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, both of which mean that winning has gotten more important over time. these skills probably take a long time to master
- negotiating, people skills / psychology, trust-building
- being helpful
supporting
coaching - operational ability, emotional support, knowing when to help and when to step back
firm-wide projects like recruiting
firm-building tasks
building a brand
hiring and managing people