20VC: The Acceptable vs Unacceptable Risks To Take When Seed Investing, Why Loss Ratio Is Not A Consideration & Why Series A Is The Right Time To Establish A Board with Mike Hirshland, Co-Founder @ Resolute Ventures

Mike Hirshland is the Co-founder of Resolute Ventures, one of the leading pre-seed and seed stage funds of the last decade having recently announced their new $75m Fund IV. In prior funds they have the likes of OpenDoor, Mixmax, Greenhouse, AppZen and more incredible companies. As for Mike, prior to founding Resolute, he founded Dogpatch Labs, the community which helped launch over 350 companies including Instagram. Before Dogpatch, Mike was a partner with Polaris Venture Partners from 1999-2011, where he was the original seed investor behind Automattic, Q1 Labs (acquired by IBM for $600 million), Quantcast and KISSmetrics. In Today’s Episode You Will Learn: 1.) How Mike made his way from a legal clerk in the US Supreme Court to founding his own venture firm in the form of Resolute Ventures? 2.) What does Mike mean when he says Resolute invest at the "old seed stage?" What stage of development and traction are the companies at this stage? Why does seed investing out of a $Bn fund not make sense to Mike? What are the acceptable vs unacceptable risks at this stage? 3.) How does Mike think and assess portfolio construction today? How many lines in the portfolio is enough to be sufficiently diversified? How does Mike think about ownership given his thesis on diversification? How does Mike assess his own price sensitivity today? How does Mike think about loss ratio within the portfolio today? 4.) What are the ideal attributes of the founder/VC relationship to Mike? Is it right for the investor to also be friends with their founders? What can founders do to really build and deepen relationships with investors both during and outside of official fundraises? Where does Mike often see founders making mistakes here? 5.) How does Mike think about the right time to establish a board? What does Mike advise founders in terms of board composition in the early days? How does Mike look to build a sense of "board intimacy" with his founders? Why does Mike believe that there is a "counter-productivity to boards at seed"? Items Mentioned In Today’s Show: Mike’s Fave Book: A Little Life As always you can follow Harry, The Twenty Minute VC and Mike on Twitter here! Likewise, you can follow Harry on Instagram here for mojito madness and all things 20VC.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Harry Stebbings?

  We are back for another week in the world of the 20 minute VC with me, Harry Stebbings at H Stebbings 1996 with two Bs on Instagram and it'd be great to see you there. You can both suggest questions and guests for future episodes there. However, to our episode today, and one of my favourite sayings in venture that I'm a big believer of is always your fund size is your strategy and that is so aligned to the thinking of our guests today. And so I'm so thrilled to welcome Mike Hirshland, co-founder at Resolute Ventures, one of the leading pre-seed and seed stage funds of the last decade, having recently announced their new $75 million fund for. In prior funds, they have the likes of Open Door, Mixmax, Greenhouse, AppZen and many more incredible companies. As for Mike, prior to founding Resolute, he also founded Dogpatch Labs,

• 0:43Harry Stebbings?

  the community which helped launch over 350 companies, including the one and only Instagram. Before Dogpatch, Mike was a partner with Polaris Venture Partners from 1999 to 2011, where he was the original seed investor behind Automattic, aka WordPress, Q1 Labs, which was acquired by IBM for $600 million, Quantcast and Kissmetrics, just to name a few. I'd also want to say a huge thank you to Lindell Eekman and the team at Foundry for the fantastic introduction to stage two, Mike. Lindell, I really do so appreciate that. But before we dive into the show today, a lot of what we do on the 20 minute VC is talk to experts, pick the brains of founders and investors who tell us which trends to watch out for, offer tips on fundraising and teach us how to excel at any company stage. There's no playbook for building a great business, but we can certainly learn

• 1:28Harry Stebbings?

  from people who've done it before. Beyond listening to this podcast and talking to mentors and advisors in your own network, it's important to have resources you can turn to when you're tackling a new challenge. Stripe has built those resources for you. Whether you'd like to learn how to run a pricing experiment or build a knockout landing page, Stripe gives you the information you need to start, run and scale a technology company. Their guides are often written by or feature people like Elag Gill, whom we've actually had on this very podcast, and you can read one of my favourite guides on scaling engineering organisations and many more on stripe.com/20vc, that's T W E N T Y V C. And speaking of incredible products, Intercom was founded in 2011 by four startup veterans who were simply frustrated by the lack of visibility they had. Into their customers at their previous ventures.

