The Exchanges

Q You said about getting those key people around you. In terms of the roles, what do you think is the key people, and what is that personnel like in the very, very early days?

A I think it's different for every company, and I think different types of products or go-to-market strategies will require a different early group. In our case, there was about six of us. So it was me, my co-founder, two other engineers, a marketer, and a sales rep. And the six of us were able to basically take us from not having product market fit to, you know, now in hindsight, what was the beginning of product market fit. There were some contractors and advisors around, but that core group sort of had all of the necessities of the ability to build a sophisticated enough To communicate our story to customers and to actually sell it to customers. So in our case, that was sort of the quorum that we needed. I think in other businesses, you'll see different things. It might be a team purely of engineers. It might be a specialist in a particular field like finance or healthcare, but there is some sort of group of Avengers or something like this where you, you sort of just need that group to get you going.

AI assessment note: “So it was me, my co-founder, two other engineers, a marketer, and a sales rep.”

Q Can I ask in the phase where it's just not quite hitting the market, How do you balance between the vision for the product and the roadmap and that entrepreneurial excitement, but then also stubbornness and an unwillingness to accept when it's not working? How do you make that balance?

A That's a great question. And the question of when to give up is a tough one. Five years is probably too long. Five days is probably too short. And who knows the answer in between. But one of the frameworks that I have is that a vision really shouldn't live in a vacuum. It should live in and be constantly bumping up against reality. So for us with Lattice, Our vision was to make work better by improving the relationship between employees and employers, and our first idea to accomplish that via goal setting bumped up against reality, and it didn't really succeed. We then maintained that vision as we adjusted to other ways to accomplish this through one-on-ones, feedback, and reviews, and eventually we wiggled towards the thing that both got us towards a vision, but was something that real people really wanted, and so I guess I'd say you can be stubborn about sort of your vision and your North Star, But you can't be too stubborn about how you're going to get there.

AI assessment note: “you can be stubborn about sort of your vision... But you can't be too stubborn”

Q You said about getting those key people around you. In terms of the roles, what do you think is the key people, and what is that personnel like in the very, very early days?

A I think it's different for every company, and I think different types of products or go-to-market strategies will require a different early group. In our case, there was about six of us. So it was me, my co-founder, two other engineers, a marketer, and a sales rep. And the six of us were able to basically take us from not having product market fit to, you know, now in hindsight, what was the beginning of product market fit. There were some contractors and advisors around, but that core group sort of had all of the necessities of the ability to build a sophisticated enough To communicate our story to customers and to actually sell it to customers. So in our case, that was sort of the quorum that we needed. I think in other businesses, you'll see different things. It might be a team purely of engineers. It might be a specialist in a particular field like finance or healthcare, but there is some sort of group of Avengers or something like this where you, you sort of just need that group to get you going.

AI assessment note: “it was me, my co-founder, two other engineers, a marketer, and a sales rep.”

Q Can I ask in the phase where it's just not quite hitting the market, How do you balance between the vision for the product and the roadmap and that entrepreneurial excitement, but then also stubbornness and an unwillingness to accept when it's not working? How do you make that balance?

A That's a great question. And the question of when to give up is a tough one. Five years is probably too long. Five days is probably too short. And who knows the answer in between. But one of the frameworks that I have is that a vision really shouldn't live in a vacuum. It should live in and be constantly bumping up against reality. So for us with Lattice, Our vision was to make work better by improving the relationship between employees and employers, and our first idea to accomplish that via goal setting bumped up against reality, and it didn't really succeed. We then maintained that vision as we adjusted to other ways to accomplish this through one-on-ones, feedback, and reviews, and eventually we wiggled towards the thing that both got us towards a vision, but was something that real people really wanted, and so I guess I'd say you can be stubborn about sort of your vision and your North Star, But you can't be too stubborn about how you're going to get there.

AI assessment note: “you can be stubborn about sort of your vision... But you can't be too stubborn”

Q their goals, and they're working well towards their goals with the feedback we've provided, so we've got the team in place. Talk to me now about the product. We've discussed before the night and day flip between having a product people maybe don't want to having product market Fit, and you've experienced this, so what was your experience, and how would you advise founders maybe going through this experience now?

