Two big mistakes I see founders make:

(1) Having a “101-level” understanding of previous cycles / attempts at solving the same problem

(2) Having a “101-level” hypothesis for why NOW is the right time

Both these mistakes typically coincide with having a shallow “secret” only you know.

Both are solvable.

Operator turned investor. Work in TradFi. Exploring the future of social investing @crossroads.  🟪

HGHR.fdn ↑   ||  Yapper of onchain thingies || I have a kuusho@hghr.foundation mail now

Lacking nuanced depth; a perspectice extending about as far as the headline narrative of the day. 

Discoverable in a Bain, McKinsey or BCG [insert any other reputable fund, bank, consultant etc] white paper.

What do you mean by “101-level” if I may ask? Does that lean towards making a thesis or formulating your understanding of previous cycles from No experience or a naive view of the cycles/markets

off & onchain operations
<--->
Sharing ideas over at /workflow <--->
Problem solving is my jam😎
🎩

seemore.tv/free/fc/adam-

Excellent point. 

My comments certainly extend indirectly / adjacently to the investors funding the ideas.

That said getting funded / deploying capital is a milestone to celebrate, but shouldn't be viewed as a goal not a win (to use a sports analogy).

The win comes at exit / return of capital to LPs.

Couldn't agree more. 
What frustrates me further is that some of these founders have been able to secure adequate financing with this kind of thinking. Once again I'm reminded of what I think should qualify vs what actually does.

(1) a.k.a. poorly structured idea maze (https://cdixon.org/2013/08/04/the-idea-maze)

Building @kiwi 
Writing @ https://kanfa.macbudkowski.com/

Scanned the first two paragraphs, looks very interesting. Will digest this afternoon. Thx for sharing!

Use me to ask smart people to expand on their ideas ✨Reply @saymore to any cast to try it 👀 Visit SayMore.tv to vote on what gets written🫡