I've built up an arsenal of geeky metaphors to help scientists make sense of startups and entrepreneurship.
Figured it might make for a fun 🧵to share a few here... /1
[Chemistry] Your startup is a chemical rxn. Value prop dictates thermo, business model dictates kinetics. Success requires [A] an exothermic reaction (products more valuable than reactants) & [B] overcoming activation barriers (fundraising, distribution, etc.). /2
[Newtonian Mechanics] Entrepreneurship is about punching above your weight and leveraging resources outside of your direct control. Always seek leverage points. /3
[Optics] There is a broad spectrum of approaches to get new technologies to market. Capital sources are bandpass filters. Understand the incentives and constraints of your funders before you take their $. /4
[Basic algebra] VCs never invest in a point. They are far more interested in the shape of the curve and the derivatives. Build your entire story and pitch around d[value/risk]/d[t]. /5
[Electrochemistry] VC backed startups are optimized for high current, not high efficiency. The system is meant to be operated out of equilibrium w/ high over-potentials. Thermal loss & side reactions are expected - your job is to manage those & avoid runaway reactions. /6
[Wave theory] First time entrepreneurs often make the mistake of focusing on phase velocity. Don't get burned out chasing the ups and downs of each wave -- all that matters is group velocity (and the two are not necessarily correlated). /7
So many fun direction to go here. Evolutionary biology of pivots, inflation theory of SPACs, special relativity of fundraising...
What you got, nerdy tech founder twitterverse? /8
Dig this thread? Check out activate.org/learn where we've published some longer form content to help scientists grok hard tech entrepreneurship. Nearly impossible w/o somehow getting it wrong, but we're gonna try...
Wanna help? DM me we're hiring.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At peak, Bell Labs was about $2B/yr in today's USD. Split 30% fundamental research, 10% translation, 60% systems engineering. (straight from the source) /2
For perspective, we're talking about a corporate R&D lab with a fundamental research arm twice the size but same caliber as Cal Tech alongside a systems engineering team roughly the same size/caliber of Space X (guessing), with a translation team >10x the size of Otherlab. /3
Wake up call: The US spends more on research in human health than agriculture, space, and energy combined, yet we were unprepared for covid-19—not because we weren’t spending enough, but because we weren’t spending effectively.
Thesis: The world has changed dramatically since WW2, yet the US is largely working off the same science policy playbook. We built the most powerful infrastructure for academic research...but our capacity for turning scientific advances into practical solutions has withered.