David George

Dixon weighing in on a bio investment and vice versa probably doesn't make sense.

And you could extrapolate that out to a bunch of our investment processes.

Ben and Mark decided to decentralize the firm.

and put more power down into the investing teams that ran each investment fund.

And the reasoning behind that is twofold.

One, we thought it would allow us to have better expertise around the table.

If you're only just fully deep in infrastructure or applications or American dynamism or crypto or bio, that's an advantage.

It's both an advantage in making decisions, but also an advantage in go-to-market with the entrepreneurs.

And then secondly, if we are going to scale, you can't scale an organization with 25 or 30 decision makers around the table.

It's too hard.

You can't make a tradeoff between should we put an incremental dollar into a bio fund investment or a crypto investment or how should we think about reserving this versus that?

It's too hard.

So we shrink the size of decision makers by doing this to a smaller group who's in charge of their own funds.

And so far, that's working really well.

And I think that's mostly a function of the fact that our early stage folks, they're really good.

And we're all really collaborative.

The only trade off that we have at the growth fund is selfishly that process that I described where we all sit around the table is valuable for me, it's good for us to have access to all information at all times, because we sit across all of our early stage funds, the way we operate is we invest across all of our sectors.

It's a little over half.

And then if you take the number of investments, so if you just do it by dollars, it's a little over half that are preexisting venture investments.

And then if you add the dollars that we're investing in preexisting investments that were preexisting growth fund originated investments, follow-ons, it's something like 70%.