• 2:12Harry Stebbings?

  They set out to build a suite of messaging first products that would help make internet business personal. Fast forward to today and Intercom has built a platform and suite of messaging first products that help internet businesses accelerate growth across the customer lifecycle from acquisition to engagement and support. And you can convert more website visitors, onboard new signups to become active customers, and then support your customers in a really personal way. What's more, you can do this all at scale with their powerful automation technology. And over the past eight years, they've totally reimagined what a business messenger can be, which is way more than simply live chat. And more than thirty thousand businesses, including New Relic, Atlassian, and Shopify, use Intercom to connect with a billion people worldwide. And finally, I've always been a big history man, and so I want to talk about Cooley, the global law firm built around startups and venture capital.

• 2:56Harry Stebbings?

  Since forming the first venture fund in Silicon Valley, Cooley's formed more venture capital funds than any other law firm in the world. With fifty-plus years working with VCs, they help VCs form and manage funds, make investments, and handle the myriad of issues that arise through a fund's lifetime. So to learn more about the number one most active law firm representing VC-backed companies going public, simply head over to Cooley.com and also go to CooleyGo.com. But without further ado, I'm now delighted to hand over to Mike Hirshland, co-founder at Resolute Ventures.

• 3:31Speaker 01

  You have now arrived at your destination.

• 3:34Harry Stebbings?

  Mike, it is such a pleasure to have you on the Twenty Minute VC. A huge thanks to the team at Foundry for the intro, but thank you so much for joining me today, Mike.

• 3:41Speaker 02

  Thank you. It's truly my pleasure to be here with you.

• 3:43Harry Stebbings?

  I would love, though, to kick off with a little bit about you. So, Mike, tell me, it's a strange and wonderful world in many ways, but how did you make your way into the world of venture and come to found Resolute?

• 3:53Speaker 02

  Well, there's actually, those are two different questions. My transition into venture, and then twelve years later, my founding of Resolute. So, my decision got into, to get into venture, I can pinpoint to a very specific moment. It was in the mid nineteen nineties, probably nineteen ninety-six. And believe it or not, at the time, I was a lawyer for the US Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington DC, and we were working on hearings around antitrust.

• 4:20Speaker 02

  In the high tech world in Silicon Valley and specifically around the browser wars, which were quite the rage in the mid 90s. And as a result, I spent a bunch of time in Silicon Valley and just chatting with a whole bunch of people across the industry that really understand it and get a sense of what was going on. And one of my early meetings was with a VC who I'd never heard of, and his name was John Doerr. And I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours with John, learning about VC and the industry where the internet was going. And by the end of those two hours, something clicked in my gut and said that that's what I want to do when I grow up. And so I carried that around with me for the next couple of years in DC. And then in 1998, decided it was time to make that jump. And I got the folks at Polaris and ended up there and coming to Boston.

• 5:05Harry Stebbings?

  And then how did Polaris then transition to Resolute? Big decision to leave the security of a firm like Polaris and start your own firm. How did that come about?

• 5:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, so you know, I had a 12 year stint at Polaris and lots of great stuff. The highlight of that really was my work creating and building Dogpatch Labs, which was towards the latter end of my tenure at Polaris. And I realized that was really what I loved, was spending time with entrepreneurs in the very earliest of stages, sometimes even before they were clear on starting a company and really spending my time doing that in contrast to, and we can talk about this more later, sitting in board meetings. And the other thing that was becoming clear to me is the challenge of doing really early stage seed investing out of a billion dollar fund in a very large platform. And so, you know,

• 5:54Speaker 02

  I just was, I was becoming more aware of what I really loved and consequently more aware of some of the challenges of doing that from that platform. And quite literally, Harry, one morning I woke up and I just had this clarity that I was going to start my own seed fund and kind of what it would look like and how we would work. And from that morning forward, I just charged forward.

• 6:14Harry Stebbings?

