There are numerous and competent AI enabled defense companies in the US? What about Korea?

https://youtu.be/qXAn4Z_xw5I

국방사업에 대해서 잘 알고 계신 분이 있다면 한번 만나보고 싶습니다 🙏

이동수님

https://www.barrons.com/.../nvidia-ai-chips-coreweave...
올해 갑작스러운 AI 열풍으로 반도체 수급이 큰 문제가 되는 상황. 리드타임이 2024년말까지 증가했다고.. 올해 4월부터 상황이 급속도로 좋지않다고 하네요. 우리나라 AI반도체 시장에서도 서비스 회사들이 어떤 칩을 원하는지 참고가 되었으면 합니다.
안팔리는 칩은 안팔립니다.
전부 다 같은 AI반도체가 아니고 성능이 A100 이상은 최소 나와야하기때문입니다.

1. GPU 공급 부족과 기술 산업 영향:
- 공급 제한: 주요 생산자의 부족으로 인한 공급 한계.
- 미래 수요: 현재 속도로 계속 증가할 경우 생산 규모 확장의 한계.

2. AI 목적의 GPU 이용과 시장 기회:
- AI 훈련 및 추론으로의 이동: 클라우드 임대의 경제적 이점.
- 스타트업 기회: AI 최적화 반도체 개발, 예: Cerebras와의 거래.

3. AI 에이전트의 잠재력과 개발 전략:
- 특화된 vs 광범위한 에이전트: 자동 행동 및 작업 수행.
- 제품 중심 vs 연구 중심: 성공적인 제품 개발의 중요성.

4. AI와 비-AI 기업의 미래 전망:
- AI에서의 황소 시장: 시장 내 중요한 변화 및 성장 가능성.
- 비-AI 기업의 도전: 지속 가능한 비즈니스 구축의 필요성.

5. 벤처 자본 커뮤니티와 기술 시장의 잠재적 영향:
- 평가절하: 거품 터짐에 따른 평가 하락.
- 지속 가능한 사업 전략: 금전적 책임과 시기 적절한 결정의 중요성.

Found this picture of my first demo drive of a self driving car ever, in what would later become Waymo. Dated Aug 2013, ~exactly one decade ago 🙂
What I experienced then was quite good already, zero intervention drive around the area. How long it takes to make demos *real*…

스타트업을 위한 시리즈 A 펀딩을 진행 중이신가요? 저희 데이터가 도움이 될 수 있습니다.

아래 차트는 2023년 상반기(미국 기업 기준)에 카르타에서 진행된 657건의 시리즈 A 펀드레이징을 살펴봅니다. 각 산업은 거품이 있으며, 거품이 클수록 더 많은 회사가 라운드를 모금했습니다.

X축: 해당 산업의 프리머니 밸류에이션 중앙값
Y축: 라운드당 모금된 현금의 중앙값

한 걸음 뒤로 물러나서, 올해까지 Carta에서 진행된 시리즈 A의 중간값은 4,000만 달러의 프리머니 밸류에이션으로 700만 달러를 모금했습니다. 꽤 괜찮은 수치입니다!

하지만 2022년 상반기로 거슬러 올라가면 비슷한 수치가 나옵니다:
- 4,800만 달러의 프리머니로 라운드당 1,100만 달러 모금.
- 1,127라운드 모금(올해보다 71% 증가)

창업자들에게 경의를 표합니다. 밸류에이션이 상대적으로 견고하더라도 이 시장은 험난합니다.

시리즈 A의 주요 시사점

1. 건강에 대한 강력한 초점 - 바이오테크, 헬스테크, 의료기기에 대한 견고한 라운드 수치.

2. 재생 에너지에 대한 적절한 라운드 규모와 견고한 밸류에이션/현금 메트릭이 모두 고무적이었습니다. 이 섹터는 지난 1년여 동안 잘 견뎌냈습니다.

3. 8번의 반도체 라운드? 매우 흥미진진합니다!

이 차트가 흥미롭다면 Carta.com으로 이동하여 2분기 프라이빗 마켓 현황 보고서 전문(블로그에서 무료로 다운로드 가능)을 읽어보시기 바랍니다.

