Eric Ly

And my second investment at defy is in 🐶 zeroETL puppies 🐶... I mean PuppyGraph, which is all the beauty of a graph database, none of the data migration or continuous upkeep of a graph database. Sounds like magic? So are puppies 🐶 . Puppygraph is NOT a graph or a database. It is graph analytics engine that answers graph questions on your existing data warehouses, whether that is a Databricks datalake, Google BigQuery or postgres. Compared to SQL, it's faster, handles way more complexity, scales and has almost no upkeep. How did I get to conviction? 1. Tailwinds - 🌊 Lakehouses 🌊 have helped enterprises put all their data in one place, enabling Puppygraph to unlock insights previously unavailable. - 📚 LLMs! 📚AI and RAG cannot easily traverse fragmented data. Puppygraph's Graph RAG unlocks insights with their Knowledge Graph and spoonfeeds to the LLMs. 2. 👯 Team 👯 We have graph experts from Google, LinkedIn, Databricks, Tigergraph, and Instacart who are uniquely able to build this solution. 3. 💸 Customers 💸 . My alma mater Coinbase is a proud user. The feedback from my former colleagues was off the charts! A blockchain is very much a graph database and Puppygraph tracks down fraudulent transactions that go through mixers and helps identify patterns. Huge congrats to Weimo Liu Danfeng Xu Lei Huang Zhenni Wu Gary Hagmueller, defy.vc is proud to be an investor!!

27

3 Comments

After the first deep dive discussion w/ founders I often hear a comment "I wish I had heard about this alternative [to all-in must-become-a-unicorn] way to build a startup earlier as I have wasted years in pursuing the wrong thing". Our mission is that no founder would ever need to say that again as it is such a waste. Us preaching the gospel 1:1 just doesn't scale, hence we use mass media to multiply our efforts - that's how Gorillacast came to be. The 1st episode is out, featuring yours truly. "How can you know what food you like unless you taste everything" said a chef. How can founders make informed choices about the best strategy for them to follow unless they know of all alternatives? This might not be of interest to you but pls spread the word so that the founders who should hear it can find it. I have a dream!

42

3 Comments

A few spots left for this awesome workshop with Justin Gray of In Revenue Capital. Every successful founder I know learns to develop and maintain high performing relationships. This is a skill like anything else and can be developed. Founders, if you want to build a high-growth company, learn to build high-performing relationships. This workshop will help you do that. Hope you can join us.

15

I recently sat down with a group of Forum Ventures founders about to go out to fundraise and the topic of SAFE rounds came up. The context focused on the pros/cons of raising a priced vs a SAFE round and the conversation notably shifted toward the dilution implications of a SAFE round. Founders are keenly aware of the top line dilution of any funding round - ie selling 20% of their startup for $3M at a $15M cap - but very few fully grasp the implications of doing a SAFE round vs a priced round. The universal standard for institutional VC investors is a post money SAFE. This document essentially outlines ownership that an investor will have in a startup just prior to the execution of a priced round. Most importantly though, it is structured so that an investor in that SAFE will not be diluted by subsequent SAFE's that are issued. This is where founder education around the implications of this structure are not fully appreciated. In a situation where a founder continues to stack subsequent SAFEs, they don't actually convert until the first priced round and the net dilution they are taking is actually more than they realize. Here is a practical example - take a situation where a founder has already sold 15% of their business on a post money SAFE in a pre-seed round, and is now choosing to sell another 20% in a seed round. If the founder opts to raise this money on SAFEs, the dilution of that additional 20% will come entirely from common equity holders- meaning they will now own 65%. If SAFE holders were also diluted by that round, as they would be in a priced round, the founder would own 68%. This dynamic becomes more dramatic the more capital a founder raises on SAFEs. Note - this is a high level example and does not include an option pool carve out or other round nuances. Almost universally, when a founder raises their first priced round, there is some degree of sticker shock at the outright dilution on their cap table, particularly when options pools are factored in. This pain is even more acute when a founder has raised a fair amount of capital on SAFEs along the way. There are certainly benefits to raising SAFE round, mainly cash in hand 6-8 weeks faster and not having to decide on board seats too early, but I encourage all of our founders to run through cap table modeling and correctly account for the implications of SAFE rounds before they make fundraising decisions.

