FOUNDERS & FRIENDS PODCAST

With Scott Orn

A Startup Podcast by Kruze Consulting

Subscribe on:

Scott Orn

Scott Orn, CFA

Nate Williams of Union Labs - a Seed Fund/Incubator applying DeepTech to solve real problems in our physical world

Posted on: 05/25/2021

Kruze Consulting's Founders and Friends Podcast · Nate Williams of Union Labs - a Seed Fund/Incubator applying DeepTech

Nate Williams

Nate Williams

Founder & Managing Partner - Union Labs


Nate Williams of Union Labs - Podcast Summary

Nate Willaims, Founder of Union Labs stops by the Founders & Friends podcast to chat about how his company Union Labs, a Seed Fund/Incubator is applying DeepTech to solve real problems in our physical world.

Nate Williams of Union Labs - Podcast Transcript

Scott: Hey, it’s Scott Orn at Kruze Consulting and welcome to another episode of Founders and Friends, and before we start the podcast, let’s give a quick shout out to Rippling. Rippling is the new cool payroll tool that we see a lot of startups using. Rippling is great for your traditional HR and payroll. They integrate very nicely, but guess what? They did another thing. They integrate into your IT infrastructure. They make it really easy for when you hire someone to spin up all the web services and their computer, which sounds like not a huge deal, but actually we did the study at Kruze. We spent $420 on average, just getting a new employee’s computer up and running and their web servers up and running. It’s actually a really good deal. It saves a lot of money and the dogs are in the Dogwood. We see a lot of startups coming in to Kruze now using Rippling. So please check out Rippling, great service, we love it. I think we have a podcast with Parker Conradd. You can hear it from his own words, but we’re seeing them take market share, so shout out to Rippling, and now to another awesome podcast at Kruze Consulting’s Founders and Friends. Thanks.
Singer: [singing] It’s Kruze Consulting, Founders and Friends, with your host Scotty Orn.
Scott: Welcome to Founders and Friends podcast with Scott Orn at Kruze Consulting, and today my very special guest Nate Williams of Union Labs. Welcome, Nate.
Nate: Hey Scott, I’m super excited to be here. It’s been great this spring to get to know Kruze Consulting in more detail, and I’m looking forward to having a good interactive chat.
Scott: Thanks, man. I appreciate it. Before we turned on the mics, we actually figured out that we live totally parallel lives.
Nate: That’s right.
Scott: Why don’t you give your quick background and then we’ll make fun of each other, or make fun of ourselves, for doing the same things during the exact same timeframe.
Nate: I did think it was quite interesting. Yeah, sure. I’m Nate Williams. I’m the Managing Partner and Co-Founder here at Union Labs seed stage fund based in San Francisco. I’m from New Haven, Connecticut, grew up in a small town called Cheshire outside of there, went to school on the East Coast, started my career at JP Morgan, which I have in common with Scott, in the 2000 timeframe. Ended up going back to graduate school at UCLA, and then the last 15 years of my career as an operator investor, I left grad school and worked on a team at Intel that made investments around gaming graphics digital home, and as luck would have it, the first deal that I worked on was an investment that John Doerr from Kleiner Perkins made with Bruce Sachs from CRV in home automation called IControl. I bit the bug, was a three times CRO, CMO, and COO in what they call smarter home or IOT, including August Home, which was acquired August Smart Lock acquired by Assa Abloy, and then 4Home that ended up at Google. I went back to Kleiner Perkins, actually kept in touch as I was angel investing, and kept giving them periodic updates of what I was seeing as an operator and went back as an EIR for a year, alongside Wen Hsieh and Mamoon Hamid, and the pull together of those different experiences as an operator and then as an angel investor, gave myself and my partner, Chris Kim, the catalyst to start Union. We started Union in 2019, and now we’re just made our ninth investment, so we’re up and running and having a great time.
Scott: That’s awesome. Congrats. I didn’t know you worked on, IControl. My friend was CFO there, Steve Bennett, for a while and I must’ve put in a couple term sheets [inaudible].
Nate: I do remember Steve Bennett, actually. Yeah, it’s really interesting. So, the company 4Home, where I was COO, was a direct competitor to IControl.
Scott: No way.
Nate: So, I researched IControl. I met the 4Home founding team and then joined, became the COO. We had the telecommunications customers like Verizon and IControl had Comcast. Comcast eventually acquired IControl and we were acquired by Sanjay Jha at Motorola. And so, I became effectively the CMO of Motorola set-top box group.
Scott: I heard an urban legend. Please either tell me this is true or debunk it.
Nate: Okay.
Scott: That when the IControl founders were pitching John Doerr, they were talking about their potential distribution channels and they named Comcast and supposedly, again, potential urban legend, he hit the speakerphone in the conference room and called Brian Roberts at Comcast and said, “Hey, is this interesting? Would you ever talk to these guys?” And he said, “Yeah.” And so, the IControl guys were like, “Okay, we are working with you, John Doerr. Thank you. You are amazing.” Did that happen?
