Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka -- Canaan Partners

This episode dives into the world of venture capital through the lens of Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka, a partner at Canaan, a traditional Series A venture fund based on Sand Hill Road, focusing on technology and healthcare investments.

1. Series A funding rounds are highly competitive, with price often being a significant factor in winning deals.
2. Canaan differentiates itself through deep sector-specific expertise and a long-standing reputation in leading Series A investments.
3. The venture capital landscape has evolved with more players and increased competition, influencing strategies for investment and fund management.
4. Technical expertise and understanding of industry-specific risks are crucial for making informed investment decisions in areas like AI, robotics, and space technology.
5. Effective venture partnerships leverage diverse perspectives to weigh risks and make decisions, enhancing the ability to manage portfolio investments strategically.

1: Introduction to Rayfe and Canaan Partners

Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka discusses Canaan Partners' focus on technology and healthcare, emphasizing the competitive nature of Series A investments. Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka: "We've always been a bit of a diversified fund."

2: Competitive Dynamics in Venture Capital

Discussion on the increasing competition in venture rounds and the strategic aspects of securing deals. Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka: "The biggest input is price, but other factors like sector involvement and portfolio services also play."

3: Evolution of Canaan and Venture Capital

Insights into how Canaan has evolved and adapted to changes in the venture capital industry over the years. Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka: "We've evolved in terms of people and focus areas."

4: Sector-Specific Investments and Trends

Exploration of Canaan's approach to investing in frontier technologies and the importance of aligning technology trends with market needs. Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka: "We spend a lot of time thinking about the intersection of tech changes and macro trends."

1. When evaluating potential investments, prioritize understanding the competitive landscape and the specific factors that influence deal outcomes.
2. For investors, maintaining a robust network and sector expertise is crucial for spotting and seizing the right opportunities.
3. Startups should focus on demonstrating clear value propositions and competitive edges to attract Series A funding.
4. For venture capitalists, a deep understanding of technical and market risks associated with investments can significantly impact decision-making.
5. Building a diverse and knowledgeable partnership can enhance decision-making processes and investment success.

Venture capital is a team sport masquerading as an individual sport. Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka, partner at Canaan Partners, tells us why he thinks VC partnerships resemble a swim team.
We also talk about space and defense tech, the evolution of venture capital, how generational transition can work well and why a thoughtful reserve strategy has outsized leverage, especially in early stage venture firms.

People

Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka, Minnie Ingersoll

Companies

Canaan Partners

Books

None

Guest Name(s):

Rayfe Gaspar-Asaoka

Content Warnings:

None

Minnie Ingersoll

Hello and welcome to the LA Venture podcast. This is Minnie Ingersoll, host of the podcast and partner at ten 110 110 is a seed stage fund here in LA. All opinions expressed on this show by B and my guests are solely our own. If you are interested in LA Venture, go to ten one 10.net podcast where I've made a sortable list of all of the great LA VC's who've been on this show. Raife is with me today in Venice.

Raife is relatively newly back in LA. He's a partner at Canaan. I characterize Canaan as a traditional series, a Sandhill road fund. I'm sure we can talk more about that. Kenan is investing out of its 13th fund, an $850 million fund investing in technology and healthcare companies.

Raife, thanks for joining. Thanks for having me. Yeah, fun to be in person. It's great to be in person. Catch up about surfing the different LA breaks.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

Exactly. So I said Kanan was sort of a traditional sandhill road fund. Would you agree with that? And what's sort of the Canaan reputation? That's a good question.

I think the Canaan reputation, I'd probably have to ask others what they think, but at least for me, yeah. I think of it as one of the traditional older sand hill road firms. We invest primarily leading series A rounds, some seed, some series B. We've always been a bit of a diversified fund in that it's a, a third healthcare focused, which primarily life sciences and biotech, and then two thirds of it tech. But like a series a is competitive most of the time when you're investing.

Minnie Ingersoll

Is that a true statement? Actually, yes, I think so. I mean, so I came in 2015, about nine years. I think the venture ecosystem has gotten increasingly more competitive. I would say, like, every single round is probably more competitive.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

I think if you brought a seed or a late stage investor, they would say that their rounds are also more competitive. But, yeah, I think venture itself has evolved a lot, at least in the last decade since I've been here at Canaan. Well, so I want to ask about the evolution, but even just today, do most founders end up taking the highest price term sheet for the series A? So, like, this might be a little controversial, but I think the answer is yes, I think so. Right.