A Yeah, I mean, it was a weird thing, because when you're in the early days of a startup, you're hearing no a lot. Most things are difficult. You don't necessarily have a fully baked product. You don't have any customers. You might not have any revenue, and so you hear somebody say, that product looks cool. I'll give it a try. That sounds to you like hope. That sounds like a beacon of hope, and so you can get very confused, and you can get very tricked by this. Certainly the case for us in the early days. And I think that that is the case for a lot of founders in the early days. What we heard once we launched a product that people really wanted was instead of sounds cool, I'll check it out. We heard people say, Hey, I need that by Monday and I need you guys to ship feature X, Y, and Z. And if you don't ship it, I'm not going to be able to use it. I don't care about the payment. Just can you make that thing live so I can start what I need to do? That was such a different feeling. And I had never heard that before. Peter Reinhart from segment, I know spoke about this in a presentation where He had an experience where they didn't have something and then all of a sudden they shipped and had, you know, very clear demand for something quickly. And so I guess the sort of meta takeaway for me was not being tricked by that sounds cool and really being diligent about, does that sound like …

AI assessment note: “the meta takeaway for me was not being tricked by that sounds cool”

Q I would love to hear that once you've got those candidates and you've got them on board in the team, how do you think about really getting the best out of your team and empowering them?

A I think that the best people generally don't want to be micromanaged. So the very best people that you'll find want to own something and they joined your startup early because they want to own and drive something forward. That doesn't mean that you don't do any management. The critical thing that a leader can do early is set clarity and focus for the company. So it's never more tempting than in the early days. You'll see lots of shiny objects. You'll see different types of customers. You'll see them trying to use your product in lots of different ways. And the most important thing that you can do as the founder is to set a really clear focus and vision for the company. Micromanagement is something that you will do in certain instances. And so there'll be times when it's important, whether you're helping someone through an adjustment or in a role change, I would say in general, if you find yourself micromanaging people for too long, you've got some sort of a problem, but that doesn't mean that there's not a solution. And a lot of times it's Sitting down with that person saying, I don't want to micromanage you. You don't want me to micromanage you. We're aligned on that, and how can we work together to make sure that we can get to a point where we don't have to do this? So in the early days, I think that the best thing that you can do is sort of vision set and clarify priorities,…

AI assessment note: “vision set and clarify priorities, and then get everything out of the way”

Q So you've provided that clarity and that vision there in terms of the goals. So how do you then look to assert a correct framework for delivering feedback on On the goals that you've set, and what are the fundamentals to doing that in the kind of right fashion, so to speak?

A I think that the fundamentals start with trust and compassion. So Kim Scott spoke about this in her book, Radical Candor, and I think she really got it right. A lot of times with feedback, there's a very direct, almost even harsh way to say something that comes across as very caring and makes people feel supported and empowered, and that's a really beautiful thing. So I think a lot of feedback has to do with Number one, before you give the feedback, establishing trust with the person you're giving feedback to, and then speaking with a certain compassion. So there's a way to tell somebody, I really don't like what you did. It made it really difficult for us to do this. And in the future, it would really be helpful if we did it this way. And there's a way to say that where people feel really good. And then on the flip side, there's a way to deliver that feedback much less clearly in a much more tense way. And that happens very often, focusing on clarity, compassion, And supporting those people, I think that's how you can give the most direct feedback in a way people care about, so it's really all about tone and EQ, I think, and this is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, EQ is probably the most important trait for managers.

AI assessment note: “I think that the fundamentals start with trust and compassion. So Kim Scott spoke about”

Q In terms of how you're going to get there with the product, often there's intense amounts of competition between startups around the product. I'm intrigued. How do you view the importance of competition and monitoring that competition? And, and where do you think the energy should be placed?

A So competition is a super interesting topic. The way I always think about it is if you want to train for a marathon, you don't just watch other people run. You get out and you start running. Should you learn from other runners? Yeah, sure. But mostly what you really need to do is just get out and run. And so internally, I always say that in the ideal world, our competitors are looking at us and we're looking at our customers. And if we can get ourselves to that world, everything's going to work out great. Our competitors aren't the people who pay us. Our customers are the people who pay us. Um, so it's really important that we pay attention to them. It might be the case that there's some secret that our competitors know that, that we don't or something like that. But I believe that over time, our customers will tell us that. And they'll, they'll tell us what they need our product and service to do for them. So to the extent that it's possible, and I know it can, it's easy to get distracted and it's human nature to look around at other companies, but to the extent possible, if we can just focus on our customers, everything's going to work out.