Nate: I can neither confirm nor deny, but I can tell you from being at Kleiner for over a year as I incubated Union, and actually sitting maybe 15 feet away from John Doerr, he has got the who’s who of business, entertainment, politics, philanthropy coming in and out of his office. This was obviously prior to COVID. A quick other story is, I can neither confirm or deny this, but when we were at 4Home, we were about to get acquired by Cisco. Cisco had an investment in IControl And, somehow there was a mysterious call received at the highest levels in John Chambers’ office from somebody, and somehow, we got acquired by Motorola and not Cisco. So, maybe John Doerr has his tentacles in a lot of places.
Scott: That’s awesome, I love it. I’m curious. So, you did Kleiner Perkins and like you said, it was kind of when Mamoon joined and it was kind of the third generation, you probably had a dilemma of, should I continue to work at Kleiner Perkins or should I start my own fund? What was your thought process there?
Nate: In getting to know [inaudible] and talking about some of the stuff he did at H&Q and post Kellogg, when we came out of graduate school, Venture was a different place. There were the mysterious and monolith names, the Kleiner Perkins, the Sequoia Capital, the Charles River Ventures, the Excel Partners. And so, I looked at Venture in a much different way than it is today. Venture has become much more democratic and you’ve seen this Cambrian explosion of new managers like ourselves, but they’ve also changed who the general partner is. So, to give you an example, in the late nineties and the early 2000, majority of those general partners were coming from places like Cisco or NEC or Intel. They were comms networking, really hard-core engineering-
Scott: That’s what everyone invested in. Those were the industries everyone put money into. [crosstalk]
Nate: That’s it.
Scott: You’re totally right.
Nate: That’s exact-
Scott: I also feel like it was a little more like you had to know people, and this could just be my perception as a younger person, and at Lighthouse, we had an east coast office and especially the east coast office was like that. You had to be in the Boston, you got to know people to work at Venture.
Nate: In the 95, 120, you have to know the right new Dunkin Donuts to go see a general partner from CRV.
Scott: Yeah, exactly.
Nate: I think it’s-
Scott: And I think it’s kind of like that on the west coast, too, but it’s opened up so much. It’s really unbelievable.
Nate: I think that part, Venture is becoming a more egalitarian place clearly with persons of color, female. We need to do way more, but in terms of where it was, that’s changed. Here’s something that I think is actually a negative. One of the catalysts for starting Union was, as we saw Venture get bigger, the firms got bigger, multi-billion-dollar funds, growth vehicles, opportunity funds, SPVs. Then when we look at the general partner, probably 80% of the general partner now, in and around Sand Hill Road or in New York or Boston are SAS or social mobile local. They’re from Stripe. They’re from Facebook. They’re from LinkedIn. They’re from Box. They’re from Dropbox. So, if you then see a company that looks like a space company, a home automation company, a car company, that general partner, number one, has to struggle with their partners to actually get Mindshare to approve the investment, but at the same time, it’s just a different skill set. And so, when we thought about Union, that combination of more general partners who are SAS, social, local mobile, plus the seed investors like Mike Naples and others, who’ve grown up to bigger funds, created this opportunity where we were like, we can be the next generation of these hands on bespoke general partners and build a franchise that lasts the next 20, 30, 40 years.
Scott: Yeah. I totally agree with you. Before we turn on the mics, I told you, I’m friends with Charles Hudson, invest in his funds, and he was one of the first kind of pre-seed investors. And then, I’m also friends with Riley Brennan, who I also invested in, in Trucks. And that’s a category that you’re talking about, right?
Nate: That’s exactly right.
Scott: There’s definitely SAS in transportation, but it’s a different kind of SAS than what most of the Sand Hill Road VCs want to invest. They want to invest in, like you said, I don’t know, what’d you call it? The business automation software-
Nate: Tools. ERP tools, anything that’s one million ARR, HR systems, finance systems, accounting systems, et cetera. The thing, Scott, that’s interesting, if you think of the dynamic range of what we call deep tech, so you’re talking about cyber, you’re talking about space, you’re talking about autonomy, you’re talking about connected buildings, you’re talking about food technology or medicine, that general partner has to basically run the gamut, and it’s not like you can have a LP day where you just talk about, “Hey, this is how you get a customer. This is how you run a super node. This is what your SDR should be.” And so, the benefit is you get moats around these businesses, if you do hard tech the right way. Some of the businesses are built with a moat. The negative is it’s not infinitely scalable. You can’t have 10 of the same company. It just doesn’t work.