Like, I think adventure, as you break it up into like four different pieces of venture, it's like seeing, picking, winning, and then portfolio work. And when it comes to the winning piece, I think there are a lot of things that influence that brand of the venture fund. The partner that's signing up to work and lead and sit on the board of that company. The involvement in that sector, prior work, the maybe portfolio platform services that those firms provide. But I think those are all inputs.

But I think the biggest input is price. Yeah, I think so. But I do think when you're in a competitive deal, if everyone is around the same price, that's where the other things come into play. Right. Okay.

Minnie Ingersoll

Because I was gonna say, like, do you have a distinct reputation versus, I don't know, who's Menlo Ventures or Greylock. I don't know who's been around, who's on fun 13? Or is it like that you've evolved on some of those other dimensions you've talked about? Yeah, I think we're competitive on price. I don't think, like, that's where we hang our hat, although I think that's what everyone will probably say.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

But I think we try to win on those other edges. So, like I said, it's like you want to be in the ballpark with that 80% so that you're in the same ballpark as everyone else and then try to win the deal on other factors. Like, I think for Kanan, the thing that makes us unique, the things that we lean on, are one we've been around for a very long time, and we've always historically been investing in leading series A companies. And then also we're very sector specific and sort of thesis driven. So each of the partners at K and N, we all have different swim lanes and different focus areas.

Like, I spend a lot of time looking at frontier tech, deeper tech areas, AI edge computing, space investments, the team of partners that focuses on those areas are all very technical, and so we all come from that industry, in that world, in that background. Is that an evolution? Or, like, when you talk about things have evolved, they've gotten more competitive as one way. Do you think the swim lanes is a real evolution as well? That's a good question.

Like, we've evolved as a firm in terms of people and just focus areas as well. Like, if I think back when I first started at K and N, I started as an associate at the firm, like, the partnership was very different. The number of people we had, the gps that I work with today are all, there are different generations that have cycled through it. And so each of those partners that are leading different areas, some of them have been here, but some of them are net new to the firm, and they've created their own sort of swim lane and whatnot. So I think the firm has evolved.

Minnie Ingersoll

How do the different generations of venture capital, how do they approach venture capital differently? So I don't know if it's like a generation thing as much as it is a background thing, because I think about at least the partners that I work with at KNN, and they each have very different backgrounds. Some of them came up, like, from a junior vc up to just stayed at the firm and grew up in house. Kind of the path that I'm on. Some of them were academics, got their PhD, and then went into venture.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

Some of them started companies, took it to an IPO, sold it, and then joined the firm. And each of those have different ways that they evaluate, look at deals. And so we spend a lot of time thinking about, like, where's our edge right from? Like, a, what's your edge individually? What's your edge as, like, a sector focus area?

And then what's your edge as a firm? So can you characterize that which is like, oh, the people who grew up like you did, starting as associates, you approach things for sure differently. Yeah. For example, I grew up at the firm. I've been here at Canaan for almost nine years.

I think the difference that I have, compared to my partners who maybe started a company and then joined as partners later on, like, the reps that I've seen of just seeing hundreds of companies over the years, like, that's a breadth of deals, and, like, my network associated with that, is very different than partners who have different. Different backgrounds and experiences. Yeah, but so what does that mean when you're evaluating a deal? Like, how are you evaluating different than someone who grew up from the founders side? Yeah.

So a good example is, like, if I'm looking at a robotics company or something, I think one of the things that I learned in venture over the years is just pattern matching. So you've seen hundreds of robotics companies, and you've seen sort of the lifecycle of some that from 2015 onward. And so where I lean on is just like, going back in my brain and thinking about all the different companies I've seen over the years and sort of the arc and the trajectory and what worked and what didn't. Like that's where I lean on. My partners, who maybe built a company from day one, were an operator, CEO, built the business, they might have a much stronger network, for example, around their operator network that they can lean on for diligence or to leverage.

And then also they pick up on things that I don't like. The nuances between founder dynamics. So the nuances between team building. Right. Makes a lot of sense.

