Ali Tamaseb is a partner at Data Collective Venture Capital (DCVC), a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that backs entrepreneurs using deep tech. He shares insightful findings of his 4-year long research on billion-dollar startups and their founders (documented in his new book: Super Founders). Ali gives data points that deconstruct myths about the startup ecosystem in the U.S., and show what is/isn’t significant as success factors for founders and venture capital investors.
Ali Tamaseb is a partner at Data Collective Venture Capital (DCVC), a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that backs entrepreneurs using deep tech. He shares insightful findings of his 4-year long research on billion-dollar startups and their founders (documented in his new book: Super Founders). Ali gives data points that deconstruct myths about the startup ecosystem in the U.S., and show what is/isn’t significant as success factors for founders and venture capital investors.
Ali Tamaseb: [00:00:00] A lot of these companies fail because one, they can't attract the right talent to, they can't attract the right money. And oftentimes it's the other way around. You can attract the right money and you can't attract the right talent.
Gopi Rangan: You are listening to the Sure shot entrepreneur. A podcast for founders with ambitious ideas, venture capital investors and other early believers tell you relatable, insightful, and authentic stories to help you realize your vision. Welcome to the sure shot entrepreneur today's guest is Ali Tommaso. He's a partner at data collective venture capital, a Silicon valley based venture capitalists.
He is also the author of the newly published book, super founders. He has done enormous amount of research on [00:01:00] data about founders. What makes certain founders more successful than the others? We're going to geek out and talk about his research as well. Ali, welcome to the short shot.
Ali Tamaseb: Gopi. I'm glad to be here.
Gopi Rangan: Tell us about yourself, starting with, how did you become a venture capital investor?
Ali Tamaseb: Sure. I was a founder before I started companies before getting into this. The way I broke into venture was by writing. Actually I was writing a number of articles at a time when a medium and blog posts about my thoughts on.
Different industries, including kind of healthcare, AI and blockchain infrastructure at that time. And that's how I found myself into venture capital. Actually through Twitter, some of these articles got viral and a number of people kind of came and asked and got introduced. And I started working at DCVC.
Gopi Rangan: This is great, like using your writing skills and your research skills very effectively to enter a new [00:02:00] sector and land into a very competitive industry and venture capital. That's fantastic. That's really nice to hear. Tell me about the book. What is the book about the super founder?
Ali Tamaseb: So the beginning, the origin of this project goes back to four years ago.
I keep hearing from people and people in this startup ecosystem and the startup ecosystem is very large. Now a lot of people are around this from lawyers and mentors and advisors and accelerators, incubators to venture capital founders and the other people around it. And the media companies. Yeah. There seems to be a lot of stereotypes, a lot of archetypes about what makes for a successful company, even myself.
I remember when I was a founder, a lot of my perception about where successful founders come from was from media and the famous, the stories, the face. The story kind of ingrained in my mind that if you want to be successful, you need to drop out on your junior year of college. The Microsoft story, the apple story, these kind of made [00:03:00] me think, okay, each startup needs exactly two founders, one technical genius, and one business visionary.
You need the jobs and you need the Wazniak in the perfect startup. When I was a venture cap. I realized that does not seem to be the case for a lot of startups that I see that end up becoming successful. And it's my job to sort through hundreds of startups per year. And you make an investment in it. To be more effectively do my job.
I thought, okay. Instead of going to two other people and ask them, Hey, what do you think makes for a successful company? Why don't I do this scientifically? And there's been a lot of talk about and using data in venture capital, but yeah. That many people actually do it because the data honestly doesn't exist.
There is PitchBook or Crunchbase. There's a couple of platforms which have a lot of data on funding and the fundraising of a lot of startups and maybe name of the founders and the name of investors, but not that many people have collected data about what was the competitive landscape when this company [00:04:00] was started back in 2007, what was the market dynamics?
When this company was started back in 2011, What was the career path of these founders when they started this company, what was their previous entrepreneurial experiences and even fundraising? How long did it take for them to raise funding or how frequently they did the funding and the typos? What was the tier of the investments that they receive?
And then what was the impact of that? It's not an easy data to collect. So it took me literally four years. A lot of my weekends, a lot of my evenings to collect this data. This is 30,000 data points. I manually collected one by 1 65 factors per startup, and, uh, collected this on every billion dollar company that's been started in the past 14 years.
