Hemant Taneja & Packy McCormick on Rethinking Venture in an Era of Concentration | Edited Transcript
A professionally copyedited transcript on venture scale, AI-native institutions, model economics, sovereignty, agency, and public trust.
Chapter Timestamps
00:00 Recalibrating What Scale Means in the AI Era
02:12 Stop Playing the Markup Game
05:41 Financial Innovation, Not Financial Engineering
08:50 Building the AI-Native Hospital: Summa
14:02 Janus and the Future of the Wealth Experience
17:44 Rethinking the Model Layer
22:42 Abundance, Agency, and the Tech Backlash
26:36 Sovereignty and Global AI Infrastructure
29:45 Build the Defining Company
31:21 Public Trust Is the Gating Risk
33:17 Buying 30 Calm Years
35:57 AI-Native Leadership
38:56 The Living-Lab Advantage in Venture
40:25 The Trade-Offs of Doing a Lot at Once
42:30 Every Founder’s Life’s Work Counts
Made with: The Transcript Desk Chrome Extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/automatic-youtube-transcr/iacfliajdohnkagokkbdmjkekbgaibcc?authuser=0&hl=en
Full video:
General Catalyst’s CEO, Hemant Taneja, joins Packy McCormick for a candid Q2 review. They discuss changing definitions of venture scale, capital innovation, AI-native healthcare and wealth management, model-layer economics, sovereignty, human agency, public trust, and General Catalyst’s living-lab strategy.
Transcript
00:08-02:11
Packy McCormick: Hemant, thanks for having me at your office here in New York to talk about what’s going on in the market, your Q2 letter, and how you see the state of venture changing. To start us off, we’re in mid-July right now. What’s going on in the markets?
Hemant Taneja: It’s wild out there. I walked in this year and had a conversation with the team where we said we have to fundamentally recalibrate what scale means and what we’re really striving for. When a company like Nvidia can add a trillion dollars of market capitalization in 100 days, or Anthropic, in which we now have a very large investment, can add the kind of revenue it is adding every month, you realize that the scale we’re operating at, and the concentration of value that’s going to happen in a handful of companies, is pretty stunning.
The corollary is: what are the founders of this generation supposed to be doing so that their work can actually matter? When I first got into the business in 2000, our first institutional fund was $200 million. The goal was to invest in a company, own 20 percent, sell it for $1 billion, and return the fund. Ten years later, the unicorn became a measure of scale. Last decade, it was all about whether you could build a decacorn.
Today, when there are multiple $1 trillion, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, and $4 trillion companies that could become $5 trillion or $10 trillion companies, building a $1 billion or even a $10 billion business may be financially interesting, but it may not be compelling enough to represent a great founder’s life’s work. Great founders want to make a dent in the universe. We have to rethink the scale our companies need to reach and how to get them there in a world where the largest companies have so much momentum to vertically integrate into every dimension and every profit pool. That has been my focus for the last six months.
02:11-05:15
Packy McCormick: You published a fairly controversial article on X yesterday. I’ll ask you for the thesis and then we can get into it. What does it mean to stop playing the markup game? What is the markup game?
Hemant Taneja: There are a couple of things in that. When the correction happened after COVID, the first thing Paul Fielding, our CFO at the time, and I did was something draconian: we marked our portfolio down by 40 percent. Our LPs told us we were the first firm to do that. We didn’t want our investors to think the companies still had the valuations assigned during the post-COVID exuberance, when everybody thought everything was going digital.
As investors, you also don’t want your next generation of investors thinking, “Look how good an investor I am because I’ve got this markup.” We took the marks down and became rational. We did it again earlier this year when Claude arrived and raised a very reasonable question about the terminal value of software companies. The reason I wrote the article was to help the next generation of investors understand that chasing marks in the heat of the market isn’t the best way to create value or help founders.
If these companies need to become much bigger, you’re not going to get them there by bludgeoning them with equity. Every time founders raise capital, you’re taking stock away from them. Infrastructure and resilience businesses are much more capital-intensive. The answer cannot simply be to keep marking up their stock to finance them. Our industry needs to innovate.
We can become complacent because we sit on a pedestal, play God, and say yes or no all day long while giving people money. We need to be entrepreneurial about serving founders in a much more compelling way, because their needs and the scale they have to achieve are fundamentally changing.