55

1 Comment

Building early stage startup momentum? Make sure your speed-to-help is measured in minutes. In today’s environment, you can’t wait days for help. You have to get unstuck fast. With timely advice, execution quickens. Thats the power of a safe-space community that’s built on ‘giving’. It’s our foundational value. You should give what we are building a try.  Zero risk.   DM me to learn more. We’re happy to tee up a call. Happy Wednesday, ya’ll. ———— Please consider ♻️ with founders in your network. As early stage founders, we at times, are a problem away from sinking or propelling forward.

44

21 Comments

Last night, we brought together 20 technical co-founders and leaders in the Agentic AI and Dev space for an industry dinner. There were so many great discussions–I walked away with a few key takeaways: - Agents need new infrastructure: models, evals, browsing, permissioning, agentic purpose built APIs - SWE agents need ACI (agent computer interface) - Everything stateful should have branches: browsers, databases, eval runtimes and an API service across libraries.  - Every stateful component needs copy on write branching - noted by Cursor team, Replit built a custom storage system and Neon delivers branching for the database. The energy and interest were off the charts—we’ll need a bigger venue and more time for the next one! Big thanks to the leaders from Anthropic, Vercel, Wordware (YC S24), Harvey, Cleric, 11x and everyone else who joined. Special shoutout to our co-hosts, Glenn Solomon from Notable Capital and Amjad Masad from Replit. If you're building in the space and want to join the next dinner, reach out. More to come!

475

37 Comments

This week Mikal Ventures brings you a 4-week breakdown of the non-US capital market with an emphasis on the Mikal verticals. The 4-week period ending November 25 saw just over 1,300 new companies added, bringing the total to 112,141 companies included in the non-US Health Tech, Med Tech, AI Tech Fin Tech and Ed Tech verticals. Non-US AI Tech again saw the greatest percentage growth in new companies at 16%, vs. the vertical average of 12% for the period. Non-US HeathTech led the group in transactions. Non-US Med Tech led in SEC Filings and news articles.   Mikal Ventures publishes these stats on a rolling 4-week basis to provide a perspective on how the verticals and new startups move through time. We hope you find them informative and thought-provoking. VC Investors are always adjusting their "Play Book" with a variety of options for investing. Mikal Ventures is one of those alternatives, offering curated solutions to real world problems. Reach out if you have questions on how we can be of assistance and bookmark https://mikalventures.com/ for additional insights and information.

9

2 Comments

A lot of pre-product, pre revenue startup clients approach Calibrate to architect, design, and develop their first web or mobile app. One common theme we see among many of these ambitious co-founders is trying to launch with a larger feature set based on what they THINK their users will find valuable. In scenarios such as this, our team always advises our clients to consider pairing back the feature set to an MVP (minimum viable product). We start this process by asking our clients “what are the critical features absolutely necessary to launch your product and start getting valuable feedback from the user base?”. Anything beyond that is speculation and unnecessary. In the startup world (or even with software SMBs are launching), it’s imperative to get to market as quickly and cost effectively as possible to start establishing a POC (proof of concept) and collecting feedback; MVPs ensure that happens. Through collecting real user feedback, clients can prioritize and execute on their roadmap (aka new features) with FACTS (aka data driven insights) v. CONJECTURE (aka speculating on what users want). Check out the blog article on our site for some tips to help narrow down the feature set of a product to an MVP: https://lnkd.in/gHTeynVb

24

2 Comments

Well-written and sourced article describing what's going in seed-stage venture market. At 9point8 Collective we tend to orbit the seed-stage (both ideating and developing companies to reach seed and helping post-seed companies refactor and scale in anticipation of A) and for many companies it's a critical inflection point which determines their long term success or failure. The main takeaways I was able to gather: 1️⃣ Many startups that raised seed rounds in 2021-2022 are struggling to secure Series A funding due to tighter market conditions and increased investor expectations. 2️⃣ Seed investors are becoming more cautious, leading to longer diligence processes and a preference for startups with strong traction or experienced founders. As a result, valuations have stayed relatively high even as deal flow reduces. 3️⃣ Startups are adopting various strategies to navigate this challenging environment, including cutting costs, raising bridge rounds or convertible notes, and M&A/acqui-hires. 4️⃣ Despite the challenges, there are opportunities for both startups and investors in this new landscape, particularly for those who can adapt to the changing market conditions. Investors are accumulating dry powder -- and with rates on the decline -- will be looking to deploy into companies with stronger fundamentals than their 2021-2022 counterparts.