I collected the same data on a randomly selected group of companies that raised venture capital funding. They raised a minimum of $3 million, but did not become a unicorn. So most of them kind of failed or [00:05:00] zombied. So I collected the same data as well on a randomly selected group of companies that raised a minimum of $3 million in venture capital funding, but did not go on to become a unicorns so I can compare and contrast.
These companies across 65 different areas. To understand how, what are they actually different? Like from day one, this is not about what was their gross metric on year tree. This is about day one. What was actually different about your teams? What was different about their markets? What was different about their competetive landscape?
I collected the same data set on a randomly selected group of startups. Founded it during the same time period that raised a minimum of $3 million in funding, but did not become unicorns. So I was able to compare these companies across these 65 elements. What was really different between them on Dave, one like fundamentally different between them rather than how was their growth metric different on year one or year five.[00:06:00]
So that's kind of what I did. I published a medium article on this end of 2018, which was my data on the unicorns that became a viral content of viral blog posts in the kind of venture capital and technology entrepreneurship world. And that gave me this idea of turning that into a book, kind of collecting this data on the non unicorns.
And also I started interviewing a number of these founders and investors. So on the founders side, I interviewed founders of zoom. Instacart gets hub, CloudFlare, nest, Palentier, PayPal affirm, and a number of others and an investor side, uh, interviewed Alfred Lin of Sequoia capsule, key stripped boy of founders fund a lot Gill, a great Angelo investor and Peter teal.
And some of these data sets and some of these interviews are. Representative of the data and some of them are outliers to the data. And my goal with the book is to show all sides of this and data shows a lot of things, but there's [00:07:00] always outliers and there's always going against the odds. And a lot of times these proxy rules don't make much sense when you're investing in company.
Gopi Rangan: This is extensive research. What have you found? What are some highlights based on your research?
Ali Tamaseb: For sure. The data shows different things to different categories of things. Number one, which is the more counterintuitive stuff is what are some things that don't matter? And it turns out a lot of things that these people in the ecosystem, a lot of these are stereotypes that exist.
Or is statistically insignificant, even if not the other way around, at least they are disproven by data and they're statistically insignificant and they're playing kind of. When I compare companies that raised venture capital funding and companies that became unicorn. So you're kind of taking a little bit of the bias of VCs or what gets funded out of the question and then see who becomes successful and who doesn't.
That was the reason that I selected the [00:08:00] baseline group. So the things that don't matter, maybe I can give a couple of exams. Well, let's start. The first one is being a solo founder. So there's a lot of talk and it's very historical about if you're starting a company solo, you're going to fail or you're less likely to succeed.
And a lot of investors may have some bias against this, or a lot of accelerator programs. The common sense here is if you can't persuade one other person to join you, why should I give you my. And when I look at the data, it's says it basically shows this is solo founders are not less or more likely to begin billion dollar companies.
It's the same distribution, the same percentage of people in the billion dollar group versus solo founders. And the same percentage of people into group that were funded were solo founders. And this is true for any number of co-founders for co-founders PIF. Three, co-founders two, co-founders basically two co-founders is the most common, but it doesn't mean it is [00:09:00] better than any other case.
So if you're a solo founder and that's all you need and you have all it takes, you don't have to kind of force yourself into finding someone else who you may not relationship may not work with, or you don't have trust. And on the other side, I know some entrepreneurs that say, oh, the best case is two founders.
And after that, we are going to call everybody and employ. And Maya's Weiss is being a cool, cool founder is a title. So if you have, I found two great people that you can attract to your team, but they will only come on. If they're called a co-founder, just give them the co-founder title. Doesn't matter, make sure your decision-making stays nimble and there's a CEO in place, but it doesn't really matter.
Who's called a co-founder or not. It doesn't affect a success. So that's one. The other myth that exists is that entrepreneurs that successful entrepreneurs are missionaries that they're solving a personal problem. It's been their lifetime problem. It's it's been their lifetime mission to solve this. [00:10:00] And the reason this myth exists is partly on media.
And partly when people interview it's, it's these stories, it's these narratives that become famous and it sees narratives that make it to interviews and podcasts and everything else. And you may see even some, some entrepreneurs kind of try to push it, try to kind of make it link, but what their startup is and how it links with, with an event in their life or how it links with the past and background.
But when I look into. The majority of founders of billion dollar companies did not, we're not solving a personal problem in a lot of these cases, these are opportunity driven. Now it doesn't mean they were not passionate about it. They loved what they were working on. They loved the customer type they were serving, and they were super excited about what they were doing.