Scott: That’s very true. Riley, for example, at Trucks, he has an incredible transportation newsletter, which basically, it’s the who’s who, and so he’s so dialed into that sub sector, but I think every good transportation company meets with them to give them the pitch. That’s the huge advantage and it sounds like that’s what you’re doing.
Nate: Yeah, yeah. It’s so interesting. I’m glad that you picked up on that, Scott. We are in the early innings of this really well-formed mature deep tech investing field with some great investors. I think of Founders Fund and Coastal Ventures and Lux Capital, and Winshaye, Kleiner Perkins, GD. So, then the question is, who are the seed funds that feed those As and Bs. And so, what we saw was in the first generation, either hardware specific funds that are just like, “Hey, we want the next Nest or we want the next August,” or there were funds that were like, “Hey, we’re going to take these PhDs out of Carnegie, Mellon or MIT and build a company around them.” We came into building Union with this real belief that some of the misses are based on a lack of that API to the Fortune 1000. If you’re building a sensor network for supply chain, you need to talk to Prologis, UPS. You need to talk to Nestle and understand how they’re thinking about it. And so, we basically have built our firm to focus on that intersection and we’re staying in contact with dozens of C-level executives at these really big companies.
Scott: Hey, it’s Scott Orn at Kruze Consulting, and before we get back to the podcast, quick shout out to ChartHop. ChartHop is one of my favorite new SAS tools on the market, and basically what ChartHop does is, it puts your org chart in the cloud. I always like to say, it brings transparency to your organization. And so, everyone in your organization can see who they report to. They can see the full org chart of the company and how their group relates to other groups. It also has a lot of information on the individuals in the company. You can click on the ChartHop profile and just get where people live, their experience, Slack handles, all this stuff, and it’s just a really great tool. The other thing is, ChartHop has started doing some cool stuff around compensation and budgeting planning. You can actually start seeing what the cost structure of the company will look like during certain scenarios. I’m loving ChartHop. Check it out, charthop.com. We use it at Kruze, really like it, and I can’t recommend it enough. All right. Back to the podcast. You said something interesting. I remember when I was at Lighthouse, Khosla was always doing real deep tech or they would do food. They did Impossible Foods in [inaudible] Hill, and I was lucky enough to get in on that super early at Lighthouse, but it was like a $2 million investment, which probably made no sense for Khosla. I think they were probably doing a six or $700 million fund at the time and they’re probably doing a $2 billion fund now, but I always wondered if those companies… Impossible made it and they’re a huge success, but I always felt like there was a lot of those little guys that would get lost in a big fund, which is why I think what you’re doing is super interesting, because it’s like you are germinating, you’re giving them the money at seed or pre-seed level, and you’re tending the garden a little bit more maybe than a big fund would, even if they put a couple million dollars in the company.
Nate: Yeah, I think like anything else, it’s a relay race. We’re investors. We serve entrepreneurs and the goal is to create companies that change the world. In some cases, they change the world because they’re profitable and they never go public. In some cases, they file an S-1 and go public. If you think about the seed stage, we’re basically the folks that start the pipeline, help them figure out company growth, leadership, organization, product market fit. If you look at those set of skills, those are different than some of our mutual friends who are doing mid-stage venture or late stage private equity. In late stage private equity, you’re running a discounted cashflow, you’re running sensitivity models of entry price, exit price. Early stage, I’m really sitting across from an entrepreneur and I’m making eye contact with him or her and gauging their ability to handle ambiguity and also their grit because you’re going to get kicked in the head a couple of times during the journey, as you know from creating with your wife, Kruze, you’re going to see some bumps and you have to persevere. It’s just two different skillsets. What we’re saying now to our entrepreneurs, it’s great to have early big investors, named investors, early for relationship building, but in the Charles Hudson case, I would take a term sheet if I was an entrepreneur from Charles Hudson, than a tier one series A firm because I know that Charles, number one, has the empathy of what I’m building. He’s got the Rolodex when I need to raise funding to get me to a variety of other folks, and he’s going to be more hands-on.
Scott: The relay race analogy is perfect because you’re right. You or Charles or Riley and a bunch of other firms like Cowboy Ventures and other-
Nate: Oh, sure.
Scott: When you call a GP at a bigger fund and say, “Hey, I got a company for you,” if they’re listening because they know you’re a big pipeline to them and you’re going to send them really good deals, so they’re going to really pay attention. Having your endorsement, having you have helped build the company, you’re right, you can cut so much friction for those entrepreneurs and getting them to the right bigger fund when it’s time. I think that’s really cool.
