Fat and lazy

I’ve been eating a lot lately. 

Pizza. Tapas. Hackney Gelato. All the patatas bravas I could get my hands on when I was in Sevilla.

Everyone acknowledges that excess food physically affects you with weight gain, health etc. But here's the problem - there’s more to it.

That is - the short term psychological side that affects discipline. After I’ve over-eaten, I’m lethargic. I’m lazy. I’m more inclined to do the bare minimum of whatever my task is thereafter. If I have the option of either writing a blog post or watching a movie, I would choose the latter every day of the week. Starting a no-code online course, or starting rewatching The Office for the 785th time? Give me Dwight Schrute.

It takes a significant amount of discipline and mental energy to overcome the mental malaise from being full and lethargic. 

That’s an issue. 

The phrase “to be hungry” is not just a trope. 

It applies on an individual level and on a company level.

As Roelof Botha famously said, “more startups die of indigestion than from hunger”. 

Being scrappy and lean on resource is a gift, and possibly a superpower. 

Being bloated with excess resource leads to sloppiness, inefficient use of resource.

This is one of the major problems of the recent bull market. Companies were bloated. There was indigestion. Lazy allocation of resource. Attempts to grow in markets that were luxury / not core to business.

Hunger is a powerful motivator. 

To be content is dangerous. 

And to have indigestion is the biggest trap of all. 

As a society, in this market, we will all eat less. 

Doing more with less. Raising less capital. Less disposable income. Time to be scrappy. 

Those who thrive will be the ones who see it as an opportunity. 

To be Non-consensus and Right

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform, pause or reflect. - Mark Twain

The gold rush. Acting on the side of the majority.

FOMO. Consensus…

Whatever you want to call it. 

Nobody judges the person going for the gold rush, even if they’re wrong. Nobody judges the person buying Tesla at the top of the share price, even if they're wrong.

Consensus-decision making is a safety blanket that’s not going to change the world. Sheltered from criticism of others.

Consensus decisions don't put you in the spotlight. You don't get questioned. No justification at all needed. Consensus decision-making prioritizes short term perceptions of others, and a desire to not be left out, or to miss out.

Non-consensus decisions however… 

They need a vision, a justification. Based on profound personal conviction. 

To be non-consensus in a sea of consensus thinking prioritizes long-term impact, over short term perception of others.

Being bold on non-consensus beliefs gives the chance of adding high value in the long term versus consensus-beliefs adding low value in the short term.

To the founders - we don't need another food delivery app or grocery delivery app. We don't need another 6/10 pizzeria on a busy restaurant street. We don't need another startup aiming to be 10% better than a wildly competitive market because the consensus is that there is a market for that product.

We need something 10x better. We need you to take a risk on being non-consensus and wrong. We need you to take the risk of looking like a fool with the chance of spectacular failure. In order to solve the climate crisis, in order to solve food insecurity, we need you to put short term popularity on the line for the tiny chance of being non-consensus and right. That's who history will remember. To build a product or service the world didn't know it needed, until it did know.

To the investors - why join the grocery delivery gold rush? Founders with non-consensus visions of the world need backers who have a similar boldness to stand out from the pack and risk it all. The power law of investing applies to the non-consensus opportunities far more than consensus. You won't make 100x on the startup that everyone knows is going to be a success - because there will be 1000 other startups doing the same thing. You may make 100x on the idea that looks a little crazy to the majority right now - less competition to get into the deal, less competition in the market, avoid the gold rush. A true visionary founder sees the future and you will be backing that person. You may be wrong and you may have to account to LPs and yourself, but if you stick to your principles, your winner will offset all the losses many times over.

To the university students - consensus-decisions for you could be taking the step to become a doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer. Good job, you'll earn well, you'll be content. If you have a fire inside of you to do something non-consensus like becoming an artist, a musician, a policeman, a founder, a producer... You may be wrong. But if you're right, you'll be truly happy and create real utility and value for others.. possibly leaving a legacy.

To reiterate, it takes immense courage to make non-consensus decisions in the face of a world of consensus. And a word of caution - don’t be a contrarian for the sake of it. It takes intense personal conviction and logic behind your ideas to travel the path less travelled.

But... if you have a startup idea, an investment opportunity, or a profession that lights a fire in you, dare to be non-consensus and right.

Solve real problems in the world. Move the world forward.