This is a general idea of how we evaluate investments, though there is an instance where our investments will invariably violate these guidelines. However, we believe a general scenario is helpful to appreciate how we view companies.  And never lose sight of the fact that everyone has bosses, and either we have been entrusted with a responsibility to effectively and sensibly deploy capital (what lawyers call, a fiduiciary duty).  After all of that, here is a summary of the ideal investments that we aspire to make.

Our initial investment check size is frequently $200,000 to $1,000,000 (though, as conveyed above, it vary - either less or more), as we intend to be one of the first checks into companies as we view our greatest contribution as being able to help and guide our founders from the earliest stages (through introductions, as a sounding board, to new clients, and increasing the visibility of the companies in the market).  We lead rounds but are also content to co-invest alongside others. One of our core beliefs is the long-term work with the company and, thus, we intend to be there until the company outgrows our capital and guidance, making follow-on investments along the path.  

Our business is evaluate startups for investment yet with the goal of preserving and protecting democratic institutions and world order.  We take that role seriously and we promise to considerany and all early-stage business seeking funding, and make a decision. Our goal is to get an unequivocal answer to our founders.  We abhore the (far too common) practice of venture investors stringing founders along with excuses or extensions often with the unstated attempt, intentionally or not,  to preserve the option value to invest and/or wait until the company has gained greater traction.  If that is the case, we will try to be unpfront about our concerns.  That said, we will have internal constraints and external but try to be as transparent throughout the process as we can be - at the very least, we owe those founders attempting to build and scale their businesses.  We intend to be partners, not adversaries.  That said, we’re particularly excited about businesses which:

• Target niches. If these areas have an opportunity for significant gain or market adoption, we are interested, this is especially true if these niches have logical, later-stage adjacencies
• Operate in un-sexy industries. We tend to be contrarian.  Pitch us, tell us why you are different than the competitors and why you are a logical alternative to conventional thought.  We may not agree, but we will appreciate the perspective.  Now, note, that does not mean that we avoid traditional venture investing areas, it means we are in a business and adhere to bucking the trend and crowd - we want to be the cowboys so confide in us without concern that we will reject a different view.  After all, this is the business of audacitious ideas.  
• Solving Dual Problems. This offers risk mitigation and the potential to pivot if the company finds a roadblock, many of which are frequently out of their control at this stage (e.g. regulatory changes, access to capital constraints, unforeseen entrants, or customer fickleness) as we value proven adaptability and a capacity to adjust - and quickly.  Companies that are the intersection of more than one area offer and preserve options.
• Are leanly staffed and run efficiently given the capital on hand. Targeting greater than 40-50% gross margins, depending on the sector (hardware), while software can and should be upward of 70%.
• Foreseeability to Profitability. Whether the company envisions reaching break-even profitability (or even cash flows), founders have a duty to have a plan to be more than a single exit of being acquired by a larger competitor.  This necessitates a plan to being an operating business at a foreseeable point in their development when growth is not the sole, ore even main, objective and the company can support itself, independent of outside capital.
• An Actionable Plan to Further Execute on the Proven Traction and/or Move into a Lucrative Adjacent Market. See the note above on Dual Problem solutions.

One of the most important elements at investing at an early-fulcrum stage of startups is that they are risky.  The one continuing truth is early-stage investing is that the team is of primary, if not the most critical, importance.  That is why we value working with the following types of teams:

• A Founder "Obsessed" with Solving the Targeted Problem e.g. Founder-Market Fit. You’re obsessed with the problem you’re solving, fit into the target market, and have some relevant experience.  Additionally, a track record of success in this or other industries offers greater confidence in the team, especially if this market and process is similarly aligned.  it is one reason that we highly value references, as those that know a founder the best and have seen them at their best, executing and accomplishing, are likely best positioned to offer insights.  We will want to talk to them, just so you have early notice.  However, just as valuable are those who have seen a founder at a point of struggling with challenges - either self-created or external - e.g. the most of truth under fire, as we want to know how you react and adapt when things are not going well.  Frankly, in our view, this is prescient as this situation is far more frequently than the opposite situation in startups. 
• Focused on product, market, and business model. While there is a time and place for PR and selling, that isn't at the earliest day sof a startup.  Frankly, it is often not the founders job as we can help the founder sell the story and those experts are best positioned to tell you where, why and when you need to be in the press and commanding headlines.  
• Based outside of the major US tech hubs (i.e., New York City, Boston, California).  Venture capitalists will give you a variety of reasons for this, ours is simple.  That is where we are from.  We value the scrappiness from not being at the epicenter of investors and startups, and making it work.  We value grittiness - and applaud it.  We like the underdog.  However, while a priority, it is not dispositive and we will happily accept founders from traditional technology hubs, especially if they have a compelling personal narrative and company story.  The other unstated factor is that those startups from outside of tech hubs tend to have fewer suitors, lower valuations, and also offer us a chance to be much more impactful, and that should not be lost on or overlooked as capital is largely fungible these days.  We hope, and intend, to be much more than that and be your primary and initial call when things are both going bad, as well as good.
• Sensitive to managing their capital table efficiently. This is often a hard earned lesson of founders after their first successful exit.  Namely, they realized they sacrificed too much of their equity for ineffectual results and or even partners that didn't follow through and deliver on promises made upon funding.  Thus, we tend to find that successful second-time founders, many of whom realized too late that they should have preserved greater ownership early on to have a more lucrative personal return at exit.
• Understanding and implementing Best Practices and Structured, Organized, and Formalized Processes as the Startup Grows. While founders are often solving new challenges or applying lessons to adjacent industries for success, they should never mistake business model innovation for initiation.  What we mean is that while new approaches to business models and industries are often creative, the rules of running efficient and successful businesses are often tried, true, and invariable.  They should adopt these hard learned lessons from others as they are not in the business of originating the entire business, the least amount of differentation and crative change from the status quo while gaining traction, customer adoption, and awareness derisks the startup and permits dedicating time to the truly innovative elements of the business.  And we're here to help on this.
• Diversity of background, thought, and perspective. For far too long, classes of founders have been dismissed and overlooked out of hand.  That is finally being spotlighted.  As investors, we did not come from the historical venture background, and we prefer to find others like us.  We will evaluate startups from anyone, but have a special inclinations with those that are defying and distiguishing themselves from a past that would not have traditionally been considered by traditional venture capitalists.  This includes women, racial minorities, talent from diverse educational backgrounds especially state institutions, and service members. We like people like us, with something to prove.
• With international backgrounds. This undoubtedly includes and prioritizes those with different experiences, especially immigrant founders and engineering based outside of the US. 