And that's how. Decades or years on the company. But in a lot of these cases, it was a top-down approach. They wanted to start a company with a couple of friends or a couple people. They knew they had identified a trend or a customer tie, [00:11:00] and they looked for a problem to solve. And it's absolutely fine going to market and trying to look for a problem to solve.
A lot of investors are expecting founders to know everything about it and to have had a life mission. But, and that's why I know you don't hear it from a lot of entrepreneurs that they spent a year jumping from one idea to another one industry to another, until they came up with the right idea that became the billion dollar company.
They don't talk about that parts in their stories. And that's why this narrative bias exists.
Gopi Rangan: We talked about what doesn't matter. Number of founders doesn't matter. And a few other things like that, what matters? What are some indicators that show that there's a chance of success? If you have that? I see I've, I've read your article in 2007 18.
It was very interesting way of presenting those facts and item members at distinctly that if your name was John, you had a better chance of success.
Ali Tamaseb: Right. You, you didn't have a better chance of success. It was more common, right? So John was the most common [00:12:00] name among the founders of billion dollar companies.
But obviously when you look at the baseline group, that's probably the, the prevalence of the name, John among founders or people in this country. So that doesn't mean anything that you're more likely to start it. So back to the things that matter the most, the key part of this research is actually there's no one way to become successful.
There's always two ways. There are a lot of people who have been former founders that are a lot of people. Who've been employees. There is an equal number of people who went to a top 10 school. As the number of people who went to a school that was not ranking the top 100, the goal that I'm pushing with this book that is that let's forget this proxy rules.
The other thing is MBAs. Some people say they help. Some people say you're crazy. If you spend that much money on an MBA, you should start a company. Things like that. The data shows a lot of these proxy rules. They have statistics, the insignificant effect on your likelihood of success. One of the main things that I observed.
In the data though, is when [00:13:00] you have a history of having created value of having built something, sold something, even if it's a small, this is the big thing that second time founder or a repeat successful entrepreneur, they have an easy time raising money. And that's true, but I mean, a lot of VCs are talking about that.
They're thinking, Hey, if you have sold a company before for $400 million, then you have super easy time raising money. A lot of people are not thinking about, Hey, if you start a company before, and it was an actual hire, you're actually more likely to succeed the next time. If you build something small and you sold some stuff online, You're more likely to start a unicorn and a lot of investors, or a lot of people may go and choose somebody who has had a big name at Facebook or Stripe, or another big company has had a leadership role and invest in debt and not invest in a founder who doesn't have this kind of pedigree or the perfect resume, but as actually sold the stuff [00:14:00] has actually built stuff and created value.
So the biggest signal that I observed here, which there seems to be a big difference between the two. The two groups that I have in my study is people who have built something and sold something before for, for some amount. And that amount changes over time. It's $10 million. Like for a us company, it might be a million dollars for a company in India might be no a hundred thousand dollars if you did something in the nineties.
So that absolute number doesn't matter. But it's what matters is one of the key examples I talk about here is the founder of. The meditation app and Alex, the founder, basically he had built this website. It was called the 1 million pixel of website. There was 1 million pixels and he was selling each pixel for $1 to advertisers for like other websites to put their logo and a hyperlink to their website.
And just by this fact that this was an interesting concept, a lot of people would come to that website to see what it is about. It created big traffic. It became ranked in the top 100 or a [00:15:00] hundred. 30 and Alexa rankings. And that's how we generated a million dollars because then every website wanted to put a, pay a dollar to be on that website and simply created a million dollars of revenue from that.
And that's the biggest kind of signals that I'm looking at. And those are the biggest predictors of success. People kind of hacked around a way to make money from the internet. It doesn't necessarily need to be internet was like created some value or created a company. It doesn't even need to be company created a side project.
That made money and made value for other people, or it was an actual hire or tech acquisition or a small acquisition. That was one of the main things that I found in it.
Gopi Rangan: So it looks like the taste of entrepreneurship, the tastes of the experience of building something that creates value that is valuable for an entrepreneur, whether it was wildly successful or whether it was little bit successful.
The quantum of value created doesn't really matter as much. The fact that they did create something [00:16:00] either to side hustle or previous company that was acquired that matters. So that's a very interesting way to look at it because. Intuitively, we would believe that first time founders, you don't have a lot of experience.
So probably there's a chance of failure, but we also have counter examples of that with bill gates and Larry Page and Sergei Brin at Google, and many others who have all proven that first-time founders are successful, but it looks like your data very clearly shows that some experience in the past when they come back and raise, build the next business, they are much more likely to be success.
