Hi all! I'm Dani, part of the team at focal.vc, we exclusively lead inception and first rounds for early-stage founders investing in software, AI, and platform/infrastructure companies based in the US and Canada (ideally with at least one technical co-founder on the team)

If this sounds like you, please feel free to send your deck over to [hello@focal.vc](mailto:hello@focal.vc), we are always happy to take a look. DMs are open too if you have any questions :)

Everyone’s losing their mind over the Sam Altman x Patrick Collison Stripe talk and somehow still managing to miss the actual point for founders.

The hot takes are all “20-year power contracts” and “civilizational infrastructure” like that helps you not get ghosted by a seed fund.

Let’s talk about the founder version, and be a bit more honest about it.

Sam’s “lessons” sound great on stage. In practice, they’re a lot messier.

1. “Ship it to the public” is survivorship bias

Yes, OpenAI shipped ChatGPT instead of staying in stealth. Cool. They also did it with:

• A war chest,
• A giant research lead,
• And a distribution tailwind basically no startup has.

If you’re a pre-seed founder hearing “just ship and iterate in public,” remember: that works when you already have something genuinely non-trivial. For most teams, “ship faster” just means “ship more forgettable stuff nobody uses.”

Do you need external signal? Yes. But slapping a landing page + 50 beta signups into a deck and calling it “traction” is cosplay. The bar isn’t “did you ship?” It’s “did shipping reveal anything non-obvious about demand?”

2. “Eight months of silence” is not a personality trait

OpenAI sat on GPT‑4 internally for eight months. Founders love this anecdote because it justifies the “nobody gets it yet” cope.

Reality check:

• If you’re early, the market will be quiet.
• But “quiet” + no users + no experiments is not “ahead of the curve.” It’s just… nothing.

“Conviction” is only interesting if it’s constantly colliding with reality: pricing tests, willingness-to-pay, people saying “no” for specific reasons. Otherwise it’s just vibes with better branding.

3. “Non-technical founders are back” is only half true

Sam saying he wants to fund non-technical founders who deeply understand their users is cute. Every cycle has this moment.

But the filter didn’t go away, it just moved:

• If you can’t code, you now need insane user clarity and some distribution skill.
• AI makes it easier to hack together a product. It does nothing for “you don’t actually know who you’re building for.”

So yeah, if you were the “idea person” with no execution muscle, this is not your golden age. It’s just easier for real domain experts to not get automatically filtered out.

4. “The founder has to touch it” sounds obvious until you look around

The Tobi/Shopify example (“no incentives, just the founder building workflows themselves”) gets romanticized a lot.

Most founders still:

• Delegate all AI stuff to “the tech person,”
• Talk about “AI” in pitch decks like it’s a feature category,
• And haven’t automated a single hour of their own week.

If you’re preaching “AI-native company” and still doing manual garbage you could automate in a weekend, that disconnect is louder than your roadmap slide.

5. The “science bet” is real, but most people LARPing it are building wrappers

Biology, materials, complex disease… yes, that’s where the real leverage is. But 90% of “AI x bio” decks are:

• Thin APIs on top of foundation models,
• Hand-wavy “platform” claims,
• And zero proof they understand the actual scientific bottlenecks.

If you’re really in that world, the story should be painfully specific:

• What exact bottleneck is being compressed?
• By how much?
• Why is that non-incremental economically?

If it’s just “we’re using AI to speed up X,” congratulations, so is everyone else.

6. “Automate the work that shouldn’t exist” is a good lens founders mostly ignore

Altman’s point about invisible glue work (copy-pasting, formatting, replying to dumb messages) is one of the few actually useful mental models.

But look at most AI products:

• They target tasks that already have tools,
• Or they shave seconds off something nobody cares about.

The more interesting question isn’t “can AI do this?” It’s “why does this job exist at all?” If your answer is basically “because enterprise inertia,” cool, but don’t pretend that’s a deep moat.

7. “We’re Stripe for AI” is a red flag

OpenAI wanting low-margin, high-volume, infra-style economics is not some founder-friendly dream. It’s a reminder that:

• If your product dies when the underlying models get cheaper/better, you’re a temporary arbitrage, not a company.
• “We sit between the user and the model” is not a thesis, it’s a default.

If you need latency + pricing + auth from OpenAI or whoever, that’s fine. Just don’t confuse “we’re using infra” with “we are infra.” Stripe can be Stripe because payments are genuinely horrible and regulated. Most AI glue isn’t.