Minnie Ingersoll

It's just so hard. Every deal has some hair on it. Oh, for sure. I mean, I think that, like, so much adventure is about, especially early stage ventures, about, like, it's just risk taking. You're taking risk.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

The capital that you're investing in is, like, risky capital. And I think partnerships are really useful because it allows you to. I think great partnerships, they align on what those risks are, but they weight them differently. Right. And so there's an alignment on, like, okay, we can all agree that there's, like, a market risk, or there's a regulatory risk, or there's a team risk here, but the disagreement around the partners was, how do we weight those things?

Like, oh, I think the regulatory thing is, like, an eight out of ten, and I think it's, like a four out of ten. I think the best early stage venture deals are controversial, but they're not controversial in the risk you take. They're controversial in, like, how you weight those risks. I wonder if we're saying the same thing, but, so when we talk about it, we say we should actually get more aligned on how we're seeing the competitive risk, so that we are seeing the same thing. But whether I care about it as much as my partner Gil knows about it, like, he might not care, but as long as we've done enough diligence that we know what the competitive risk is.

Yeah, it's kind of like an AI model, but it's like a neural net. Right? It was like, how many layers do you want? Let's structure the model, and then let's all debate on the weights of that model, of how many different parameters do you have? How many different layers?

Let's debate on, like, the weighting of all of those. Yeah, but, like, the model itself is set. Do you have certain ones, certain risks, where you're like, you know, there's certain things that you've learned that you just really don't like or are willing to invest in. Yeah, I mean, I think, for me, my mental model is I don't want to take, like, technology risk. And what I mean by that is my world is, I was an engineer before, and so when I think about what makes good, like, series A investments, it's when the technology has matured to the point where it's no longer like an R and D issue or R and D challenge, and it's an engineering scaling challenge.

And so I don't want to take tech risk, but I'm willing to take all the other risks, like, business model risk, go to market risk. I think those things should be undefined when you have net new technology coming in. So what does that mean for early stage frontier tech and what you're looking. For early stage venture, to me is about taking the combination of, like, technical changes or technology breakthroughs coupled with large macro trends and that intersection of them and trying to match up the tech changes plus the timing of those macro trends. And so I think for us, at least for our frontier tech group at K and N, we spend a lot of time thinking, okay, do we believe in these technology trends?

AI, edge computing, space, and then robotics is another. Those are core technology trends. And then do we believe there are industries that are ready for this adoption of technology? And so supply chain and logistics or manufacturing, and, like, what are the tailwinds that we could say are happening today that affect that, that needs robotics or needs AI? And I think when we find the intersection of the two, that's where we get really excited about investing.

Minnie Ingersoll

Yeah. So tell me, like, I've been fascinated by the fact that in these supply chain type industries, where they're almost pen and paper companies that want the thing facts and are now interested in AI. Yeah. I mean, I think that there wasn't an existential threat to them historically, and so there was no need for the adoption of technology to be necessary for them to do their business. But then you look today on the supply chain manufacturing side, we think a lot about consumer behavior has changed.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

E commerce trends have changed the way that we buy stuff. So instead of buying in bulk, we buy one package off Amazon, and then we expect it to come in two days. That consumer buying behavior has ripple effects down to the entire supply chain. And then you think about on the manufacturing front, there's a whole bunch of geopolitical challenges going on where everyone wants to bring manufacturing closer to home. And so all of that comes closer to home.

But then no one, we don't have the labor supply to go and support that. And so therefore, you need push automation in manufacturing. Someone said, hey, Minnie, I know my dollar 20 dinner. I can track where it is block by block. My $20 million container.

Minnie Ingersoll

I have no idea whether it's reached the port yet. Yeah, exactly. And so people are expecting, I mean, as you said, they're expecting their single item to show up next day. Yeah. And so a lot of our investments, like, you know, this is the inside part of Canaan, but a lot of our investments, when we're doing our investment memos and thesis work and we're going back and forth debating the company.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

It is that like testing of confluence of technology trends plus macro trends and do we believe we know what the risks are, regulatory, market risk. And then we debate on the timing. Of that and regulatory. Interesting. Like that plays in as big for you.

It does in certain instances. So, like for example, we invested in a company called Kepler. It's a space company out in Toronto building communication satellites. And so they went and acquired a bunch of spectrum in space and then are now using that to go and build out their network. And so regulatory comes up as like a risk item there.