  No, I love that clarity. And no, absolutely. I totally understand how you feel that. I do want to start those days. You mentioned kind of working with entrepreneurs at those very earliest of stages, and that's where you're most passionate and obviously now invest with Resolute. There's confusion though around the naming stage of early round. From seed to seed plus to post seed to bridges. When we chatted before, you said to me that at Resolute today, you like to invest at old seed stage. Tell me, what did you mean by this? And maybe what stage of development traction are these companies at then?

• 6:44Speaker 02

  Yeah, so what I meant by that was really pre traction. I think today it's become rather conventional for seed funds to be looking for early indications of traction. And there were four companies that are mature enough to be in market enough to show traction. Our MO, what we really like to do is to be backing teams we fall in love with, with ideas that we fall in love with and just that. And so we really do not necessarily look for traction at all. Now, in some instances, when companies approach us, they happen to have had traction. But our model and really our preference is to go before traction and really be thinking about the team and the idea.

• 7:22Harry Stebbings?

  Absolutely. In terms of that stage though, there's often maybe more risks than a de-risk proposition, which has a reasonable amount of traction even in the early stages. Me and my partner Fred Dest, I often talk today about kind of acceptable versus unacceptable for us. At this stage, what do you perceive to be maybe acceptable versus unacceptable risk around assessing those opportunities?

• 7:44Speaker 02

  Yeah, so obviously product market fit is an acceptable risk. The way I think about this oftentimes is we really are looking to back teams that we think are exceptionally strong around product, product development and product management. And the odds that they are going to ship a product that some niche in the market really likes are pretty high. But our view is that those early signs of traction really are not very telling about whether they're ultimately going to have meaningful traction and product market fit. And so we're very comfortable with product market fit risk. Similarly, I think we're very comfortable with market timing risk. You know, in many instances, the market that a seed stage company

• 8:26Speaker 02

  ultimately ends up serving isn't really even known as a distinct market at the time a seed company is formed. So we're comfortable with those two risks and we're pretty explicit about that. I would say, not surprisingly, the one risk that We're not comfortable with and we try really hard not to be wrong about is with team. You know, I think we really see ourselves in many ways being in the business of picking and backing talent and extraordinary founders. And we're certainly not right all the time, but if there's one thing we could be right about all the time, it would be the founding team.

• 8:56Harry Stebbings?

  No, I mean, I think we absolutely share the thinking around the founding team. With such little traction though, and you know, the proposition being less formed, loss ratio would often maybe expected to be higher. If we kind of put on that LP conversation, how do you think about loss ratio, given the stage where you're really inserting yourself?

• 9:14Speaker 02

  Quite honestly, we don't think about loss ratio, which I suppose is in some sense might be the answer that it's less important to us and is likely going to be higher. Honestly, when those conversations come up with LPs, I tend to be very direct in that we really don't worry about loss ratio. And if that is an important evaluation criteria for you, we may not be a good fit because that's not how we operate at all. My mentor in the business from Polaris, John Flint, had a saying that I always remember, which is you can only lose one times your money. So, you know, losses are limited and really for a seed fund, for a sub hundred million dollar seed fund.

• 9:50Speaker 02

  If you end up having a handful of companies, four, five, six, seven, that truly are venture scale returns in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more. And you have strong ownership, you know, approximating 10% in those companies, you're going to have a fantastic fund. Altogether, you know, independent of whether the other companies tend to be mostly zeros or a whole bunch of them are small, modestly successful returns. It's really going to be driven by that core group of companies that are successful and your ownership in them.

• 10:22Harry Stebbings?

  I totally agree in terms of that kind of ownership centric view. A dear friend of mine, Jason Lemkin at Sasta, often says that with new funds, they start off in fund one by getting into any deal they can at any price, so to speak, ownership irrelevant. Fund two, it's a little bit more prominent and fund three, we are ownership focused. How do you think about the evolution of fund and its relationship to ownership? And is that maybe something that you've seen?