AI assessment note: “our competitors are looking at us and we're looking at our customers.”

Q do have to touch on that. And when you've nailed the customer strategy, and you're looking to scale up and attain that funding, I want to talk a little bit about the rounds themselves and the investors behind them. And so starting with the obvious, you've raised now rounds of both venture and angel funding. What do you as a founder really want from your investor? Help me out here.

A So I've been lucky with some of my investors who have been able to provide something that I think is, is rare, which is truly good strategic advice. And I think that in a lot of cases you can get value from investors through say a targeted intro or maybe help with a particular area of expertise. But one of the things that I find the very most valuable about investors is Is if they're able to truly incredibly challenge your thinking when you're making your most important strategic decisions. Someone who can push on you and who can, even if they think you're right, who can challenge your assumptions up until the moment when you've all decided to move forward and then starts rolling in the same direction. And so, you know, this isn't a fit with all investors, but when they can play that role and you're comfortable with them and you trust them to play that role for you, it can be a really wonderful experience. So, you know, if I could pick the thing that I would want from investors, it would be somebody who I could truly Discuss ideas with about the most important strategic decisions of the company who I wanted in that conversation.

AI assessment note: “if I could pick the thing that I would want from investors, it would be”

Q their goals, and they're working well towards their goals with the feedback we've provided, so we've got the team in place. Talk to me now about the product. We've discussed before the night and day flip between having a product people maybe don't want to having product market Fit, and you've experienced this, so what was your experience, and how would you advise founders maybe going through this experience now?

A Yeah, I mean, it was a weird thing, because when you're in the early days of a startup, you're hearing no a lot. Most things are difficult. You don't necessarily have a fully baked product. You don't have any customers. You might not have any revenue, and so you hear somebody say, that product looks cool. I'll give it a try. That sounds to you like hope. That sounds like a beacon of hope, and so you can get very confused, and you can get very tricked by this. Certainly the case for us in the early days. And I think that that is the case for a lot of founders in the early days. What we heard once we launched a product that people really wanted was instead of sounds cool, I'll check it out. We heard people say, Hey, I need that by Monday and I need you guys to ship feature X, Y, and Z. And if you don't ship it, I'm not going to be able to use it. I don't care about the payment. Just can you make that thing live so I can start what I need to do? That was such a different feeling. And I had never heard that before. Peter Reinhart from segment, I know spoke about this in a presentation where He had an experience where they didn't have something and then all of a sudden they shipped and had, you know, very clear demand for something quickly. And so I guess the sort of meta takeaway for me was not being tricked by that sounds cool and really being diligent about, does that sound like …

AI assessment note: “the sort of meta takeaway for me was not being tricked by that sounds cool”

Q When's the right time to really think about expanding beyond the co-founding team?

A I think there are sort of two phases that I would distinguish between. So there is basically before you think you've quote unquote got it, and by it, I mean some early version of a thing that customers really, really want. There's before and after that moment. So in the days before, the people that you want are just there to help you find product market fit. So the only thing that matters before you've got that is how can I build something people want? So if you believe that you've got Two or three co-founders, and that group of you was able to get it, you might not need it. If you think that there are people who can help you get there, then you should by all means take those people. So these aren't the people, you shouldn't try to scale before you've got the thing, but I do think that it's really important to round out your team to have sort of a full group that can get you to a product that people want.

AI assessment note: “there are sort of two phases that I would distinguish between”

Q I would love to hear that once you've got those candidates and you've got them on board in the team, how do you think about really getting the best out of your team and empowering them?

A I think that the best people generally don't want to be micromanaged. So the very best people that you'll find want to own something and they joined your startup early because they want to own and drive something forward. That doesn't mean that you don't do any management. The critical thing that a leader can do early is set clarity and focus for the company. So it's never more tempting than in the early days. You'll see lots of shiny objects. You'll see different types of customers. You'll see them trying to use your product in lots of different ways. And the most important thing that you can do as the founder is to set a really clear focus and vision for the company. Micromanagement is something that you will do in certain instances. And so there'll be times when it's important, whether you're helping someone through an adjustment or in a role change, I would say in general, if you find yourself micromanaging people for too long, you've got some sort of a problem, but that doesn't mean that there's not a solution. And a lot of times it's Sitting down with that person saying, I don't want to micromanage you. You don't want me to micromanage you. We're aligned on that, and how can we work together to make sure that we can get to a point where we don't have to do this? So in the early days, I think that the best thing that you can do is sort of vision set and clarify priorities,…

AI assessment note: “vision set and clarify priorities, and then get everything out of the way for your people”

Q So you've provided that clarity and that vision there in terms of the goals. So how do you then look to assert a correct framework for delivering feedback on On the goals that you've set, and what are the fundamentals to doing that in the kind of right fashion, so to speak?

