:

• $100 billion fund at 12% IRR = $12 billion in profits
• 40x more absolute profit despite lower percentage returns

Bull Case Scenario:

• Venture adopts the Blackstone model successfully
• Brings returns down to "minimum acceptable level"
• Generates consistency in those returns
• Massively expands the asset class with new LP types

Bear Case Reality:

• Instead of achieving 12-14% returns, funds deliver 3% or zero returns
• Average venture firm performance is already negative
• Venture math complexity makes consistent returns extremely difficult
• Increased duration and larger dollar amounts compound the challenge

Timestamp: [3:02-4:22]

The Danger of Early Exit Strategies

Even during universally acknowledged market bubbles, timing exits perfectly is nearly impossible and can cost investors massive returns.

Bubble Recognition:

• Universal Acknowledgment: Everyone knew the dot-com era was a bubble
• Clear Indicators: Fed Chair's "irrational exuberance" warnings, Pets.com sock puppet absurdity
• Total Irrationality: Market behavior was obviously unsustainable

The Timing Trap:

If an investor had recognized the bubble and decided to sell early to avoid the crash:

• Profit Sacrifice: Would have given up 83% of total potential profits
• Actual Returns: Only captured 17% of maximum possible returns
• Lesson: Even "obvious" market timing can be devastatingly expensive

Strategic Implications:

• Market bubbles can persist far longer than rational analysis suggests
• Early exit strategies, even during clear bubbles, often sacrifice enormous upside
• The cost of being "right too early" can be more expensive than riding out volatility

Timestamp: [0:00-0:19]

Essential Insights:

1. Venture Arrogance Score - Josh Kopelman's framework reveals that large funds often require unrealistic market capture (50%+ of all exits) to achieve target returns
2. Industry Transformation - Venture has exploded from 850 funds in 2004 to 10,000+ today, creating intense competition but more entrepreneur opportunities
3. Blackstoneification Potential - The industry may be shifting toward a scale-over-alpha model, accepting lower IRRs for massive absolute dollar returns

Actionable Insights:

• Fund sizing decisions should be grounded in realistic market capture assumptions rather than aspirational targets
• The venture math becomes increasingly challenging as fund sizes grow without proportional increases in total exit value
• Market timing, even during obvious bubbles, often costs more in missed upside than downside protection

Timestamp: [0:00-7:54]

Venture Fund Economics and Market Share

Josh Kopelman breaks down the fundamental math behind venture capital success, revealing that VCs must capture a significant percentage of all value created by US founders for their fund models to work.

The Core Challenge:

1. Market Share Requirements - VCs need to determine what percentage of total value created by all US founders they must capture
2. Industry-Wide Dependency - All funds collectively need total startup values to increase dramatically, or the entire industry struggles
3. Historical Reality - Even in primitive times like the 1990s, the median venture fund didn't return capital

Key Market Dynamics:

• Power Law Distribution: Venture has always been a game of outliers, with only a few funds capturing most returns
• Aggregate Basket Returns: If you invested in the entire basket of venture funds, you would lose money
• Structural Challenges: The question now is whether benefits will continue to flow to the same established funds

Different Investment Models:

• Traditional Venture: Minority stakes, high go-to-zero risk, pursuing alpha and high IRR
• Asset Management Model: Focus on cash-on-cash returns, scale over alpha, larger fund sizes
• Labeling Problem: The industry doesn't differentiate between these fundamentally different approaches

Timestamp: [8:02-10:44]

The Duration Risk in Venture Capital

Josh Kopelman demonstrates how holding periods dramatically affect IRR, even with identical multiple returns, using concrete examples to illustrate this critical but often overlooked factor.

Duration Impact Analysis:

1. 10-Year Fund Example: 4x fund with backend-loaded distributions (years 8-10) = 27.5% IRR
2. 18-Year Fund Example: Same 4x fund with longer hold periods = 11-12% IRR
3. 2x Fund Reality: A 2x fund over 18 years delivers returns potentially worse than T-bills

The Private Company Argument:

• Extended Hold Periods: Companies like OpenAI, SpaceX, Stripe staying private longer
• Larger Check Sizes: Ability to deploy $500M-$1B into these mega-companies
• Duration Trade-off: Longer hold periods create more duration risk and lower IRRs

Risk-Adjusted Returns:

• T-Bill Comparison: Extended duration funds may not beat risk-free alternatives
• IRR Killer: Duration risk significantly impacts internal rate of return calculations
• LP Considerations: Limited partners need to factor time value of money into investment decisions

Timestamp: [11:28-12:56]

Investment Philosophy vs. Fund Size Constraints

Josh reveals his honest perspective on mega-funds and why he wouldn't want to manage one, highlighting the fundamental differences between investment approaches.

