Sep 1, 2026 · 1 hr 53 min · 20 segments
**Miles Grimshaw** (X, LinkedIn) is an investor at Thrive Capital. He’s spent most of his career…
Miles GrimshawGuest
Jackson DahlHost
You've spoken in the past quite a bit about this kind of broad frame of companies, sort of the biological approach to companies and the idea of companies having genetics and durable genetics.

Um, I think unlike a biologist or a sports scout, which you may use that metaphor too, people seeing sort of Michael Jordan early on or whatever, your creatures aren't just adapting to an environment.

They're adapting to an environment that is in like constant and rapid change, especially in the last couple of years.

First, what do you look for in genes that, are durable across very dynamic environments? Meaning, are there any genes that are as true for companies as they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago as they are for this kind of new crazy era?

And in many ways, one should question every premise because maybe things that we have normalized to the assumptions that drove that normalizations have changed.

I think that there's aspects of building software, building software companies that were premised on certain assumptions, the core of which being that building software is hard, really hard.

And now that input... that truth has changed, things that we took as like consequences of that without realizing they were premised on that assumption, we should reevaluate.

And it's funny, because as you were saying that, I was thinking about a very good investor friend at another firm who, when we were just riffing and catching up the other day, basically said something along the lines of, I'm wondering if I should not be as precious as much about great business models.

That said, I think that there's a fundamental law still, which is you have to create more value than you capture and some version of a customer has to give a shit.

And all the marketing mumbo jumbo, all the valuations or whatever that happens, at the end of the day, if you don't deliver something that creates a lot of value for an end user and end buyer that you can take a small share of, nothing else matters.

And I have two silly but true questions that have become a bit of a meme at times at Thrive.

Which is, one, what is it? And two, who cares? Sometimes I say, who the fuck cares? And the what is it is, you can say a lot of words, but what really is it? What is a customer really buying? What is the thing that it is doing for them? And two, who cares? Who is that customer? Who is that user? Who is that...

person on the other end, who's it for? And I think that those two are like really important to ground oneself in.

And I think that I do wonder, in any cycle, I think you can take the wrong lessons from the successful companies.

You've spoken in the past quite a bit about this kind of broad frame of companies, sort of the biological approach to companies and the idea of companies having genetics and durable genetics.

Um, I think unlike a biologist or a sports scout, which you may use that metaphor too, people seeing sort of Michael Jordan early on or whatever, your creatures aren't just adapting to an environment.

They're adapting to an environment that is in like constant and rapid change, especially in the last couple of years.

First, what do you look for in genes that, are durable across very dynamic environments? Meaning, are there any genes that are as true for companies as they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago as they are for this kind of new crazy era?

And in many ways, one should question every premise because maybe things that we have normalized to the assumptions that drove that normalizations have changed.

I think that there's aspects of building software, building software companies that were premised on certain assumptions, the core of which being that building software is hard, really hard.

And now that input... that truth has changed, things that we took as like consequences of that without realizing they were premised on that assumption, we should reevaluate.

And it's funny, because as you were saying that, I was thinking about a very good investor friend at another firm who, when we were just riffing and catching up the other day, basically said something along the lines of, I'm wondering if I should not be as precious as much about great business models.

That said, I think that there's a fundamental law still, which is you have to create more value than you capture and some version of a customer has to give a shit.

And all the marketing mumbo jumbo, all the valuations or whatever that happens, at the end of the day, if you don't deliver something that creates a lot of value for an end user and end buyer that you can take a small share of, nothing else matters.

And I have two silly but true questions that have become a bit of a meme at times at Thrive.

Which is, one, what is it? And two, who cares? Sometimes I say, who the fuck cares? And the what is it is, you can say a lot of words, but what really is it? What is a customer really buying? What is the thing that it is doing for them? And two, who cares? Who is that customer? Who is that user? Who is that...

person on the other end, who's it for? And I think that those two are like really important to ground oneself in.

And I think that I do wonder, in any cycle, I think you can take the wrong lessons from the successful companies.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.