Packy McCormick: I think the controversy may have come from the fact that General Catalyst arose in an era when a firm could invest at one price and then mark the position back up. Peter Thiel famously said that one of the most bullish signals was when a firm marked up its own investment within a short period. Now that you can offer founders many different financing structures, the article could be read to mean that access to capital matters, while choosing the right companies and building relationships matter less. Do you see it that way?
05:15-08:51
Hemant Taneja: That wasn’t what it was meant to say. We view ourselves as a seed firm, just as you run a seed business. There is a reason three senior partners who built their own seed firms are at the center of ours. We want to be seed-first. Building trust and ownership at the beginning, and navigating ambiguity with a founder, is what venture is really about.
The point is that the journey founders face from there, the amount of capital they need, and the sophistication of that capital are no longer just matters of growth equity. We’ve created a customer value fund, and we just raised a public vehicle for global resilience that can take some companies public. We are innovating, but not nearly enough. I want everyone in our industry to think about capital innovation. This is not financial engineering; it is financial innovation.
Financial engineering is creating EBITDA through rework. Financial innovation means devising structures that help society absorb AI, just as the corporate bond market helped finance the railroads. These are national- and global-scale transformations. Innovation in finance is as important as innovation in technology. Who is going to do that if not our industry? We are closest to what these founders need. I don’t see enough of it because we’re complacent with the markup game and think that is good enough.
Packy McCormick: I’ve written before about whether Blackstone becomes General Catalyst before General Catalyst becomes Blackstone. Who has the advantage: the institution with experience across financing structures that can learn technology, or the technology investor that can add scaled capital?
Hemant Taneja: A version of this happened before. Most venture firms, including us, were early-stage firms, while public hedge funds moved down into crossover investing. The market appeared to be reinstitutionalizing around platforms. The question was whether firms like ours, which fundamentally understand technology and where it is leading the world, would gain access to more scaled capital, or whether large capital providers would commoditize capital for founders.
Over the last ten years, a handful of technology firms have genuinely innovated and begun operating at larger scale. In a world of AI, most of the alpha in existing businesses will come from operationally adopting AI and creating product abundance for customers, not from cutting costs and applying financial engineering. Firms that grew up building the world’s most important companies rather than optimizing profit have an advantage. Many large private-equity firms have told me they don’t see a future in traditional private equity anymore.
08:51-11:16
Packy McCormick: You call some of your investments “living labs.” Take me inside one or two of them. What do you do differently from a large private-equity firm buying companies and applying AI?
Hemant Taneja: When a great founder starts a company, the ambition is generally to change an industry. Our view is that no single company can transform an industry. During our deep work in healthcare in the COVID era, I said the Amazon of healthcare would not be a trillion-dollar company; it would be a trillion-dollar ecosystem.
Take Summa, the Akron-based health system we bought, as a living lab. If we want a proactive, affordable, accessible healthcare system, we have to turn local hospitals, which are poorly run and often teetering on bankruptcy, into profitable, AI-native hospitals that can invest in their communities and deliver proactive care.
There is no single company that can accomplish that. Inside Summa, our own AI team, Percepta, and roughly eight of our AI healthcare founders are working across different parts of the stack. Different companies are changing different corporate metrics that collectively transform the hospital into an AI-native institution. They learn from deploying at enterprise-wide scale without the usual inertia of pilots, incremental projects, years of business-associate agreements, and certifications.
We are not irresponsible with people’s lives; we only bring in solutions that have been proven. But once they are proven, we go all the way, as an ecosystem of companies. Founders collaborating to transform an industry need environments like these living labs. Janus is another example where we’re trying to do the same thing.
11:16-14:02
Packy McCormick: Before we get to Janus, share the interesting fact you told me about Summa.
Hemant Taneja: Three of the most interesting facts are that LeBron James and Steph Curry were born there, and Alcoholics Anonymous was founded at Summa. We forget that institutions that have existed for 100 years grew out of vibrant, innovative towns. Because of the way the healthcare industry developed, these institutions, which are often still the largest employers in their communities, became economically diminished. There is a great legacy in these places. We want to bring in our founders and take an institution like that into the future so it can deliver the care its community deserves.
Packy McCormick: The metrics must include both patient-care and economic measures. What are the two or three most important, and how have they moved?
Hemant Taneja: First, there is no trust between insurers and providers. Hospitals think insurers don’t pay enough, while insurers think hospitals bill too much. Both sides have built armies to manage that conflict, creating an enormous work tax in an industry that is already bankrupting us. Can an AI-based system eliminate that administrative burden and change how payments flow?
