A "no psychedelics" clause in your term sheet. That's the direction things are heading. On last week's All-In podcast, Bryan Johnson shared that investors are now including "no psychedelics" clauses in deal documents. One investor told him directly that if they invest in a founder, that founder is not allowed to use psychedelics for the duration of the company. It's written into the agreement. Two weeks ago, Marc Andreessen went on David Senra's podcast and proudly declared he practices "zero" introspection. Then he doubled down on X for days, calling it a combination of "neuroticism, narcissism, and thumbsucking." Paul Graham pushed back, the internet had a field day, and Andreessen doubled down on his idiocy. The pattern is clear. Silicon Valley's investor class is building a narrative that introspection is dangerous, psychedelics are a liability, and the best founders are the ones who never slow down long enough to question why they're building what they're building. This is a concerning development for the future of innovation. Here's what actually happens when a founder works with psychedelics with real intention, proper preparation, and experienced guidance. They don't "get oneshotted." They get clarity, starting to see which parts of their work are driven by ego and which by genuine purpose. They often come back more committed to their companies, not less, because they've reconnected with the reason they started building in the first place. And the founders who leave? Many of them probably should have left. They were building something that wasn't aligned with who they actually are. Investors treating that as a risk to manage rather than a signal to pay attention to tells you everything about where priorities sit. We are entering the age of AI, where the most valuable companies will not be the ones that simply optimize for speed and scale. They'll be the ones who create things that actually matter to the humans using them. That requires depth, a willingness to ask hard questions about what you're building and whom it serves. It requires introspection. The VCs who get this, who support their founders in exploring psychedelics with intention and responsibility, will end up backing companies that leave a much more positive mark on the world. Not because psychedelics are magic, but because founders who understand themselves build with a deeper sense of devotion to the craft. They stay aligned with all stakeholders, not just the ones writing checks. Marcus Aurelius ruled one of the largest empires in history while maintaining a rigorous practice of self-examination. The Meditations is literally a book of introspection. And he managed to hold it all together. The question isn't whether psychedelics make founders less effective. The question is what kind of companies do we actually want built in the most transformative technological era in human history? And do we really want investors, afraid of depth, to be the ones deciding?
This way of operating is an outdated OS and with the rise of AI only “RI” (real intelligence/self awareness) had the capacity to balance the impact and keep humanity sovereign. You’re on the way out Marc. Humans are about to outsource information and insource intelligence at scale. Obsoletion of this mindset like the internet sunset paper phonebooks in 1996.
Brother…I love your intention here, I really do. But anybody thinking psychedelics are being practiced with “intention and responsibility” is delusional. People are doing it because it’s fun. Maybe 1 in a 1000 is - occasionally - doing “deep introspection”. Maybe. Reality is…anyone going to a shaman they don’t know for a weekend of puking up ayahusaca in a tent is not taking these incredibly powerful drugs seriously. Don’t believe me…go read the psych subreddits…they’re awash in the dazed and confused…and in a whole lot of sadness. I fully support adults making their own choices. It’s none of my business what recreational pharmaceuticals other adults take. But it’s Marc’s money…he gets to set his rules…🤷♂️
Interesting that you don't see "no meditation" or "no therapy" clauses, I think the specificity here says something. The fact that they're putting it in writing suggests they know psychedelics do something powerful. Maybe they're just worried that "powerful" means the founder might gain clarity that doesn't serve the VC's interests: realizing they don't want to pursue growth-at-all-costs, or questioning whether the company is actually worth building.
That's like a 'no sports' clause because someone had a wingsuit accident. Also it doesn't count in the personal development some go through in order to become great entrepreneurs. They have latent potential - it only unfolds from embarking on the founder's journey and it needs additional facilitation which can be provided by such 'little helpers'. If you only fund the naturally ready ones, innovation capacity shrinks significantly.
How is one to know which way is "forward"?
It’s an absolutely wild take and maybe says something about the decline of Silicon Valley (though we’ve heard this before) - a big reason Silicon Valley become a beacon for innovation traces roots to the counter-cultural movement in the 60s/70s and psychedelic use therein.
Laaawd… maybe if they all took a little introspective trip together, we wouldn’t be dealing with this hollow loneliness pandemic mess. 😁 Doubling down: this is a values-first, not technology-first revolution.
Thanks for sharing this Paul, I think you're asking the right question: "what kind of companies do we actually want built in the most transformative technological era in human history?" ** It would seem to me that a healthy dose of introspection will be needed to do this.
The case for investors is shrinking, with the exception of AI infrastructure. The only need for investors is if you need to scale at insane speed and have a business model that is realistically billions of dollars in size - and could face threats quickly from established players. Which is VERY FEW companies. You are always better off intelligently bootstrapping, getting to revenue as fast as you can, and scaling organically. As someone who has been advising founders for 20+ years, this is the number one thing I always tell them. Once you get on the VC train, the only way off is massive success (unicorn), or failure (the VAST majority). Now with AI, you can build and scale faster than ever. I know VCs that are telling me they honestly don't know where to put their money anymore for this very reason. (sidenote: I didn't realize Andreesen was such a conehead 🤣)