His Direct Response:

• Wouldn't Play the Game: Doesn't want to manage asset-heavy strategies
• Different Activity: Views large fund management as fundamentally different from venture investing
• Personal Mission: Focused on "imagine if" stage investing when founders are just conceptualizing ideas

Investment Philosophy:

1. Early Stage Focus - Investing at the earliest conceptual stages
2. Founder-Centric - Supporting entrepreneurs when they're saying "imagine if we could do this"
3. Not Access-Driven - Avoiding the game of pouring large amounts of capital for access

No Judgment Approach:

• Market Need: Acknowledges founders need large capital products
• LP Demand: Recognizes limited partners want these investment vehicles
• Personal Choice: Simply not the game he wants to play

Timestamp: [12:56-13:32]

Impact of VC Industry Changes on Founders

Josh analyzes whether the venture industry's structural changes and return compression actually matter to entrepreneurs seeking funding.

Founder Impact Assessment:

• Limited Direct Impact: Founders don't need to worry about VC industry dynamics significantly
• Capital Availability: More money in the system generally benefits entrepreneurs
• Historical Example: SoftBank's $100B fund was good for founders when active, capital found other sources when it withdrew

VC Behavior Reality:

1. Same Aspirations: Large fund VCs don't intentionally seek mediocre founders or returns
2. Mathematical Understanding: They play the same aspirational game but understand return constraints
3. Capital Deployment: Recognize that deploying massive capital likely means different return profiles

Market Dynamics:

• Capital Substitution: When one major capital source disappears, others typically fill the gap
• Founder Focus: Entrepreneurs should concentrate on building great companies rather than VC industry structure
• Access Benefits: More capital sources generally create more opportunities for founders

Timestamp: [13:38-14:19]

The Relevance Paradox in Venture Capital

Josh explores a counterintuitive phenomenon where larger funds with lower returns often wield more industry influence and visibility than smaller, higher-performing funds.

The Relevance Comparison:

• $500M Fund: Achieves 15x return ($7.5B total), makes LPs and GPs very happy
• $5B Fund: Achieves 1.5x return ($7.5B total), lower satisfaction but potentially similar GP compensation through fees

Sources of Greater Relevance:

1. Market Influence - Larger funds choose which areas get capitalized
2. Visibility Factors - More partners, more deals, more news coverage
3. Industry Presence - More people "in the mix" across different opportunities
4. Capital Deployment Power - Ability to significantly impact market sectors

The Twisted Dynamic:

• Fee Structure: GPs may earn similar amounts through higher management fees on larger funds
• Market Power: Despite lower returns, larger funds often have more say in market direction
• Public Perception: Greater visibility doesn't necessarily correlate with better performance

Private vs. Public Market Access:

• Public Markets: Anyone can access any stock (IBM, Nvidia) without credentials
• Private Markets: Access is highly competitive and credential-dependent
• Founder Judgment: Entrepreneurs evaluate VCs based on access and competitive positioning

Timestamp: [14:27-15:59]

Essential Insights:

1. Venture Math Reality - VCs must capture a significant percentage of all US startup value for fund models to work, and the median fund historically hasn't returned capital
2. Duration Kills Returns - A 4x fund over 10 years delivers 27.5% IRR, but the same 4x over 18 years only delivers 11-12% IRR
3. Philosophy vs. Scale - Josh would refuse a $5B fund because it requires playing an asset management game rather than early-stage venture investing

Actionable Insights:

• For LPs: Consider duration risk and market share requirements when evaluating venture investments
• For Founders: Don't worry about VC industry dynamics - focus on building great companies as capital will find good opportunities
• For VCs: Understand whether you're playing the alpha game or the asset management game, and choose accordingly

Timestamp: [8:02-15:59]

The Compounding Advantage of Active Investing

Josh Kopelman explains how venture capital operates on a unique principle where activity itself creates more opportunities, unlike traditional performance-based industries.

The Matthew Effect Principle:

1. Biblical Origin - Based on a proverb from the book of Matthew: "to those who have, more will be given"
2. Compounding Advantages - Success accelerates based on existing advantages rather than pure merit
3. Activity Begets Activity - The more checks you write, the more relevant you become to founders

Venture vs. Sports Analogy:

• Steph Curry Example: Gets paid $55 million because he actually makes his shots - performance directly correlates to compensation
• Venture Reality: VCs get credit for attempting investments, not just successful outcomes
• The Hot Hand Phenomenon: In venture, unlike sports, the "hot hand" effect is 100% real due to reputation dynamics

Why This Works in Venture:

• Reputation Speed: The gossip mill in private markets creates or destroys reputations incredibly fast
• Portfolio Association: Being part of important companies matters more than overall hit rate or entry price
• Founder Referrals: Active investors get more founder referrals, creating a self-reinforcing cycle
• Access Creation: Relevancy through activity creates access to better deal flow

Timestamp: [16:06-17:50]

The Counter-Intuitive Founder Perspective on VC Performance

A fascinating insight into why exceptional VC returns might not always align with founder interests, especially regarding valuation and dilution.