Minnie Ingersoll

For example, tell me about space. Like you are. It's one of your four areas you mentioned. Yeah, I think space actually kicked off our frontier tech investments at Kinan. So about a decade ago, well, over a decade ago, we led the series B of Skybox, which then got acquired by Google.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

But that was one of the first, like space satellite companies, VC back that got from origin up to exit and then sort of kicked off a lot of what you now see as like the space 2.0 or space 3.0. And what is space 3.0? Yeah. So our thesis on space right now is that like a lot of the space infrastructure has been built out. So you have SpaceX, you have other launch providers, you have a bunch of satellites and hardware that's up in Leo producing images or sensors, different sensor types.

So you have images, you have synthetic aperture radar data, you have weather data, and all of that sort of exists now. Like a lot of the last decade of infrastructure of space has been how do you get assets up into space and start collecting data? I think the next wave of space to me is like, what do you do with all this data? So utilities are oil fields that historically had to fly drones or had to get humans to go and do inspection. How do you leverage real time space data to go and do a lot of this work?

Minnie Ingersoll

So you worked at Raytheon a number of years ago. How do you see the public sector and the private sector intersecting? What do you think of defense tech? Yeah, that's interesting. So, like, I'm new back to LA, or I'm back here in LA, been here for about six months, but I did my undergrad here at USC, and then I worked at Raytheon briefly in El Segundo.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

And like, defense tech was not a thing right back then, like a little over a decade ago. And El Segundo was not like the hotbed of startups that I think it is today. And so I think what you've seen is this explosion of interest in defense as a category from a technology standpoint, but then also like government as a customer, investing and buying startups that are focused on defense tech, I think that's a really interesting trend. I think that the thing that I still want to see play out is how good of a customer government ends up being long term. And can you continue to build really big companies just focused on selling to government?

And will startups become the next generation of primes that exist in El Segundo and in that area today, the Raytheons and Northrops and Boeings and Lockheeds, will there be a chance for stars to become that next generation of primes that sell to government and that government relies on? So you're saying the question is, are there new primes, or is it just everyone subs to those guys? Yeah. Well, the question to me is, I think that those primes have existed for a very long time and worked closely with the government on securing our national defense. It's like, where do startups play a role in the future?

Like, are they additive or are they actually going to grow and supply and become a prime tomorrow? I think that's the question that, but. You, I think, said that you aren't right now really focused on trying to find the next Raytheon, the next prime. Oh, yeah, this is what we talked about. We did talk about it a little bit.

Well, so where I see with a lot of these defense tech companies is, I think the challenge with becoming a prime in the long term is that they're all platform approaches. You look at Raytheon, you look at Boeing, Northrop, they all have multiple different product lines, and they have multiple different divisions that focus on different things. And that is the opposite of what you would tell a startup to do. You tell startup, like, focus on one thing, right, and then just become really good at that. And so I think for me, the question is, how does a company in defense tech go from sole focused on one?

And the other thing is, like, selling it to government is a challenge in itself. Like the, not only the sales cycle, but just navigating it. And it's become easier with things like Diu who are coming in and helping ink util. They do a bunch of good work both investing and then working with portfolio companies. But the question to me is, how do you go from a single product, SKU selling to government, to becoming a platform that the government can then rely on you as a prime?

And I think that's the bet that we're seeing with a lot of these defense tech startups. So tell me more about, like, how a deal gets done. Yeah, you told me a little bit, which was awesome, that you make people duke it out. Oh, yeah. So I think partnerships are great if you figure out how to use them effectively.

And I think one of the cool things about Kaenin is that it's so diverse and broad. We have people that focus on life sciences and healthcare. We have people that focus on consumer investments. And then, you know, I'll bring in a space deal. But at the same time, I think figuring out how to leverage the partnership most effectively is also a challenge in itself.

And so, like, we'll bring a company, we'll have them come and present at a partner meeting, and then at the end, we'll do a voting of one through four. One, I don't like the deal. I would veto it if I could. Four, I love the deal. I would invest my own money if I could.

And then two and three, somewhere in between. And then we show that the results on a screen for everyone to see publicly with their name behind it. And then we sort it by 1234. And then we have the ones and the fours debate, because those are the people with the strongest opinions. And then we go and reverse seniority.

