Pro, Pre and Plant biotics - Tasting the Benefits of Microbes

From my presentation for MicroBio.

Summary:
Probiotics AKA beneficial bacteria  have been around forever but their potential has not been fully tapped until relatively recently. After discovering bacteria we initially showed more interest in killing them rather than working together with them. That attitude is slowly changing.

Intro-

While reading in my Microbiology textbook about probiotics I remembered a friend I had at school who consistently had digestive problems. He had said one of the few times he felt healthy was while living as a missionary in Korea. What was it about being in Korea that could have helped his digestion I wondered? He did say the he ate Kimchi every day while there. I wondered, what was so special about Kimchi that could help his digestion? 

Kimchi! http://www.cultureglaze.com

The health benefits of yogurt  are often advertised but after looking into it, I found that any fermented foods like Kimchi can also be an abundant a source of this the beneficial bacteria found in yogurt.  I wondered if there were possibly other foods like Kimchi could also have probiotics? I was delighted to find that while most often associated with yogurt, almost anything fermented can be a good source of probiotics. Foods like Sauerkraut and even Pickles, when fermented, can supply probiotics and help improve digestion.

Historical Context-

Elie Metchnikoff http://vi.sualize.us/

So where did probiotics come from? Milk fermentation and its health benefits are nothing new, since Biblical times we've been fermenting dairy and Roman historian Plinus noted the benefits of fermented dairy products.  Although we knew fermented dairy was good for us, the role of bacteria wasn’t recognized until years after the triumph of Loius Pasteur and germ theory around 1907 when Elie Metchnikoff proposed if replacing  the number of toxic bacteria in the gut with diary bacteria could normalize bowels and prolong life. Metchnikoff, a Russian, himself worked with Pasteur and in addition to being a talented scientist was an optimist about our potential to overcome disease and such a strong believer in the benefits of probiotics he drank sour milk every day until his death at 71.

Along with Metchnikoff, interest in probiotics increased during the pre-world war years. French pediatrician Henry Tissier  observed that children with diarrhea had lower numbers of Y shaped 'bifid' bacteria which were abundant in healthy children.  One of the first studies testing these claims in 1922 used Lactobacillus acidophilus in 20 patients with chronic constipation, diarrhea, and eczema and found improvements in all 3 conditions.  Unfortunately, these observations were sidelined during World War 1 and 2  periods as more emphasis was put war wound treatment with antibiotics and Alexander Fleming's magic bullet penicillin. It has taken decades to get away back away from our obsession with eradicating bacteria and start becoming more interested in living in harmony with them. More recently, interest in probiotics began to ignite once again around as evidenced by the huge growth number of publications on the topic. Since then, characterization of specific cultures and substantiation of health claims have advanced enormously.

Along those lines Pro-biotics were formally defined by UN Food and Ag Org and WHO in 1990 as live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host. This more broad definition recognizes bacteria anywhere in the body. 

Mechanism 

www.probiotic-cn.com/Lactobacillus_Helveticus

So how do they work? Without getting too specific, mainly what it comes down to is competition for space in the lining of your gut. When there are harmless bacteria already growing your gut, they get in the way of other bacteria sticking and growing that could be harmful. The good bacteria also stimulate your immune system and keep it active. 

Some types of bacteria will also last longer over time in the gut, the Bulgaris strain for example not as long lasting compared to other Lactobacillus which can stick around a lot longer.  Different parts of the gut are are also better targets for different strains of bacteria which is why only one strain of probiotics alone may not be sufficient.  Even beyond the digestive tract, bacteria can grow anywhere that presents a dark, moist conditions, so other parts of your body can also benefit from the protective effects of probiotics.

Although there are seemingly endless health claims for probiotics some are very well documented like: 

Decreased diarrhea especially when caused by antibiotics 

Increase lactose tolerance

Stimulation of immunity and decreased likelihood of infection

Reduction of allergic symptoms

Decrease cancer promoting toxins. 

Other claims have some shown evidence  but are not as exhaustively researched like: 

Reducing irritable bowel syndrome

Inhibiting Helicobacteri pylori infection (found in ulcers)
Reducing constipation 

Increase mineral metabolism and bone density stability 

Cancer prevention 

Reduction of cholesterol and triaglycerol plasma concentrations

A Flavorful Future- As understanding of probiotics continues to advance, implications Metchinikoff's initial optimism will continue to open up greater possibilities in both human health and the wellbeing of other organisms.