Nate: You mentioned something before we got started, just in terms of training and education, organizational design, because of where you went to graduate school at Northwestern. So much of early stage investing is really around the HR component. The component of people management, of structure, of motivation and just that emotional side, and a lot of founders actually know what they want to build and can build it. Where they actually need a little more help is that, “Hey, I’m really technical. I was at Google. I just don’t know how to hire my first VP of biz dev,” or we have one company that’s doing amazing, they had a 500% year over year growth in revenue, but they’re like, “We’ve never scaled an organization before. We don’t know how to do an offsite.” So, we connected them with one of our executive coaches to run that process. So, it’s an interesting dynamic.
Scott: You’re so right. I know we learned some of the stuff the hard way, building Kruze. You don’t understand how early HR needs to come into the company or how, you have all these super high performing young people who you typically hire early, and then as you start promoting them, sometimes they’re up for the management role and sometimes they’re not, and you learn the hard… These are all lessons that you can learn from good advisors who are on your board like you guys. So, you’re very, very right there.
Nate: Yeah, just to double click on that. It’s been really refreshing over the past 18 months to see really well-known investors like Matt Turk from First Mark or Dan Scheinman say that the type of hires that people wait too long, number one, CFO, number two, head of people, like HR person, because generally people kick that down the can and there’s this sort of trope. You either make things or you sell things, but the truth is you need to go slow to go fast. And if you have crappy process, when a Series A comes around and I worked with Kleiner, while EIR on four different kind of investments that we co co-invested together on. If you don’t have good process, it comes up in the due diligence because nothing’s together, nobody’s got an inventions doc sign, the cap tables all messed up. An ounce of prevention is probably better than what happens on the other side.
Scott: I love it. At Kruze we say, “We help you sail through VC due diligence,” because on the finance side and tax side, that stuff comes up, too. It’s one thing if you’re a seed stage investor and you’re putting in a million dollars or $2 million in the company, but when you’re running a $25 million check, and it’s later, and the company had time to fix all this stuff and didn’t, it’s a real big red flag, so I know exactly what you’re talking about. Well, this is pretty cool. One of the things we wanted to talk about was, we both worked in investing in venture capital for a while. So, things that have changed, and before we turned the mics on, you were talking about late stage, entire global, and I was just talking to a reporter today about them. I don’t actually know anyone at entire global, but we see them being super active, but what have you seen in the market? What have you seen in these preemptive rounds and it’s so different to me than 15 years ago.
Nate: You and I both have roots back to investment banking. We saw how technology was changing banking in the early two thousands. It just changed. There was a time we all wear suits and then there was a year they’re like, okay, go casual, and then the.com bubble crashed, and they’re like, okay, go back to suits. I think what we’re seeing now-
Scott: I know. I spent my entire signing bonus for investment banking to buy like five suits because I had to wear suits, and within three months of starting working there, they said we don’t have to wear suits anymore, so that happened to me.
Nate: I had Brooks Brothers’ gray suit, Brooks Brothers’ blue suit, pinstripe gray, pinstripe blue, whatever color shirts, and then pink tie, yellow tie, et cetera.
Scott: Terrible. Terrible. Yeah.
Nate: Generally speaking, the trends of the public markets start to inform what happens in the private markets. We both talked about, I wake up in the morning, relatively early 5:30 AM, start working out, check CNBC, read the Wall Street Journal all the time. Companies are taking longer to go public from what was five to six years, 10 years ago. Now it’s eight to 10 years. You’re seeing a lot of that value accumulation happen to late stage investors as opposed to retail public market investors. I think that’s changed how people think about risk. The other thing is, if we look at winners, we always talk about power law and return the firm outcomes. There was like unicorns, now there’s decacorns. We’re seeing companies go public. I’m sitting across the street right now from Snowflake. Companies are going public, 35 billion valuation, 50 billion valuation, 70 billion.
Scott: Crazy, crazy.
Nate: So, you really pack on your winners. What I ended up seeing now, is the conversation at this middle stage if you’re a series A, series B, or series C investor is, you only have so many shots to get 10, 15, 20% ownership, so you’ve got to go all in. If you have conviction it’s going to be a winner, if it’s going to be Snowflake, if it’s going to be [inaudible], if it’s going to be something crazy out there, like a Lavango, you got to get in and get your ownership. And so at that point, what’s the difference of 25 or 30% more on the valuation, so we’re seeing that fluctuation.
