VCs aren’t your friends(openvc.app)
openvc.app
VCs aren’t your friends
https://www.openvc.app/blog/vcs-arent-your-friends
374 comments
The problem with the “signal” is that it’s based on pretty much nothing. It is just as valid or nuts as any other ad hoc random tea leaves & chicken bones “signal” someone decides to come up with a dubious justification for. Whether the deck said March, April, or May changed absolutely nothing about the underlying business and thus also nothing about the actual investment opportunity.
Maybe they made the deck two months ago and spent the last two months prosecuting pipeline and closing deals? Maybe they didn’t have a great investor network, so it took them a month or two to even be talking to the right investors (which more often than not is actually what’s important, and only superficially any given pitch or deck)? Maybe the VC in question was their first choice once they learned they existed and what their thesis is?
It’s absolutely true that VCs aren’t your friends. They’re middlemen for distributing other people’s money who pick winners at such a low success rate that one could be forgiven for wondering if random lottery might do just as well.
In terms of actual performance and criteria, they’re more like clergy. There are various performative religious traditions and ceremonies that have to be serviced and abided if one is to have any hope of them bestowing their blessings.
Maybe they made the deck two months ago and spent the last two months prosecuting pipeline and closing deals? Maybe they didn’t have a great investor network, so it took them a month or two to even be talking to the right investors (which more often than not is actually what’s important, and only superficially any given pitch or deck)? Maybe the VC in question was their first choice once they learned they existed and what their thesis is?
It’s absolutely true that VCs aren’t your friends. They’re middlemen for distributing other people’s money who pick winners at such a low success rate that one could be forgiven for wondering if random lottery might do just as well.
In terms of actual performance and criteria, they’re more like clergy. There are various performative religious traditions and ceremonies that have to be serviced and abided if one is to have any hope of them bestowing their blessings.
Most business founders don’t need VC money and are worse off for taking VC money.
I find the mindset “my pitch deck was 2 months old so I didn’t get funding” very out of touch of business realities. It is far more likely that that type of business doesn’t need VC funding. Your SaaS can probably be built with your daytime developer salary. No VC ever says “wow, what a great investment opportunity, one of the best, but the slides were old”. You don’t even need the slides, or the rehearsed elevator pitch. Just build a business that’s worth VC money (solid, profitable, and ready to scale up) if you absolutely insist on it.
I find the mindset “my pitch deck was 2 months old so I didn’t get funding” very out of touch of business realities. It is far more likely that that type of business doesn’t need VC funding. Your SaaS can probably be built with your daytime developer salary. No VC ever says “wow, what a great investment opportunity, one of the best, but the slides were old”. You don’t even need the slides, or the rehearsed elevator pitch. Just build a business that’s worth VC money (solid, profitable, and ready to scale up) if you absolutely insist on it.
In transactional financial markets "friends" is not the right word, but there is something to be said about more or less effective alignment of interests and that is purely a matter of design.
There is more than enough money sloshing around, it all boils down to designing contracts and suitable information exchanges between parties. So anybody thinking that the current system is sub-obtimal can try their hand at disrupting the VC system and making history :-)
An arrangement that better utilizes the majority of the entrepreneurial crowd's energy and time is likely to at least carve a niche, if not dominate. It may not even be that hard. The chasing of planet-scale returns (with the corresponding discounting of the rest 99.99%) is a recent phenomenon and may be just an aberration.
There is more than enough money sloshing around, it all boils down to designing contracts and suitable information exchanges between parties. So anybody thinking that the current system is sub-obtimal can try their hand at disrupting the VC system and making history :-)
An arrangement that better utilizes the majority of the entrepreneurial crowd's energy and time is likely to at least carve a niche, if not dominate. It may not even be that hard. The chasing of planet-scale returns (with the corresponding discounting of the rest 99.99%) is a recent phenomenon and may be just an aberration.
I love this blog post about why Jason Lemkin’s post about passing on a pitch because the pitch deck said March instead of May is a good and normal post. Without this informative content we would not know that Jason Lemkin‘s post was not at all off putting or ridiculous, and we are rightfully brought up to speed on how cool it was, in fact.
> VCs aren't your teachers nor your managers. They don't have an obligation to provide feedback or even to reply to your emails. They won't give you a second chance. They won't coach you so you can do better next time.
Seems like the typical teacher or manager to me.
