Most people chase averages. You remind us to chase the rare signal.
Your piece isn’t about numbers alone. It’s about conviction, narrative courage, and founders who see volatility as a path to impact. You frame returns as rewards for discipline under uncertainty, not comfort.
MIT’s recent work on structural risk echoes this. Oxford’s new analysis on scale outcomes proves it again, concentrated bets reshape the field because they break the safety mindset.
You call us to think in arcs instead of points, to respect variance instead of managing it away.
Thank you for forcing us to ask what we’re really anchored to. Who is ready to bet on stories that change the system, not just fit into it?
There’s a lot to chew on here—especially the point about the next $100B company never looking like the last. As someone who’s been investing through a few tech cycles, I’ve seen “pattern matching” trip up a lot of smart people (myself included). By the time you spot a category, the real outsized returns are usually gone.
The software-as-chicken comment made me laugh. It’s true: technical edge fades fast, so the “boring” stuff—distribution, sales, and moat—ends up mattering more than most folks want to admit.
And market size? The graveyard is full of investors who thought too small. (Ask anyone who passed on Amazon at $400M.)
The lesson I’m taking away: Don’t get stuck looking for the next Google. Focus on the wave, the base rates, and the potential for genuine market expansion—even if it doesn’t fit last cycle’s template.
Great writeup. And yes, “What a time to be alive.”
Most people chase averages. You remind us to chase the rare signal.
Your piece isn’t about numbers alone. It’s about conviction, narrative courage, and founders who see volatility as a path to impact. You frame returns as rewards for discipline under uncertainty, not comfort.
MIT’s recent work on structural risk echoes this. Oxford’s new analysis on scale outcomes proves it again, concentrated bets reshape the field because they break the safety mindset.
You call us to think in arcs instead of points, to respect variance instead of managing it away.
Thank you for forcing us to ask what we’re really anchored to. Who is ready to bet on stories that change the system, not just fit into it?
Really enjoyed your article. This seemed to dovetail so well into my recent posts, I fashioned a separate one using your article (hope you don't mind). Thank you again for your invaluable contributions. https://open.substack.com/pub/alphadoc1/p/massive-multi-baggers-where-the-rubber?r=qlzxp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Great analysis as usual
Much appreciated my friend:)
Love this deep dive & the quote of the week "Software is like chicken, 80% of it tastes the same" 😂
Thanks Chris!
There’s a lot to chew on here—especially the point about the next $100B company never looking like the last. As someone who’s been investing through a few tech cycles, I’ve seen “pattern matching” trip up a lot of smart people (myself included). By the time you spot a category, the real outsized returns are usually gone.
The software-as-chicken comment made me laugh. It’s true: technical edge fades fast, so the “boring” stuff—distribution, sales, and moat—ends up mattering more than most folks want to admit.
And market size? The graveyard is full of investors who thought too small. (Ask anyone who passed on Amazon at $400M.)
The lesson I’m taking away: Don’t get stuck looking for the next Google. Focus on the wave, the base rates, and the potential for genuine market expansion—even if it doesn’t fit last cycle’s template.
Great writeup. And yes, “What a time to be alive.”
Great article! Congrats.
Thanks Tus!
Great analysis
Thanks Hugo!
Love it!
Thanks Luis!