So we have the most junior junior folks debate first, and then it moves up. I think the things that it helps to remove is, one, it helps to remove that, like, that loudest person in the room as opposed to the most well informed person in the room. And then, two, by having the most junior people speak and then going to the most senior, it removes that. Like, if the most senior tenure gp pounds at the table for something, no one else sort of wants to speak up because they're worried about disagreeing with that person. And what is that dynamic like?

Minnie Ingersoll

Is it pretty clear who's the most senior or going to be the loudest in the room? The dynamic K N. It's actually pretty. I think K N is unique. They've done a really good job of keeping a very flat organization, even at the top.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

And so all of the GPs equal GPs. They're all focused on very different areas. Yeah. You've clearly had to have made some structure that makes the generational transition work. I think it's super fascinating.

I think there's trade offs no matter what. I think Kanan's done a really good job of generational transition over the years. Like, the firm's around for 37 years now. None of the original partners are at the firm, and they've sort of passed on the reins to different generations, and we're continuing to go through that over the years. And I think it only works if you have a fairly flat organization that's built on meritocracy, where the best performers get rewarded, and it's not necessarily based on tenure.

And so Canyon does a good job, I think the partnership does a good job of trying to manage and navigate through that, because I think venture is one of those. It's like a team sport masquerading as individual sports sometimes. Right. The best analogy I have for people is like, being on a track team or a swim team. It's like you're each doing your individual sport, but then the sum of your collective places or times or whatever is the aggregate score of the team.

Minnie Ingersoll

Oh, I really like that. And we talked some about how people run their races differently. But have you seen that evolve as, like, sourcing, get more competitive, or as the generational change has happened? I think the best investors that I know, they have this blend of knowing what their edges, but then being open to feedback on how to change it, because they know that the industry evolves over time. And so the ones that I like, the partners that I work with, and the ones that have been in the game for a while, they stay relevant by knowing what they're good at, but knowing what they don't know, too, and then knowing how to add that into their repertoire.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

I think what's really interesting about the sourcing aspect is when, when I first started venture as, like, a young associate without a network, a lot of it was outbound, just trying to build my network with the goal of, like, I look at my partners and I see the deal flow that comes inbound, and I see the network they built in that flywheel. And it's like, man, I really want that. And then as you progress in the industry and you build up that network, I look at some of our more junior folks, and I'm like, they're sourcing machines. And, like, they aren't, I want to say, bogged down by the network, but they're like, they see things from fresh eyes. What have you seen work really well for, like, an associate who isn't, hasn't been, doesn't have the reputation of doing it for 20 years or whatever.

Minnie Ingersoll

Do you think people, I mean, I think associates share deals with other associates. Do you think they get in with certain companies like a SpaceX that's spitting off entrepreneurs? I think that what entrepreneurs are looking for, you should debate this with me if you think differently. But I think how you win a deal or how you get introduced to a deal or network and build that network, oftentimes is just the time that you spend in that domain and in that expertise for a founder. For example, when I became a partner at Knin and I do my first few deals and you're going up and trying to win deals against much more experienced gps, like, the pitch was simple.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

It's like, I have so much more time to spend with you. Right. I will sit down and take every single call and, like, we can do a ad hoc board meeting whenever because, like, I have that time to invest and to spend with you. I don't have a bunch of other priorities. I don't have legacy boards that I have to go and work with.

Like, I'm all in with this. It's like, I think founders are amazing people. They spend so much time dedicated. They spend 25 hours of the day focused on their business. Like, sometimes they need a sounding board, or sometimes they just need someone to talk to and something to bounce ideas off of.

And, like, if you, no matter what level you are, I think if you can be that person and you can be thoughtful and sit in the room and like, understand their business and think through it with them, like, that, to me, is super valuable. So your job is not going anywhere. But if it went away tomorrow and you had to start your own firm, would it then would everyone be extremely sector or, you know, sort of have very defined swim lanes? I think the net result is, yes, everyone would have their own swim lane, their own focus areas. But I think the broader, like, the first level of it is everyone has their figures out what their own edges and, like, why would you win a deal?

Or why would this founder or CEO pick you in a competitive pool of investors where they could choose from anyone? I think sector and swim lane is like a great way to do that. You can't just be charismatic. No, you can just laugh. Maybe.

I'm open to it. I'm open to it. I'm trying, Rafe. I'm trying. Any other thoughts?