A I think that the fundamentals start with trust and compassion. So Kim Scott spoke about this in her book, Radical Candor, and I think she really got it right. A lot of times with feedback, there's a very direct, almost even harsh way to say something that comes across as very caring and makes people feel supported and empowered, and that's a really beautiful thing. So I think a lot of feedback has to do with Number one, before you give the feedback, establishing trust with the person you're giving feedback to, and then speaking with a certain compassion. So there's a way to tell somebody, I really don't like what you did. It made it really difficult for us to do this. And in the future, it would really be helpful if we did it this way. And there's a way to say that where people feel really good. And then on the flip side, there's a way to deliver that feedback much less clearly in a much more tense way. And that happens very often, focusing on clarity, compassion, And supporting those people, I think that's how you can give the most direct feedback in a way people care about, so it's really all about tone and EQ, I think, and this is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, EQ is probably the most important trait for managers.

AI assessment note: “I think that the fundamentals start with trust and compassion.”

Q In terms of how you're going to get there with the product, often there's intense amounts of competition between startups around the product. I'm intrigued. How do you view the importance of competition and monitoring that competition? And, and where do you think the energy should be placed?

A So competition is a super interesting topic. The way I always think about it is if you want to train for a marathon, you don't just watch other people run. You get out and you start running. Should you learn from other runners? Yeah, sure. But mostly what you really need to do is just get out and run. And so internally, I always say that in the ideal world, our competitors are looking at us and we're looking at our customers. And if we can get ourselves to that world, everything's going to work out great. Our competitors aren't the people who pay us. Our customers are the people who pay us. Um, so it's really important that we pay attention to them. It might be the case that there's some secret that our competitors know that, that we don't or something like that. But I believe that over time, our customers will tell us that. And they'll, they'll tell us what they need our product and service to do for them. So to the extent that it's possible, and I know it can, it's easy to get distracted and it's human nature to look around at other companies, but to the extent possible, if we can just focus on our customers, everything's going to work out.

AI assessment note: “in the ideal world, our competitors are looking at us and we're looking at our customers”

Q do have to touch on that. And when you've nailed the customer strategy, and you're looking to scale up and attain that funding, I want to talk a little bit about the rounds themselves and the investors behind them. And so starting with the obvious, you've raised now rounds of both venture and angel funding. What do you as a founder really want from your investor? Help me out here.

A So I've been lucky with some of my investors who have been able to provide something that I think is, is rare, which is truly good strategic advice. And I think that in a lot of cases you can get value from investors through say a targeted intro or maybe help with a particular area of expertise. But one of the things that I find the very most valuable about investors is Is if they're able to truly incredibly challenge your thinking when you're making your most important strategic decisions. Someone who can push on you and who can, even if they think you're right, who can challenge your assumptions up until the moment when you've all decided to move forward and then starts rolling in the same direction. And so, you know, this isn't a fit with all investors, but when they can play that role and you're comfortable with them and you trust them to play that role for you, it can be a really wonderful experience. So, you know, if I could pick the thing that I would want from investors, it would be somebody who I could truly Discuss ideas with about the most important strategic decisions of the company who I wanted in that conversation.

AI assessment note: “provide something that I think is, is rare, which is truly good strategic advice”

Q Okay, so we're gonna dive straight in and just try and understand, like any product, which, you know, capital is in some ways, we need to have a reason to exist. Why do founders want other founders as their lead? Let's start with that, and I'm just gonna throw it out into the open, and anyone can grab it.

A Maybe not necessarily lead, but I think at least one of the reasons that founders like to have other founders as investors in general is that it's a good source of tactical advice and general support from somebody who's done the thing that they're doing, and it's relevant. Like, it's not like 10 years out of date, which often becomes the case for VCs. My view is actually that I think there's a lot of value to having both active founders and full-time investors, because I think they just provide sort of different Perspectives, types of support, vantage points. So I don't encourage founders ever to not have like full-time investors involved, but I think both are good. But I think the reasons people want founders are due to just the active hands-on advice that you get from someone who's done what you're doing and is still currently doing it.