The Founder's Dilemma:

• High-Return VCs: Often demand better prices and cause more dilution
• Moderate-Return VCs: May offer more founder-friendly terms (1x to 1.5x returns)
• Strategic Preference: Some founders prefer VCs who are "happy enough to get by" for better deal terms

The Tiger and SoftBank Era (2018-2021):

1. Peak Relevancy Period - These firms were the most requested introductions from Series B+ founders
2. Activity Over Returns - Relevancy was driven by deployment speed and market presence
3. Market Timing - 2020 couldn't have been a better time for their aggressive investment approach

The Two-Dimensional Framework:

• Relevancy + Returns Matrix: Both dimensions matter for long-term success
• Relevancy Without Returns: Not enduring over time
• Returns Without Relevancy: Limits access to top deals
• Different Strategies: Multiple paths to success (hype vs. substance, activity vs. selectivity)

Examples of Substance Over Hype:

• Founder Collective: Epic returns fund after fund without playing the hype game
• IA Ventures: Consistent performance through good investing rather than marketing
• Green Oaks: Under-the-radar strategy until recent attention

Timestamp: [17:50-20:09]

Strategic Positioning in the Era of Mega-Funds

Josh Kopelman outlines how smaller funds can maintain competitive advantage despite the industry trend toward larger fund sizes and fee-driven models.

The Mega-Fund Trend:

• Prisoner's Dilemma: The rational move for large funds is to keep scaling
• Market Concentration: Top 10 venture firms now raise a very large percentage of overall dollars
• Different Incentives: Large funds can play the game differently and pay different prices at seed/Series A

Small Fund Advantages:

1. True Alignment - Partners make capital primarily through carry, not fees
2. Founder-Centric Model - Only succeed when founders create exceptional wealth
3. Resource Investment - Small fund with 50 employees because they invest fees back into founder support
4. Conflict Avoidance - No pressure to deploy massive amounts of follow-on capital

First Round's Strategic Approach:

• Fee Reinvestment: Invest management fees into services that benefit founders rather than taking them as profit
• Partnership Focus: Concentrate on being the best possible partner for the first 2.5 years
• Auction Creation: Help maximize value for next rounds rather than protecting their own position
• Long-term Alignment: Avoid conflicts that come from needing to deploy large amounts of capital

The Tiger Example:

• 2021 Activity: Nearly one investment per day (320 investments that year)
• Scaling Challenges: Consultancies and expert networks only scaled to the extent they could raise their next fund
• Sustainability Questions: Extreme activity levels may not be sustainable long-term

Industry Reality:

Universal Competition: The industry has become far more competitive for funds of all sizes, requiring differentiated strategies for survival.

Timestamp: [20:09-23:56]

Essential Insights:

1. The Matthew Effect in Venture - Activity creates more activity, making venture fundamentally different from performance-based industries where you're judged on actual results
2. Founder Preferences - High-performing VCs aren't always preferred by founders due to pricing and dilution concerns, creating opportunities for strategic positioning
3. Small vs. Large Fund Dynamics - Smaller funds can compete through better alignment, fee reinvestment, and focus on founder partnership rather than capital deployment

Actionable Insights:

• For VCs: Focus on activity and relevancy to create deal flow, but balance with sustainable returns for long-term success
• For Founders: Consider the total package when choosing VCs - alignment and terms may matter more than pure track record
• Strategic Positioning: Different fund sizes require different strategies, but all must adapt to increased industry competition

Timestamp: [16:06-23:56]

Investment Strategy & Portfolio Construction

First Round Capital's approach to determining their investment volume is methodical and data-driven:

Core Investment Parameters:

1. Time Diversification - Invest over 2.5 to 3 years to spread risk across market cycles
2. Ownership Targets - Secure 12.5-15% initial ownership, aiming for 8-9% at exit
3. Pro-rata Strategy - Take pro-rata rights in Series A rounds to maintain ownership

Mathematical Framework:

• Initial Ownership: 12.5-15% at seed stage
• Target Exit Ownership: 8-9% after dilution
• Portfolio Size: 70-80 companies per fund cycle
• Investment Timeline: 2.5-3 years for deployment

Risk Management Considerations:

The model accounts for startup mortality rates at each stage:

• Seed to Series A - High attrition expected
• Series A to B - Continued filtering
• Series B to C - Further consolidation

Timestamp: [24:03-25:06]

The Marathon Analogy of Startup Survival

Josh Kopelman uses a powerful marathon metaphor to explain startup mortality:

The Startup Marathon Reality:

1. Mile 3 (Early Stage) - Many startups show great early metrics and promise
2. Mile 10 (Growth Stage) - Fewer companies maintain strong performance through scaling
3. Mile 21 (Late Stage) - Even promising companies can "sprain their knee" and fail to finish

Billion-Dollar Failures:

• Over half a dozen companies reached billion-dollar valuations but ultimately went to zero
• Success at intermediate milestones doesn't guarantee final success
• Market shifts and unexpected challenges can derail even the most promising companies

Portfolio Strategy Implications:

• Basket Approach: Need multiple companies to reach billion-dollar status
• Sub-basket Reality: Only a portion of billion-dollar companies will maintain success
• Exit Timing: Founders may exit at $1B instead of potential $10B, or face unexpected market changes

Timestamp: [25:13-25:56]

The Hyper-Harvest Cycle Phenomenon

Venture capital returns are extremely concentrated in time, creating a "hyper-harvest cycle":

Historical Data Analysis:

20-Year Career (March 1980 - March 2000):

• Years 1-17: Only 1% of profits generated per year
• Final 3 Years: 83% of total profits generated
• Peak Period: 1997-2000 (dot-com boom)

First Round Capital's Experience:

• 20 Years in Business: Over 90% of returns generated in just 36 months
• Timing Paradox: Peak returns occurred during acknowledged bubble periods
• Market Conditions: Returns came during "extreme greed cycles" with irrational exuberance

The Disequilibrium Principle:

Venture returns don't come from:

• Equilibrium markets - Stable, rational pricing
• Regular greed cycles - Normal market optimism

They come from:

• Extreme disequilibrium - Irrational market behavior
• Peak froth periods - NFTs, crypto, corporate venture activity
• Maximum speculation - When everyone acknowledges it's a bubble

Timestamp: [26:40-28:08]

The Foxhole Mentality of Exit Timing

The most challenging aspect of venture capital is having the discipline to hold positions during peak market periods:

The Looker Case Study:

• 2017-2018 Exit: Sold to Google for $2 billion (18-20x multiple)
• Hypothetical 2021 Exit: Same company metrics would have yielded $8-10 billion
• Multiple Expansion: 4-5x increase purely from timing and market conditions

The Military Analogy:

Josh compares holding investments to soldiers in foxholes:

• Commander's Dilemma: Telling troops to "hold" as enemies approach
• Timing Challenge: Hold long enough to maximize impact, but not so long you get overrun
• Value Destruction: Exiting early is so damaging that holding too long is often the better mistake

Founder vs. Investor Dynamics:

• Founder Perspective: "This is my one company, my life's work"
• Investor Portfolio: Diversified across multiple investments
• Secondary Markets: Provide some liquidity options to ease the pressure

Timestamp: [28:08-29:35]

The Economics of Management Fees vs. Secondary Liquidity

The dynamics of founder secondary sales reveal interesting alignment considerations:

The VC Compensation Reality:

• Management Fees: VCs receive $30 million over 10 years on a $150 million fund investment
• Guaranteed Income: VCs get paid simply for writing checks, regardless of outcomes
• Founder Risk: Founders have concentrated risk in a single company

Alignment Philosophy:

Beneficial Secondary Sales:

• Enable founders to change their risk profile
• Remove pressure to sell the entire company prematurely
• Allow focus on long-term value creation without personal financial stress

Problematic Secondary Sales:

• When founders feel compelled to "lock in" gains
• Misalignment where founders prioritize personal liquidity over company growth

Market Timing Challenges:

• Uncontrollable Variables: Exit timing, founder decisions, market multiples
• Multiple Variations: 20x vs. 80x next-12-months ARR multiples
• Froth Indicators: Need to recognize market cycle positioning

Timestamp: [29:35-30:58]

Beyond Individual Company Selection

While company picking remains crucial, thematic investing provides significant alpha generation opportunities:

Theme-Based Alpha Sources:

1. AI at the Right Time - Identifying artificial intelligence trends early
2. Hardware Cycles - Catching hardware innovation waves
3. Robotics Timing - Positioning for robotics advancement
4. Sector Rotation - Understanding when themes become investable

The "When" Factor:

• Timing Value: Significant returns from being early to the right theme
• Focus Benefits: Concentrating on emerging themes increases hit probability
• Market Positioning: Understanding where you are in the cycle

Multi-Dimensional Value Creation:

Traditional Approach:

• Individual company selection ("picking birds out of flocks")
• Company-specific due diligence and evaluation

Enhanced Approach:

• Theme Selection: Identifying the right sectors at the right time
• Cycle Timing: Understanding market positioning and momentum
• Portfolio Construction: Balancing individual picks with thematic bets

Experience Advantage:

Many new VCs and funds miss this dynamic due to:

• Limited Experience: Haven't lived through multiple cycles
• Recency Bias: Focus only on recent market conditions
• Single-Dimension Thinking: Overemphasis on individual company metrics

Timestamp: [31:05-31:58]

Essential Insights:

1. Portfolio Construction - First Round's 70-80 seed investments per fund reflects mathematical modeling of ownership targets, mortality rates, and time diversification needs
2. Hyper-Harvest Cycles - 90% of venture returns occur in concentrated 36-month periods during market disequilibrium, not rational market conditions
3. Holding Discipline - The hardest skill in venture is maintaining positions during peak froth periods, as demonstrated by Looker's potential 4-5x value increase from 2018 to 2021

Actionable Insights:

• Mathematical Approach: Use data-driven models for portfolio sizing based on ownership targets and mortality rates
• Timing Recognition: Develop frameworks to identify market cycle positioning and froth indicators
• Alignment Strategy: Structure founder secondary opportunities to enable long-term thinking without personal financial pressure
• Theme Integration: Combine individual company selection with thematic investing for enhanced alpha generation

Timestamp: [24:03-31:58]

Market Timing and Disequilibrium Strategy

Josh emphasizes that venture capital profits come from disequilibrium, not equilibrium markets. His approach to managing market cycles involves strategic patience rather than market timing.