Second, the workforce was already burned out by electronic health records and the way we digitized the industry, and COVID made it much worse. Healthcare is the fastest adopter of AI because its workforce is so burned out. We need to help clinicians regain their bearings and take care of people. Today, we ration nurse capacity to the sickest patients; we should create abundance around that capacity.
Third is the patient experience. How do people navigate the system, understand what is happening, and care for themselves proactively? The best hospital system should have economics that keep people healthy enough not to come to the hospital. People want health, not sick care. No single company can change all these levers, but the ecosystem of founders we’re assembling can.
14:02-17:35
Packy McCormick: Walk us through the Janus example. Does it lower the cost of capital for the businesses you’re supporting and help them scale?
Hemant Taneja: Janus is another 100-year-old institution. It manages about half a trillion dollars and serves 65 million retail users around the world. Those retail consumers generally lack access to the opportunities being created in our part of the market. Can we democratize opportunity, use AI to improve their experience and sophistication, and transform what wealth management feels like for the end customer?
To do that, we first have to make Janus itself AI-native. Percepta is helping operationalize an AI-based operating system at Janus. Then we can innovate so its customers have access to a wider abundance of investment opportunities. Just as we ask what health experience consumers should have in the next era, we can ask what wealth experience they should have.
There are flywheel effects. If we gain economic leverage in asset management through a platform like Janus, we can scale the platform and acquire more asset managers. That capital can be made available to capital entrepreneurs in our industry. When those entrepreneurs access the capital, they are also giving consumers access to an industry where enormous opportunity is being created. In a world of concentration, we need to diffuse opportunity and create prosperity for everybody. Society will not allow us to do it any other way.
Packy McCormick: There is something interesting in the argument that to fight concentration, you need to concentrate and then work on behalf of everyone. Is that how you see General Catalyst’s role?
Hemant Taneja: We are not focused on concentrating power. We’re trying to create conditions in which founders can become big enough, and an ecosystem can form a counterweight to concentrated incumbents. If you’re innovating in space today, consider the moat SpaceX has. Should the space industry be run by one company? If not, what conditions do founders need to succeed and democratize the opportunity?
I admire the people who have created this kind of concentration, and we invest in them. But capitalism works for society when there is a level playing field on which new companies can continue to emerge. We have to ask whether today’s environment is making that infeasible and what scale we need to create the necessary conditions. That is the criterion for where we focus.
17:35-20:22
Packy McCormick: In an earlier Invest Like the Best conversation, you said it was not your game to invest in the model layer pursuing AGI because the return might not be there as models commoditize. Then you turned around and made Anthropic your largest investment. What changed?
Hemant Taneja: My long-term view of the economic infrastructure needed to power society has not changed. Frontier labs will keep pushing the edge of intelligence. But each new model leaves more workloads for which additional intelligence is unnecessary. Probably 90 to 95 percent of the knowledge work most people do can be handled by today’s models.
Breaking the frontier open for new research remains important. Strategic autonomy also matters; different countries will want sovereign model capabilities. But when I look at enterprise token spending, I cannot imagine companies standardizing on a single model. That is why we invested in Cognition: enterprises need help routing workloads between sophisticated frontier capabilities such as Anthropic, open-source models that are good enough, intermediate models, and systems they build themselves.
There is a continuum. Open source has an important place, which is why we invested in Mistral. What I did not realize was the pace at which the frontier labs would concentrate. It hit me that this is the first technology every CEO, in every industry and every country, is considering at the same time. If they all experiment and discover use cases simultaneously, you get unprecedented growth. That is what we’re seeing.
20:22-22:42
Packy McCormick: If the frontier labs keep making larger investments to cover a shrinking share of economic work, with diminishing returns, what is the economic case for Anthropic as it continues?
Hemant Taneja: That is a difficult question. If Anthropic says it will only provide intelligence as a platform, while open source commoditizes that intelligence, it may need something like a trillion dollars of revenue to finance the infrastructure that powers the models. The next step is to decide which profit pools above the model layer it wants to capture.
When we invested at a $60 billion valuation, the bet was that Claude would become its application. Usually, a company starts with a killer app and becomes a platform. Anthropic was a platform that discovered a killer app. It has since considered legal and, given Dario Amodei’s biology background, life sciences.