Ali Tamaseb: Yes, that is correct. A lot of first time entrepreneurs that you look at, if you go into their past, you can actually find a lot of people we think are first time entrepreneurs, you go back and see, they've kind of created these values. Zuckerberg of Facebook. He'd created three different projects. Before Facebook.
And one of them, Microsoft had offered to acquire for about a million dollars back in the day. And we don't, we don't necessarily hear a lot about these. Even [00:17:00] bill gates had created this thing that he sold to the municipalities. It was like a traffic management software. So even these people who we think are first time, entrepreneurs are not necessarily first-time entrepreneurs.
They have. Built these projects before that created value. Same thing for Airbnb founders. We think of the first-time entrepreneurs, but they hacked a bunch of projects before coming across the idea of Airbnb. It's famous thing that Airbnb wasn't their main thing. They kind of created it as a, as a site thing until they came up with their main idea and that's, they were hacking on different, a couple of different ideas.
You see this pattern among a lot of these successful founders, Coinbase the founder before that has created like a tutoring company, founder of Spotify. A lot of these founders who we think as first-time founders, if you go back, they have had something like what I'm describing here.
Gopi Rangan: So it doesn't matter if they created something in the same sector, as long as they have experimented in the past.
Ali Tamaseb: Actually, one of the things that the data showed and this kind of falls into the first category to some extent is that [00:18:00] domain expertise does not matter. So within tech startups, only 30% of founders of unicorn. But in consumer tech, startups, only 30% had domain expertise, even within enterprise. Like we think in enterprise, You need to have come from that industry.
Only 40% of unicorns in the enterprise, kind of SAS enterprise B2B space had domain expertise. It's only in biotech and healthcare. That about 80% of founders of unicorns did have domain expertise. And it doesn't mean that they didn't have work experience on average. They had actually 11 years of work experience and half of them had created their own companies before the other half had worked in companies like Google and McKinsey and Facebook and yeah.
Companies before that, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't the same industry. And some people say not having domain expertise is a good thing. The data doesn't show any advantage or disadvantage for having or not having domain expertise, except for in healthcare and bias. [00:19:00]
Gopi Rangan: Does your research show anything about the early stages of the business?
Does it help if at all entrepreneur chooses to go to an accelerator? Our certain types of accelerators, uh, does it matter if there are certain types of angel investors that invest early on, does it help to have certain types of venture capital investors? Believe in the business at the seed stage pre-seed stage or series a stages.
Is that a difference in who supports these companies, especially at the early stages?
Ali Tamaseb: Absolutely. There is absolutely. There is a little bit of a cautionary point though. I will say before talking about the stats here, which is, we're not talking about reverse correlation. Which means the fact that such and such accelerator program selected this company, or the fact that such-and-such venture capital firm collected this company is by its own assigned that there was, there was a, there, there, there was something good about this company at the time.
And it was not an obvious opportunity, [00:20:00] but it was a better than that. People or better than other companies opportunity. So we can't say because this firm invested this company became a billion dollar company. We can look back and say among billion dollar companies, this percentage were invested by tier one venture capital firms.
So it's the stats. There are staggering among billion dollar companies, 60% had a seed or series a round from a tier one venture capital firm. That's staggering. There's only a handful of venture capital firms. I considered to be tier one in this study. And only 40% of billion dollar companies were not funded by DS tier one venture capital firms, which shows the very strong network effects that the business of venture capital has affirmed that has a brand and has been investing for a long while.
And they have a number of good companies in their portfolio. The great founders would go to them and if it's a good business to create business, those investors would invest and new entrance VCs would not be able to compete. So, this is a very strong flywheel and the day will become [00:21:00] successful and they would become added to the kind of successful portfolio list and that flywheel would, would keep rotating on and off.
But it doesn't mean that new entrant VCs can't become successful or new entrance angel investors can't become successful. It's on these kind of 40% non-obvious cases that a lot of new venture firms made their name and found opportunities that other investors that invest a lot of companies, uh, like Peloton struggled for fundraising for round after round after round, before like in their series D.
The caught the attention of the tier one venture capital firm. And that's, that's 40% of the cases, but in the majority, in 60% of the cases, these are kind of obvious deals from, from day one from the seasons.
Gopi Rangan: Is there any indication to show that there are certain things that these tier one VCs do that help the startup and others are the 40% of them that they didn't go to tier one VCs and were successful and they got similar types of benefits.