이번이 당분간 마지막으로 작성하는 시리즈 맵이지만, 다른 사람들이 휴가를 떠나는 동안 앞서 나갈 수 있도록 더 많은 데이터가 곧 제공될 예정입니다 🙏.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterjameswalker_cartadata-seriesa-valuations-activity-7092542118803488768-vOcY

Summary:

Venture capital (VC) investment landscape is experiencing a shift, with reduced travel, slower deal-making, and more time for due diligence. Many VC firms are providing follow-on funding for existing startups and writing smaller checks, with some even slashing fund sizes. There's still a strong interest in AI startups, but overall, firms are taking more time with investments. U.S. venture firms have around $271 billion in dry powder (unused capital), almost double the reserved capital from five years ago. The deal value is shrinking, and the tightening of funds has led to challenges for some startups.

Insights:

1. Increased Caution: VC firms are more cautious, resulting in 25% fewer investments, tighter filters, and a focus on due diligence. This reflects a trend away from the "irrational exuberance" of previous years and towards a more considered approach.

2. Smaller Deals and Fund Sizes: Both deals and fund sizes are shrinking, indicating a more conservative investment landscape. Examples include Insight Partners reducing their target fund size from $20 billion to $15 billion.

3. Dry Powder Concerns: With $271 billion in dry powder, there is evidence that VCs are unsure where to invest the capital they have, reflecting uncertainty in the market.

4. Emphasis on AI: Despite a general slowdown, AI startups remain a hot area of investment, signifying an enduring belief in the sector's potential.

5. Adjustment to Market Dynamics: The market correction is leading to a reevaluation of startup valuations and fund sizes, indicating a possible "reality check" in the sector.

6. Challenges for Startups: Some startups are facing funding rejections, reflecting a tougher investment climate.

7. Focus on Risk Distribution: Strategies like investing in pre-seed AI startups and writing smaller checks indicate a trend toward better risk distribution.

Actionable Advice:

- For Investors: Enhance due diligence processes, maintain clear investment criteria, and consider potential in emerging sectors like AI.
- For Startups: Prepare for a more challenging funding landscape, focus on demonstrating value, and explore alternative financing options if needed.
- For LPs: Understand the shift towards a more cautious investment approach, align expectations with VC funds, and evaluate investment strategies considering the current market dynamics.

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/venture-firms-still-writing-small-checks-despite-271-billion-in-dry-powder

You can frequently read articles referencing VC "dry powder" and inferring that these large dollar amounts are "burning a hole" in someone's pocket & will imminently find their way to the market. I totally understand the assumption, but things don't really work this way.

First and foremost, undrawn VC dollars are not on the IRR clock. There is no urgency to draw them down. The money isn't actually at the VC firm, they are still sitting in the coffers at the LPs. No VC firm I have ever been exposed to feels "pressure" to "get dollars to work."

On the back of a market reset, & w/ portfolio valuations being slashed, GPs are mostly sharing bad news w/ LPs. No GP wants to look aggressive/carefree. Imagine being a teenager with two speeding tickets & a fender-bender insisting on taking the new family car out Saturday night.

Additionally, LPs are in a tough spot from a liquidity perspective. New tax laws & mandates insist they pay out ~5% each year to their constituency. Meanwhile, outbound liquidity from VCs (IPOs/M&A) are at a 15 year low (all but stopped). GPs know this.

There are also new market realities. Public comps have changed materially, & founder expectations have not moved as fast. Whole industries trade at a fraction of former multiples. So in many cases there simply isn't a market clearing price. This takes time.

