Aaron Neuenschwander

Mad respect for founders, operators and supply chain leaders in hardware. Because hardware continues to be.........Well, lets just say its a slog. I was reminded of this as I read about the bankruptcy of Rad Power Bikes. How can a brand with a passionate customer following, valued at nearly $1.6B at its peak, be auctioned off for less than $15M in value?? Real head scratcher. Then I read the details. And this quote really hit home - “We just had too much inventory liability that we couldn’t be flexible....It’s like walking around with a bowling ball around our ankles and going for a run — you can’t move.” Another classic case of a company that tried to scale a hardware business and found that the economics can go south quickly and when you have a inventory problem, it quickly becomes a cash flow nightmare - cutting off the company's air supply. A death spiral ensues that is very difficult to stop. To be clear, it wasn't just the crazy inventory build-up with sky high growth ambitions that was the problem. The business model, product differentiation, unit economics, competition, post-sales parts & service challenge all contributed to the brand's fall from grace. But the supply chain leader in me can only wonder - "What if they were smarter in how to position their inventory? What if they built a more responsive, lighter inventory model? What if they were more agile and reacted faster to demand trends?" But I also understand the unrelenting mandate for growth that investors have with brands. It's easier to conduct post-mortems than to actually steer the ship through that storm. Commercial leaders don't have the patience to understand supply chain risks which means they can gloss over them - unless someone with credibility and courage can demonstrate the dangers. So I wish all hardware builders to have the courage to build for the long term, to remain agile, to resist chasing hype cycles, and to invest cash in building meaningfully innovative products instead of blindly investing in inventory. #SupplyChain #Startups #Hardware #Agility

50

5 Comments

If your fundraising round feels slower than it should, there is a common “responsible” move that often makes it worse. Founders sense hesitation and decide to clean things up. They renegotiate SAFEs. They adjust governance. They restructure the cap table. From the founder’s perspective, this reduces risk. From the investor’s perspective, it introduces movement. And investors do not like underwriting moving targets. In the middle of a round, stability matters more than optimisation. I wrote about this in today’s HealthVC. If you are actively raising, this is the phase where sequencing matters more than effort.

11

1 Comment

I am amazed at how much time is wasted on boards discussing topics that are not strategic and core to the business. Founders are asked to answer informative questions, which can be addressed during a catch-up call with the founder, rather than at a board meeting. I’d love to learn some best practices to get the most out of board meetings. 💡 From my perspective, preparation is the absolute key. Founders spend hours pulling together materials. The least we can do as board members is read them before walking into the room. It’s an absolute pet peeve of mine to sit in board meetings where half the board hasn’t even reviewed the deck - it’s so disrespectful to founders spending hours on preparing the deck in advance. Some other good practices I’ve seen: 📊 Using a live metrics sheet – that is constantly uploaded, and we (investors) can review at our own time. This helps avoid wasting time reading through financials during the actual board meeting. 🎥 Record a short video – I love what Matthijs Welle from Mews does. He summarises the highlights and lowlights ahead of the session, so everyone arrives aligned and with up-to-date questions. 🧠 Use the time for checking on strategic discussions – the board should be the founders’ sparring partner, not a silent audience. Focus on how the board can help and support the business. Board meetings don’t have to be painful or performative. With the right prep and practice, they can be high-value and high-trust sessions that actually move your business forward. I’d love to hear what other best practices you’ve seen in your board meetings. I am tagging a few founders and investors - I would love to hear what works and what doesn’t for you on boards Chris Tottman, Kamil Mieczakowski, seth m phillips, Dan K., David Sutter, Jeff Handler, Niklas Radner, Maxime Eduardo, Côme Dartiguenave, Tom Le Bras, Harrison Rose, Avinav Nigam, Hugo Fdez.-Mardomingo, Henri Tilloy, Oriol Juncosa #VC #Startup #BoardMeeting #Founder #StartupAdvice #Leadership