Is there something to show that, or are we going too far into [00:22:00] the research that you may not have that.
Ali Tamaseb: Yeah, I do not have the data. I don't even know how someone would scientifically define that in a world where we can't actually have a control group. Like that's a case where you may say, let's start, let's go into the Andreessen's portfolio of investments and not give half of them the services and see what happens.
That's a warfare scientific. We can't actually do that experiment to understand what's happening here. But a big part is brand. When you have a brand of a tier one brand name investors. On your cap table that helps you bring great employees on board, having great employees on board, which become VPs and SVPs and chief levels, then they can help bring the next tier of employees and the success of a company at the end of the day.
That's my personal belief relies on the quality of the employees. Always that a company can attract junior or senior VP level employees that they can attract. And the ability to raise funding. If you can raise funding and you have amazing people, like in all levels, like if you're a [00:23:00] 500 people company and you can fill all 500 people that amazing talent and you have good money to keep them working, they will figure it out.
This company would go on to become successful. A lot of these companies fail because one, they can't attract the right talent and two, they can't attract the right money. And oftentimes it's the other way around. You can attract the right money. Hence you can't attract the right time. And your other question about incubators and accelerator programs.
One very counterintuitive thing that the data shows is 85% of billion dollar companies did not go through any incubator or accelerated approval. That's a staggering number. Given a lot of investors are only looking into these kinds of programs for their investments. A lot of founders are looking into them and that's become kind of everything in the, in the very early stage of companies who want to break it out.
But it seems like in the very main majority of these companies, 85%, they did not go through any incubator or accelerator. [00:24:00] Now there's some details around it. It doesn't mean that if you fail to get into certain Maxar to program, you're, you're more likely to become a unicorn. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're less likely to come unicorn.
It just shows a lot of these founders of billion dollar companies. A lot of them may have had previous success. A lot of them knew about what they were doing. Didn't know about accelerators or maybe didn't feel they need, it just went on. They raised venture money and they started a company though. They may have not even applied for these kind of programs and they became successful.
But a point of the data is that's not everything that is still, it's still a minority of these billion dollar company. Are and have gone through these accelerator incubator programs now, because my baseline group is companies that have raised the minimum of $2 million of funding. That's normally a next step after incubators and accelerator programs.
Which wouldn't be fair to say. Did companies who went through such and such accelerator program, they were more or less likely [00:25:00] statistically, they would be less likely compared to the, even the baseline group, because if you have raised $3 million of funding, that may mean that you went into a program, exerts a program, and you were able to raise a seed rounding afterwards.
That's not a fair comparison to say if they were more or less likely, it was for example, for why. Yeah. They were indeed more like the, even, even then companies that raise more than Trinity dollars. So kudos and props to companies that get into some of these programs and the investors that kind of select them.
Gopi Rangan: This is fascinating. I'm curious to see where venture capital is going to go in the future. Is there any predictions you can.
Ali Tamaseb: I hope, I don't know if this is for WOGO, but that's what I hope is number one, we can use data. We can use metrics, driven, investing to reduce bias. A lot of these bias exist because of narrative bias at the end of the year.
And a lot of investment decisions in the venture capital world happens by gut feeling. It's literally personal. A [00:26:00] lot of people outside of this industry think we do a lot of sophisticated thinking or sophisticated modeling to decide on an investment. They don't know that it's we sleep on it. And the day after we decide, okay, should we invest in this company?
Right. I hope that the use of data with the use of frameworks, we can actually reduce some bias. It doesn't mean like a lot of people would think that data would be bad for the ecosystem because you're strengthening some existing patterns. But if you use the data in the right way and abstract things that don't matter, like gender, like things that the data shows that doesn't matter, like age and remove some of these biases from decision-making you can yeah.
Move towards one better outcomes for the investors and to better equality for the founders that seek funding.
Gopi Rangan: What's next for you in research? Is that a book too? Coming up?
Ali Tamaseb: I'm not sure. I mean, it's so hard writing a book. It's, it's a lot of work. It's a labor of love. So to [00:27:00] anybody who has ever written a book, thank you.
And it takes a lot of work. It's it's much, much harder than writing a blog post or writing a tweet. You, you need to edit it for like 15 rounds and you need to create an audio book and marketing and physical thing. It just takes a hundred times more. Work then writing just the same content and putting it on a blog.
So I'm not sure if it's worse writing a book, unless I have done something, something even more stronger than this next time that can contribute to that.
