Fund Thesis

We think about venture the same way we think about any market: the first movers who get the attention aren't usually the ones who capture the value.

Whoever solves the hardest, most visible problem first gets the headlines. But the lasting businesses tend to get built by whoever figures out how to make that breakthrough actually usable, inside real organizations with real constraints.

That gap between what's technically possible and what's actually adopted is where we spend our time.

AI is not the investment thesis. Disruption is.

AI just happens to be the force tearing that gap wide open right now, across nearly every industry at once. And it's forcing software to change what it even does.

For a long time, software assisted. It gave people better information, faster tools, cleaner interfaces, but a person still owned the work. That's shifting.

The companies we're most interested in are building software that operates, not software that assists: it takes on the actual work product, makes decisions, and produces outcomes an organization can measure. That's a much bigger opportunity, and a much bigger trust to earn.

Earning it takes more than a good model. Model performance is converging fast, and most founders we meet already know that.

What's harder to build, and what we spend most of our time thinking about, is whether a company can become load-bearing inside an organization:

• whether it's embedded deeply enough that customers rely on it to operate rather than just use it,

  
  

• whether it earns more autonomy over time instead of being handed it all at once, and

  
  

• whether the cost of not adopting it eventually outweighs the friction of switching to it.

Those advantages compound slowly and can't be manufactured with a better demo.

That leads to two different kinds of bets, and we make both.

1. Some founders are building something new that simply replaces what existed before, doing the job better, faster, and cheaper in a way that wasn't possible until now.

   
   

2. Others are building alongside existing players, not as a vendor selling a tool, but closer to a partner with real stake in the outcome, embedded deep enough in the work that they become impossible to separate from it.

Different paths, same underlying question: does this company actually do the work, or does it just make the work easier to do.

On the founder side, we look for the same pairing every time: people who understand a problem at a level most outsiders never reach, and who move with a kind of relentlessness that turns that understanding into something real, fast.

• Knowing the problem without the execution stalls out.

  
  

• Execution without real understanding builds something fragile.

We're looking for both, together, in the same person or team.