43

6 Comments

“After your second purchase, please do not purchase on my store anymore.” That was one of the most surprising things Andrew Andriano, founder of Flourish, said during our conversation. It sounds crazy in a world where founders are constantly told: Build DTC. Own the customer. Protect your margins. But Andrew saw things differently. When an accelerator asked him to apply, they wanted the usual things: Business plan Financial projections Market sizing Andrew’s response: “How about I send you a video of myself… if you want me you can have me… but I’m not filling out this crap.” So he filmed a video on his iPhone explaining the business. At the time Flourish was doing a few hundred thousand in revenue. And in the video he confidently said: “Next year I’m going to do 100 million.” The accelerator accepted him anyway. Today Flourish is the #1 pancake mix brand in Canada. What really stuck with me about Andrew’s thinking was his philosophy on DTC. For Flourish, direct-to-consumer was never the destination. It was simply the front of the train but a way to drive awareness and trial. Once customers loved the product, the goal was retail distribution at scale. That really struck me because it goes against everything I had learned earlier in my career. I was CEO of LATAM for Jeffree Star Cosmetics during the period the company grew from $0 to over $100M in less than three years, largely powered by direct-to-consumer. In that world the playbook was simple: Drive traffic. Own the customer. Maximize DTC. Andrew’s approach flips that logic on its head. Great founders don’t follow playbooks. They rewrite them. Full episode with Andrew Andriano is live. Link in the comments. #entrepreneurship #startups #founderstory #ecommerce #directtoconsumer #podcast

50

8 Comments

PSA to founders raising capital. Every day I get several cold inbound emails from founders raising pre-seed or seed rounds. I almost never respond. Experienced company builders know that referrals are the highest quality channel for sourcing new hires because candidates are endorsed by somebody mutually trusted. Those data points are worth more than any interview. Conversely, every experienced operator knows that getting referred into a desired role is the best path to getting hired. Investing in early stage founders follows the exact same logic. If you are reaching out cold for capital with a generic email, you are telling me that you don't understand this basic tenet of relationship building. If we don't have a connection in common, get to know one. There's almost no way that there is more than 3 degrees of separation between us. And, if you are going to shoot your shot with a cold email, you must, at the absolute minimum, craft a message that's unique to your audience. Reaching out via drip campaigns using large investor lists is a waste of time at best. Most often, it's a big red flag.

23

3 Comments

Founders make dozens of decisions every week. Make sure you're one of the founders who go back to check how those decisions played out. It's easy to remember the wins and explain away the misses. If you don't actively work against that, you end up with a growing confidence in your own judgment that's never actually been tested. I was in a session with a founding team that had been running for years. Experienced, sharp, deep domain knowledge. When I asked how they make product and prioritization decisions, the answer was honest: "From experience. But we don't always revisit those critically." Their experience had created assumptions that felt like facts. Hardwired beliefs about customers, pricing, and priorities that hadn't been questioned since they were first formed. In another company, a founder had a real "lightbulb" moment when she realized they'd been tracking customer data for billing and sales, but never for learning. The data to evaluate their own assumptions was sitting right there. They just hadn't thought to look at it that way. This isn't really about "data vs. gut." Most founders use both, in some mix, all the time. The deeper question is whether you have any feedback loop on your own decision-making. When you made a bet on a customer segment six months ago, do you remember what you assumed? Did it turn out to be true? If not, what did that teach you? The founders who build the best companies hold themselves accountable for their own calls. They go back, check what happened, and adjust their compass. That's how intuition actually develops. Not through experience alone, but through experience that's been honestly examined. Every correction makes the next decision a little sharper. Don't let your ego or the pace of the business stop you from developing the one asset that compounds over time: your judgement.

9

1 Comment

(Free Artifact) Most founders know theyre stuck, the problem is they dont know if they're ready to do anything about it. - You can see the right path forward - You can know what needs to happen - But if you havent done the internal work you will stall - You'll take meetings that go nowhere - You'll say youre open to selling but reject every offer - You'll claim youre ready to cut but keep finding reasons to delay Why its hard: Your identity is wrapped up in the company, you're anchored to a valuation that doesnt exist anymore and you're waiting for investors to give you permission they will never give. Youre still spinning instead of seeing things clearly and you can pick a path but you can't commit to one. These arent strategy problems, they're readiness problems and no decision will help until you address them. I put together a internal DD checklist tool for "stuck" founders to walkthrough: - 25 questions across five dimensions - Takes 10 minutes - Gives you a score that tells you one of three things: 1. You are ready. Go pick your path. 2. You are partially ready. Specific areas are blocking you. 3. You are not ready. Do the internal work first. Each section has practical guidance on what to do if you scored low. Not therapy. Not inspiration. Just practical suggestions to work on and how. DM me if you wan't to discuss your findings and walk through the HOW (I am always open to supporting). #founders #startups #venturecapital #earlystage #zombiestartups

