Venture capital has increasingly become one of the primary vehicles for translating breakthrough science and engineering into lasting industrial change. As research institutions and historical funding pathways face new constraints, private capital plays a growing role. Paired with discipline, vision, and insight, it can reshape entire industries.

Returns matter. They have to. Venture is a fiduciary business. LPs entrust us with their capital, and we are stewards of that trust. As Scott Kupor writes in Secrets of Sand Hill Road, venture is fundamentally a portfolio construction exercise governed by power laws. A small number of companies will drive the majority of returns. Underwriting that reality is core to the job.

But returns are not the only thing that matters. There are many ways to make money in the world. I care deeply that the companies I back create net-positive impact: advancing and translating scientific capability, strengthening infrastructure, increasing the efficiency of systems, improving the human experience, and expanding what is computationally and physically possible. The most enduring deep tech companies tend to compound both financial and societal value over decades.

My focus is Advanced Systems: semiconductors, photonics, AI/ML, robotics, compute infrastructure, and technically substantive advances in computer science. When I say “deep tech,” I mean defensible, technically rigorous innovation, whether in chip architecture, optical interconnects, cryptography, distributed systems, robotic autonomy, or foundational AI infrastructure. Deep software absolutely counts. A breakthrough in compilers, simulation engines, security protocols, or ML systems can be just as profound as a new material platform.

Your fund size is your strategy. This idea, emphasized by Harry Stebbings + many others and validated in practice, is one of the most clarifying principles in venture. The size of your fund dictates the scale of outcome required, which necessarily then sets targets for ownership and determines sensitivities to dilution depending on stage. That, in turn, shapes the types of risks you can responsibly take.

In advanced systems, this becomes especially important. These companies often require more time, more capital, and more technical iteration than conventional software startups. Dilution risk is real. Follow-on strategy is structural, not optional. You have to underwrite the full capital journey, and be smart about risk mitigation, including understanding non-equity sources of funding when capital intensity is high. The power law is real, and concentration in winners is key.

There also has to be an impedance match between founders and investors. Advanced systems companies are rarely built in three years. They demand patience, technical conviction, and alignment around ambition. If a founder is building a 20-year platform company and the investor needs a quick mark-up cycle, the tension will surface at exactly the wrong moment.

Deep tech is hard. It requires evaluating technical feasibility, market pull, geopolitical context, and capital structure simultaneously. And yet - while these factors are necessary - they are not sufficient. Everything comes down to the founder. Perhaps a founder with a chip on their shoulder. Relentless. In love with the problem, not the tech. A founder who learns from history, studies their domain like religion, who can crest the hills - speak to a big vision - and navigate the valleys - execute day in and day out. A founder who can compel the absolute best people in the world to join them.

When the alignment is right - between founders, technology, strategy and capital - it enables companies that don’t just ride trends, but define new technological eras.