Scott: I saw that-
Nate: Go-
Scott: I saw that twice in the last two weeks, where a super brand name Sand Hill Road firm had led a seed slash A, like a 10 or 15 million, way bigger than a C, but a modest A these days, and then a year later, they’re already preempting themselves and coming in and putting 35 million. This happened like back to back last week, but because they have the low-cost basis on the seed or it’s like a series A really, they’re able to actually… The dollar cost averaging isn’t too bad when they do that preemptive round. And so, I’m seeing that happen a lot, which is crazy because in the old days you’d always have an outside firm lead around. You would never want to price your own course. Companies would never stand for it, but not anymore.
Nate: Just think of how fast that stuff moves though. You’re thinking about when to strike a 409-A or you’re thinking about QSBS treatment. It’s just happened so fast. I would say in some cases, this environment can favor founders because they can raise capital, and they’re really indifferent to who the investor is, but the longer-term consequences with that much leverage and undetermined past the profitability, in some cases, it gives you a sense that you don’t need to find product market fit and you don’t need to scale revenue. Me, as a person who is thinking and thoughtful, kind of a student of game, I always wonder in the case of not enough constraints, what happens when things actually make a turn because some of these companies are burning a million or two a month, you’ve got to go to zero burn in three months. It’s going to be hard to do.
Scott: I live that at Kruze in that we’re very capital constrained, and so we’re super creative and it’s put us in a situation where we had to be really creative about how we solve problems and we’ve done it, and it’s the most amazing feeling. And then, I’ve seen some of our clients who raised tons of money and I saw this when COVID hit, it was really interesting in that, a lot of them still didn’t quite have product market fit or didn’t have enough scale in the revenue, but they’re sitting on a 200 or 300 hundred million dollar valuation, and the management and the VCs were freaking out because this was when no one knew how long COVID was going to last. They didn’t even know if tech companies would be beneficiaries or not, which it turned out to be, but they knew that they could not raise another round at the kind of traction that, that company was at, at that point. They’re actually going to be forced to cut their burn despite having a ton of cash, because everyone around the table knew that the company was at a standstill, which is so fascinating to see at a company that’s a glamorous two or $300 million, and we saw this all over. It wasn’t just one company. We saw a bunch of these companies. It’s interesting.
Nate: That’s why those things matter. Something I would say of what I learned at Kleiner Perkins, is having been a C-level executive across three companies raise collectively over probably 150, 175 million of capital, I never had that experience of what happens after that partner meeting when you leave the room as an entrepreneur and the partnership gets together to talk. Being able to peel that back and think about the type of questions, it’s really interesting because in most cases, it’s not really about the size of the market. It’s about the ethics of the management team. It’s about, do they have a plan that’s viable? There’s a lot of questions about, why us? What’s our value add? Why are we the best investor for them? et cetera. That experience for me was really helpful and also allows me now, as a general partner in my firm, to coach my entrepreneurs and my founders that I’m partnering with and serving to better understand, you could have an amazing company. And if say, I’m just calling out somebody who’s a great entrepreneur. If I send a deal over to Sacha Patel at Home Group, Sacha might be looking at 10 deals at one time, and no matter how fundable my deal is, he may have something he’s more interested in. Sometimes the entrepreneur says, “Oh, they didn’t like my startup.” Actually, it’s a question of, they may just be on something else. So, you have to go wider and you really have to be sure you have a reason-
Scott: [crosstalk] the force rank.
Nate: That’s right. That’s right.
Scott: I’ve always found interesting because I have the advantage of doing nine years of partner meetings, and the ethical part of it was so important. Are they spending money wisely? Are the milestones the company’s picked or presented to us actually enough to get them funded next time? You talked about that relay race, so you’d see a series A company saying their milestones are going to be X, Y, and Z to raise a series B, and meanwhile, we knew that was either enough or it wasn’t enough and it wasn’t going to be impressive enough, and they weren’t going to be able to raise a series B and that’s a huge value add you can deliver to the Union Labs portfolio companies and helping them align or pick or articulate their milestones for the next round.
