december 17, 2025
there are many different types of activities involved in the venture, and also many ways to be good at it. the best way to think about this is probably to find out what is authentic to you and what you are good at, and focus relentlessly on that. here are a few activities involved, broken into four well-known categories: sourcing, picking, winning, and supporting.
sourcing
when it comes to finding founders to invest in, i have seen people go about sourcing in two main ways: the wider networking-centric approach (“air war,” covering a lot of ground, etc) and the narrower relationship-building approach (targeted, thesis-based, etc). there are obviously elements of both of these in many investors’ sourcing strategies, but people tend to lean more towards one way or the other
- networking (wider / high-volume approach) - well-serviced by people that are generally extroverted and enjoy covering a lot of ground, meeting a lot of people, events, community, reviewing inbound, trading deal flow with other investors, etc. vc’s are oftentimes pretty paranoid about “not being in the flow” or “am i seeing everything,” and focusing on this approach could alleviate those fears. as long as you’re seeing the right founders, you don’t have to worry as much about picking (you could take a random sample of the great founders you’re seeing and some of them will work out)
- sharpshooting (narrower / lower-volume approach) - oftentimes this strategy is employed by people who have a very specific type of investment they are targeting. maybe they are lean more thesis-driven than generalist (focusing on a sector or stage), or maybe they have a very particular founder type they like. you can still employ a community / events-driven approach here if intentional about it. you might be doing more targeted outbound, or have a list of 50 founders you track relentlessly, or a list of 20 seed funds whose portfolios you monitor closely. you build long-term relationships that compound, that may take a while to materialize
picking
even at the same firm, investors tend to get excited by different things. some may invest in people, others may get excited by traction, or the idea / market opportunity. traction is self-explanatory, explaining the two other skills you can get good at:
- people-first evaluation. many investors say they invest in people, but the founder is not their #1 investment criteria. they find a founder they get excited by, but that excitement is not enough to overcome concerns about other things (like traction, market, etc). whereas truly people-focused investors tend to get excited by the founder first, then they try to “talk themselves out of it” (the diligence process - involves thoughtful analysis, reference checks, etc). they tend to ask good questions and have good instincts about people. also they don’t completely ignore the idea in favor of the person. oftentimes, talking about the market with the founder can be a proxy for founder quality. if their responses are extremely thoughtful, that’s a great reflection on the person and their thinking
- market-first evaluation. some people seem to be good at identifying interesting ideas or markets to make bets in - more on the thesis-driven side of the spectrum than the opportunistic side. the argument here could be that a decent founder in a really good fast-growing market is going to do very well, versus a great founder in a horrible market will not (they are fighting forces beyond their control). being thesis-driven is probably a bit easier to do at the later stages, where you have had time to see industries / products mature, you know what business models work in consumer fintech, and you spend more time chasing a smaller number of opportunities. at the pre-seed and seed stages it’s a bit harder as many companies are creating categories or expanding existing ones, but definitely worth doing this analysis of course
winning
venture has gotten a lot more competitive as the space has matured, and many founders of high pedigree / in frothy environments are taking less dilution than normal (leaving less room for collaboration), both of which mean that winning has gotten more important over time. these skills take while to master
- negotiating terms - this comes down to people skills, understanding human psychology, and trust-building with the founder you are trying to win over. there are no shortcuts to becoming good at this. some things that help are getting reps in (trying and failing to secure allocation many times, then observing what worked and what didn’t), learning good negotiation strategies from others who are great at it (though i’m somewhat skeptical everyone can be given a “playbook” they can learn), and discovering what unique style and tactics work for you (probably best). for example, some people might negotiate well by being aggressive, while others may do a great job at convincing you they’re you’re friend; it depends on what works for your personality
- being helpful - to prove that you’re great to work with, or to gain an edge over the competition when there are multiple offers, it’s a good idea to show value upfront. the most obvious example of this is by connecting the founder you’re trying to win over to potential customers. you could go beyond this and introduce the founder to potential hiring candidates (especially on the engineering side), advisors or angel investors who could be helpful with expertise / customer introductions, etc.
supporting
what you do after the investment matters a lot, and requires a set of skills different than the ones mentioned above. investors should be good at advice / counseling when appropriate, and can also invest in “platform” initiatives that help move the needle
- coaching - this could mean tactical advice and emotional support. for the former, it helps to either have had solid operating experience, or to have seen a lot of examples of what has worked / what hasn’t in your past portfolio founders’ companies. on the softer side, being generally reliable and emotionally supportive helps too. alfred lin said “as a board member, you want to be a shock absorber in bad times and a sparring partner in good times.” finally, knowing when to help and when to step back and let the founder execute is one of the more crucial aspects of coaching
- platform initiatives - this is the way that many funds crystallize their “value-add.” perhaps you have built out a great media business / distribution rails that will help amplify your portfolio founders’ asks. or maybe you have a team of in-house recruiters that your companies get to use for free, that save them a ton of time on hiring efforts. these platform initiatives are great for founders and also are loved by lp’s, so many gp’s highlight their platform projects in their fundraise
firm-building tasks
sourcing, picking, winning, and supporting are activities involved in the job of the “investor.” but most vc’s don’t only just invest in companies, they have to build a firm, which involves a few more things:
- building a brand - most firms want to be well-known so that founders can find them. others choose to be more low-key, without a flashy website or platform team or large investments into marketing (the argument here is - your investments are your brand, which is the best way to build one). but if you’re just starting a fund, it takes a while for your investments to become big, so building a brand can help you bridge this time gap. some investors are really good at this - convincing the ecosystem that they are relevant, and talented - which helps build the self-fulfilling prophecy of seeing and investing in great founders
- hiring and managing people / successions - most firms hire younger vc’s to help with sourcing, sometimes with the intention of promoting them to partner. management of personalities becomes pretty important