Matt Huang

But a lot of the high standards are unspoken. They're the habits and rituals that you see everyone else embodying of like $100 million investment outcome. I was expecting everyone to celebrate. Instead, everyone's like, this company is kind of a waste of time. Why did we waste six years for this middling outcome? And so that just rubs off.

But a lot of the high standards are unspoken. They're the habits and rituals that you see everyone else embodying of like $100 million investment outcome. I was expecting everyone to celebrate. Instead, everyone's like, this company is kind of a waste of time. Why did we waste six years for this middling outcome? And so that just rubs off.

In some ways, it's daunting because the bar is so high, but in some ways it's liberating because it's much easier to determine where it's not worth spending time. And I think as an investor, the temptation to good over great in terms of every level of Zoom, ways of spending your time, making an actual investment, company or founder quality is extremely great.

In some ways, it's daunting because the bar is so high, but in some ways it's liberating because it's much easier to determine where it's not worth spending time. And I think as an investor, the temptation to good over great in terms of every level of Zoom, ways of spending your time, making an actual investment, company or founder quality is extremely great.

And so unless you have very, very high standards, you can spin wheels for a long time chasing things that won't end up mattering.

And so unless you have very, very high standards, you can spin wheels for a long time chasing things that won't end up mattering.

There's a lot of different personalities at Sequoia, but there's also a very impressive level of consistency along some key dimensions. Another takeaway back to your prior question from my time at Sequoia, which was, I think it was the first time that I realized very intuitively that there were many paths to greatness, whatever you want to call it.

There's a lot of different personalities at Sequoia, but there's also a very impressive level of consistency along some key dimensions. Another takeaway back to your prior question from my time at Sequoia, which was, I think it was the first time that I realized very intuitively that there were many paths to greatness, whatever you want to call it.

Because at Sequoia, there are many, many great people who, if you just looked at their track records or what they've accomplished, it's insanely impressive. And yet... They're very, very different styles. That was very liberating for me, the realization that I can find my own way and do it the way I want to do it. And that's actually like a flavor of thing I think is really fascinating to follow.

Because at Sequoia, there are many, many great people who, if you just looked at their track records or what they've accomplished, it's insanely impressive. And yet... They're very, very different styles. That was very liberating for me, the realization that I can find my own way and do it the way I want to do it. And that's actually like a flavor of thing I think is really fascinating to follow.

Like you see it in athletes or performers of all kinds. You can sometimes read in their interviews the moment that they realized that they didn't have to follow some existing mentor or some book of orthodoxy. but that they could figure it out themselves. And that ultimately being the catalyst for the greatness.

Like you see it in athletes or performers of all kinds. You can sometimes read in their interviews the moment that they realized that they didn't have to follow some existing mentor or some book of orthodoxy. but that they could figure it out themselves. And that ultimately being the catalyst for the greatness.

So I first encountered Bitcoin right when it launched. in 2010, yeah, the white paper. I was in college at the time, and I internalized it as just like a really beautiful idea. It sort of hits the intersection of computer science and math, economics, game theory, the kind of history of money. And it caused me to go down a bunch of rabbit holes learning about some of the tributary ideas.

So I first encountered Bitcoin right when it launched. in 2010, yeah, the white paper. I was in college at the time, and I internalized it as just like a really beautiful idea. It sort of hits the intersection of computer science and math, economics, game theory, the kind of history of money. And it caused me to go down a bunch of rabbit holes learning about some of the tributary ideas.

Because if you look at the citations in the Bitcoin white paper, people have been thinking about this for a long time. It references a lot of old work. So it was fascinating. And I didn't have capital at the time. And it didn't seem like an investment. It seemed like a toy. My next encounter with it was in 2013. And I think that's the first Bitcoin bubble that I participated in.

Because if you look at the citations in the Bitcoin white paper, people have been thinking about this for a long time. It references a lot of old work. So it was fascinating. And I didn't have capital at the time. And it didn't seem like an investment. It seemed like a toy. My next encounter with it was in 2013. And I think that's the first Bitcoin bubble that I participated in.

And I think there's a deep point here about the cohort adoption of Bitcoin. You almost need to lose money or be stupid the first time. Then I find this is certainly true for me. You give up on it, maybe write it off. It's dead. And then when you see it come back, then you start to wonder because there are lots of bubbles and tulips and all this stuff.

And I think there's a deep point here about the cohort adoption of Bitcoin. You almost need to lose money or be stupid the first time. Then I find this is certainly true for me. You give up on it, maybe write it off. It's dead. And then when you see it come back, then you start to wonder because there are lots of bubbles and tulips and all this stuff.

But the tulips did not have multiple successive bubbles over time. Beanie Babies did not have kind of a second and third and fourth cycle. It's a key point. And so there's like a time-shifted cohort adoption curve, if you think about the adoption of Bitcoin based on encountering it. So 2013 was that first cycle for me. I think I was not a professional investor.

But the tulips did not have multiple successive bubbles over time. Beanie Babies did not have kind of a second and third and fourth cycle. It's a key point. And so there's like a time-shifted cohort adoption curve, if you think about the adoption of Bitcoin based on encountering it. So 2013 was that first cycle for me. I think I was not a professional investor.