4

Let the wave begin! Pioneer Fund company Recall.ai *grew their revenue 10x* in the past year, has 300 enterprise customers, and just raised a $10M Series A led by Ridge Ventures. David Gu and Amanda Zhu dropped out of college at age 19 to start the company. They've grown it exponentially with a tiny team. They make it easy to build meeting bots that are cross-platform. They're aggregating all these different APIs into one unified API, the way Twilio did with cell phones. At first it "sounds" easy to build a meeting bot -- just integrate with the Zoom API. But in fact there's a huge long tail of things you need to build, security and privacy pitfalls, automations, transcription complexities, integrations, the calendar invites where someone is using Google Meet or Teams, staying up-to-date with the libraries, etc etc. Recall takes care of all of that. It's WAY easier to build on top of Recall.ai and focus on the features that make you unique. Congratulations to the Recall team!

86

7 Comments

In a startup's early days, founders often skip detailed compensation planning, instead choosing round numbers and moving on. This is an admirable sentiment. But over the long term, founder compensation design can matter a lot to the company, so it's worth taking some time to think this through. Here are some benchmarks and suggestions for founder compensation across: 1. Salary 2. Equity Split 3. Vesting https://lnkd.in/gcDXehXx

46

3 Comments

Greed and Fear, AI (adoption) style. In investments we're used to talking about greed vs fear, now we're seeing this same pendulum applies when it comes to consumer sentiment towards AI adoption. Concern is fear, that's obvious, and if you think about it a bit excitement comes from a form of greed in this case: the excitement for AI is because people hope it will help them do more with less time and effort invested - a greed for precious resources (which can be translated to money as well). Consumers need to invest some time, effort, as well as money in order to come up the AI learning curve (learning the right tools and how to prompt them). Playing around with AI is one thing, seriously using it professionally or personally is a bigger step that will be affected by the greed vs fear. It's too bad Pew Research Center didn't separate out professionals' opinions in a professional capacity (link to findings in the first comment), but still they find that for the first time the majority of Americans are concerned. The increase in concern (fear) happens just as research is starting to demonstrate that AI is making people more productive, which should have fueled excitement (greed). According to Ipsos, two thirds of people think AI will profoundly change their daily life in 3-5 years. Almost half say it already has (link in second comment). Interesting... And now this entire post rewritten by LI's AI: Greed and fear are familiar concepts in the world of investments, but did you know that they also apply to AI adoption? Consumer sentiment towards AI is swinging back and forth between concern and excitement. Concern is fear, and excitement is a form of greed. People hope that AI will help them do more with less time and effort invested, a greed for precious resources. However, investing in AI requires time, effort, and money to learn the right tools and how to use them. Playing around with AI is one thing, but seriously using it professionally or personally is a bigger step that will be affected by the greed vs fear pendulum. According to Pew Research Center, for the first time, the majority of Americans are concerned about AI. This increase in concern happens just as research is starting to demonstrate that AI is making people more productive, which should have fueled excitement. Ipsos reports that two-thirds of people think AI will profoundly change their daily life in 3-5 years, and almost half say it already has. What are your thoughts on the fear vs greed of AI adoption? Share your opinions in the comments. #AI #fear_greed #investment #genAI

3

2 Comments

Excited about some upcoming product updates coming to Thunder.vc next week (stay tuned), so I thought I'd spotlight one of our existing ones before we go live. So here's a little data from the platform this week, where we track investor velocity. Quick definition: Investor velocity is a simple calculation of how many new investments a firm made during a specific time period. In our case, we calculated it quarterly and the Q2 2024 number includes the 6.8k+ investors currently on our platform. The higher the number, the more net new investments a firm is making. Most deals get done in Q1 & Q3 of the year, but we’ve seen things trend up in Q2 this year. Also noted that pre-seed deals are in decline while Series C are on the rise. Stay tuned for the Q3 analysis at the end of this month. Check out more stats here: https://app.thunder.vc/ #investors #startups #VC