• 10:45Speaker 02

  It's something I've seen kind of across the business. It's not something that we've practiced. I think Resolute was started with ownership really being a pillar of our strategy. And when we look at Fund One and we have our handful of companies that are the, you know, super performers, I'm really thrilled that our ownership in each of them is very strong. And as a matter of fact, when I raised Resolute One, I initially raised $25 million. And quite frankly, that was because that's how much I could raise. But after getting about a year into the deployment of the fund and executing the ownership strategy, the follow-on strategy, it became very clear to me that a $25 million fund couldn't execute

• 11:29Speaker 02

  the ownership strategy that I set out. And so went back to my LPs and said, we really need more capital to execute this. So we ended up bringing in another 20 million and being a $45 million fund. And I think that was largely successful in allowing us to get what we want in terms of ownership, not 100%. And I think the evolution of Resolute One to Resolute Four has been fairly modest steps to try and get it just right, to try and have enough capital really to have double-digit ownership at exit of our best companies, but not more than that. So we can really maximize the multiple of the fund. And so we've kind of built up in terms of fund size, but pretty gradually, really trying to seek that optimum.

• 12:11Harry Stebbings?

  I promise I will take the LP hat off, very, very. I do have to ask, in terms of building that ownership and concentrating those dollars, it often doesn't allow for a huge amount of companies within the portfolio itself. How do you think about portfolio construction, having enough diversification with significant enough ownership?

• 12:29Speaker 02

  Yeah, so we pretty consistently end up, each fund has a portfolio of 30 to 35 companies. And I think we are very consistent in terms of our initial check, which we think is critical in terms of getting to 10% on that first check. And then where I would say combination of vigilant plus creative in terms of our second and third checks, being able to really build up our ownership position and not necessarily waiting until the classic VC rounds.

• 13:00Speaker 02

  To do that, there are many, many, many instances where it will be interesting to a founder and interesting to us for a company that's starting to break out to have more capital to really invest in growth. And they're not quite ready to go raise that A. And those are classic opportunities where we see to invest more, get more ownership, and at the same time, really help fuel the company to accelerate its growth so that it can raise all the more compelling venture round.

• 13:24Harry Stebbings?

  You said that about inserting yourself at those moments, maybe pre the bigger venture round and kind of almost doing those preemptive, so to speak, rounds. One thing that's kind of crucial for that is good relationship and communications with the founder. If we touch on this, I'd love to hear in your mind, what are the ideal attributes of the founder to VC relationship?

• 13:42Speaker 02

  Yeah, the way I like to sum that up is I'd say our aspiration is to be the first call for a founder. And, you know, that means lots of different things in different instances. It means when something tough is going on, going wrong, that classic oh shit moment, we want to be that first call. That, you know, the founder feels supported, feels, you know, comfortable enough in our relationship that they wouldn't hesitate to share the really bad news. Similarly, when that huge deal gets closed, we love being first call. You know, and I really think it's a lonely exercise to be a founder. And to the extent that Renan and I can develop the kind of authentic relationship with our founders where it's not always going to be touchy feely, you know, lovey stuff, but

• 14:26Speaker 02

  it's going to be authentic and they can trust that we're really in the boat with them. I, you know, I think that's what we aspire to.

• 14:31Harry Stebbings?

  Can I ask, can the investor be friends with the founder? Is there that line of professionalism that has to be drawn or can there be that friendship?

• 14:38Speaker 02

  You know, I think that I absolutely think there can be, but I would also say sometimes it's your friends who have to give you the toughest news. And I think as investors, there's a difference between, you know, the phrase that's become tossed about a lot being quote founder friendly. On the one hand, which means that you're always going to be yielding to the founder and supporting what they want and want to do versus having, you know, both a friendship and a very authentic relationship where sometimes you need to tell the founder what they're screwing up or, you know, really Be fairly direct about things that you think they need to change. In some instances, when they need to change, need to change.

• 15:16Harry Stebbings?

  No, absolutely. I totally agree with you in terms of that directness. In terms of the fit in that relationship, we had Josh Koffman at First Round on the show recently, and he said that founders today are too much in a rush to pick their investors. Would you agree with him here? I'd love to start with that.

• 15:30Speaker 02

  I think in many instances, yes. I think founders, with good reason, want a very fast process and they want to get back to work. And are sometimes inclined really just to get the best deal as quickly as they can and get back to work. I would personally advise our founders when they're going through a process and therefore by inference founders coming to us, not necessarily to build a lot more time into a process, but to really take seriously the fit with the investor. And to reference investors, talk to other founders they've backed and ask probing questions. And then just kind of see how you feel interacting with this investor and see what your guts telling you.

• 16:10Harry Stebbings?