In 1993 prebiotics were discovered to improve bacterial to growth and activity. These “prebiotics” have been found in foods like Onion, Garlic, Leeks, asparagus, wheat and banana. The research is still fairly new but  the main takeaway is recognizing that some other foods along fermented ones act synergistically with gut flora.  Prebiotics are defined as non-digestible carbohydrates (specifically inulin and its byproducts and trans oligosacharides) that beneficially affect the host by selectively stimulating growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon. Similar to dietary fiber except that it selectively benefits certain bacterial species.

www.jollylane.com

Traditional fertilizers and pesticides have a lot of problems with sustainability, they require  huge amounts non-renewable raw chemical ingredients, confront evolving pest resistance and can have undesirable chemical byproducts. Although it may seem like a stretch that bacteria could do the job of plant fertilizers, large companies are already making huge purchases betting on the future of bacteria's role in agriculture.Taxon was acquired by DuPont and companies like Monsanto have made similar large purchases betting on the future of microbes in plant growth and protection. There are a number of other companies offering similar products so whether or not it works the demand alone give some indication that farmers and horticulturalists are seeing results. The possibilities for a mutually beneficial relationship between bacteria and humans indeed do seem limitless and will impact medications, plant health and beyond. Seeing this field continue to advance will be very exciting.

Some of the most diverse varieties of good bacteria come from equally varied food sources  These are a few that have been characterized and the many strains of bacteria they produce: 

Yogurt-Lactobacillus, bifidus, 
Kimchi Leuconostoc, Lactobacillus,  Leuconostoc species Le. mesenteroides, Le. kimchii, Le. citreum, Le. gasicomitatum, and Le. gelidum, the Lactobacillus species Lb. brevis, Lb. curvatus, Lb. plantarum, and Lb. sakei, Lactococcus lactis, Pediococcus pentosaceus, Weissella confusa, Weissella kimchii, and Weissella koreensis 
Saurkraut  A more recent study revealed that four species of lactic acid bacteria, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus pentosaceus, and Lactobacillus brevis, were the primary microorganisms in these fermentations. Sauerkraut fermentations are more diverse than previously reported and include Leuconostoc citreum, Leuconostoc argentinum, Lactobacillus paraplantarum, Lactobacillus coryniformis, and Weissella sp. The newly identified species Leuconostoc fallax was also found. Unexpectedly, only two isolates of P. pentosaceus and 15 isolates of L. brevis were recovered during this study. 
Kombucha - Gluconacetobacter kombuchae is an anaerobic bacteria that is unique to kombucha. It feeds on nitrogen that is found in tea and produces acetic acid and gluconic acid, as well as building the scoby. Zygosaccharomyces kombuchaensis is a yeast strain that is unique to kombucha.    
Kefir 

Tomorrowland Movie Review

Movie Review: Tomorrowland
My Rating: 6 of 10 stars
I really, REALLY wanted to like Tomorrowland, and I did, parts of it at least. Unfortunately those  parts were almost completely overshadowed by the glaring problems with the film that loomed onerously throughout the plot  sapping what little compelling drama it had to offer in the first place.

The good: There are a host of films out that portray dystopian realities of the future and paint a horrific picture of technology and how it will turn on humanity, betray us and wreck our lives. Cinema can't seem to think of the future without coupling it with either a failing and corrupt political system picking up the remnants of a self destruction or as machines and technology itself become the oppressors.  Off the top of my head I can think of Terminator, AI, 2001, The Matrix just to name a few.  There is a void in story telling of a genuinely positive future where technology is viewed in an optimistic light and the future a better place than the past or present. As they portray in the film, if we're constantly pumping in the terrible vision of an unenviable future doesn't it kind of become a self fulfilling prophecy telling us the direction we'll head? So because there's such a great need for that genre to be filled, I wanted to love it. This film held the promise of a vision of a millennial future and was unique in being able to paint it in a positive light. And there were moments where it succeeded, during those brief highlights where the main character was transported to an idealized future. This ended up being is pretty much one of the only scenes you really need to watch from the movie.
    The Bad: Other than that the film reminded me of a B grade power rangers show with silly robots chasing kids around town. In fact the whole back plot about a secret army and the conspiracy of a group of men belonging to a secret future club in the Eiffel tower seemed like a pointless last minute addition and the film would have been better off without without it. Hugh Laurie's wonderful acting and character were drowned out by his tangential monologues and poorly written lines that did more to detract from the character than to help it. 
      The special effects which were necessary to bring a vision of the future to life were used excessively in a futile effort to attract interest where character development and genuine human interests would have been better. Keeping effects subtle and stylish would have been a huge improvement to draw the audience in rather than blatantly showing off what technology could do without leaving anybody wanting it.
     The substance of the plot a bright and ambitious young girl trying to rouse a brilliant man who has become disillusioned with a lost dream of a better world was a good foundation. The characters portrayed by George Clooney and Britt Robertson had the talent and appeal to bring this solid plot to life, but was shot to pieces by a ridiculous subplot of the old man's lingering love affair with a child robot. I can't possibly see who thought George Clooney's unrelenting love for a child robot would make for an emotionally compelling story. More like a weird and slightly twisted justification of why people who are in love love technology should be held with a twinge of skepticism.  His acting felt forced when touching the robot theme as well it should in a context that is both un-relatable and inhuman. And the same could probably be said of the other actors, they did well with what they had but a story lacking human interest made them hard to love. Overall I liked the actors, a lot of the themes and some of the visuals were completely awe inspiring and unlike anything I've ever seen, but this beauty was sadly overshadowed by a poorly layered plot plot held loosely together by garish special effects.