The challenge is that moving up the stack to capture enough profit to feed the model-development machine can conflict with how a platform should behave. Anthropic has to decide how much application-layer profit is enough while continuing to democratize innovation elsewhere. The company is working through that tension in real time.
Packy McCormick: My optimistic view is that Isomorphic Labs, Anthropic in life sciences, Chai Discovery, and many talented teams are competing to deliver better products. It could be one of the greatest consumer-surplus events in history, provided they compete hard enough that prices remain attractive.
22:42-26:24
Hemant Taneja: I share your optimism. At Summa, one company we incubated is Hippocratic AI. It offers an AI nurse at one-tenth the price of a human nurse, allowing the hospital to change its care model and give people care at home that they did not receive before. That is what AI is for. People need to touch and feel these benefits in daily life so they become less afraid.
Consider drug discovery. It used to be like the movie business: a drug had to become a blockbuster to justify development. Then the movie business got Netflix. AI may let us identify drugs that are profitable to make for progressively smaller patient populations and that have much higher efficacy. Regulatory processes will have to change too; it is not as simple as AI entering the industry. But it will be phenomenal, and healthcare transformation will not be complete until pharma is transformed as well.
Every industry has an opportunity like this. I’m excited by the abundance we can create. My concern is that if all of that abundance is provided by a handful of companies, while society and individuals lose agency, it will not feel good. We need abundance to come with abundant opportunity for everybody.
Packy McCormick: In your letter, you wrote about the causes of the tech backlash. I liked the framing that people feel AI is being done to them rather than something they are doing themselves. How do we solve that?
Hemant Taneja: My big concern is agency. Concentrated companies may say that people will not need money because abundance will provide everything. Seven years ago, I wrote a piece called “What If It All Comes True?” At the time, Silicon Valley was pursuing self-driving trucks, longevity, and basic income. Each is a good idea in isolation. Together, they could mean telling five million truck drivers, “Good news and bad news: you’re going to live 40 years longer, your job is gone, and we’re putting you on a stipend, so your dignity is gone too.”
We almost have to think of Silicon Valley as a unified ecosystem offering a product to society and ask whether that is an offering people actually want and whether it will make them happy. People need to feel that they did it and that opportunities remain available to them. We cannot eliminate labor in every country and turn all of that work into subscriptions for a handful of companies. Americans will not want that, let alone the rest of the world.
We need to be intentional about the transformation we’re creating. Right now, the system is focused on scale and absorbing profit pools because that is what capitalism does. Eventually, that creates too-big-to-fail dynamics, and technology is heading in that direction.
26:24-29:25
Packy McCormick: It sometimes feels as if the market has a consciousness that pushes back against concentration. Anthropic appeared to be running away with the market, and then Kimi K3 arrived. Americans started cheering for Chinese open-source models because they are open and will answer a biology question instead of redirecting you. There is an animal spirit fighting concentration.
Hemant Taneja: It is real, and capital allocators have a role in deciding what gets funded. We are very focused on building a vibrant U.S. open-source ecosystem. Europe and China need their own ecosystems because sovereignty will matter. Through our policy work, we encourage nation-states to build their own infrastructure. As AI turns labor into productivity, countries need to capture some of that productivity on their own soil and reinvest it in their people’s prosperity rather than letting it flow to a company somewhere else.
We are determining what resilient AI infrastructure should look like over the next 10 or 20 years. I was in Greece yesterday and sat down with the prime minister to discuss exactly this. Greece is building AI factories and has centralized healthcare data so it can use AI and intelligence. We showed officials some of the work we’re doing, and their immediate question was how they could run local pilots and ensure the work actually gets done there.
Entrepreneurs build great companies because they have empathy for a problem. The person who transforms healthcare in Greece will probably live there and understand it. Countries should create compute infrastructure and an intelligence ecosystem on which local entrepreneurs can build. We don’t want to solve the world’s problems entirely from Silicon Valley. We want to create technologies others can harness so they can become resilient in their own way. Entrepreneurship should operate on a much more global and level playing field. That is part of our global-resilience thesis and why we invest in Europe, India, MENA, and allied nation-states.
29:25-31:21
Packy McCormick: Some of my favorite hard-tech founders are in the General Catalyst portfolio. I wrote about Senra Systems with Jordan Schneider yesterday. Its founder, Andre Varanasi, and Standard Bots founder Evan Beard have both said you push them to think much bigger than other people they work with. Outside the AI context, what does thinking bigger look like for a hardware founder?