Seems like the typical teacher or manager to me.
Some people will give a shit, some won't. I've met VCs that would scoff at Jason for trivial stuff like that, while I've met others that would agree with him - and maybe be even rigid about "small stuff".
My experience is that if the VC is someone who has background from finance, consulting, or law, then they are more likely to lose their minds over superficial stuff like logo placement, font consistency, alignment of images / tables / etc., and of course consistency in dates etc. - probably because that's all they did during their formative years in their respective industries.
Second point: There's a bunch of VCs out there with the only qualification of
A) Having founded / led a successful startup
B) Having invested in startups during the ZIRP-era
So while you have some tremendously good VCs that have stood the test of time, and have "seen it all", there are also VCs that will be washed away the next few years. So don't take it personally if / when some VC will decline you and and be all preachy about it.
Last point: Some of these stories are just made-up BS to generate content and thoughts. Half of the stuff VCs write on LinkedIn or Twitter seems to be fiction, for the sake of getting a point through to their listeners. Also keep that in mind.
My experience is that if the VC is someone who has background from finance, consulting, or law, then they are more likely to lose their minds over superficial stuff like logo placement, font consistency, alignment of images / tables / etc., and of course consistency in dates etc. - probably because that's all they did during their formative years in their respective industries.
Second point: There's a bunch of VCs out there with the only qualification of
A) Having founded / led a successful startup
B) Having invested in startups during the ZIRP-era
So while you have some tremendously good VCs that have stood the test of time, and have "seen it all", there are also VCs that will be washed away the next few years. So don't take it personally if / when some VC will decline you and and be all preachy about it.
Last point: Some of these stories are just made-up BS to generate content and thoughts. Half of the stuff VCs write on LinkedIn or Twitter seems to be fiction, for the sake of getting a point through to their listeners. Also keep that in mind.
In so many ways raising funding is just like applying for a job. Here's what I can do, give me money.
The only difference is that the VC pays you your salary (and all your other expenses) in advance. And let's you keep some of the upside. By contrast an employer pays you a salary, and your (work) expenses as you go.
The VC "implies" by their funding how long your contract is. The employee goes "forever".
So all the things that apply to job-hunting apply to VC funding (Amplified). And make no mistake, the VC becomes your boss.
Once you understand it in these terms you can best evaluate if VC funding is for you.
The only difference is that the VC pays you your salary (and all your other expenses) in advance. And let's you keep some of the upside. By contrast an employer pays you a salary, and your (work) expenses as you go.
The VC "implies" by their funding how long your contract is. The employee goes "forever".
So all the things that apply to job-hunting apply to VC funding (Amplified). And make no mistake, the VC becomes your boss.
Once you understand it in these terms you can best evaluate if VC funding is for you.
The tone of the post just reminds me of how frustrating interviewing for a (software engineering) job is: Many rejections are arbitrary and the best advice is to just keep applying.
In this case, I suspect Jason assumes that every business should be 110% focused on fundraising. Well, businesses are trying to run their business! The goal is to run the business, the pitch is a tool, not the goal.
The same thing applies to finding a (software engineering) job: Candidates have life obligations and can't dedicate 110% of their time to pleasing a single interviewer. The goal is to demonstrate that you can do a job, the interview isn't the job itself.
In this case, I suspect Jason assumes that every business should be 110% focused on fundraising. Well, businesses are trying to run their business! The goal is to run the business, the pitch is a tool, not the goal.
The same thing applies to finding a (software engineering) job: Candidates have life obligations and can't dedicate 110% of their time to pleasing a single interviewer. The goal is to demonstrate that you can do a job, the interview isn't the job itself.
For folks that are working on a product right now, given the incentive structures behind venture capital, are there genuine reasons to pursue that kind of money? Let me rephrase: How many folks out there are searching for for some kind of niche business with enough to cover expenses and had some profit in a small scale?
I had a short experience with the music industry and the whole enterprise + VC sounds the same dynamic between artists and record labels back in the day, where was not enough to play in local bars and have a steady presence there, but everyone wanna to be Metallica or Anthrax.
I had a short experience with the music industry and the whole enterprise + VC sounds the same dynamic between artists and record labels back in the day, where was not enough to play in local bars and have a steady presence there, but everyone wanna to be Metallica or Anthrax.