We take pride in being different.  We will tell you the hard truths.  We intend to be partners.  Early-stage and startups are not build in isolation, they require partners.  We hope and intend that by the end of our journey together, we will be investing into a successful founder's startup company and want that founder to be singing our praises based on our contribution, just as much as us singing theirs.  

It is unlikely that we’ll invest in companies with any of these attributes:

• Under $10,000/month in revenue. We are in a market-dominated playing field.  The sports and war analogies are overused in business, however, there is a reason that they initially attracted use.  The time tested determination of success is customer use.  If you can show us that customers - who are numerous, are willing to pay, and are likely to be loyal - are there then that is the market determination that is virtually imposible for any venture investor to overlook.  Make us be interested.  If you have already produced and shipped a product that customers love, that is the harbinger of future success, this is especially true the worse and/or earlier your product is because an in complete product that is valued evinces interest and a market that just might be exciting for early stage, transition, and growth equity investors on a path to a lucrative exit or market listing.  This is a business of not only audatious ideas, but moreso execution.  If you can show traction, that action is supremely important and telling.
• Have raised money in the past and do not have the previous investors investing.  We play well with other venture capitalists but intend to help do the heavy lifting.  We are happy to partner, to lead, or to offer a hybrid, however, the old addage of those who know you are best - outsside of extraneous situations or specific issues - tend to give venture capitalists pause in being the second girl to the party.  This is a concern that any and all investors may not say, but all have in some form.  You should have a compelling and credible answer, and be prepared to offer previous investors, especially traditional venture investors, references for new investors to gain comfort.
• Not a US Corporate structure (C corporation, S corporation, LLC).  It makes it inmeasurably easier for us to invest if it is a traditional C-Corp, S-Corp, or LLC.  Traditionally, venture investors tended to only invest in C-Corp companies, that has evolved and we all have greater comfort in virtually all types of entities, however, foreign corporate structures pose challenges that are difficult to overcome in an efficient legal and tax efficient financing manner.
• Not a technology-centric or tech-enabled company. We do not need revolutionary breakthrough technology.  While it would be great if every startup had truly disruptive technology and a business, that is the outlier and we are more than happy to invest in a good founder targeting a large market that has early traction.  Any founder should be devoted to an overall rethinking from first principles how to use modern technologies in all aspects of the business. A primary reason that incumbents fail is that startups can operate faster and are unconstrained by legacy technology, as such, startups can design the business around modern best practices.
• Single Winner Markets. one with “winner take all” or “land grab” dynamics. These tend to reward the company that raises the most venture capital, and we’re not playing that game.
• “Use of proceeds” is Code for Lack of a Plan and Merely Getting to a New Fundraising. A core foundational principle is what the investment will be used for.  Often this is new market penetration or building the team to support the next stage of success.  Our first priority is to help you build a business that succeeds, in the immediate and longer-term.  This means capturing incredible emerging market opportunities or taking share from incumbents in working to develop a sustainable business.
• Prima Dona CEOs more focused on the Hype of the Process than the Results.  WFundraising, just like building a business, is hard, we know that.  However, if the founder is more focused on their own image and the hype, that is fine.  There are other venture funds that may be a better fit.  We want action, show us traction.  That will entice us much more than headlines.
• Founder’s Content to Remain Small or Regional. We are not permitted to invest in lifestyle businesses, those can be fine and exceptional for the founder, they tend to be awful for capital providers.  We want the companies that need funding to grow, scale, and dominate a sector with returns that are commensurate with audatious aspirations. We partner best with founders who want to build legacy-defining, generational companies. If you are that, we want to talk to you. 

Merit is the bellweather of our investment strategy. The primacy of our investment decision is based on the merit of opportunities presented while evaluationg all inherent business factors, without regard to race, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or any other basis.