Hemant Taneja: In Evan’s case, he is building a great company that is really growing. I ask whether he wants to win his current market or build the defining company that shapes robotics for the world. There is no right or wrong answer; it depends on his ambition. But some company, or set of companies, will shape robotics. We will move from automating industrial settings to building technology so capable that factories are designed around it.
If that is what he wants to do, he needs a long-term vision and must align short-term decisions with it. Founders become myopic because this is a difficult period. Everything around them keeps changing. They have to retest assumptions and wonder whether they are working on the most important areas, whether they missed something, and whether a second mover will suddenly sideswipe them. They rarely have time to step back and imagine what the world will look like in the long term. I try to create that pause and ask whether they are making the right choices to reach it.
31:21-33:17
Packy McCormick: If we repeat this conversation in a quarter or two, what do you think will have changed most? What do you believe that differs most from the rest of the market?
Hemant Taneja: I don’t know whether I disagree with the market, but the ability to scale these systems depends increasingly on public sentiment. I’ve spent time with people on both sides of the aisle, and other than China, the one thing they agree on is that people are scared. That fear is becoming a real obstacle.
The United States has effectively made a venture-capital bet on AI infrastructure. Enormous capital has gone into projects, and a great deal of equity could be wiped out if companies miss infrastructure-development timelines. At the same time, fear is creating pressure to slow projects down. That combination could create a negative spiral that costs the United States momentum.
Most people are not taking the risk seriously enough and assume they can power through it. Some firms engage excessively in politics because they think that is the answer. The answer is bringing people along, and we are heavily underestimating the importance of doing that.
Packy McCormick: I write and tell stories for a living, and it is hard to figure out how to tell this story after getting it so wrong so far. Does AI remain a tool, or does it become something that does most of the work? What do the next ten years look like?
33:17-35:57
Hemant Taneja: In the short term, AI is a tool. My daughter just graduated and works at an AI company building agents to automate tasks. She jokes that she can automate her own job. Right now, we’re reimagining how we do our work, and that will take longer than people think. Someone will declare that AGI is here and rattle the markets, but diffusion through society is much slower. The next several years will be about humanity using AI as a tool and making sure it drives productivity.
Someone told me yesterday that there is a fine line between productivity and complacency. We need to learn how to use AI for real productivity. In the medium term, we will imagine fundamentally new experiences. If nursing capacity becomes nearly free, how should care work differently? That will create new jobs. If everyone has an AI tutor that can generate video, education may move from a four-year period to lifelong learning. We will have to redesign the education system.
Robotics will also advance, but working robotic models are only part of the issue; supply chains must become sophisticated enough to adopt them. In the very long term, I worry that we may need a post-work society because machines will perform a large percentage of both cognitive and physical work better than people.
Capital allocation will eventually push through resistance, so we are not going to stop this. But society needs a calm environment in which to embrace the technology, see its benefits, preserve agency, and imagine what the next phase of life should look like. Rather than creating anxiety and forcing adoption on people, can we buy ourselves 30 calm years in which we make progress, let people experience the benefits, and create the headspace to address the longer-term issues? That is my dream scenario: that the technology ecosystem matures enough to behave that way.
35:57-38:18
Packy McCormick: Who is responsible for creating that calm environment? Meta, for example, has done a terrible job communicating that it uses AI, fires people, tracks everyone at work, uses that activity to train models, and may then fire more people. Do CEOs have to accept lower margins, or how does the calmer approach enter the economy?
Hemant Taneja: I think about a unit of work, a company, and then an ecosystem or industry. We are moving from humans made productive by software to a new organization in which junior work changes and humans and agents divide the work differently. As the company changes, it can also serve customers differently.
In most industries, AI will not immediately make the total market much larger. The first phase will be about which company has the leadership and conditions to take share from others. The next five to ten years will involve a reallocation of market share. That is largely about the CEO. Can the CEO inspire the team to do more with less without creating fear that everyone will lose their job? Can the new leverage help the company win share and begin a sustained journey of innovation?
Ali Dibadj, who runs Janus Henderson, is an excellent CEO. We invested because I believe he can lead that transformation in his industry. In that sense, it is a venture-capital bet: if we create the AI transformation and then scale it, Janus can take share from others.
