Raising a pre-seed/seed round? I'll help make some intros. I like to make sure no great deals are prevented from getting done, and we’re back again for the June edition :) I made 207 intros for founders raising last month, and doing the process again this week to help some more. Doing my next experiment for 30.06 hours (ends 6/13, 11:59 pm ET): *Read this closely* 1) Email *all of*: deck (link is preferred over PDF) blurb traction round size round terms (if established) 3 reasons your company is compelling (the more factual/data-based the better, could be traction, team, or other, and put in it the third person, not first. Eg "their traction" vs. "our traction") your LinkedIn link company URL company HQ location a TLDR pro TLDR con (in third person again) to mike 20266@mikemaccombie.com, hard deadline tomorrow at 11:59 pm ET. 2) Title must be *exactly*: "30.06-hour experiment 2026-6” and must include *all* the above elements for consideration. 3) I’ll share at least the top 3 companies w/ 100 VCs next week. Last time I did this, I got 31 investor intros for the founders I shared. (Last year, I invested in 2 companies that originally came to me through one of these challenges. And at least one company that came to me got a check from an LP of mine.) I cannot promise a reply to every person who emails me - but I read every email that comes in with all parts submitted.

Hosting the 4th annual LP-GP gathering next Thursday in NYC (6/4 4 pm - 6 pm) during tech week. I am bringing together some of my active LP friends with some of my favorite GPs - we have a few dozen LPs that have invested across multiple funds, and a dozen or so GPs with whom I love to collaborate. If you would like to join on the LP side, shoot me an email at mike@mikemaccombie.com with the title "LP-GP Gathering 6/4 - LP," and include a sentence about your level of activity (number of funds invested in) and mandate (sector, stage, etc if any criteria). Open to FOs, FoFs, Institutions, and individuals actively deploying into funds. If you would like to join on the GP side, send me an email with the title "LP-GP Gathering 6/4 - GP," and a sentence or two about your fund. Open to venture GPs actively running funds that might be interesting for the LPs.

Raising a pre-seed/seed round? I'll help make some intros. I like to make sure no great deals are prevented from getting done, and we’re back again for the May edition :) I made 271 intros for founders raising last month, and doing the process again this week to help some more. Doing my next experiment for 30.05 hours (ends 5/9, 9 pm ET): *Read this closely* 1) Email *all of*: deck (link is preferred over PDF) blurb traction round size round terms (if established) 3 reasons your company is compelling (the more factual/data-based the better, could be traction, team, or other, and put in it the third person, not first. Eg "their traction" vs. "our traction") your LinkedIn link company URL company HQ location a TLDR pro TLDR con (in third person again) to mike 20265@mikemaccombie.com, hard deadline tomorrow at 9 pm ET. 2) Title must be *exactly*: "30.05-hour experiment 2026-5” and must include *all* the above elements for consideration. 3) I’ll share at least the top 3 companies w/ 100 VCs next week. Last time I did this, I got 32 investor intros for the founders I shared. And I am diligencing one company that reached out to me last challenge, as well as sharing them with my LPs. (Last year, I invested in 2 companies that originally came to me through one of these challenges. And at least one company that came to me got a check from an LP of mine.) I cannot promise a reply to every person who emails me - but I read every email that comes in with all parts submitted.

Raising a pre-seed/seed round? I'll help make some intros. I like to make sure no great deals are prevented from getting done, and we’re back again for the April edition :) I made 332 intros for founders raising last month, and doing the process again this week to help some more. Doing my next experiment for 30.04 hours (ends 4/21, 6 pm ET): *Read this closely* 1) Email *all of*: deck (link is preferred over PDF) blurb traction round size round terms (if established) 3 reasons your company is compelling (the more factual/data-based the better, could be traction, team, or other, and put in it the third person, not first. Eg "their traction" vs. "our traction") your LinkedIn link company URL company HQ location a TLDR pro TLDR con (in third person again) to mike 20264@mikemaccombie.com, hard deadline tomorrow at 10:00 pm ET. 2) Title must be *exactly*: "30.04-hour experiment 2026-4” and must include *all* the above elements for consideration. 3) I’ll share at least the top 3 companies w/ 100 VCs next week. Last time I did this, I got 36 investor intros for the founders I shared. And I know of at least one investment committed from the challenge. Last year, I invested in 2 companies that originally came to me through one of these challenges :) I cannot promise a reply to every person who emails me - but I read every email that comes in with all parts submitted.

A quick update from the March deal flow experiment: 36 intros requested by investors to the companies I share with them.

