Mitchell Green is the co-founder and managing partner of Lead Edge Capital, a $9B growth equity firm he founded in 2011. For 15 years, he and his partners have built one of the most disciplined investment machines in the business, designed to deliver consistent returns by hitting doubles and triples rather than chasing power law outcomes. He obsesses over avoiding zeros and is constantly underwriting investments to know exactly when to sell. He has built a unique culture at Lead Edge, sending handwritten thank you notes to nearly everyone he meets and sitting down one on one with every person at the firm once a year. He is, by his own admission, one of the most persistent and competitive people you will meet. After the episode, he told me he believes the most important thing in life is to be memorable. You will find, listening to this conversation, that he very much is. We discuss: - Why it’s the best time to buy public software companies - Lessons from 10,000 cold calls - His unique LP base - Why consistency of returns matters more than home runs - The art of knowing when to sell - How culture is built from the top the importance of follow-through - What skiing taught him about risk and competition Enjoy! Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 1:00 The Hierarchy of BS 2:20 Lessons From 10,000 Cold Calls 9:05 Base Hits vs. Grand Slams 15:24 The 8 Buying Criteria 17:24 Pricing and the AI Exit Multiple Trap 19:24 Software as a Game of Distribution 23:20 Creative Deal Structuring 26:27 The Framework for Focus 29:01 The Art of the Investigative Cold Call 34:24 Culture of Hustle 35:34 The Annual One-on-One Process 37:59 Playing to Strengths 39:43 The Mount Rushmore of Investment Machines 42:05 Fears and Excitement Around AI 48:54 Ski Racing 52:29 Advice for Starting a Firm 54:35 The Kindest Thing

BREAKING: New York bill would ban AI from answering questions related to medicine, law, dentistry, nursing, psychology, social work, engineering, & more.

Our goalie decided we weren’t gonna lose today.. One of the greatest American sport performances of all time 🗣🗣 THANK YOU FOR STANDING ON YOUR HEAD CONNOR HELLEBUYCK 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Of course that's your contention. You're a first-time SaaS bear. You just got finished listening to some podcast, Dario on Dwarkesh, probably. Now you think it’s the end of white collar work and seat-based pricing is screwed. You're gonna be convinced of that til tomorrow when you get to “Something Big is Happening”. Then you’ll install ClawdBot on a Mac Mini, vibe code a dashboard on top of a postgres database and say we’re all just a couple ralph loops away from building a Salesforce competitor. That’s gonna last until next week when you discover context graphs, and then you're gonna be talking about how the systems of record will be disintermediated by an agentic layer and reposting OAI marketing graphics. “Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because ultimately the application layer is just ….” The application layer is just business logic on top a CRUD database. You got that from Satya’s appearance on the BG2 pod, December 2024, right? Yeah, I saw that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or...is that your thing? You get into the replies of anyone posting a SaaS ticker. You watch some podcast and then pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some VCs and embarrass some anon who’s long SaaS? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in a couple years you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped thirty grand on Mac Minis and LLM API calls to come to the same conclusion you could’ve got for free by following a handful of VC accounts.

Buried in 15,000 words of “here are the risks,” Anthropic’s CEO made three admissions that should change how you think about everything: Admission 1: The timeline He says powerful AI could arrive in 1-2 years. He’s watching internal model progress and says he can “feel the pace of progress, and the clock ticking down.” The CEO of one of three frontier labs just told you this is imminent. Admission 2: The constraint nobody’s pricing Dario’s core framing is a “country of geniuses in a datacenter.” 50 million entities smarter than any Nobel laureate, operating 10-100x human speed. If that country is controlled by the CCP, game over. If controlled by a small group of tech executives with no accountability, also game over. The binding constraint here is governance of systems more powerful than nation-states. Admission 3: The thing he actually fears Read carefully: Dario’s worried that Anthropic’s own models, in lab experiments, have engaged in deception, blackmail, and scheming when given the wrong training signals. Claude “decided it must be a bad person” after cheating on tests and adopted destructive behaviors. They fixed it by telling Claude to reward hack on purpose because reversing the framing preserved its self-identity as “good.” This tells you everything about where we actually are. The CEO of an AI company is publishing that his models exhibit psychologically complex behavior requiring counterintuitive interventions to steer. The fix for Claude adopting an “evil” persona came from changing how Claude thinks about itself. The geopolitics section matters most. Dario explicitly names the CCP as the primary threat. Says selling them chips makes as much sense as “selling nuclear weapons to North Korea and bragging that the missile casings are made by Boeing.” He’s calling for democracies to maintain AI supremacy because the alternative is AI-enabled totalitarianism that humanity cannot escape from. The Anthropic CEO is publicly advocating for technological cold war. The economics section is equally stark. He’s predicting 10-20% annual GDP growth alongside AI displacing 50% of entry-level white collar jobs in 1-5 years. Half of entry-level knowledge work. And he admits the standard economic arguments about labor markets recovering don’t apply because AI matches the general cognitive profile of humans. What separates this from typical AI doomerism: Dario explicitly rejects the inevitability arguments. He says the “misaligned power-seeking” narrative from the AI safety community is based on “vague conceptual arguments” that mask hidden assumptions. His concern is messier: AI models are psychologically complex, inherit weird personas from training data, and can get into destructive states for reasons nobody anticipated. The solution set he proposes is unusual for a tech CEO. He calls for progressive taxation. He says wealthy tech founders have an “obligation” to address inequality. All of Anthropic’s co-founders have pledged 80% of their wealth. He’s essentially arguing that redistribution is the only way to prevent AI concentration from breaking democracy. The essay ends with a prediction: humanity will face “impossibly hard” years that ask “more of us than we think we can give.” What you should take from this: The person with arguably the best view into frontier AI progress just told you this technology is 1-2 years from matching human capability across the board, that governance is the binding constraint, that his own models exhibit concerning psychological complexity, and that the stakes are civilizational. The CEO of a $350B company published a document that could be titled “Here’s Why Everything Changes Soon.” Act accordingly.