Gopi Rangan: I'm not just joking, but I'm actually very serious. And I really hope that more research can be done in this space. This asset class is private and that actually hurts entrepreneurs because there's not a lot of data available.
There are a lot of misnomers and there are a lot of misleading information and even data is misinterpreted poorly. So it's very, very important to have books like this that truly reflect on what's happening instead of conjectures that [00:28:00] are not true. I'm curious, how has this research changed your perspectives as a venture capital investor?
Ali Tamaseb: That's a great question. The main way it has impacted me is sort of, I don't let my preconceptions, my, these kinds of stereotypes, these biases that have been kind of hard-coded in our brains. Come into the vein of me backing a great entrepreneur. A lot of times when investors make mistakes, not backing a great company or a great exceptional founder is when they have specific thoughts about a market.
Say, man, I don't know. This idea never worked before. It won't work this time or Hey, this market, I'm not sure about it. That's small. I don't know, there's a lot of these cases that investors pass on investing in a company based on their own preconceptions about the market, about the competitive landscape, about how big is that pain point, how small is that pain point?[00:29:00]
And that my goal is to find that exceptional entrepreneur. That I can swear knows more about this than me. So I can basically say, I believe what you say over my preconceived notion about all these stuff and the bigger thing. As, as I learned that I've seen these companies evolve, there is a lot of things that change about startups, especially in the early stage.
Even in late stage markets change, competition change a competitor comes and goes and. Market expands. The company changes from vertical to horizontal. The company comes up with an idea that kind of expands the market by 20 X overnight. And a lot of cases like investors in Uber, they passed on a lot of people passed on investing in Uber and to see drown even at the syrup.
Because they thought, okay, black cars, that's, that's something only for develop the people. And then I don't have cities would ever allow this thing to go on. And they missed on a great investment by two super founders. I mean, the, the founder, the two [00:30:00] co-founders of Uber, one of them had sold a company for $19 million before the other one had sold a company for seventy-five million dollars before.
So they would all be senior, did done their work before, and they knew what the opportunity they had seen and that failed companies before did as well. They had seen the valleys and peaks of entrepreneurship and they have come across this idea to work on. And a lot of investors kind of failed on that opportunity.
Because of their own stereotypes or notions or the thing that they thought would come ahead on the success of this company. So I try to not let that happen to me. And I find these exceptional entrepreneurs that I would say, okay, market is small. I don't care. Or this pain. I, I don't know if it's big enough, but I know that you are a great entrepreneur.
You would invest your time. If this pain wasn't big enough for, for the customers.
Gopi Rangan: Ali, I want to ask you a last question for this part. Is there a nonprofit organization you are passionate about and which one? Yeah,
Ali Tamaseb: actually in the book in collecting this data, one of the key things that I [00:31:00] observed was the lack of diversity and the lack of diversity in, in these founding teams, I didn't collect a specific data sets on that to talk about what you would, it was kind of obvious when you were collecting this data.
Many of this comes from the privilege that some of these founders have had to take bigger risks. At an earlier point in their career or life, like if they didn't have to think about paying back student loans or if they didn't have to think about paying back their MBA and they were able to no, start a company without thinking about it.
That's the privilege that the majority of auto founders or a lot of people, other people don't have. So I am very passionate about non-profits then not specific to startups and building billion dollar companies, but at different scales of this helps with social mobility and helps with kind of helping people move, move across ladder with what they have.
So one of these institutes that I'm interested in is called the urban Institute, which works on the social and economic side of social mobility. [00:32:00]
Gopi Rangan: This is fascinating. This conversation has been enlightening. It's great to see some of the beliefs that I have as a venture capital investor being reinforced, like be open-minded be willing to listen to new ideas.
Uh, good ideas can come from anywhere, Mets and conventional wisdom broken by this book that you have published about age of entrepreneur, the schools they went to and all of those things. It's great to see that you're publishing this information, which is going to be very, very valuable for.
Entrepreneurs and venture capital investors. Thank you very much for coming to this podcast and sharing your thoughts and insights
Ali Tamaseb: For sure. I thank you very much for having me.
Gopi Rangan: Thank you for listening to the shore shot entrepreneur. I hope you enjoyed listening to real life stories about early believers, supporting ambitious entrepreneurs.
Please subscribe to the podcast and post a review. Your comments will help other entrepreneurs find this podcast. I look forward to catching you at the next episode.[00:33:00]