3

"Speed is the only moat" Our friends at Genspark just announced they crossed $100M in ARR in just 9 months. Only a few months ago I interviewed COO Wen S. when they had just crossed $50M in ARR. Founders love to talk about product, brand, community. All of that matters... a little bit. But in today's fast evolving AI native world, none of it saves you if someone ships faster than you for long enough. Everyone has access to the same foundation models. The winner is who can turn them into useful shipped features and revenue the fastest. Swipe this carousel and ask yourself one question as a founder. Are you moving faster than the rate of innovation in your own market? If not, give this episode a listen for the real tactics you can apply today that take your company into hypergrowth mode.

22

Agritech startup Halter reported as raising a USD2B round led by Peter Thiel's Founder's Fund. An important detail is that Halter is in their 13th year in operations. Investors in startups can make enormous returns on investment, but often it takes a decade or more to cash out. Patience is rewarded. Accelerating Asia Ventures invests in numerous agritech startups whose revenue is growing at a rapid pace. We expect to see great ROI from investments like iFarmer, WeGro Global, EASYRICE Digital Technology, AgriCore, RootsAg, MAYANI. If you're an investor and looking for compelling long term investments, invest alongside us: https://lnkd.in/ghRcz8ND Article: https://lnkd.in/gqnFdpZv

54

2 Comments

🚨NEW EPISODE: Recorded live at FUTURE TITANS 2026 - Jeff Perry of Carta sat down with the iconic Seth Levine, co-founder of Foundry. Seth has been in venture for 25 years, built Foundry from scratch as an emerging manager himself, and has backed about 50 emerging manager funds through his fund of funds. He has genuinely seen every side of this table. They went deep on building Foundry, why VCs are in the influence business, not the decision business, and why the concentration problem in venture is not only bad for LPs, but also for the innovation ecosystem overall. And why Seth's new book, Capital Evolution, is so important for the future of America. 🎧 Links to listen... Apple: https://lnkd.in/ehQUQ2EM Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eU4FExpg

19

1 Comment

Good founders view fundraising as a funnel, like any other sales effort. ↔ What many don’t realize is that investors have funnels too. 💰 Because while founders need investment to fund their company, investors need to put money to work. They both need each other. ‣ They’re both looking to identify potential matches ‣ They both take hundreds of meetings hoping to find the right one. ‣ Multiple meetings down the funnel serve to gain more information and weed out those that aren’t going to work. ‣ And both have a very limited of “yes slots” available. Founders only need a few investors to put together a round. And most investors can only make a few bets a year. 🎯 The takeaway: Founders would benefit by viewing fundraising not as pitching but as matching between two parties with their own needs, but who both need each other. ******************** ✉️ For more ideas like this, hit the link in my bio to subscribe to my newsletter ✍️ You'll also get my free "29-Second-Pitch Playbook" 📺 And check out the fun YouTube channel: @humbleconvictionstartups

7

2 Comments

Positioning is so important when it comes to fundraising. I often run into mispositioning on both sides of the spectrum: "We are a moving company" -> actually a teleportation technology. "We are a teleportation company" -> actually a bunch of movers. Both are not very useful when it comes to fundraising.

19

5 Comments

40%+ of Seed and Series A funding in 2026 is flowing into $100M+ rounds, as Zachary DeWitt recently highlighted. The market is making a big bet on mega rounds. I'm taking the under on their performance--I'd bet heavily on an index of regular-sized seeds vs the megas.   Here's what I think is happening. Ambitious founders surrounded by AI hype see Anthropic's and OpenAI's returns and think they need to do something similar. In their minds, this means raising huge rounds to fund NBA-level salaries for the most legible AI talent at Meta, Google, other AI labs, etc.   The problem is that this approach is fundamentally derivative. This is not how Anthropic, OpenAI, or any of the other most disruptive AI companies started. Disruption requires doing something that experts dismiss. If a startup requires raising mountains of cash to hire legions of expensive experts, it might have some degree of success, but it will not be disruptive.   Look, this is tricky. Anthropic raised giant early rounds and seems very mission-oriented, so I don't want to paint with too broad a brush here. That said, Anthropic's $124m Series A in 2021 was actually very unconventional in many respects, even in the context of a frothy 2021.   Besides being derivative (and thus not disruptive), this approach also selects for mercenary over missionary culture. And all things being equal, companies with missionary culture outperform. Because if you really care about solving a problem, you're willing to make sacrifices and do non-consensus things—not just copy what worked for the last wave.   So, why does this pattern persist despite these concerns?   The most economically dominant point is that the investors doing the big rounds make a lot of money on management fees. When partners at funds enjoy massive compensation from management fees, investment performance becomes a "nice-to-have."   To be fair, many of these partners are post-economic and are arguably more interested in hiring huge teams and building "platforms." The fees justified by mega rounds align nicely with the expense structure of empire-building. On the other hand, the smaller rounds are done by firms where the principals are making much less on management fees and have much more incentive to see a return on the capital via carry.   The mega firms would surely retort that many of the smaller rounds are done by firms that are here today, gone tomorrow. And there's truth to that. Mega firms with billions of assets are inherently more stable. At the same time, those firms are fundamentally targeting much lower returns. It's trade-offs all the way down.   So when I look at that 40%+ number, I see capital flowing into a pattern that selects for derivative thinking and mercenary culture, with an underlying incentive structure that ensures it keeps happening.   And that's why I'm taking the under on the performance of that 40%.

