[fgimenez]

I’m a VC, so this take is biased. Liberally apply grains of salt.

If you are looking to start a VC-scale startup, I’d suggest talking to VCs who can help introduce you to domain experts. There are a few reasons this is beneficial:

- You get to battle test your idea to hone the story. This will help you recruit non-technical people.

- You build relationships with VC for the moment you need funding.

- You learn which VC are actually helpful. The meme is that all VC have to pitch how much value they add, but the reality is most can’t/won’t/don’t outside of MBA 101 platitudes.

- A great VC is always building out networks for BD and founder identification. You should leverage that to help in your space.

- Even if the idea doesnt pan out, if you prove yourself to be talented and hard working, they are incentivized to help you find a role relevant to your interests.

This is colored by my personal investing philosophy that you should prioritize meeting “makers”. Others prioritize meeting executives, or sources of capital, or influencers, etc... None is a “true” path, there are successes in each. But the ones focused on makers always want to chat with folks like you.

[mav3rick]

I doubt you all reply to cold emails ? As someone who has no connections to the VC world, it does feel intimidating just writing a cold email. Then again - nothing to lose.

[lisper]

You'd be surprised. VCs will often respond to cold calls because part of their job is to cultivate connections with people who will be starting the Next Big Thing. The best way to do that is to get them into their rolodex before they get on anyone else's radar.

But be careful what you wish for. Getting the cold call response and even the first meeting is relatively easy. But it is also easy to exhibit a level of cluelessness that will get you blackballed, and if that happens you will probably never know it. So that first meeting can be very much a two-edged sword. You only get one chance to make a first impression.

[halfmatthalfcat]

Why would you get blackballed for being clueless? Are founders suppose to come equipped with how to speak VC jargon? Aren’t VCs suppose to find unpolished talent with the ability to execute, invest and be a resource to make them successful?

[lisper]

Being clueless != not knowing the jargon. In fact, one of the most common forms of cluelessness is throwing jargon around in a misguided attempt to show that you know things that you actually don't. Being clueless means not knowing something that you really should have known, and that does not include jargon. I'll give you an example from my own experience: I had a meeting with a name-brand VC during which I levied some harsh criticism at a company that it turned out that they had invested in, indicating that I either didn't know they had invested in it or that I did know and was just being obnoxious. Either way, I was exhibiting cluelessness. One of the many things you are expected to know before talking to any VC is all the information on their web site: their portfolio companies, who the partners are, where they spent their careers, what their investment thesis is. Happily, that one mistake was not enough to actually get me blackballed throughout the industry, but I never had another meeting with anyone at that firm.

[fgimenez]

Really depends on the type of cold email. If an investment banker cold emails me with a “hot deal” I delete immediately. If a founder sends me a template email in a space I clearly dont invest, I delete. If a dev sends me an email with interesting insight or project and the ask is an easy to answer question, I’ll respond. Might go out of my way and chat if I’m impressed.

[robot]

work out your product, buyer persona, business model, go to market, and tell a coherent story around these for why you will succeed and you will get replies.

the cold email contents will be a concise summary of the above.

[mch82]

Optimistically, he did just reply to a cold post :-)