Key Principles for Market Cycles:

1. Hold During Frothy Markets - Natural instinct is to sell during peak valuations, but discipline requires holding positions
2. Strategic Partial Exits - Take 1x or 2x of entire fund value through tender offers while maintaining long positions
3. Founder Alignment - Show founders the math and ensure decisions align with their long-term interests
4. Legacy Protection - Lock in returns that secure fund performance while staying invested for upside

Behavioral Guidelines During Peak Markets:

• Don't pressure founders to sell - Avoid calling portfolio companies suggesting exits
• Don't attempt to time market tops - Focus on opportunistic liquidity events instead
• Leverage tender offers and secondaries - Use these mechanisms for partial liquidity when available
• Educate founders - Connect them with other founders who have experience with timing exits

Time Impact Considerations:

• Partial exits through secondaries can shorten time to payback
• IPO timelines may extend 6+ years, making interim liquidity valuable
• Early liquidity events help demonstrate returns to limited partners

Timestamp: [32:05-33:54]

Industry Transformation and Investment Philosophy Shift

Marc Andreessen's canonical piece fundamentally changed venture capital's investment framework, expanding what types of companies became fundable and reshaping industry expectations around margins and valuations.

Pre vs. Post "Software Eating World":

• Before: VCs primarily funded traditional software companies
• After: Expanded aperture to include previously non-venture sectors
• Timeline: Written approximately 5,000 days ago (around 2011)
• Industry Impact: Created new investment categories and valuation frameworks

Previously Non-Fundable Sectors That Became Venture-Backed:

1. Healthcare Services - Clinical care, smoking cessation, weight loss, physical therapy
2. Financial Services - Banks, insurance companies, fintech platforms
3. Consumer Products - Sneaker companies, shoe brands, food/salad companies
4. Traditional Industries - Manufacturing, retail, service businesses

The Margin Assumption Problem:

• Core Thesis: Software would deliver 90%+ margins when eating traditional industries
• Word Count Analysis: "Software" mentioned 52 times, "margins" only once
• Industry Acceptance: VCs assumed margin superiority would automatically follow
• Reality Check: Most industries retained traditional margin structures despite software integration

Investment Justification Framework:

• Companies valued at "software prices" based on expected margin superiority
• Multiple expansion justified by anticipated economic transformation
• 2020-2021 funding excess driven by these margin expectations

Timestamp: [34:00-36:53]

The Gap Between Theory and Reality

Despite widespread software adoption across industries, most companies haven't achieved the dramatic margin improvements that justified their venture valuations, creating a valuation reset across multiple sectors.

Real-World Examples of Margin Reality:

• Allbirds: Built national sneaker brand, reached $4 billion valuation, now worth ~$50 million when valued as shoe company
• Eight Sleep: Software enhances product experience but doesn't necessarily improve margins over traditional mattress companies
• Insurance/Banking: Better customer experience but similar underlying economics

The Valuation Correction Process:

1. Multiple Compression - Companies reverting to traditional industry multiples
2. Growth Requirements - Need 6-8 years of growth to "catch up" to inflated valuations
3. Sector Reclassification - Market asking: "Are you a software company or an insurance company?"

Exceptions and Future Potential:

• Clear Success Stories - Some companies have achieved meaningful margin superiority
• AI Transformation - Productivity gains from AI may finally deliver promised margin improvements
• Product Enhancement - Software creates better consumer experiences even without margin gains

Investment Implications:

• Pricing Discipline - Need to value companies based on realistic margin expectations
• Sector-Specific Analysis - Each industry requires individual assessment of software's margin impact
• Long-term Perspective - True transformation may take longer than initially expected

Timestamp: [36:53-39:00]

Real-World Impact vs. Digital Innovation

Josh references Peter Thiel's observation about the disconnect between software innovation frenzy and tangible improvements in fundamental aspects of human life and experience.