Many of the best pre-seed deals I've seen come from ecosystems most investors aren't plugged into yet. So we're building the room that changes that. Generous Ventures and Side Door Ventures are hosting our first collaborative Pre-Seed Investor Summit - May 13-14 in New York City. 100 curated investors and LPs. Two days. 80% investors, 20% LPs. 1:1 double opt-in matchmaking, shared meals, a live version of our longstanding deal flow sharing event, and a room deliberately built across ecosystems. We already have confirmed attendees from New York, San Francisco, LA, Austin, Miami, Chicago, and several other cities across the country. Here's what you attendees can expect to walk away with: -Real relationships with pre-seed investors from ecosystems outside your own -First looks at deal flow before it hits the main circuit -Genuine help for your portfolio companies through the people in the room -LP or GP relationships you didn't know you were missing I've been running monthly Pre-Seed Deal Flow community gatherings for over six years. One thing I keep seeing: great companies emerge out of ecosystems long before they reach the larger VC circuits. The investors who catch them early tend to have a friend in Austin who knows a founder in Miami that nobody on the coasts has heard of yet. That cross-regional connectivity is where a lot of the real deal flow lives - and it doesn't happen by accident. Pre-seed is still pretty siloed in each city. Investors who should know each other often don't. This summit is about changing that - and it's the natural next step from what we've already been building together. There will also be some surprises and a "Generosity Session," built around the idea that the best rooms tend to be the most generous ones. This is a community event more than a conference. This event is for investors (FOs, active angels, VCs, and LPs) that have a deep appreciation for the early stages. If we don't already know each other, I want to make sure you have an opportunity to apply to be here with us. Apply below - we'll get back to you within 72 hours if you are approved. forms.gle/JcBzRD2qcVuVhDmR9

🪄 NYC Magic and mentalism event 3/25 Co-hosting a curated evening for Fintech & Crypto Funders and Founders on 3/25 in NYC - if you want to join, shoot me an email at mike@mikemaccombie.com with the title "Magic/Mentalism event 3/25 in NYC" and a sentence about your firm or startup. Will add a few folks to the group for a fun evening :)

One question I’ve started asking founders more often is: What is your non negotiable? Not the goal. The thing that will not bend. For some founders it is product quality. For others it is growth rate. Sometimes it is valuation. Sometimes it is customer happiness at all costs. Sometimes it is “we are not selling unless it is a billion dollar outcome.” Non negotiables are interesting because they quietly shape every downstream decision in a company. I have seen founders who refuse to fire customers even when those customers burn enormous team time. I have seen companies where no meaningful product decision can happen without the CEO, which works until the CEO becomes the bottleneck. I have seen teams hold out for a unicorn exit when a very real $200M outcome was on the table. None of these are inherently wrong. Every company has something it protects above all else. But the non negotiable becomes the operating system for the company. It dictates tradeoffs, pace, and sometimes the ceiling of what is possible. One of the more interesting exercises for founders is simply being explicit about it. What is the thing your company will not compromise on?

Early heads up: next deal flow challenge is coming this week on Thursday, founders keep an eye out.

Building an internal AI stack is table stakes for venture firms these days. Heard from GPs consistently this week on the topic: 1) Most funds I talked with are shifting their workflow from GPT toward Claude for memos and structured documents. It tends to output documents that actually resemble something you'd send to partners or LPs. ChatGPT and Gemini are still seen as strong for research and real-time information, but Claude seems to be winning on formatting, long-form structure, and design. 2) Many firms are going further and building internal AI operating systems for their fund. Hiring an infrastructure engineer to wire together a backend that handles things like deal memo drafting, deck analysis, portfolio tracking, partner meeting notes, and quarterly LP updates. Essentially a structured brain for the firm’s knowledge and workflow. 3) LPs notice who has operational leverage and who doesn’t. Funds that can move faster on diligence, produce cleaner memos, and keep tighter institutional memory have an advantage.

A reminder today: the best solutions come when one keeps an open mind, listens, affirms what has been said, and thinks abundantly about options.

Noticings and learnings from Miami and Tampa last week: I spent last week in Florida, with plenty of conversations with founders, investors, and operators. 1. Florida is deeper in life sciences, biotech, and health tech than many people realize, along with pockets of deep tech and medical devices. It feels less like a few isolated companies and more like actual clusters forming. 2. The early stage culture feels notably collaborative. Founders and investors seem willing to help each other, share deal flow, and generally play nicely in the early rounds, and the baton passing to later stage southeast investors is smooth. 3. The founders building there increasingly feel intentional rather than bright-eyed optimistic. Covid Miami had more of a reputation as a place people could move and try something. What I’m seeing now are founders who chose Florida because it fits their sector, their network, or the type of company they want to build. Health tech in particular seems to have a real home there. Between hospitals, research institutions, and talent moving in or coming out of institutions there, founders have the right partners and customer access. 4. The geographic shift in venture is non-trivial. Last year the Southeast passed the Northeast in number of venture rounds under $100M. 5. Later stage capital rounds are still thinner locally, which makes sense given the ecosystem is younger. 6. On a personal note, my best performing investment ever (out of 100 ) came out of Miami, and my most recent investment is also based there. So I admittedly like to keep an extra eye towards whats coming out of the region. Curious to see how it evolves over the next five to ten years.