Lastly, startup cap charts are very flexible when prices are rising, but quite brittle/problematic when prices fall. This is due mostly to liquidation preference. Most investors will simply "pass" vs stepping into this complexity. More detail here:

Anyway, I wouldn't expect a massive rebound due to this perceived "dry powder." VC crashes seem instantaneous. Rebuilds take time as the industry slowly works through previous sins, & slowly regains confidence. Risk off is very fast. Risk-on is very slow.

https://twitter.com/bgurley/status/1688605654188224512?s=46&t=h5Byg6Wosg8MJb4pbPSDow

Really excited about the new Databricks Assistant, which brings *context-aware* help into notebooks and our SQL editor! I've been using it since the day it launched and it's awesome for doing your projects faster, debugging, understanding your data, and getting help on the platform. It's now in public preview:

https://www.databricks.com/blog/introducing-databricks-assistant

After rapid growth, he tried launching SaaS businesses, but lost a bunch of money. Eventually he used the profits to buy a variety of businesses starting in 2016, which today form Tiny, a holding company he owns fully with his business partner Chris Sparling.

The reality is that it is easier to buy and improve businesses than to start them. It is easier to go from 3 to 10 than from 0 to 1. Even for the folks that have done it before. 

• Agencies: MetaLab (design agency), Double Up (podcast growth agency), 8020 (no-code agency)
• SaaS tools: Flow (product management), Castro (podcast player), Supercast (podcast subnoscriptions)
• Products: AeroPress (coffee press), Caramba (furniture)
• Communities: Dribbble (designer community)
• Media: Designer News, RideHome (podcast network)
• Job Boards: We Work Remotely (remote job board)
• Digital goods marketplaces: Creative Market, Pixel Union

Once a month companies send Tiny a finance-only update with the P&L, balance sheet, and KPIs. No operational info is included. 
Once a quarter companies send Tiny a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. 
Companies contact Tiny ASAP for emergencies, major news, or decisions. 
Some CEOs will go 6 months or more without speaking with Andrew. 

They have become known for doing simple acquisitions. Andrew didn’t like the traditional acquisition process: long due diligence, and renegotiation of terms. Warren Buffet does deals in seven days and those are larger, more complex businesses. Smaller deals should be even quicker.

His general approach is to find someone that's run business double the size in same industry and screen them really hard for culture. The find someone that has been there, done that approach has been the most effective strategy.

The interviews are exhaustive. Andrew shows the CEO candidate the business, walks them through the P&L, and then gives them 48 hours and asks them what they would do with it. He has trained himself to talk less and asks candidate questions.  
He spends a lot of time  talking through all the candidate's different roles in the past, what they did at each, what they like doing, what they hate doing, etc. He wants to understand how they approach things, what's their superpower, is it the right tool for this job. Magic CEOs understand everything, but they are rare. The book Topgrading is the basis of this concept. It is a bad book, but a great concept. The basic premise is the threat of reference checks, do multiple interviews and get many perspectives, see how candidates interact with each person.  

https://www.colinkeeley.com/blog/andrew-wilkinson-tiny-capital-operating-manual

[한국콜마] K화장품 ODM은 지금 거를 타선이 없다 + 선(케어)붐온
https://m.blog.naver.com/ssupershy/223181032687

요새 그로발 코스메틱 트렌드는 틱톡과 이커머스를 빼놓고 대화가 불가한데, 틱톡에서 인플루언서들이 피부 관리하려면 자외선차단 잘 해야 한다고들 강조함.

그래서 중국 MZ, 미국 MZ 할거 없이 선케어 쳐발쳐발 트렌드 확산 + 해마다 정도를 더해가는 폭염.

I've read the article, which offers insights into embarking on a professional journey and the process of hiring CEOs.

The author possesses experience in bootstrapping his SaaS business and leveraging the capital it has generated. He has expanded into areas aligned with his business, preferring growth strategies that multiply 1 to 3 or 1 to 10, having failed at the initial stage (0 to 1) in previous expansions.

Some reflections on this article:

1. Why limit the focus to niche markets instead of striving to be number one in various domains? While specializing in a niche could be an excellent starting point, competing with large companies may eventually become unavoidable.

2. Instead of solely concentrating on a niche, consider the future's broader landscape. Emerging markets often create new industry leaders. Is there an opportunity to create a new market ourselves?

3. The emphasis on Internet-based business, which transcends national boundaries, begs the question: why not expand into additional countries and truly go global?

4. Many experts understand the essence of business, yet there are few entrepreneurs willing to take the risks required to translate that knowledge and experience into tangible success.