Once a new generation of AI-native leaders has been established, the question becomes how industries change with the new tools. It is naive to claim all of this will happen in two, three, or four years. We work inside these companies through the living labs and see what adoption actually requires. It is going to take a while.
38:18-40:25
Packy McCormick: How has operating the living labs changed how you invest on the venture side?
Hemant Taneja: It gives us a much better appreciation for the end customers our founders sell to and reveals problems that are not being solved. The magic is the collaboration among our venture-investing team, the leadership of the living labs, and our AI-transformation teams inside those institutions. Together, they reframe problems, identify what is missing, and determine what must be built.
We can then look for founders working on those problems. If nobody is, our creation fund can assemble a team and work on the problem itself. Being part of that knowledge flow, and acting as real practitioners and builders alongside founders, makes the work more fun and much more grounded. It also makes us smarter about where value is and how to guide founders.
For example, because we work inside these labs, we’ve helped portfolio companies design their customer contracts. We can show them how an industry buys, what the key economic levers are, and how they should sell. It might otherwise take a founder ten years to develop that understanding. These are meaningful advantages when dealing with the physics of entrenched industries trying to change with AI.
40:25-42:30
Packy McCormick: The flip side is the challenge of doing many things. The theoretically best-performing venture firm picks the right company at the right time and makes it the only investment in the portfolio. You have chosen to do many things that you hope fit together. What are the trade-offs?
Hemant Taneja: Our capital-entrepreneurship products, living labs, and AI-transformation team are intended to create unfair advantages for founders and make us smarter about investing. Within the investment portfolio, though, the last three years have been difficult enough that we have been reasonably surgical.
At least for the moment, Anthropic appears to have been the right model investment. We believed strongly in European sovereignty, so we invested in Mistral. We believed defense would matter, so we invested in Anduril, Helsing in Europe, and Raphe mPhibr in India. We also made a seed-stage defense investment where we may be the largest shareholder. We made specific bets in different parts of the stack rather than spreading capital everywhere.
I cannot say that was necessarily the smartest return-maximizing strategy. Some firms indexed all the models and may do better. Especially in the AI era, we focused on who had the right values and what they were building, because that is an important part of our ethos. It was not even clear what the technologies were supposed to become, so we allowed some time to elapse.
I think we ended up in a good position. We have done deep work on AI-services transformation, built industry models in healthcare and industrials, and invested in strong base-model and infrastructure companies. We did not invest in everything at the right moment, but the stack we have assembled should play an important role in diffusing AI through the world.
42:30-44:52
Packy McCormick: Looking out ten or twenty years, perhaps to your retirement, how will you judge success at General Catalyst? Is that measure exactly aligned with your LPs?
Hemant Taneja: I have a simple metric of success: every ambitious founder should say, “I want to start here.” I think about seed and creation. There is a reason our incubation fund is called Creation; all of this is about inception. We want founders to know they should start with us, that they can trust us, that we have the capabilities to help them build, that we can give them unfair advantages, and that we are comfortable with ambiguity.
We are constantly trying to improve. Trust, ownership, and influence are built at the beginning of a founder’s journey. If we continue to innovate in capital, go-to-market, and policy, we can serve founders better than anyone. That is the aspiration.
Packy McCormick: It is almost as if you’re increasing your share of wallet with the scarce assets represented by valuable companies.
Hemant Taneja: Our industry has a zero-sum mentality. Much of the AI slop on social media is designed to keep a venture firm at the top of a founder’s mind when the founder is raising money. That is what the machine is doing.
We focus instead on the founders we already work with. We get our fair share in the market and would like to grow it, but we have a great set of founders and want to take all of them to the promised land. We do not want to identify only the obvious power-law winners and triage everyone else. We want everyone’s life’s work to count.
Just because a company is not on the most obvious power-law curve does not mean it cannot become an enduring company at scale if we help it in novel ways. We look at every company and ask how to get it there. Over time, I hope our reputation compounds so founders know that, whatever journey they encounter, we will get them there if a path exists. Nobody knows the outcome a priori.
44:52-45:00
Packy McCormick: This was a ton of fun. The next few years will be fascinating, and you’re in a fascinating seat. Thanks for giving us a glimpse into it.
Hemant Taneja: Thanks for spending time with me. That was fun.
Made with: The Transcript Desk Chrome Extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/automatic-youtube-transcr/iacfliajdohnkagokkbdmjkekbgaibcc?authuser=0&hl=en