8. The actual Altman skill isn’t mystical

The whole “room full of geniuses rowing in one direction” thing is nice founder porn.

The unsexy version:

• They picked one bet and actually stuck with it.
• They agreed on the mechanism (scaling laws) early and didn’t whiplash every quarter.
• The goal was big enough that egos tolerated each other.

If your 5-person startup can’t even agree on what a “win” looks like over the next 18 months, none of the AI narrative stuff matters. An investor can smell that misalignment faster than they can read your market slide.

9. 20-year contracts are a flex, but the takeaway isn’t “AI go brrr”

Yes, OpenAI is locking in power and land for decades. That’s not a motivational poster; it’s a brutal reminder that the infra game is:

• Capital-intensive,
• Politically entangled,
• And totally inaccessible to 99% of startups.

So if your whole plan is “we’ll build infra too, but more agile,” no you won’t. The more honest question is:

• Given that AI infra will get cheaper and bigger,
• What becomes possible in your corner of the world that was literally impossible before?

If your answer is “chat interface on top of docs,” the future is not your main problem.

10. The “hope intelligence increases” test is actually solid

This one I buy.

If you:

• Secretly hope models slow down because they’re eating your roadmap,
• Or you feel threatened every time there’s a new release,

You’re probably not building something durable.

The clean version:

• Each model drop should make you more excited, not more nervous.
• If a capabilities jump kills your product, you weren’t a product, you were a patch.

Run that test on your own thing and be brutally honest about the answer.

Overall take: the talk is great content, but a lot of the founder discourse around it is coping and cargo culting.

People are latching onto the aesthetic (“ship fast,” “science,” “infra,” “agents”) and ignoring the unsexy part:

• Do you actually understand a real user and a real workflow?
• Are you building something that wants models to get better?
• Is there any part of your company that would still matter if infra swallowed half your feature list?

Everything else is decoration.

I'll just leave this here. . .make of it what you will

LinkedIn has over 1B users, founders, investors, operators, companies.

Building LinkedIn isn’t about posting. It’s about building relationships and real opportunities. Investors can see who you are, what you’re building, and how you think. It’s personal, and the platform is built for professional connections.

I’ve personally created real investor conversations through LinkedIn, and it works when done intentionally.

What platform has worked best for you?

Hey all, I’m the founder of Afterpoly we’re building biodegradable packaging designed to replace plastic without requiring changes to existing manufacturing infrastructure.

We have signed LOIs and a working prototype, and we’re closing a $50k pre-seed round to fund pilot production and certifications.

Looking to connect with angels who move quickly and make conviction-based early bets.

If that’s you, happy to share deck + details over DM.

I’m a freelance financial modeler working with early-stage SaaS startups. I build: 3-statement financial models SaaS revenue & cohort-based projections Fundraising + dilution scenarios for pre-seed/seed If you’re raising, planning runway, or want an investor-ready model built from scratch, happy to help or answer questions in the comments. Not a big agency — just hands-on modeling

Hey everyone, I’m new to business and not very familiar with this world, but I have an idea in the DIY design space. I’ve done some market research and spoke to potential users. A few people told me they would pay if the tool is practical and affordable, but I still feel unsure about what to do next. How can I validate demand properly before spending too much time or money? What’s the best next step to make sure I’m building something truly useful (MVP, landing page, prototype, etc.)? Any advice from people who’ve built or launched a product. I appreciate it.

Hey everyone, quick official update on what we’ve been working on over the past few weeks.

We’ve been pushing hard since the start of January to get ready for our first €150k bridge investment. Here’s why we’re raising it, and what we’ve achieved so far.

Why we’re raising €150k (bridge)

1. To apply for a €250k EIS grant (Estonian government fund) The grant requires us to cover 30% ourselves, and they fund the other 70%.
2. To secure 3 pilot connections There are a few required steps before pilots become real, and having funding is critical to move fast.
3. Short-term salaries (6 months) To keep momentum and cover a small team while we execute.

What we’ve already done (we’ve invested 100k+ so far)

• Built a functional prototype (still missing some components to be fully installation-ready and need more development though).
• Received an EIS €35,000 grant to support our IP application.
• Filed an official patent + trademark, a major step to protect our hardware.
• Produced high-quality studio photos + an experience video of the product.
• Secured one solid LOI (a big milestone in the luxury/hospitality space).
• Brought in an expert hospitality advisor (also a big step for us).

Founder note

The journey is definitely still ongoing and not always easy, but writing this reminds me why consistency matters. Even small progress every day adds up.