16

6 Comments

What do you do when you don’t want to raise venture funding, or don’t have the option? Jive got started in 2001—my first day with the founders was September 11. We had no other choice but to bootstrap, which we did for five years. Eventually, we reached a crucible moment: We could stay independent and bootstrapped, or we could ride the social software trend to something much larger—but we’d have to raise money. I spoke with Lighter Capital CEO Melissa Widner about what it took to take Jive from a small open-source project to an IPO-ready SaaS business, and how it shaped my ideas on when and how to fund startups to optimize success. It’s not about funding versus bootstrapping, but about when and how much. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/gDQSmuFy #Entrepreneurship #Startups #VC #IPO #Reignition

37

4 Comments

Unpopular opinion: Raising too much capital is more dangerous than not raising enough. I recently had the chance to chat with Matt Watson on the Startup Hustle podcast about why raising should support your strategy, not the other way around. Too often, founders orchestrate their strategy to hit metrics that will help them raise another round, which is the tail wagging the dog.  We discussed how to avoid the risks of raising too early, launching too early, scaling too early, and other harbingers of startup failure. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/g3JkcBHi #StartupHustle #Startups #Entrepreneurship #Leadership #VC #Capital

45

5 Comments

Once you’re in it, you’re in it. #Startup #founders don’t just take financial risk - they invest years of their lives. For many, it’s absolutely worth it. To me, the first task is the most important one: to define your target and make absolutely sure it’s one worth that level of investment.

3

2 Comments

Hot take on a lot of early-stage digital health companies out there: You're not a tech company. Most tech-enabled care companies I've seen over the past two years are only tech-enabled in the sense that they use telehealth as their delivery mechanism for care. There are exceptions to this, of course - companies who build computer vision and applied AI tools to better the doctor-patient experience, companies who build tooling around risk scoring and stratification to enable more personalized medicine, companies who build truly novel intakes to better route patients to the appropriate care, etc. These companies have real technology chops and, if they sell it right to the market, can get credit for this from investors. But if you're truly a telehealth provider, you need to realize now that the goal post has shifted dramatically from 2021 and you're going to be valued at maturity at something like 3x EBITDA. That's profit. Not revenue. Throw a revenue multiple out the window. That's not the world we live in if you're a virtual doctor's office. Think of how that impacts venture math. If you're raising a seed round at $15M post-money (or $12M pre-money), it means you'll have to generate something like $150-200M in annual EBITDA to be a fund returner for your seed investors. Maybe even more with dilution, since telehealth businesses are not traditionally capital efficient and will likely need to raise material additional capital to reach that scale. You need to be ridiculously profitable (probably on $800M-$1B in annual revenue since you're likely going to be a 40% gross margin business). Here's the good news: you can set yourself up well (and probably be a contrarian founder relative to your peers), by talking about EBITDA growth and how you can grow into a fund-returning outcome based on realistic mature market comps. This will stand out for the investors you're pitching, even at the early stage. This is how you can beat the malaise of the tech-enabled care market. Focus on the right metrics and the right type of growth. You don't have to have all the answers (no founder does), but you need to make sure the ship is headed in the right direction. A focus on profitability for "tech-enabled care" (*ahem* telehealth) businesses is a good first step.

26

3 Comments

💡 Sunday read. Was catching up on some reading today and enjoyed this TechCrunch article with Marc Lore. His comments about startups and taking risk - specifically seeking out risk specifically - is insightful. From the article 👇 "But startups are very different than big companies. When you’re at a big company like Walmart [whose U.S. e-commerce business Lore ran after selling it one of his companies], it’s all about incremental improvement. There’s no incentive to take risk. As a startup founder, chances are you’re going to die. Chances are you are going to die every day that you’re living and doing this startup. The probability is 80%, with only a 20% chance of this actually working. So you have to take that into account when you’re making decisions. You have to seek opportunities to take risk, to reduce your risk of dying. The status quo is the worst thing you can do. Doing nothing is the most risk you can possibly take." Full article here https://lnkd.in/gQhuyeiu

6

At most networking events… Business owners shake hands, exchange business cards, and go home. HumanX has a different approach. You’ll be paired together in 1:1 conversations with investors & AI startups. You’re not just adding people to your rolodex. Deals will be made.

42

4 Comments