Max Kufner

@libovness It’s time to eat.

on the other side of this magic portal door is DINNER

Decline: German industrial production down to the level of 2005 Yet, the FT journalists studiously avoid mentioning the elephant in the room: Extremely high energy prices, mostly because of climate policy ft.com/content/239eed…

Venture capital is investing in the future. The kind of companies a fund backs is representative of their vision for the future. Some funds back slop, some back flying cars. It should matter more than other assets that are more value extractive than creative.

@WillManidis Venture capital is investing in the future. The kind of companies a fund backs is representative of their vision for the future. Some funds back slop, some back flying cars. It should matter more than other assets that are more value extractive than creative.

venture is the last major asset class where the morality/prestige of a capital provider has any bearing on the underlying asset. no one thinks twice about who else their credit provider is lending to. private equity firms hold all kinds of sin co's quietly. why does VC care?

Biology is not as “mainstream” as it should be because 1) it’s complicated and 2) we aren’t great at manipulating it yet. As we get better, through both AI and non-AI driven progress, we will increasingly unlock the largest and most important market there is, which will drive biology to the forefront of culture the same way AI is today.

Biotechnology is about the predictable engineering of life, such that we can protect it and proliferate it through the Universe. Biotechnology ought to cure all complex diseases (so far, we have cured zero.) It ought to prevent infectious diseases, and remove needless suffering for all animals. And it will (indeed, it already has) expand human healthspan, such that we can enjoy more time on this planet. But biotechnology is also about protecting biodiversity, and keeping animals from going extinct (or bringing back extinct animals, if needed). It is about growing more abundant and nutritious food. And it is for cleaning up the environment, the atmosphere, and our polluted waters. Biotechnology is needed to make us a space-faring civilization; to protect us from harmful radiation, or preserve our bodies, as we fly through the cosmos. It is what will enable us to create the microbes needed to terraform Mars or other planets. It should not seem insane to write this stuff out, because these really are the objectives. Every new tool and every new technology is taking us closer to these destinies. Raise your ambitions.

Biology is not as “mainstream” as it should be because 1) it’s complicated and 2) we aren’t great at manipulating it yet. As we get better, through both AI and non-AI driven progress, we will increasingly unlock the largest and most important market there is, which will drive biology to the forefront of culture the same way AI is today.

@credistick Great post but what’s the “so what?” - what happens next? I don’t see how the continued concentration bifurcates.

Incumbent VCs and LPs who talk about VC in terms of "access" are optimising for a zero-sum, finite game. The drop in activity is a direct result of this becoming the dominant strategy (in terms of dollar volume and prevalence in discourse). In the incumbent's view, brand and network power attract the best deals in each cycle, to the extent that they want the most obvious/legible opportunities. (The Keynesian beauty contest: how venture capital is about memeing your way to a low cost of capital rather than finding the best companies.) If you create artificial scarcity ("the best startups are in SF") and focus opportunity ("AI will save the world") the opportunity set narrows and legibility mangifies. This a gross distortion of venture capital, designed to allow incumbents market capture; maintaining "tier 1" status via narrative dominance. Of course, venture capital doesn't actually work that way; the beauty contest is a mirage. Greatness is unpredictable and idiosyncratic. Success stories are outliers. Antipatterns rule. The more venture capital diffuses through industries and markets; the greater the range of what gets funded; the longer the tail of extreme outcomes. If you are playing "venture classic", this is what you should be optimising for: the incredible diversity of potential opportunities yet to be discovered. The crux of this issue, and why it's so problematic, is how it influences origination: On one hand, the incumbents (who rake in billions of dollars each year) will frequently say "VC doesn't need more capital, it needs more great companies!" On the other, smaller firms (who set their sights on finding genuine outliers and novel ideas) are having a harder time than ever raising funds. The only way to explain this dissonance is to follow the incentives and realise that the access-oriented incumbents do not want, and do not benefit from, a larger set of opportunities. They are trapped by an innovators dilemma where it is preferential to dominate a smaller set of opportunities than to watch their relative performance erode against the much greater opportunity. They choose "winning" in the short-term over maximising returns in the long-term, which is a fiduciary failure. And they choose it over progress, which is a moral failure.

P.S. It certainly doesn’t hurt that he’s a Bayern Munich fan!

We have been working with Christophe for a few months and he has already played a critical role in helping Again become a leading global biomanufacturing company.

I am excited to (finally, officially) announce Christophe Schilling's addition to our Board at @thinkagainbio.

@WillManidis Needing more eccentric billionaires is certainly a take (note, am not against it - would like to throw my own hat into that ring one day)

Timothy Melon also spent millions and years faithfully recreating a Norwegian stave church 1:1 in his backyard in Lyme, Connecticut. very few rich guys today are willing to push the edges of what makes them happy like this, they're all miserable. we need 100x more eccentrics

@wolfejosh @GavinSBaker This take is correct. Environmentalists and regulators (especially in Europe) have done nothing but harm whilst Elon (like him or not) has actually made progress. Economics and unburdened entrepreneurship are the solution.

Agree. Bizarrely I agree! Also because @GavinSBaker is often right

Hey @traderepublic, I can't reply to customer service in app. When I email support, it tells me to message in-app. What to do?

@cyantist A pretty good writer said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”

One thing social media teaches me again and again is that there are people out there incapable of holding several positions at once and understanding nuance. Often life is grey. Very grey.

@_inpractise There’s only two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling

Formula 1 TV opportunity to cut out Pay TV $fwonk

None of this would have been possible without the amazing work of the entire Again team, who are pushing the boundaries of biotechnology to solve the climate crisis.

Grateful to our new and existing investors for supporting us on this journey as well as the many partners we collaborate with daily. cc @HV_Capital @GVteam @kompas_vc @Eifo_fond

We @thinkagainbio have raised $43 million in series A financing to continue on our mission to decarbonise heavy industry by capturing and converting industrial waste gases and recycling them into valuable products.

Check out our first industrial scale facility in Copenhagen. If you think we're doomed, think Again.