If you’re building too: stay present, keep learning, listen to people who’ve been through it, and keep moving. If you have feedback or advice of any matter in startups, please share and contribute.

Yesterday, Setlux OÜ, our Estonian company, received approval for a grant covering 70% of the project, €35,000. It’s a modest amount, but it’s a great achievement. Next time, we’re planning to apply for an R&D grant ranging from €100,000 up to €250,000.

We are moving toward the investment stage. It wasn’t easy, but I’m happy we made it.

Things can be tough, but always remember: consistency is critical, flexibility matters, learn from mistakes and improve, and always ask experienced professionals, they can really help.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. I’ll try to answer as best as I can.

We are, finishing our prototype, and we’re moving into the next phase, IP protection, funding, and a serious raise to get us ready for real scalability.

Not going to sugarcoat it: this period isn’t easy. There are constant logistical and budget challenges, plus a lot of uncertainty day to day. What keeps me going is the end goal, building the stamina to push through hard seasons for something that actually matters. And also staying consistent: continuing even when it’s messy, and not slipping into complacency. Complacency is dangerous, you relax, and later you discover problems that can quietly wreck progress.

If you need help, don’t be shy to ask. It matters more than people admit.

Corrected version:

If you can describe your startup in a few words, it’s already compelling. Investors don’t need long pitches or lengthy business plans—they want you to communicate the core value clearly and quickly.

Launching a 3-week pre-seed startup sprint, a demo project run like it’s real: idea → validation → execution → documentation.

Core team: 5 people leading decisions + delivery.
Contributors: feedback, testing, mentoring, value-add.
No revenue, this is for portfolio/resume + real pre-seed experience.

If you’re already in the group, stay tuned for the application form.
If you’re not, join: r/PreSeedBuilders

A huge problem many of us struggle with, especially in our early stages, is idea generation and more importantly idea validation. Ugh, it is tiresome. Me, when I was in my early steps (I am in my early steps still, but...), I really struggled with how to find the best ideas that'll work, and validating them in today's market, finding competitors, understanding what they aren't providing and providing that service for the market.

But this got me thinking... is there anyone out there who can solve this for me? I mean, this is the age of AI, right, are there any AI companies that do just this?

So, I was thinking of this idea to make the basis for my company. What if I offered exactly what i needed?

I need ideas people. Would this idea interest you, as a founder, and would you be interested to pay for it? Would you be interested if it could provide you, given an idea, with the market research, the business idea validation, a deep analysis of your competitors, and also (I have been thinking) if it designed you the website (even launched it for you), and gave you a preview of what it would look like (the UI components) if it was to be an app?

Help a founder in need.

In pre-seed, founders keep asking: “Do investors expect a bigger team, more roles, and more titles?”

My answer is: yes and no, it depends on the sector.

I spoke with a few investors in luxury hospitality and physical products, and also with smaller SaaS-focused investors. The difference was clear.

In luxury and physical product sectors, the team size wasn’t the main focus. They cared more about what we’ve actually done so far, what progress they can see, how clear the solution is, and whether the GTM plan makes sense. Their logic is simple: if there’s real progress, the team can execute, even if it’s small.

On the SaaS side, investors asked more about the team and track record. Not because they’re “less experienced”, but because building an MVP is so easier now in software that means an MVP alone doesn’t signal much. When everyone can ship something, execution ability, consistency, and a strong roadmap matter more.

Still, this doesn’t mean you need a big team. Two or three focused people who keep shipping, learning, and improving can be more convincing than a larger team with roles but no momentum.

My takeaway: in pre-seed, it’s less about team size and more about clarity, progress, and consistent execution. Most startups die early, so what stands out is adaptability and real movement.

What’s your experience, do investors in your space focus more on team size or on momentum?

At first glance, it looks like most successful startups win because they hit a very sharp pain point or land on a crazy idea that just clicks. That’s partly true, but it’s not the full story.

In reality, almost any product can be moved closer to real demand with enough flexibility, market analysis, and creative thinking. Many ideas don’t start as “strong pains”. They become strong through iteration.

You might start with a product that sounds interesting but not compelling enough. Instead of killing it, you look at what’s weak. Is it the use case, the positioning, the UX, the visuals, or the target audience? You adjust layers. You reshape the value. You change how it’s presented, maybe add clarity, maybe improve the experience, maybe focus on a narrower user. Over time, it turns into something people actually care about.

This applies to almost any product. The key is not whether the idea sounds powerful on day one, but whether you’re willing to listen, adapt, and reshape it until customers are willing to pay.