Thiel's Core Argument:

• Metrics That Matter: Focus on housing quality, travel speed, life expectancy, overall quality of life
• Surface-Level Changes: Much innovation may be superficial rather than transformational
• Resource Allocation: Society investing heavily in software while core infrastructure remains unchanged

Observable Reality Check:

• Food Quality: Tastes largely the same despite food tech innovation
• Housing: Homes look and function similarly to previous generations
• Transportation: Cars are marginally smarter but fundamentally unchanged
• Daily Experience: Core life experiences remain relatively static

The Innovation Paradox:

• Busy Work Effect: Lots of activity building software without proportional real-world improvement
• Better Products: Software does create better consumer experiences
• User Experience Gains: AI-native banks, insurance companies, and services offer superior interfaces
• Fundamental Economics: Underlying business models and margins often unchanged

Examples of Real Improvement:

• AI-native banking - Better experience than branch visits
• AI-based insurance - Streamlined claims processing without phone calls
• Tesla - Represents genuine product innovation beyond software interface

Timestamp: [39:06-39:56]

Essential Insights:

1. Market Cycle Management - Venture profits come from disequilibrium, requiring disciplined holding during frothy markets rather than attempting to time exits
2. "Software Eating World" Reality Check - Marc Andreessen's thesis expanded VC investment scope but promised margin superiority hasn't materialized across most industries
3. Valuation Correction Process - Companies funded at software valuations are reverting to traditional industry multiples, requiring years of growth to justify pricing

Actionable Insights:

• Partial Liquidity Strategy - Use tender offers and secondaries to take 1-2x fund returns while maintaining long positions for upside
• Founder Education Approach - Show portfolio companies the math and connect them with experienced founders who've navigated exit timing decisions
• Investment Discipline - Value companies based on realistic margin expectations rather than assumed software-driven improvements
• Sector-Specific Analysis - Evaluate each industry individually for software's actual impact on economics versus user experience

Timestamp: [32:05-39:56]

Valuation Assumptions and Market Dynamics

Josh uses a compelling car vs. mattress analogy to illustrate the valuation challenge many VCs face:

The Core Problem:

• Better products don't always justify premium valuations - A 2025 Tesla may be better than a 2002 Mercedes, but if margins are similar to traditional automakers, valuation premiums become questionable
• Margin parity creates valuation challenges - If a direct-to-consumer mattress company has the same margins as Serta or Sealy, how does it justify a higher multiple?
• Growth assumptions drive valuations - The only sustainable justification is demonstrably higher growth rates from superior products

The VC Underwriting Problem:

1. Multiple expansion without fundamentals - VCs giving 20x multiples when industry standard is 3x
2. Embedded profitability assumptions - These valuations contain implicit bets about future profit margins
3. Market timing risk - Premium valuations work only if growth assumptions materialize

Timestamp: [40:01-40:50]

AI Investment Cycle Analysis

Josh, having witnessed multiple disruptive technology cycles, shares his perspective on current AI investment assumptions:

Historical Context:

• Pre-web browser college experience - Josh had to request an email address in college
• Multiple cycles witnessed - Mobile, cloud, and now AI cycles
• AI as most profound cycle - Potentially the most transformative yet

AI Bull Case - Societal Benefits:

1. Healthcare breakthroughs - Massive scientific improvements in curing diseases
2. Energy solutions - Revolutionary advances in energy technology
3. Education access - Democratizing high-quality education
4. Mental health - Improving access to mental health services

The Investment Reality Check:

• Job displacement focus - Many AI companies target specific Bureau of Labor Statistics job categories
• Productivity improvements - Software to reduce human workforce needs in structural engineering, medical billing, etc.
• Uncertain societal outcomes - How job displacement plays out societally remains unknown

Timestamp: [40:50-42:15]

Seed Stage Investment Philosophy

First Round's approach to early-stage investing prioritizes founder-market fit over specific solutions:

The "Too Late" Problem:

• Obvious themes miss the window - By the time investment themes become obvious enough for VCs to identify, seed-stage opportunities have passed
• Pattern recognition limitations - VCs aren't smart enough to predict themes early enough for optimal entry

People and Problems Framework:

1. Right founder identification - Seeking founders with appropriate experience, skills, and characteristics
2. Juicy problem selection - Focusing on interesting, substantial problems worth solving
3. Solution agnosticism - Solutions are often wrong at the seed stage anyway

Why Solutions Don't Matter Early:

• Solutions evolve rapidly - What founders present initially rarely resembles the final product
• Problem-solution fit comes later - The right founder will iterate to find the right solution
• Founder adaptability matters most - Great founders pivot and adjust based on market feedback

Timestamp: [42:21-43:06]

Strategic Focus and Discipline

Despite having all the ingredients for expansion, First Round maintains strict focus on early-stage investing:

The Expansion Opportunity:

• Big winners that can absorb capital - Portfolio includes companies like Uber, Roblox, Square
• Infinite LP demand - Strong fundraising capability
• Natural evolution path - Most successful seed firms expand to later stages

First Round's Competitive Advantage:

1. 24-36 month partnership excellence - Unmatched support during critical early period
2. Product-market fit hunting - Specialized expertise in finding initial traction
3. Culture and team building - Deep experience in early organizational development
4. Pricing and positioning - Strategic guidance during market entry

The Multi-Stage Problem:

• Never reaching target ownership - Large funds always want more of great companies (30% → 40%)
• Founder relationship strain - Entrepreneurs feel pressure to share only good news to secure larger checks
• Alignment issues - Founders become cautious about transparency

Reserve Strategy Evolution:

• Increased follow-on allocation - Majority of fund now reserved for later rounds
• Uncertain later-stage value-add - Questions about being more than just capital provider

Timestamp: [43:12-45:51]

The Philosophy Behind Early-Stage Investing

Josh reveals the deeper mission driving First Round's focus on seed-stage investing:

The Power of "Imagine If":

• Most powerful words ever spoken - Not just in business, but throughout history
• Historical examples - "Imagine if no taxation without representation," "Imagine if all children..."
• Foundation of change - Social movements, government reforms, and business innovations all start with these words

First Round's Mission:

1. Partnership in imagination - Supporting founders at the visionary stage
2. Purity of purpose - Maintaining alignment with the "imagine if" moment
3. Founder alignment - Never being on the opposite side of entrepreneurs

Opportunity Cost Acceptance:

• Leaving money on the table - Acknowledging potential missed returns from not expanding
• Mission over optimization - Choosing purpose over maximum financial returns
• Long-term satisfaction - Finding fulfillment in the early-stage partnership role

The Institutional vs. Imagination Tension:

• Not building a fiduciary investor - Rejecting pure institutional capital approach
• Staying true to origins - Maintaining focus on the transformative early moments
• Value beyond capital - Providing partnership during the most uncertain phase

Timestamp: [45:56-47:04]

Entrepreneurial Parallels in Venture Capital

Josh draws connections between his experience as a three-time founder and running First Round:

Business Structure Similarities:

1. Competitive industry dynamics - VC operates in highly competitive market
2. Clear customer relationships - Founders as customers, LPs as investors
3. Product development focus - Continuous improvement of investment and support offerings
4. Sales responsibility - Josh actively sells to attract top founders

Startup Mentality Requirements:

• Never done inventing - Constant innovation required, just like in startups
• Invention and execution balance - Best founders and VCs must do both simultaneously
• Continuous evolution - First Round today differs significantly from five years ago

The Entrepreneurial Mindset:

• Customer-centric approach - Treating founders as customers requiring exceptional service
• Product iteration - Constantly refining the VC product offering
• Market positioning - Competing for the best deals and founders
• Innovation imperative - Can't rely on past success; must keep innovating

Timestamp: [47:29-47:56]

Essential Insights:

1. Valuation discipline matters - VCs must justify premium multiples with real growth assumptions, not just better products with similar margins
2. AI investment reality check - While AI will transform society, many current investments focus on job displacement without clear societal outcomes
3. Seed-stage focus wins - First Round's success comes from specializing in the critical 24-36 month period rather than expanding to later stages

Actionable Insights:

• Focus on people and problems rather than solutions when evaluating early-stage opportunities
• Maintain founder alignment by avoiding conflicts of interest that come with large follow-on capabilities
• Embrace the "imagine if" stage of entrepreneurship where true innovation begins
• Recognize that running a VC firm requires the same entrepreneurial mindset as building a startup

Timestamp: [40:01-47:56]

Creative Canvas in Venture Capital

Josh Kopelman describes venture capital as maintaining the creative essence of entrepreneurship while operating in a fundamentally different framework:

The Creative Elements:

• Canvas and Paintbrush Mentality: Still feels like having "the hand on the paintbrush" to create something imaginative
• Building Culture: Focus on constructing something differentiated and meaningful
• Market Positioning: Finding unique holes in the market to fill
• Long-term Vision: Creating something that will evolve and grow over decades

Key Differences from Operating:

• Partnership-Based Value Creation: Success comes through collaboration rather than direct control
• Extended Feedback Loops: Unlike weekly/monthly operational metrics, venture results take years to materialize
• Different KPIs: Success metrics are fundamentally different from traditional business operations
• Cause and Effect Delays: The immediate connection between action and result is lost in the long-term nature of venture

The Satisfaction Factor:

Despite the differences, the core entrepreneurial drive remains: "I'm trying to build something. I'm trying to build a culture. I'm trying to build something differentiated."

Timestamp: [48:02-49:01]

The Non-Investing Partner Model

Brett Burson holds a distinctive position as a full partner at First Round who doesn't make investments—a role Josh describes as rare in the venture industry:

Role Definition:

• Company Operations Leader: Functions essentially as a CEO for the firm's operations
• Strategic Planning: Handles R&D, strategic planning, and long-term thinking
• Product Development: Oversees creation of tools like First Round Review, Angel Track, and Product Market Fit methodology
• Decision Process Architecture: Designs and maintains systems for better investment decision-making

Why This Role Exists:

1. Maker vs. Manager Schedule: Investment partners need to be available for urgent deals, while operational leadership requires dedicated focus time
2. Company-Like Operations: First Round operates more like a traditional company with products, experiments, and engineering teams
3. Long-term Investment: The firm committed to funding this role for years as deferred gratification

The Rarity Factor:

• Cost: It's expensive to have a full partner not generating investment returns
• Mindset: Most firms view themselves as "investors sitting around a table" rather than companies that need operational leadership
• Vision: Requires seeing the firm as having products and services beyond just making investments