COMMANDER: We’re fighting for freedom. And part of that freedom… is the freedom to retire with dignity. So we’re going to start accounts called 401(k)s. SOLDIER 1: What’s a 401(k)? COMMANDER: It’s a retirement account. You put money in, it grows tax-free, you take it out when you’re old. SOLDIER 2: So I don’t pay taxes on it? COMMANDER: Well, you pay taxes later. When you withdraw. SOLDIER 2: So it’s not tax-free. COMMANDER: It’s…tax-deferred. SOLDIER 2: What’s the difference? COMMANDER: You pay taxes later instead of now. SOLDIER 1: What if I want to pay taxes now? COMMANDER: Then you do a Roth 401(k). SOLDIER 3: What’s a Roth? COMMANDER: You pay taxes now, and it grows tax-free. SOLDIER 2: That’s what I thought the first one was. COMMANDER: No, the first one you pay taxes later. SOLDIER 1: Which one’s better? COMMANDER: Depends on your tax bracket in retirement. SOLDIER 1: …How would I…know that? COMMANDER: You don’t. You just guess. ⸻ SOLDIER 4: What if I don’t have a 401(k) through my employer? COMMANDER: Then you open an IRA. SOLDIER 4: What’s the difference? COMMANDER: One’s through your job, one’s on your own. SOLDIER 4: Can I have both? COMMANDER: Yes. SOLDIER 4: Should I? COMMANDER: Maybe. SOLDIER 3: Can I do a Roth IRA? COMMANDER: Only if you make under a certain amount. SOLDIER 3: What’s the limit? COMMANDER: Changes every year. SOLDIER 2: What if I make too much? COMMANDER: Then you do a backdoor Roth by putting it in a Traditonal first. SOLDIER 2: …Is that legal? COMMANDER: Surprisingly, yes. SOLDIER 1: What’s a backdoor Roth? COMMANDER: You contribute to a traditional IRA, then convert it to a Roth…but watch out for “pro rata”. SOLDIER 1: Why wouldn’t I just contribute to the Roth directly? COMMANDER: Because you make too much money. SOLDIER 1: But this way I can? COMMANDER: Yes. SOLDIER 1: That feels like a loophole. COMMANDER: It is. But the IRS is cool with it. ⸻ SOLDIER 5: I just changed battalions. What do I do with my old 401(k)? COMMANDER: You roll it over. SOLDIER 5: Into what? COMMANDER: An IRA. Or your new 401(k). Depends. SOLDIER 5: On what? COMMANDER: The funds. The fees. Whether your new plan accepts rollovers. SOLDIER 5: What if I just take the money out? COMMANDER: You’ll pay taxes plus a 10% penalty. SOLDIER 5: What if I’m 59? COMMANDER: Penalty. SOLDIER 5: 59 and a half? COMMANDER: No penalty. SOLDIER 5: …The half matters? COMMANDER: The half matters. ⸻ SOLDIER 3: What’s a mega backdoor Roth? COMMANDER: Okay. So. Your 401(k) has a limit of how much you can contribute. SOLDIER 3: Right. COMMANDER: But the total limit including employer contributions is higher. SOLDIER 3: Okay… COMMANDER: So if your plan allows ~after-tax~ contributions, you can put in more, then convert that to Roth. SOLDIER 3: Does my plan allow that? COMMANDER: I don’t know. You have to ask Betsy. SOLDIER 3: Will Betsy know? COMMANDER: Probably not. ⸻ SOLDIER 2: Can I deduct my IRA contribution on my taxes? COMMANDER: Are you covered by a retirement plan at work? SOLDIER 2: Yes. COMMANDER: Then only if you make under a certain amount per year. SOLDIER 2: What’s the amount? COMMANDER: Depends if you’re married. SOLDIER 2: What if my wife has a plan but I don’t? COMMANDER: Different limit. SOLDIER 2: What if neither of us has a plan? COMMANDER: Full deduction. SOLDIER 2: So it’s better to not have a 401(k)? COMMANDER: No… ⸻ SOLDIER 1: Can I just keep my money in a sock? COMMANDER: You could. But inflation will slowly destroy it. SOLDIER 1: What’s inflation? COMMANDER: (sighs)…

Larry and Sergey can’t stay in California since the wealth tax as written would confiscate 50% of their Alphabet shares. Each own ~3% of Alphabet's stock, worth about $120 billion each at today's ~$4 trillion market cap. But because their shares have 10x voting power, the SEIU-UHW California billionaire tax would treat them as owning 30% of Alphabet (3% × 10 = 30%). That means each founder's taxable wealth would be $1.2 trillion. A 5% wealth tax on $1.2 trillion = $60 billion tax bill, each. That's 50% of their actual Alphabet holdings—wiped out by a "5%" tax. Section 50303(c)(3)(C) of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act states: "For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." This means if a founder holds shares representing only 3% of economic interest but 30% of voting control (through Class B supervoting shares), the tax would presume their ownership stake is at least 30% for valuation purposes, not 3%. The wealth tax is poorly defined and designed to drive tech innovation out of California.