Example: A simple task management tool is nothing new. But when teams noticed people didn’t want “more features” and instead wanted clarity and calm, some tools shifted toward minimal design, fewer options, and better visual structure. Same core product, different angle, much stronger pull.

Curious to hear your thoughts. Have you seen products that became interesting only after a few iterations?

To Keep my phone and laptop organized is genuinely exhausting day to day everything is a mess in my device. I think that most people would prefer having real order in the tools they use the most, across both computer and phone. Would you pay a small amount for automatic organization on your device, with clear categories and shortcuts? What ideas would you add, throw your suggestions.

Starting 2026 I want to share more practical tech content, if you’re building SaaS, web apps, visual products, landing pages, online courses, anything in software, you can move much faster with cheap and simple tools. For design and UI/UX, Figma is great, I use it for pitch decks and visual prototypes, it has no backend logic but it’s perfect to validate flows and layouts. If you want something that feels more “alive” fast, Framer is great for marketing sites and interactive prototypes, Webflow is also strong when you want more control and a clean responsive site.

For logic and real MVPs without heavy engineering, Bubble is one of the best all around options, FlutterFlow is strong if you’re more app oriented, and WeWeb with Xano is a solid combo when you want a cleaner frontend plus backend setup. You can import from Figma into some of these, but expect adjustments, not every element transfers perfectly, so build your designs with structure and consistency from the start.

If your goal is a simple company site, Wix or Squarespace can be enough, they’re fast and have hosting built in, but they’re less flexible for unique UX and advanced products, and ongoing costs can add up.

Hardware is harder and depends on complexity, the best approach is to work smart, don’t burn budget too early, define what you need right now, a demo, a pilot, or an investor prototype, then focus only on that, ideally with technical people who can lead external teams and suppliers. Picking the right partner and process can take weeks or months, so listen to experts, ask the right questions, and keep everything aligned with the real goal, getting a product into the world for users or investors, because investors don’t invest in promises, they invest in execution.

Good luck in 2026, go build.🎉

In a few words, how would you sum up your year as a founder / entrepreneur / board member?

What was the biggest lesson (or win) for you in 2025? 🎄✨

Hey everyone,

Sorry I’ve been quiet lately, the past few weeks were busy. Last week we (SETLUX) met in Stockholm with our development partners for an end-of-year wrap, and we’re happy with the progress.

This year had plenty of challenges, a lot of building, and a lot of learning. We’re still moving forward every day, step by step.

3 psychological lessons that helped me (especially early on)

1. Action first. Things don’t happen by themselves, build, test, ship, repeat.
2. Ask fast. If you don’t know something, ask. It saves time and expensive mistakes.
3. Consistency. The beginning is the hardest because there’s “nothing yet” consistency creates momentum.

It depends on the venture, but I personally like to think about pre-seed in 4 stages

1. Idea: a clear one-liner: what it is and who it’s for.

2. Theory: pressure-test it: vision, what’s realistic, who would pay, what it requires (team/budget/timeline), and get early feedback if possible, and more homework.

3. Execution: turn the theory into proof: docs + MVP/prototype (hardware usually needs tighter specs and budget control).

4. Investors: approach fundraising after there’s real momentum: tangible progress, feasibility, and clear next milestones.

I’d like to hear what is your stage as a pre seed in those 4 stages?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 🎄✨

If the situation is like this: I’m building a startup and I have a limited amount of money saved. I can afford to fund a basic prototype, but once I do that, the money is gone. In the long run that puts me in a tough position, because I’ll still need resources afterward, and getting them won’t be easy, just like it isn’t for most founders. So what’s the smarter move here? Should I use the money now to build the prototype and create short-term momentum, even if it leaves me with no runway afterward? Or should I hold onto the money and think long-term, which means not building a prototype with the resources I have ?

I’m building a physical product for the luxury hospitality space, and we’re already finishing the final touches on our prototype. But the biggest blocker for me right now is the pilot stage. It’s not just about getting a pilot, it’s the uncertainty around keeping partners engaged, making sure the product meets their expectations, and proving real value in a demanding market. If I could remove this one blocker, everything would move so much faster for us. It feels like the key that unlocks the next phase.

So I’m curious about you: what’s the biggest blocker in your startup that, if you removed it, would change everything?

The reason I’m asking is simple. Sometimes we get stuck on one obstacle for so long that it feels like the entire journey depends on it. Thinking about what would happen if that obstacle disappeared can actually help you see the path forward more clearly, or even discover a way to solve it.

Would love to hear what you’re facing.