In Austin Tuesday to Thursday. Who should I meet? I love meeting potential co-investors - (VCs, CVCs, angels, and FOs with whom I can share opportunities)

A pattern showing across very different arenas - Olympics, politics, and investing - accessibility is winning. The people, brands, and institutions that feel open, reachable, and human are consistently outperforming the ones that feel polished but distant. It used to be that perfection signaled strength. Now that distance begets disconnect. When distribution is social, when information is abundant, when everyone can compare options instantly, the edge moves to connection. People want to feel like they can see behind the curtain. They want leaders who respond. They want founders who ship in public. They want investors who explain how they think. Accessibility creates trust velocity. Some shifts I think that translates to for founders and investors (and frankly, people in general) 1. Open thinking > hidden thinking Share how you make decisions. Not just outcomes. 2. Process transparency > curated polish The build journey is part of the product. 3. Human consistency > episodic hype Reliability beats intensity. For founders: The most defensible brands I see today are not the loudest. They are the most reachable. Customers feel like they know them. Talent feels like they can DM them. Users feel heard. For VCs: The funds that will win the next decade won’t just have capital. They’ll have presence. Clear thinking. Public frameworks. Community density. They won’t hide behind mystique. They’ll build in public. Accessibility is not about oversharing. It’s about lowering the psychological barrier to engagement. In a world of infinite options, people choose the people they feel closest to.

In Miami until Wednesday and Tampa Wednesday - Friday. Who should I meet? I love meeting potential co-investors - (VCs, CVCs, angels, and FOs with whom I can share opportunities)

One fundraising best practice I keep coming back to with founders: think two rounds ahead. When a company is raising its first or second institutional round, most of the focus is understandably on getting the current deal done. Is the valuation within market? Is there strong demand? Does the dilution feel reasonable? Those are all important questions. What tends to get less attention is what the current valuation quietly implies about the next two financings. Many early rounds today sit comfortably within what feels like the normal range for their market. A $2M raise at a mid-teens post-money. A $3M raise at something in the high teens. On the surface, those numbers do not look extreme. The team has conviction. The projections are ambitious but directionally believable. The more interesting exercise is to project forward. If you assume good execution, not perfection but solid progress, what does the next round need to look like for the valuation staircase to remain coherent? And then one round beyond that, does the pricing still align with the level of traction you reasonably expect to have? As valuations move up the curve, the market typically shifts from underwriting vision and potential to underwriting evidence and growth. That transition point is different by geography and sector, but it exists everywhere. Thinking about where that shift is likely to occur for your company can meaningfully shape how you price the current round. I am not suggesting there is a single right number. I just find it helpful for founders to model out the sequence. If things go well but not heroically well, does the path still make sense? Does each step feel supported by the traction you expect to earn along the way? Valuation is not just a snapshot of today’s optimism. It is the first move in a multi-step progression. Designing it with the next two moves in mind can preserve far more flexibility than optimizing for the highest possible number right now.

When a company struggles or shuts down, you learn more about a VC in that moment than in the two years prior when things were up and to the right. Want to predict how they’ll behave? Listen to how they pitch LPs. The LP narrative is the operating system. 1. Portfolio optimizer. “Does this clear our follow-on bar?” If not, they cut. LP pitch: disciplined allocator, reserves for winners, doesn’t throw good money after bad. 2. Supportive but structured operator. “Let’s define a 90-day reset.” Will bridge, but only against a re-underwritten plan. LP pitch: hands-on partner who leans in operationally, with accountability. 3. Bridge-and-pray insider. “It’s too early to shut down.” Small insider notes buy time. Worst case, they overfund strugglers and starve winners. LP pitch: nonlinear journeys, messy middles, high graduation rates. 4. Blame redirector. “We believed in the vision, but execution wasn’t there.” LP pitch: we underwrite coachability and capital efficiency. 5. Founder-first loyalist. “This didn’t work. I still believe in you.” Backs the next one. LP pitch: we invest in people for the long term. 6. Silent mark-to-zero. Engagement fades. “Keep us posted.” LP pitch: we focus partner time on highest potential outcomes. 7. M&A salvager. Builds buyer lists early. Something is better than zero. LP pitch: pragmatic, exit-aware from day one. 8. Narrative reframer. “That’s hard-earned data.” Failure becomes positioning. LP pitch: frontier volatility creates asymmetric insight. 9. Governance hawk. Formal votes, clean wind-downs, process first. LP pitch: fiduciary discipline and downside protection. 10. Personally conflicted investor. Still hopeful, but increasingly pragmatic. LP pitch: high-conviction partner through ups and downs. 11. Capital preservation crusader. “What can we recover?” Pushes for restructurings and returning capital. LP pitch: capital stewardship and loss minimization. 12. Winner-take-all allocator. “Spend to win.” Later, “We have to prioritize the breakout.” Energy shifts fast once a star emerges. LP pitch: concentrated exposure to fund-returners. 13. Battle-tested patient partner. “Is this noise or signal?” Makes room for real swings at bat. LP pitch: the best outcomes often look messy before they work. Most VCs are a blend. Ownership, reserves, time left in fund, and LP pressure all matter. But how someone talks about risk and reserves when raising money is usually who shows up when things break.