Matt Huang

I think the trade-off of having a deeply technical, very building and research-oriented team is that we inherently have strong opinions about technical futures. And if you think about maybe the idealized version of an investor would be much more agnostic. That's a conscious trade-off that we always have to navigate.

I think the trade-off of having a deeply technical, very building and research-oriented team is that we inherently have strong opinions about technical futures. And if you think about maybe the idealized version of an investor would be much more agnostic. That's a conscious trade-off that we always have to navigate.

But I think a fair critique of paradigm would be sometimes they're too wedded to their technical views.

But I think a fair critique of paradigm would be sometimes they're too wedded to their technical views.

Most visibly wrong is probably us investing in FTX. I actually don't know the right takeaway on SPF. Were there yellow flags? He was a unique and different shaped person, but a lot of the best founders are. And the other thing is like we did identify the core issue that ultimately ended up being the problem, which is sort of the related party nature of the market maker and the exchange.

Most visibly wrong is probably us investing in FTX. I actually don't know the right takeaway on SPF. Were there yellow flags? He was a unique and different shaped person, but a lot of the best founders are. And the other thing is like we did identify the core issue that ultimately ended up being the problem, which is sort of the related party nature of the market maker and the exchange.

We actually drilled into that in our diligence and were ultimately lied to. So I think venture is very hard when founder is willing to do that because so much of the ecosystem depends on trust and it's hard to go diligence the lie. And we had no reason to think he was lying.

We actually drilled into that in our diligence and were ultimately lied to. So I think venture is very hard when founder is willing to do that because so much of the ecosystem depends on trust and it's hard to go diligence the lie. And we had no reason to think he was lying.

Yeah, probably in the like immediate days after where we still didn't fully know what was happening.

Yeah, probably in the like immediate days after where we still didn't fully know what was happening.

I think there's probably an inverse correlation between how legible a space is, how understandable it is to others, and prospective returns. Because almost definitionally, the more well understood it is, the more priced in, so to speak, everything should be.

I think there's probably an inverse correlation between how legible a space is, how understandable it is to others, and prospective returns. Because almost definitionally, the more well understood it is, the more priced in, so to speak, everything should be.

Silicon Valley is an interesting case study because I think it's always kind of the frontier, but in some ways, the ecosystem of Silicon Valley has become very legible too. What used to be bespoke is a bit more factory farming today. And I think maybe the frontier of AI currently remains very illegible and a super interesting space for builders and investors.

Silicon Valley is an interesting case study because I think it's always kind of the frontier, but in some ways, the ecosystem of Silicon Valley has become very legible too. What used to be bespoke is a bit more factory farming today. And I think maybe the frontier of AI currently remains very illegible and a super interesting space for builders and investors.

Software as a service is no longer illegible. Maybe the phenomenon of Tiger and Kotu and everyone else pricing SaaS multiples to perfection is just the expected outcome. And I think the legibility has very strong gravity. Or put another way, I think to make things legible inevitably reduces the accuracy. So there's this idea, the idea of the map versus the territory.

Software as a service is no longer illegible. Maybe the phenomenon of Tiger and Kotu and everyone else pricing SaaS multiples to perfection is just the expected outcome. And I think the legibility has very strong gravity. Or put another way, I think to make things legible inevitably reduces the accuracy. So there's this idea, the idea of the map versus the territory.

We come up with legible explanations of things to better understand them, to better communicate and transmit ideas to other people. But they're always approximations of the fully textured version of the reality. I think there's often a temptation. I see this, especially in crypto to like make it legible too quickly. I think there's a lot of value in tolerating the eligibility.

We come up with legible explanations of things to better understand them, to better communicate and transmit ideas to other people. But they're always approximations of the fully textured version of the reality. I think there's often a temptation. I see this, especially in crypto to like make it legible too quickly. I think there's a lot of value in tolerating the eligibility.

So for example, a lot of people are wondering like, what's the crypto use case. First of all, I think we can get to that, but money and finance are the obvious ones, but a lot of people are wondering, okay, what's after that. And I think there is this temptation of this term web three, for example,

So for example, a lot of people are wondering like, what's the crypto use case. First of all, I think we can get to that, but money and finance are the obvious ones, but a lot of people are wondering, okay, what's after that. And I think there is this temptation of this term web three, for example,