Nobody in business is your friend. Friendship isn't about money and money isn't about friendship.
I learned that VCs aren't my friends the hard way... they stole my company from me and left me with nothing.
I discovered a promising new medical treatment- a small molecule drug with impressive experimental results. My name is on the patent and my co-inventors decided to form a startup and gave me co-ownership/stock, although I did some work to help get the company started I didn't want to leave my current job to be involved in full time running the startup at the level they were.
They got big VC funding and the VCs reformed the startup as a new company. During the pandemic lockdown, trying to work at home while parenting a toddler with no childcare, I was sent a form to sign by a new VC firm funding the company, and I was so stressed with the pandemic situation that I just trusted them and signed it without reading it.
The VCs cut me out entirely... just deleted my shares and ownership of a company based on tech I invented and patented. I can't revoke the patent rights either, because they already had a contract licensing it from my employer.
I discovered a promising new medical treatment- a small molecule drug with impressive experimental results. My name is on the patent and my co-inventors decided to form a startup and gave me co-ownership/stock, although I did some work to help get the company started I didn't want to leave my current job to be involved in full time running the startup at the level they were.
They got big VC funding and the VCs reformed the startup as a new company. During the pandemic lockdown, trying to work at home while parenting a toddler with no childcare, I was sent a form to sign by a new VC firm funding the company, and I was so stressed with the pandemic situation that I just trusted them and signed it without reading it.
The VCs cut me out entirely... just deleted my shares and ownership of a company based on tech I invented and patented. I can't revoke the patent rights either, because they already had a contract licensing it from my employer.
I heard from Reid Hoffman himself that he approached 99 VCs before he got funded.
He had two meetings in one day. The first he was asked whether it’s B2B or B2C. He said B2C and was told they only fund B2B. Then next one he said B2B but they said they only fund B2C.
Meanwhile, some startups are funded by VCs piling on, and then go bankrupt quickly.
He had two meetings in one day. The first he was asked whether it’s B2B or B2C. He said B2C and was told they only fund B2B. Then next one he said B2B but they said they only fund B2C.
Meanwhile, some startups are funded by VCs piling on, and then go bankrupt quickly.
Carnivorous sheep - is my favourite unflattering description of VC's.
Ironically this I heard this from somebody who ultimately became one. Perhaps it's Zombie Carnivorous Sheep.
Ironically this I heard this from somebody who ultimately became one. Perhaps it's Zombie Carnivorous Sheep.
The is all "investing theater", in which stuff other than the business and product is what the VC uses to make a decision.
I may be betraying a certain level of cultural literacy for the bulk HN demographic but the original tweet reminds me of when popular online vixens (e.g., Instagram models) talk about “who slid into their DMs”.
Remember: if VCs believed in what they were doing they would not take a 2% annual management fee and 20% of the upside.
They’d take 40% of the upside and live on ramen noodles.
VCs make money by raising money from LPs.
They spend this money on investments which don’t look too bad if they fail, because nearly all of them fail. Looking good while losing all of your investors money on companies which go broke is the key VC skill.
Once in a while you get a huge hit. That’s a lottery win, there is no formula for finding that hit. Broad bets helps but that’s about it. The “VC thesis” is a fundraising tool, a pitch instrument, it makes no measurable difference to success. It’s a shtick.
Sympathy, however, for the VC: car dealership sized transactions paired with the diligence burdens of real finance. It’s a terrible job.
Once you understand that VC is one of the worst jobs in finance and they don’t believe most of their own story — it’s fundraising flimflam for their LPs - it’s a lot easier to negotiate.
1) we are a sound bet not to get you in trouble if we fail (good schools and track records)
2) we will work hard on things which your LPs and their lawyers understand, leaving evidence of a good effort on failure
3) we know how the game works and will play by the unwritten rules: keep up appearances
The kind of lunatics who actually stand to make money with a higher probability than average - the “Think Different” category - usually violate all of these rules.
1) they have no track record
2) they work on esoteric nonsense
3) they look weird in public
And they’re structurally uninvestable.
Once you get this it’s all a lot easier: the job of a VC is not to invest in winners, that’s a bonus.
The job of a VC is to look respectable while losing other people’s money at the roulette wheel, and taking a margin for doing so.
I hope that helps.
They’d take 40% of the upside and live on ramen noodles.
VCs make money by raising money from LPs.