30

7 Comments

What is a "buyer-builder"? It's the founder archetype we back at Daring Ventures. Buyer-builders have lived experience and domain expertise on the industries they are building in. They've felt the friction and know which problems to address and who to build for. They don't need to do customer discovery because they've experienced it first-hand. Outsiders spend years and millions figuring out what buyer-builders already know. We started The Builders Series to profile the ones doing it right. This edition: Ara Mahdessian and Vahe Kuzoyan of ServiceTitan. Ara and Vahe did not need to be told that contractors were underserved. They grew up watching it. Their fathers, competent skilled operators, losing hours every week to paper invoices, missed calls, and work that software should have absorbed years earlier. Full piece on Forward This 👇

70

10 Comments

I’m thrilled to officially announce our $3M seed investment in Propel People, a company we built inside the 1848 Ventures studio to tackle one of the biggest challenges facing the #construction industry today: the skilled #labor shortage. For small and medium-sized contractors, hiring isn't just a challenge. It's the number one threat to their growth, profitability, and safety. With 94% of contractors struggling to find qualified workers, it’s clear that traditional hiring methods aren't built for the trades. That’s why we built Propel People. It’s a mobile-first, AI-powered hiring platform designed for how construction actually works: in the field. By leveraging smart candidate ranking, instant #SMS-based screening, and a fully #bilingual interface, Propel helps contractors build great crews faster and more efficiently. I’m also thrilled to formally announce that industry veteran Dexter Bachelder is at the helm as CEO. Having worked with Dexter and the team over the last few months, we've already seen the impact of his leadership. His 25 years of experience scaling construction tech companies will be instrumental as Propel People enters this initial stage of growth. This investment reinforces our core thesis at 1848 Ventures: building AI-native companies that solve fundamental pain points for the #SMBs that form the backbone of our economy. A huge congratulations to Dexter and the entire Propel People team on this milestone. We are incredibly proud to partner with you to support the people who build our world. Read the full announcement below. #constructiontech #venturecapital #seedfunding #ai #skilledtrades #smb

144

14 Comments

If you look at the early-stage fundraising funnel, conversion rates are tightening, but the companies that do raise are doing so at higher valuations and with larger checks. The market seems to be betting on fewer winners, but those winners will be bigger. I’m not convinced. I do believe the very biggest winners will be larger than ever as AI expands the reach of technology, largely by replacing labor. But I don’t believe there will be fewer winners overall. Most B2B solutions are moving toward verticalized, specialized use cases that deliver superior value compared to generalized horizontal platforms. That shift should create more winners. While these vertical players may not reach the scale of the horizontal mega-winners, they can still generate the kind of multibillion-dollar outcomes that venture is built to fund.

57

9 Comments

"Hey Jeff, in your opinion, what is the better investment when looking at startup studios, investing at the hold co level or at the port co level? Both! If you own at the hold co level you may own less but you're grandfathered into everything that it's going to do for ever, so it's a long term buy and hold play. To boost returns you then invest in the port cos that you feel have the potential to take off. The same also applies to GP stakes. Invest in the fund management firm to get your cut of ALL of the fund fees and carry and then you can invest directly into the funds that fit your investment thesis, plus you'll most likely not have to pay any fees or carry since you also own in the GP stakes entity.

2