  Yeah, absolutely. No, I couldn't agree with you more in terms of that gut element. If we take it one step further, though, we mentioned the element of boards earlier and kind of

• 16:18Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 16:18Harry Stebbings?

  preference to be at less formative stages. There's always a lot of debate on boards at seed stage. When do you think is the right time to establish a board?

• 16:26Speaker 02

  Well, I think it's around the Series A. I think when you're raising a Series A level amount of capital, I think that the investors have an understandable interest in governance. And as a company is starting to mature and build out its organization and its management team, I think a board can also be very valuable in addition to governance, kind of helping an entrepreneur think about building a senior team. But during the seed stage, it's a very, very different exercise. And I think too often having a formalized board, an investor-led board during the seed stage, brings a lot of the trappings from the post-Series A board dynamic into the seed stage, where there's some degree of formality, there's a fair amount of preparation that goes into board meetings,

• 17:11Speaker 02

  and there's a lot more discussion around things that come up because everybody around the table wants to be heard. And it ends up being A drag on the founders' time. And so during the seed stage, I really personally prefer there not to be an investor-led board. And really just to work directly with the founders to help them get to the next level.

• 17:32Harry Stebbings?

  My partner Fred often talks about how important it is to build an element of board intimacy almost. Once the board is established into that kind of engagement process with the board itself. How do you think about this? And have there been elements that have worked well for you in terms of building that kind of board intimacy?

• 17:48Speaker 02

  To be brutally honest, not really. I think it's tough. You know, I think the board management dynamic is a little bit of a tough one to build intimacy into. I think, I suppose if the founder really picks the right investors and has the level of, you know, outside of the board, has the level of trust, connection and authenticity with the individual board members. You know, I think that would be the thing that would contribute to kind of highly functional intimate board contexts. But I haven't seen a lot of that in my time in venture.

• 18:17Harry Stebbings?

  In terms of the boards that you've been on and boards that you've witnessed, and especially boards at seed. When we chatted before, you said there's an element of counter productivity to boards at seed. Can I ask, what did you mean by this and how are they counterproductive?

• 18:30Speaker 02

  Well, it's kind of what I alluded to a minute ago. First, it ends up, you know, the board meeting leads the founders to dedicate, you know, amount of time preparing for the board meeting and putting together the right deck and doing the analysis. And so that, you know, I think is oftentimes overdone. And then, you know, board meetings themselves, they're typically three or four hour affairs. And you have, you know, the investors there typically these days. The VC will bring along a junior associate who's kind of their sidekick and helps with various things. Everyone kind of wants to be heard from on everything that comes up. And so you end up having these not very productive dialogues where lots of people are sharing their own opinions on something.

• 19:14Speaker 02

  But it's not that critical decisions are getting made quickly and crisply.

• 19:17Harry Stebbings?

  No, I do understand exactly what you're talking about. I do though, want to finish with my favorite element though, Mike, being the quickfire round. So I say a short statement and then you give me your immediate thoughts. Are you strapped in and ready, Mike?

• 19:30Speaker 02

  I am strapped in and ready, yes.

• 19:32Harry Stebbings?

  So raising a fund is a challenging exercise, to say the least. What's the most challenging aspect of raising the fund?

• 19:38Speaker 02

  Well, I think that raising the first fund is by far the most challenging thing to do. And if you don't already have a track record in a similar construct, then creating a narrative that's very compelling that you're going to have a track record, you know, I think is the critical thing, and that's very challenging.

• 19:53Harry Stebbings?

  Can I ask, does it really get much easier with the second fund?

• 19:56Speaker 02

  From personal experience, I would say a little bit easier with the second fund, but it's really the third and fourth funds where I saw it get much easier. And that was because I was able to start to build an institutional LP base and who were happy enough with how things are going that they wanted to continue in the next fund. For me, both Funds One and Fund Two were rather challenging.

• 20:16Harry Stebbings?

  Listen, I love the openness and transparency. What would you most like to change in the VC community today? You've got a magic wand.

• 20:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, great question. You know, I think what it would be would be just clarity on who really is investing when. As you said earlier, there's lots of confusion right now that, you know, what's a seed? What's a pre-seed? What's a post-seed? What's an A? What's a small A? What's a big A? And too often, everybody says they do all of it, when in fact, there are very few investors, VCs, who really are interested in pretraction. So I think there's just a lot of confusion in the marketplace in terms of who really wants to invest when, and clarity around that and transparency around that would be awesome.