They spend this money on investments which don’t look too bad if they fail, because nearly all of them fail. Looking good while losing all of your investors money on companies which go broke is the key VC skill.
Once in a while you get a huge hit. That’s a lottery win, there is no formula for finding that hit. Broad bets helps but that’s about it. The “VC thesis” is a fundraising tool, a pitch instrument, it makes no measurable difference to success. It’s a shtick.
Sympathy, however, for the VC: car dealership sized transactions paired with the diligence burdens of real finance. It’s a terrible job.
Once you understand that VC is one of the worst jobs in finance and they don’t believe most of their own story — it’s fundraising flimflam for their LPs - it’s a lot easier to negotiate.
1) we are a sound bet not to get you in trouble if we fail (good schools and track records)
2) we will work hard on things which your LPs and their lawyers understand, leaving evidence of a good effort on failure
3) we know how the game works and will play by the unwritten rules: keep up appearances
The kind of lunatics who actually stand to make money with a higher probability than average - the “Think Different” category - usually violate all of these rules.
1) they have no track record
2) they work on esoteric nonsense
3) they look weird in public
And they’re structurally uninvestable.
Once you get this it’s all a lot easier: the job of a VC is not to invest in winners, that’s a bonus.
The job of a VC is to look respectable while losing other people’s money at the roulette wheel, and taking a margin for doing so.
I hope that helps.
Let me throw in one other tip for founders looking to get funded: do not ignore regional VCs.
Most of the stories about "how VC works" are 10, 15 years out of date. The cultural "sense of things" lags behind the reality. We found this out the hard way.
In fact, contrary to all expectations and myths, VCs (outside perhaps of the top 50 or 100 firms?) read their emails and take cold meetings.
They have to.
Every region in the world has some clone of Silicon Valley - technical universities and accelerators and incubators and funds - and most of them have very little deal flow or exposure to outside opportunities and ideas. The guy from a second tier French city part-funded by an Economic Development Agency has as much luck getting into a deal with Union Square as you do. But he still has money to invest.
So most of the VCs outside of a small, narrow set do answer emails, are glad to be approached, and are basically glad to see you if you've got anything at all which is interesting to say. It doesn't cost much to try, either. It's the price of an email.
Yes, warm intros to top tier VCs are really handy.
But that's also why the top tier VCs are so massively subject to group think and wind up collectively dropping five billion dollars on electric scooters and stuff like that.
Everybody is human.
Everybody is here to do the deal.
At the top of the chrome towers are men and women in shoes and socks trying to look good to their management. Nothing behind the curtain, no wizard of oz. Do what you can. Don't break yourself for the myths. Do intelligently bet the odds!
Tech is going to be the dominant story in human history for the rest of our lives in almost all scenarios. It's not a bad industry to be in. It's just the financial side of that industry is really heavy on the mythology and maybe that's holding us back now.
Most of the stories about "how VC works" are 10, 15 years out of date. The cultural "sense of things" lags behind the reality. We found this out the hard way.
In fact, contrary to all expectations and myths, VCs (outside perhaps of the top 50 or 100 firms?) read their emails and take cold meetings.
They have to.
Every region in the world has some clone of Silicon Valley - technical universities and accelerators and incubators and funds - and most of them have very little deal flow or exposure to outside opportunities and ideas. The guy from a second tier French city part-funded by an Economic Development Agency has as much luck getting into a deal with Union Square as you do. But he still has money to invest.
So most of the VCs outside of a small, narrow set do answer emails, are glad to be approached, and are basically glad to see you if you've got anything at all which is interesting to say. It doesn't cost much to try, either. It's the price of an email.
Yes, warm intros to top tier VCs are really handy.
But that's also why the top tier VCs are so massively subject to group think and wind up collectively dropping five billion dollars on electric scooters and stuff like that.
Everybody is human.
Everybody is here to do the deal.
At the top of the chrome towers are men and women in shoes and socks trying to look good to their management. Nothing behind the curtain, no wizard of oz. Do what you can. Don't break yourself for the myths. Do intelligently bet the odds!
Tech is going to be the dominant story in human history for the rest of our lives in almost all scenarios. It's not a bad industry to be in. It's just the financial side of that industry is really heavy on the mythology and maybe that's holding us back now.