Timestamp: [49:01-51:17]

Systematic Decision-Making Framework

First Round has developed a comprehensive analytical approach to investment decisions that captures institutional knowledge and improves decision quality:

The Process Structure:

1. Pre-Meeting Preparation: Point partner prepares detailed write-up shared with all partners
2. Founder Presentation: Standard pitch and Q&A session with the founding team
3. Individual Assessment: Each partner completes 36-question rubric independently on their laptop
4. Bias Prevention: Questions answered before group discussion to avoid influence from senior partners

The 36-Question Rubric Covers:

• Founder Assessment: Leadership qualities, experience, and team dynamics
• Problem Analysis: Market need, pain point validation, and problem size
• Product Evaluation: Solution fit, differentiation, and technical feasibility
• Market Dynamics: Size, growth potential, competitive landscape
• Traction Metrics: Current performance, user adoption, revenue indicators

Benefits of This System:

• Robust Conversations: Focus on disagreements rather than consensus points
• Learning Tool: Every partner sees how others evaluate the same opportunity
• Historical Analysis: Creates "game tape" to review past decisions and learn from outcomes
• New Partner Onboarding: Provides decade of decision-making examples for training

Potential Downsides:

• Time Investment: Significantly more work than traditional decision processes
• Partner Fit: May exclude high-intuition investors who can't articulate their reasoning
• Process Speed: Could slow down decision-making and create opportunity costs

Timestamp: [51:22-54:40]

Deferred Gratification Investment Strategy

First Round's approach to firm building mirrors the founder mentality they invest in—prioritizing long-term value creation over immediate profitability:

The Financial Commitment:

• Seven-Year Deficit: Operated without profit for the first seven years
• $8 Million Investment: General Partners funded the management company with their own capital
• Scale Beyond Fees: Refused to limit opportunity scope to management fee constraints

The Philosophy:

Founder Alignment: Just as founders defer gratification by choosing startups over high-paying jobs at Facebook or OpenAI, First Round deferred immediate returns for long-term success

Investment vs. Spending Mindset: Unlike most venture firms that scale spending to management fees, First Round invested ahead like a startup scales beyond its Series A

Strategic Benefits:

1. LP Alignment: Creates genuine partnership with limited partners through shared risk
2. Product Development: Enabled investment in tools, systems, and capabilities that generate long-term value
3. Competitive Advantage: Built infrastructure and processes that differentiate the firm
4. Cultural Foundation: Established a company culture focused on building rather than just investing

The Outcome:

This approach enabled First Round to develop their unique operational model, analytical frameworks, and value-creation tools that continue to differentiate them in the market.

Timestamp: [55:36-56:38]

Continuous Innovation Over Complacency

Josh Kopelman rejects the idea of achieving a perfect, unchanging state, instead embracing perpetual evolution and adaptation:

The Anti-Complacency Mindset:

• No "Figured It Out" Moment: Believes it would be "wrong hubris" to claim they've unlocked the formula
• Industry Evolution: What constitutes good venture capital will be fundamentally different in 5-10 years
• Historical Perspective: First Round 2025 is vastly different from 2015, which was different from 2004

The Machine They're Building:

Iterative Company: Focus on creating a process and culture that continuously invents and creates Future-Oriented: Deferring gratification to "look around corners" and anticipate market needs Adaptive Team: Building capabilities that will generate "hits" decades from now in unknown market conditions

Technology Impact:

AI Transformation: Acknowledges that AI has already "totally transformed" their internal operations and will continue reshaping their work

The 80s Band Analogy:

Josh warns against becoming like aging rock bands that keep touring with the same old hits (like "867-5309"), emphasizing that venture capital can't rely on past successes indefinitely.

Core Aspiration:

Rather than perfecting a static model, First Round aims to build "a process and a machine and a team and a culture that will evolve and grow to create the hits 10 years from now, 20 years from now—we don't even know what type of music that's going to be."

Timestamp: [56:50-58:44]

Essential Insights:

1. Venture as Creative Canvas - Josh maintains the entrepreneurial creative drive in venture capital, viewing it as building something differentiated while accepting longer feedback loops than traditional operations
2. Operational Excellence Model - First Round operates like a company with Brett Burson as a non-investing partner who functions as CEO, handling R&D, strategic planning, and product development
3. Systematic Decision Framework - Their 36-question investment rubric captures institutional knowledge, prevents bias, and creates "game tape" for continuous learning and improvement

Actionable Insights:

• Consider hiring operational leadership roles in investment firms to build company-like capabilities and long-term value creation systems
• Implement structured decision-making processes that capture reasoning and enable historical analysis for better future decisions
• Embrace deferred gratification by investing ahead of current revenue streams to build competitive advantages and differentiated capabilities
• Focus on building adaptive, iterative cultures rather than perfecting static models, especially in rapidly evolving industries like venture capital

Timestamp: [48:02-58:50]