Nate: By the way, something that’s super interesting to perhaps talk with your team, [inaudible] or others, is kind of a boot camp for some of these early stage teams of five or less, to say, these are the financial dials you have to make sure you can talk about when you go to that next funding round, because it’s the same stuff. Tell us what your revenue model is, what’s your burn rate, how are you thinking about dilution, all those things. Even if you’re not a classically trained finance person, you need to have some comfort with numbers because it’s a quantitative business, the same way that business people need to have comfort with technology, to understand coding methodologies or different technologies that we see.
Scott: That’s such a great point. We do spend a lot of time on that and we do a ton of bootcamps with those seed stage funds especially, because when coming into you’ve been coaching them during… They get the series A and they’re kind of conversant, hopefully most of the time, but it seems where we can make an impact, we can make an impact, so we do a lot of that stuff and teach them and I find it really rewarding. That’s fantastic. Well, maybe we should… I can’t keep you too long, so I want to wrap it up here, but maybe just tell everyone how they can reach out to you. Union Labs, deep tech. If you’re building something super creative, that’s not down the SAS fairway, they should be calling you, and how [inaudible].
Nate: Yeah, at the highest level, we want to back mission driven founders who are deeply technical, who want to solve some of the hardest problems in the world, and generally, where we see a good fit is if they’re using the technology stacks that involve mobility, so folks call it the IOT stack or AI machine learning, the data science stack, or robotics to solve a problem, we’re agnostic to industry vertical. We do things in food tech, construction, InsureTech, smart home connected office, but we’re really looking for somebody that has an earned secret that they’ve learned about a market, where using technology can either save money, reduce costs, increase revenues, safety, et cetera. And then, in terms of where we normally play, we lead about half our deals. Our average check size is between 500K and 1.5 million. We consider ourselves an active and aligned investor. We want to be your first call when it comes to dealing with a hard problem, not just celebrating the victories. One of the things that’s appealing, you mentioned Charles and his fund Precursor, one of the appealing things about newer funds like Union is, we’re also founders out to prove something. We have a chip on our shoulders in terms of making sure that we’re doing the right things, that our founders really have a high NPS, that other investors love to work with us. So, you’re going to see that same hustle that we did in terms of making August a successful outcome for companies like Maveron and Cowboy and Bessemer, who are investors. We’re doing the same thing for this next set of entrepreneurs. So, it’s nate@unionlabs or unionlabs.com. I’m at Nate Williams at Twitter. And I would love to interact with any of your audience. Happy to talk Turkey anytime.
Scott: Wow, this has been really good. You’re really good, Nate, and I really enjoyed the conversation and I’m excited for you. I know you put, how many deals have you done? 10? 9 deals?
Nate: I’ve done nine deals so far.
Scott: So, you still have a lot of firepower left and-
Nate: That’s it.
Scott: A lot of good companies coming your way hopefully.
Nate: Yeah. Yeah. We’re seeing great deal flow. We’re co-investing with some of the really great well-known funds, not only in San Francisco, but also in New York and Boston. I think if you want a combination, my general partner, Chris, is a physicist by training. He was co-founder and CTO of August. He’s extremely technical. And obviously, I’ve been focused on product development and product market fit for the past 15 years. So, we’d love to meet with great people and at the same time, we’re trying to make it more equal, a more inclusive, a more impactful venture community. We’re trying to solve big problems and something… I’ll get on my soap box for one second is, there’s a bunch of these apps that we’ve created that sit on our phone that can keep us entertained, but at the end of the day, a lot of us that are parents are thinking about, what kind of world are we giving our kids? The type of entrepreneur that wants to take a left turn or a right turn, maybe out of a Facebook or a social networking or Twitter or Stripe, and they actually want to build something to effect climate change or to effect safety and security or even aging in place. Those are the types of entrepreneurs, we can help them understand where the opportunities are and to build a team to Novo. So, happy to do it, and I’ll continue to listen to your podcast and pick up the phone and call Kruze whenever I need some help on the CFO side.
Scott: Awesome. All right, Nate. Thanks so much, man. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Singer: [Singing]. It’s Kruze Consulting. Founders and Friends with your host Scotty Orn.

Kruze Consulting is a leader in Startup Tax Filings, Payroll Tax Savings from R&D Tax Credits, professional advice and more! Find out why hundreds of seed and venture funded startups trust Kruze Consulting’s tax experts, software and process to save them time and hassle.

Explore podcasts from these experts


  call us