Jason just wasn't into it and invented a random reason to say no... and brag about it—after all, his day-to-day job is constantly tweeting, bragging, and pretending about giving advice to become visible for startups and get the deal flow at the same time showing those SaaStr conference goers to keep participating and paying. If numbers in the deck were impressive for the economics work for him personally, he would be begging founder to take his money despite any date or any other imperfections in the deck. But the numbers weren't. And Jason used it as a reason to remind about himself one more time to the public.
VCs primarily provide capital, and that's their essential role. They aren't there to be your friends or mentors.
Remember, if you mix friendships with financial asks, you risk losing those friends.
So, VCs are a great resource for funding, perfectly suited for what they're designed to do!
Remember, if you mix friendships with financial asks, you risk losing those friends.
So, VCs are a great resource for funding, perfectly suited for what they're designed to do!
Every blog post about VC should have a disclaimer with the interest rate at the time of writing.
This is weird, because my understanding and experience of fundraising is that serious prospective investors never get deals from cold inbound slides; they've been introduced, and, most likely, have been talking to the company for months prior to a "formal" start to fundraising, in "no, no, we're not raising money yet, just looking for advice" mode, waiting along with 5-10 other investors for someone to preempt.
This is like a whole mythology constructed around the idea that instead of networking and preparing, you apply to VCs as you would to a college. Does that ever work? I'm seriously asking. (YC doesn't count!)
This is like a whole mythology constructed around the idea that instead of networking and preparing, you apply to VCs as you would to a college. Does that ever work? I'm seriously asking. (YC doesn't count!)
I don't know if this person realizes that he basically asks people to lie in the future and make a custom deck with custom dates and custom jokes to each angel.
It's just a part of a bigger short sighted system tho, hate the game not the player
It's just a part of a bigger short sighted system tho, hate the game not the player
In my experience founders that have raised vc regard them as bankers. Founders who haven't successfully raised (for whatever reason) and people that dream about being founders postulate on these things.
Funding is simple. Seed or before you/team are fundable, based on some signal of you've done it or can do it. Post seed, it's not you, it's the business. If in 2 months you haven't gotten interest or intros, you're business is not VC fundable, or you suck at fundraising which means you're probably not the right venture backable CEO.
Funding is simple. Seed or before you/team are fundable, based on some signal of you've done it or can do it. Post seed, it's not you, it's the business. If in 2 months you haven't gotten interest or intros, you're business is not VC fundable, or you suck at fundraising which means you're probably not the right venture backable CEO.
If this looks attractive to a founder:
""We want to be the first check in." "We add value" 'We are responsible investors". "We're in for the long run". "We back outliers" and the oh-so-famous "Let me know how I can be helpful".
then what they should look for is a skilled operational partner with a high-ish IQ and a stable personality, almost certainly with access to money that can be used for bootstrapping the business. You know, a virtually nonexistent unicorn in the circles that most people operate. Someone who is as rare as the right spouse. That combination is worth a hefty percentage.
VC money isn't optimal for the initial startup phase. Everyone will be happier, detail nitpicking will be nonexistent, and the VC involvement will be more natural at the point in which customer acquisition rate and the cost of that volume is outpacing revenue, which should be the exponential growth curve often in years 5-10. Sometimes an acquisition comes soon after.
If a founder cares about their business, then asking VC to essentially be their startup partner is asking for trouble in a lot of instances.
""We want to be the first check in." "We add value" 'We are responsible investors". "We're in for the long run". "We back outliers" and the oh-so-famous "Let me know how I can be helpful".
then what they should look for is a skilled operational partner with a high-ish IQ and a stable personality, almost certainly with access to money that can be used for bootstrapping the business. You know, a virtually nonexistent unicorn in the circles that most people operate. Someone who is as rare as the right spouse. That combination is worth a hefty percentage.
VC money isn't optimal for the initial startup phase. Everyone will be happier, detail nitpicking will be nonexistent, and the VC involvement will be more natural at the point in which customer acquisition rate and the cost of that volume is outpacing revenue, which should be the exponential growth curve often in years 5-10. Sometimes an acquisition comes soon after.
If a founder cares about their business, then asking VC to essentially be their startup partner is asking for trouble in a lot of instances.
Just an anecdote (no judgement here; VC has its place): An acquaintance of mine who works for a VC firm once said "Ultimately, VC money is a loan for people who are not bankable".
