An unreasonable amount of domain detail
You know the workflow better than the people who own it. The specifics arrive without being asked for.
Software that becomes infrastructure earns its margin slowly and then all at once. We spend our time one level below the headline, where the work is harder to copy.
Every cycle produces a wave of companies built on a temporary advantage: a model release, a platform loophole, a regulatory gap. Most of them are gone in four years.
The ones that last build something a customer cannot easily unplug. A ledger of record. A data pipeline the operations team depends on. A device already installed in ten thousand sites. That takes longer to sell and much longer to displace.
So we underwrite for durability rather than early velocity. We would rather back a company that takes eighteen months to find its first real customer and then keeps that customer for a decade.
Compute, data movement, storage, and the tooling around them. We like companies whose customers are engineers, because engineers tell you the truth about your product quickly.
Products where the model is a component, not the pitch. The defensibility sits in the data, the evaluation loop, and the workflow you replaced.
Payments, accounting, and treasury for businesses operating across borders. Slow to build, heavily regulated, and very hard to rip out once installed.
Tools for industries that still run on spreadsheets, WhatsApp, and paper. Unglamorous, sticky, and usually underpriced.
Health, logistics, and compliance. Software that moves paperwork, evidence, and money between institutions.
You know the workflow better than the people who own it. The specifics arrive without being asked for.
One narrow use case, one buyer, and evidence that they came back. We can help with the second product. The first one has to be yours.
Founders who have turned down good candidates for the right reasons usually build teams that survive scale.
A founder who volunteers the churn figure before we find it earns more credibility than one with a better chart.
Not a trend. A concrete change in cost, regulation, or capability that opened a door in the last two years.
The strongest reference call is the one where the buyer sounds slightly worried we might not fund you.
We are not the right firm for consumer social, gaming, crypto trading, or anything whose growth depends on a single distribution channel we cannot underwrite. Not a judgement on the category. We simply do not have the pattern recognition to be useful, and a passive check from a firm with no opinion is the most expensive money you can take.
We also pass when a round is priced past what we can defend, when the cap table has no room left for the team, and when a founder needs an investor who will agree with them. There are firms that do that well. We are not one of them.
Send the one paragraph version. If we are wrong about a category, a good company is how we find out.