• 20:54Harry Stebbings?

  What book must I read, Mike?

• 20:57Speaker 02

  I would say there's a book called A Little Life, which I read about a year and a half ago, and it's nothing to do with tech or business. It's a novel, it's a first time novel by the author whose name I'm forgetting. And it's a portrayal of humanity in all of its essence and frailty, and the characters and personality was the most moving book I've ever read.

• 21:17Harry Stebbings?

  Attribution, important or it brings more harm than good?

• 21:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think not so important. You know, I think for us, we'd like to think of everything as a partnership. I think there's responsibility as the point partner on a deal to be making sure, you know, you're the one waking up thinking about it. But that's a little bit different than attribution, and I'm not as concerned about attribution.

• 21:38Harry Stebbings?

  Price sensitivity. How do you think about it, Mike?

• 21:41Speaker 02

  A lot. For our model, we're looking for companies that are early and where the valuation is in a band that that will allow us to get our 10%. And so we're very sensitive to price. And there's a lot of deals that are great opportunities, but they just get priced at a point where we can't chase it.

• 21:56Harry Stebbings?

  Final one, what's the most recent publicly announced investment? And why did you get so excited?

• 22:01Speaker 02

  There's a New York based SaaS company that we just recently invested in. And for us, it was just a classic example, two young, first time founders who we just think have the right stuff and really got found compelling. And it was very much of a founder led decision.

• 22:16Harry Stebbings?

  Mike, as I said at the beginning, I had so many great things from the team at Foundry. So thank you so much for joining me today and many exciting years ahead with Resolute.

• 22:24Speaker 02

  Thank you. It's been a lot of fun.

• 22:27Harry Stebbings?

  And I want to say huge thanks to Mike for giving up his time today to appear on the show. And if you'd like to see more from Mike, you can find him on Twitter at one of my favourite VC handles, which is VC Mike. That's VC Mike. It would also be great to welcome you behind the scenes here at the 20 Minute VC. You can do that on Instagram at H Stebbings 1996 with two Bs. It'd be great to see you there. But before we leave you today, a lot of what we do on the 20 Minute VC is talk to experts, pick the brains of founders and investors who tell us which trends to watch out for, offer tips on fundraising and teach us how to excel at any company stage. There's no playbook for building a great business, but we can certainly learn from people who've done it before. Beyond listening to this podcast and talking to mentors and advisors in your own network, it's important to have resources you can turn to when you're tackling a new challenge. Stripe has built those resources for you.

• 23:12Harry Stebbings?

  Whether you'd like to learn how to run a pricing experiment or build a knockout landing page, Stripe gives you the information you need to start, run and scale a technology company. Their guides are often written by or feature people like Elag Gill, whom we've actually had on this very podcast. And you can read one of my favourite guides on scaling engineering organisations and many more on Stripe.com/20VC. That's T W E N T Y V C. And speaking of pillars of your organisation, Intercom offers a new and better way to acquire, engage and retain customers. They've built a suite of messaging first products from chatbots to a totally reimagined business messenger that modern internet businesses use to accelerate growth across the country. Customer lifecycle from acquisition to engagement and support. Over the past eight years, they've totally reimagined what a business messenger can be,

• 23:56Harry Stebbings?

  which is way more than simply live chat. Today, Intercom is used by the world's most forward-thinking companies. Check this out, including 84% of Y Combinator companies that use a messaging or live chat tool use Intercom. They now have over 300,000 customers, including larger companies like New Relic, Atlassian and Shopify, and smaller companies like Airtable and Coda. And finally, I've always been a big history man, and so I want to talk about Cooley, a global law firm built around startups and venture capital. Since forming the first venture fund in Silicon Valley, Cooley's formed more venture capital funds than any other law firm in the world. With 50-plus years working with VCs, they help VCs form and manage funds, make investments, and handle the myriad of issues that arise through a fund's lifetime. So to learn more about the number one most active law firm representing VC-backed companies going public,

• 24:40Harry Stebbings?

  simply head over to Cooley.com and also go to CooleyGo.com. As always, I cannot thank you enough for tuning in. Really, it means the world to me, and I cannot wait to bring you a very special Founders Friday this Friday.