That really resonated with me as with that perspective I understood why behavior & practices are closer to what you'd experience if you personally need to take out a loan outside of the regulated banking system
That really resonated with me as with that perspective I understood why behavior & practices are closer to what you'd experience if you personally need to take out a loan outside of the regulated banking system
As the VC pointed out, the key here is the two-months-old date.
But not exactly for the reason he stated. It is not that he isn't the first, so he's got thin skin or wants only founders who thought he was the best/first VC to approach (and smart founders might not take their first shot with their most favored VC as they'd want to hone their pitch with less-critical candidate VCs).
The reasoning here is more likely that "other smart money has looked at this deal and passed", so he can leverage the efforts of these other unseen VCs who passed. This could be written off as lazy/cowardly 'herd mentality', but it is a real signal.
It's also true that by definition, if there's a unique opportunity here, he's also missing it by grouping himself with the other VCs. But that is a negative-space signal, and the question is whether it's more likely determinative than the signal that "yeah, they also passed".
But not exactly for the reason he stated. It is not that he isn't the first, so he's got thin skin or wants only founders who thought he was the best/first VC to approach (and smart founders might not take their first shot with their most favored VC as they'd want to hone their pitch with less-critical candidate VCs).
The reasoning here is more likely that "other smart money has looked at this deal and passed", so he can leverage the efforts of these other unseen VCs who passed. This could be written off as lazy/cowardly 'herd mentality', but it is a real signal.
It's also true that by definition, if there's a unique opportunity here, he's also missing it by grouping himself with the other VCs. But that is a negative-space signal, and the question is whether it's more likely determinative than the signal that "yeah, they also passed".
Don’t do business with people who think putting the wrong date matters.
> think of a VC as a sales prospect
I think the problem with VCs is that, most generally, they are not good sales prospects, they are pedantic. A good sales prospect is someone who give you feedback, even automated, so you know where you are. Even if they receive a zillion of pitch decks every day (as it is noted in the article), they should have a better process in 2024 to handle that.
I will give you an example as a customer which can be translated: I sent a simple problem to HubSpot and after many chats and email tickets they couldn't solve it! They are advertised as a top CRM, we are happy as customers but I feel there is nobody in the line. On the other hand we are customers of Bizneo for HR/PX and they are happy to make a call and help us. I would expect more feedback from VCs, they are more terrible than banks giving feedback, knowing that they are in a power position but that will not work for long time.
I think the problem with VCs is that, most generally, they are not good sales prospects, they are pedantic. A good sales prospect is someone who give you feedback, even automated, so you know where you are. Even if they receive a zillion of pitch decks every day (as it is noted in the article), they should have a better process in 2024 to handle that.
I will give you an example as a customer which can be translated: I sent a simple problem to HubSpot and after many chats and email tickets they couldn't solve it! They are advertised as a top CRM, we are happy as customers but I feel there is nobody in the line. On the other hand we are customers of Bizneo for HR/PX and they are happy to make a call and help us. I would expect more feedback from VCs, they are more terrible than banks giving feedback, knowing that they are in a power position but that will not work for long time.
As much as I dislike VCs, I didn't find the Twitter post to be that bad. I can see his point about the company being an almost, and on top of that getting warning "signs". It wasn't the fact that the date was a few months old, it was the fact they didn't care enough to update it before sending the deck. It was the fact they did the bare minimum (or less than minimum).
I never really put it in words before, but I pick up a lot of these signs. From the way someone writes, to the way they text message, to the content they consume, to how they handle social dynamics like grabbing coffee together or a lunch. It all paints a picture of a person and/or team. These things matter.
If they can't take their time to update the deck, they probably skimp out elsewhere.
I never really put it in words before, but I pick up a lot of these signs. From the way someone writes, to the way they text message, to the content they consume, to how they handle social dynamics like grabbing coffee together or a lunch. It all paints a picture of a person and/or team. These things matter.
If they can't take their time to update the deck, they probably skimp out elsewhere.
For companies that are at the point of raising venture capital, this might be what is actually needed. But it certainly seems like it filters out a lot of the more idiosyncratic, brilliant types that aren't concerned with (from their perspective, irrelevant) details, like the date on a pitch deck. It seems like a good way to get institutional operators, not rare but not-quite-conformist innovators. I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Nikola Tesla passing these VC/Ivy League kinds of tests.