Get live statistics and analysis of arian ghashghai's profile on X / Twitter

As an engineer that worked on this for years, it’s pretty awesome and surreal to see this out in the real world. As a VC, waiting for the SDK so I can invest in it

seems we're trying to turn startup founding into next-gen investment banking for new grads: > prestige logo (YC vs Goldman, JPM etc) > 90-100h weeks > up or out (2-3 years to: promo or fired in IB, next fundraise or shutdown in startups) > good exit opportunities if out

One reason I quit Meta and started a fund: Reached top of my field by my late 20s and a smooth coast to $10M (life on easy mode). imo it made sense to try something harder that can make $100M instead (fund mgmt) Meanwhile, founders quit and start something that could make $1B

Have met a handful of new founders that left Tesla working on Optimus. When asking why they left (as it would seem it’s an exciting opportunity to work on), the response is always they don’t believe the viability of humanoids fwiw

Fairly convinced wearing the AVP at home looks less absurd than wearing the new Spectacles outside

The Y-axis of this graph is *cumulative* paying customers. It’s tacitly understood in VC that founders use cumulative graphs when growth is poor, or falling off fwiw (no idea what the case at Lovable is, but founders pls stick to growth metrics, avoid cumulative)

I quit my high-salary FB job a year ago to start a fund. pros: - insane step up in network. role models become peers. - do meaningful work all the time (and I get to dictate it) - my job is to talk to interesting people - way bigger long-term upside (I'm *someone* in VC while

There is very clear alpha for founders right now who can create a viral video launching/demo'ing their startups (not easy) — Literally 3x'ing their SAFE caps instantly (with no other tangible change in business) A lot of founders also understand that this is the game rn

The fact that many VCs believed that email and browser-based agents were durable startup opportunities is some evidence that LPs allocate to the wrong people a lot of the time.

Founders: don't waste your time trying to convince a VC that is skeptical about your market. I think it's extremely unlikely to convince any allocator (VC, LP etc) to invest in a market they hadn't already decided to allocate to. Optimize for those investors that "get it"

Why I'm anti-SF (as a micro VC, in 2025): > fundraising (at absurd valuations) — for vanity > pursuit of consensus ideas > funding only for consensus ideas (back to vanity) > over-index on central casting > bad pirate-to-larp ratio Plenty of the real pirates are not in SF

The reason a lot of VCs deride “seedstrapping” is because it destroys the big VC business model, not because it can’t work

Reminder that SAFE caps are *not* valuations E.g. if you raise $20M on a $100M post cap SAFE, and later do a priced round with a $50M valuation, you sold 40% of your company not 20% VCs know this and may offer a higher SAFE cap because they think they’ll convert at a lower val

The paradox of raising venture capital: The less you need it, the easier it becomes to raise. The more you need it, the harder it becomes to raise.

If the “I want to check out that store” command actually works (i.e. it can identify the actual store and retrieve its data vs just saving coordinates) then my entire old team at Meta should be fired immediately

Fairly convinced wearing the AVP at home looks less absurd than wearing the new Spectacles outside

Why I'm anti-SF (as a micro VC, in 2025): > fundraising (at absurd valuations) — for vanity > pursuit of consensus ideas > funding only for consensus ideas (back to vanity) > over-index on central casting > bad pirate-to-larp ratio Plenty of the real pirates are not in SF

If you’re pre-seed avoid “advisors” entirely (and don’t put them in your pitch deck) Anyone accomplished enough to advise you should be able to cut you an angel check (and if they don’t but take advisory shares it’s actually a 🚩)

I quit my high-salary FB job a year ago to start a fund. pros: - insane step up in network. role models become peers. - do meaningful work all the time (and I get to dictate it) - my job is to talk to interesting people - way bigger long-term upside (I'm *someone* in VC while

The Y-axis of this graph is *cumulative* paying customers. It’s tacitly understood in VC that founders use cumulative graphs when growth is poor, or falling off fwiw (no idea what the case at Lovable is, but founders pls stick to growth metrics, avoid cumulative)

The paradox of raising venture capital: The less you need it, the easier it becomes to raise. The more you need it, the harder it becomes to raise.

The Vision Pro is actually such a great device. Real pity there's almost nothing to do on it...

Founders: don't waste your time trying to convince a VC that is skeptical about your market. I think it's extremely unlikely to convince any allocator (VC, LP etc) to invest in a market they hadn't already decided to allocate to. Optimize for those investors that "get it"

I was recently introduced to a founder in the market for a $2M raise. He took our call on a school bus, going home from high school (passed immediately, but tried to offer some advice) Idk what "culture" this is, but it's definitely gone too far

Reminder that SAFE caps are *not* valuations E.g. if you raise $20M on a $100M post cap SAFE, and later do a priced round with a $50M valuation, you sold 40% of your company not 20% VCs know this and may offer a higher SAFE cap because they think they’ll convert at a lower val

A bad trait I’ve seen in some young, first-time founders with some momentum (particularly in SF) is a strong sense of entitlement and infallibility. I think this is fueled by a lack of consequence for any unethical business behavior (someone else will still want to fund them)

As an engineer that worked on this for years, it’s pretty awesome and surreal to see this out in the real world. As a VC, waiting for the SDK so I can invest in it

Meta paused the Quest Pro Apple pausing the Vision Pro to focus on a cheaper headset. Quest 2/3 is crushing meanwhile. The demographic for VR are not “pros” and the prosumer angle as a mass-market wedge was always a pipe dream. The VR generation is <15 year olds today