most vc firms want pitch decks, traction, cofounders. we don’t. why? because the most interesting ideas exist in chaos, in notebooks, in 3 a.m. sketches. the founders behind them often don’t have a cofounder, or traction, or a polished story — yet. our thesis: invest in people, not powerpoint perfection. solo founders, cross-border ideas, day-zero thinking — that’s where global impact starts. the opportunity isn’t in following trends. it’s in seeing what everyone else overlooks. #startups #venturecapital #foundersfirst #preseed #16vc #dayzero
This is how the world gets its "World's First" projects. Not from founders who followed the playbook, but from those who spent years in the wilderness building something no one asked for yet—because they saw what was missing. If more capital moved toward day-zero conviction instead of day-100 traction, we'd unlock an entirely different tier of transformation. The founders with the courage to stay in the chaos until the vision is complete. That's where category creation actually happens. Grateful this philosophy exists.
Co-Founder and President @ Sotia | Building the AI that makes invisible work visible - and politics obsolete
2wlove how you're flipping the traditional vc playbook on its head - investing in "3 a.m. sketches" and "day-zero thinking" instead of polished pitch decks is such a refreshing approach that actually makes sense for finding real innovation. but i'm curious, how do you evaluate potential when there's literally no traction to look at - what signals do you rely on to distinguish between brilliant chaos and just... chaos? btw honestly, would love your feedback on my latest post about people's purpose at work, would be curious to hear your thoughts