AI assessment note: “it's a good source of tactical advice and general support from somebody who's done the thing”

Q That, that is my view, that I ran over, sorry guys. Um, in terms of like LP comms, actually sorry, I think a really interesting one also is like team comms, and one I worry about. How do you guys talk about it to your teams? Because they're in it for the company, and then you've got this moneymaker on the side. How do you broach that one?

A I have never also been one to ask our employees not to do Other work. A lot of our employees are also angel investors sit on other boards. And I think that's great for them. And maybe this is partially to orange point that like people are, you know, a constellation of activities. And I think that like, there's a lot of ways to spend your time. And I don't think that lattice should be something that demands. 90% of somebody's waking hours. Maybe it's partially because I believe that exposure to other companies makes people stronger operators. But it's always been in our culture that people have had other activities, and that as long as they're doing the full job that's on their plate, that, that's something that we, like, are proud of.

AI assessment note: “it's always been in our culture that people have had other activities”

Q Okay, so we're gonna dive straight in and just try and understand, like any product, which, you know, capital is in some ways, we need to have a reason to exist. Why do founders want other founders as their lead? Let's start with that, and I'm just gonna throw it out into the open, and anyone can grab it.

A Maybe not necessarily lead, but I think at least one of the reasons that founders like to have other founders as investors in general is that it's a good source of tactical advice and general support from somebody who's done the thing that they're doing, and it's relevant. Like, it's not like 10 years out of date, which often becomes the case for VCs. My view is actually that I think there's a lot of value to having both active founders and full-time investors, because I think they just provide sort of different Perspectives, types of support, vantage points. So I don't encourage founders ever to not have like full-time investors involved, but I think both are good. But I think the reasons people want founders are due to just the active hands-on advice that you get from someone who's done what you're doing and is still currently doing it.

AI assessment note: “good source of tactical advice and general support from somebody who's done the thing”

Q That, that is my view, that I ran over, sorry guys. Um, in terms of like LP comms, actually sorry, I think a really interesting one also is like team comms, and one I worry about. How do you guys talk about it to your teams? Because they're in it for the company, and then you've got this moneymaker on the side. How do you broach that one?

A I have never also been one to ask our employees not to do Other work. A lot of our employees are also angel investors sit on other boards. And I think that's great for them. And maybe this is partially to orange point that like people are, you know, a constellation of activities. And I think that like, there's a lot of ways to spend your time. And I don't think that lattice should be something that demands. 90% of somebody's waking hours. Maybe it's partially because I believe that exposure to other companies makes people stronger operators. But it's always been in our culture that people have had other activities, and that as long as they're doing the full job that's on their plate, that, that's something that we, like, are proud of.

AI assessment note: “it's always been in our culture that people have had other activities”

Q Love that. No, I completely agree. I do want to then finish with an element of hindsight. And before we move into the quick fire round, reviewing your own fundraising process. So when we review them, you've raised from Thrive, Elad Gill, Mark Benioff. What do you think you did well? Let's start with that.

A So overall, I would start by saying, I think we got pretty lucky. And I think with any company building, you're going to have to get lucky a few times in a few different ways. And I would say on the fundraising front, we got pretty lucky to get such good investors in both at the seed. And then in our case, that also, it was the same investors who did our series A. And so that saved us a bunch of time. It made it so that we didn't have to build up a bunch of trust with a bunch of new investors. So we got lucky. That said, I think one thing that we did that has a certain trade-off to it, not that I would do it a different way if I were to redo it, but one thing we did do that has a trade-off is we took on some signaling risk by including large funds like Thrive, And Coastal and our seed round that can cause an issue down the line where if they don't end up supporting you, it makes it challenging for a new investor to come in and say, well, if they didn't want to, you know, continue working with you, like, why would I? And of course you can get past those objections, but that does add a hurdle. But on the flip side, things go decently. Well, it can make, you know, future rounds much easier. And so in our case, I think we got pretty lucky here.

AI assessment note: “we got pretty lucky to get such good investors in both at the seed”

Q because we actually do the team sport in a way. Jack, you co-lead rounds with amazing, well, we all co-lead rounds with amazing professional investors, and they supplement or compliment our skills in the way that they would if they were on our team, but they're not on our team. So the question is, do they actually even need to be on our team? We just structure rounds that way.