Minnie Ingersoll

Like, if you were, because you've had a lot of experience here, and I took away your job and you had to start your own fund, like, we started to talk a little bit about reserves, how would you think about building your own fund? Yeah, we did. This is what we talked about. I think that venture has changed a lot in the last decade. I think the amount of capital that's gone into this industry, at least even my time here has.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

I think I was looking at stats like us, venture market was like 40 to 60 billion, I think in 2015. The peak a couple of years ago is almost 200 billion for sure. So I think that reserve strategy is a really important one. Reserves make up around half of a fund, probably for an early stage fund. And like, that's a massive difference in figuring out how to deploy that capital into your companies effectively.

Like that can have a really big impact on the return profile. But at the same time, it's really hard to deploy reserves into the companies that you would want to in the portfolio because there's a mismatch of incentives. Right? Like the best companies are the ones that are the hardest to continue to put money into because it's competitive deals and pro rata, your pro rata, even though you have, you might have rights, sort of might get squeezed, right? And then the ones that aren't performing as well, they're the ones that take a time and potentially want added capital to turn over another card.

I think it's really hard because once you're invested in a company, you have your own biases that you carry with it. Like nobody wants to call their baby ugly, right? And so you have this bias that just with a little bit more capital, maybe they'll do great. I don't know. So do you think you should do your reserves really just in the ones that are, like the hardest to get into?

I think there's so many factors like reserves strategy is one of the hardest things in my mind to figure out because there's a lot of inherent biases. There's the timing of it, too. And so when do portfolio companies raise in trying to manage the cash flows of the fund? And then there's also the reputation dynamic, too, right? Like you as a lead investor, carry a lot of weight with your future follow on investment dollars, too.

And, you know, it's a painful process to go through all of your portfolio companies and talk about all of them one by one. But I argue that if it's half of your capital in the fund or almost half your capital, think about how much time you spend focused on a new investment. Like there should be at least that much time, if not more, spent on the follow on investments because those follow ons go in likely at higher prices. Right? So smaller multiples on return, and so each incremental dollar has to really be scrutinized.

And so it's things like that that I think can really move the needle on firms and on funds. It's a great point. Do you guys do like a reserves, like quarterly meeting where you readjust everyone's. Yeah. At least quarterly.

And then we also, you know, we tried to become more algorithmic about it, too. And so we. One of the benefits of Kaan being around for a few decades have hundreds of portfolio companies that have gone through our cycle. And so a few years ago, we looked back at all of our investments, and based on the entry point, based on the dollars we invested in our ownership, we can set a initial pass on what the reserve amount should be, and then from there, sort of modify up and down. What's your target ownership when you guys invest?

So for lead investments, traditional, like lead to series A, our target ownership is to get close to 20%. Yeah. Cause I actually don't always know, like, what I should model for dilution. So if you're trying to get close to 20, is the entrepreneur taking 25% dilution? I think it varies a little bit.

I mean, I think the typical framework I have in my head is early stage rounds, seed Series A, round series B. Your total dilution of the round is anywhere between 15% to 25%, somewhere in that range. Lead investor takes 80% of that. And then as you get later, like, it goes down to 10% and down, it's less. I think at later stages, we think about it less about ownership at that point.

It's more about dollars that we invest in, how we think about the multiple that we get on those dollars. Yep. Makes sense. Oh, yeah. I have to just get a couple of your basics, though.

Minnie Ingersoll

You grew up in Hawaii? Born and raised in Hawaii, but then. Came to La for USC. Yep. So I went to USC for undergrad, studied electro engineering there.

And I got this from the Internet. You were an NCAA water polo champion while there, so, yeah, I was on. The team at USC back in 2009. We won NCAA's. We had a really good run when I was there.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

I was just a part of the ride. It was great. Still. That's amazing. It was awesome.

Awesome experience. Yeah. Very few people can say that. How do your friends describe you, Rafe? I think they would describe me as curious, driven, or stubborn.

And then, yeah, I think my wife would definitely describe me as stubborn. Yeah. That's why I always ask, like your friends, not always your spouse. Well, I'm thrilled you're in LA and really enjoyed hearing your perspective on venture capital and learning more about you and Kanan. Thank you.

Minnie Ingersoll

Thank you.

Raife Gaspard-Asaoka

Thank you.