A I, I don't feel super strongly about this, but I was going to, at least for the interest of the conversation, take the slightly other side of this, which is that, and there's obviously great examples of exactly what you're describing where venture is done as like a team sport. You see these big firms that are highly differentiated and very successful. So like, I, I don't have the, um, The sort of nuances that will sort of say like if this than that and otherwise this, but it does seem to me when I like think about a lot of the like greatest investors, there does seem to be a full stackiness about them in certain cases where they do seem to create their own brand, have their own taste for what they're willing to spend time on, make their own investments and work with those companies through the life cycle. And for every sort of like Venture firm that is highly specialized where you have like a ton of people doing a lot of roles. There are also good examples where it's closer to like a collection of lone wolves who are just a, a loose coupling of a lot of people who are each doing something that is a bit more full stacky, obviously with, you know, qualification and things like that and outreach happening from junior people. And then obviously, you know, you see platform teams, which we could debate how valuable they are, but there's other stuff like that too. But I would, I would…

AI assessment note: “there is at least value to the other format too, and lots of good examples”

Q because we actually do the team sport in a way. Jack, you co-lead rounds with amazing, well, we all co-lead rounds with amazing professional investors, and they supplement or compliment our skills in the way that they would if they were on our team, but they're not on our team. So the question is, do they actually even need to be on our team? We just structure rounds that way.

A I, I don't feel super strongly about this, but I was going to, at least for the interest of the conversation, take the slightly other side of this, which is that, and there's obviously great examples of exactly what you're describing where venture is done as like a team sport. You see these big firms that are highly differentiated and very successful. So like, I, I don't have the, um, The sort of nuances that will sort of say like if this than that and otherwise this, but it does seem to me when I like think about a lot of the like greatest investors, there does seem to be a full stackiness about them in certain cases where they do seem to create their own brand, have their own taste for what they're willing to spend time on, make their own investments and work with those companies through the life cycle. And for every sort of like Venture firm that is highly specialized where you have like a ton of people doing a lot of roles. There are also good examples where it's closer to like a collection of lone wolves who are just a, a loose coupling of a lot of people who are each doing something that is a bit more full stacky, obviously with, you know, qualification and things like that and outreach happening from junior people. And then obviously, you know, you see platform teams, which we could debate how valuable they are, but there's other stuff like that too. But I would, I would…

AI assessment note: “I was going to, at least for the interest of the conversation, take the slightly other side”

Q When's the right time to really think about expanding beyond the co-founding team?

A I think there are sort of two phases that I would distinguish between. So there is basically before you think you've quote unquote got it, and by it, I mean some early version of a thing that customers really, really want. There's before and after that moment. So in the days before, the people that you want are just there to help you find product market fit. So the only thing that matters before you've got that is how can I build something people want? So if you believe that you've got Two or three co-founders, and that group of you was able to get it, you might not need it. If you think that there are people who can help you get there, then you should by all means take those people. So these aren't the people, you shouldn't try to scale before you've got the thing, but I do think that it's really important to round out your team to have sort of a full group that can get you to a product that people want.

AI assessment note: “you shouldn't try to scale before you've got the thing”

Q Love that. No, I completely agree. I do want to then finish with an element of hindsight. And before we move into the quick fire round, reviewing your own fundraising process. So when we review them, you've raised from Thrive, Elad Gill, Mark Benioff. What do you think you did well? Let's start with that.

A So overall, I would start by saying, I think we got pretty lucky. And I think with any company building, you're going to have to get lucky a few times in a few different ways. And I would say on the fundraising front, we got pretty lucky to get such good investors in both at the seed. And then in our case, that also, it was the same investors who did our series A. And so that saved us a bunch of time. It made it so that we didn't have to build up a bunch of trust with a bunch of new investors. So we got lucky. That said, I think one thing that we did that has a certain trade-off to it, not that I would do it a different way if I were to redo it, but one thing we did do that has a trade-off is we took on some signaling risk by including large funds like Thrive, And Coastal and our seed round that can cause an issue down the line where if they don't end up supporting you, it makes it challenging for a new investor to come in and say, well, if they didn't want to, you know, continue working with you, like, why would I? And of course you can get past those objections, but that does add a hurdle. But on the flip side, things go decently. Well, it can make, you know, future rounds much easier. And so in our case, I think we got pretty lucky here.

AI assessment note: “one thing we did do that has a trade-off is we took on some signaling risk”