Pinning An IPO on Pinterest

• Pinterest has become a major influence in style, social media and the internet
• Pinterest could potentially profit greatly from its position although it has yet to break out of its core demographics
• Pinterest has not yet made any official statement about an IPO when it does it could be on of the high water marks of this bull market

One of the first websites ever built was art.net, used to share and sell art and raising the first questions about buying art online. Since that initial idea, art online has evolved into what is now the forefront of setting trends in art and fashion and selling millions of related products. One of the major players, Etsy which sells handmade crafts and antiques just went public and despite not yet achieving profitability reached a 2 Billion dollar valuation. Another much larger art and social media mammoth is still waiting on the sidelines to bring in the most dominant wave of internet start-ups which is completely changing the ecosystem of online traffic.  "Fashion-tech is creating an industry that's more beholden to people's needs than the elitist fashion world of the past. Because a lot of the ways things are done now — fashion-of-the-week shows, buyers, very powerful editors in major fashion capitals — these were the ways that trends were distributed, and they weren't very democratic. But the Internet democratizes everything." Jess Lee CEO of Polyvore

http://tinyurl.com/q5qy9sf

Pinterest with 70 million users is the number one online platform for woman's tastes in the US. Ben Silberman started it after leaving the family trade of medicine for Google and then leaving Google right before the recession to do his own start-up. He struggled to find funding at first but managed to convince former classmate Paul Sciarra to invest and recruited another friend Evan Sharp from Colombia studying architecture to help him design a product of their own. The site grew at a slow pace initially but they stuck it out, resorting to less traditional grass roots marketing like chain letters which laid the social foundations for the later digital growth. Ben jokes that early users came from his mom promoting it to her patients in Iowa. The slow start paid off in late 2011 when in only 9 months the site went from 50,000 users to 15 million by early 2012.

quora.com/Why-is-Pinterests-growth-slowing-in-2014

From those inspiring beginnings the site has continued to grow, but at a far less explosive pace than early on and its main user-ship has largely come from its hometown demographics. At this point about85% of its users are women in the Midwest, making up about 20% of all internet users in the US. The original idea came from Ben's childhood interest in collecting bugs and the underlying appeal of Pinterest still comes from users satisfaction in collecting or pinning things they uniquely love in a way that suits their own artistic vision. As their blog says "we want to inspire you to go offline and do things that you love." Pins are collected on boards related to that customized theme and tap into people's creative outlets and as Steve Jobs recognized when you can do that, possibilities are limitless.

Challenges and Opportunities: The biggest challenge for Pinterest as well as Facebook or any other website has always been to seamlessly turn advertisements into actual purchases. In the case of Pinterest, for users to purchase products related to what they're pinning.  Much like the difference between low end Walmart and upscale shopping like Nordstrom, on the internet there seems to be a trade-off between attracting a large amount of  low spending users and those who will actually purchase something if it meets what they're looking for. While it may initially appear that its 1.2 billion users give Facebook an upper hand, the quality of traffic may be just as important. Pinterest's  greatest strength is that its user-base is a step up from the general internet mass and using Pinterest in a way directly related to what they purchase. Users willingness to purchase can be shown by a few different indicators, but Average order value (AOV)  for Pinterest is $58.95 or as much as $78 on an average order over $55 from facebook. To put this trade-off in context there are even higher end websites like Polyvore and Wanelo that have much less traffic than Pinterest yet the traffic they do have generates much more actual shopping than the general clientele of Facebook or Pinterest. Polyvore alone produces as much as 20% of all social shopping. Such smaller crowd-sourced fashion websites might not pose any real threat to Pinterest but they do suggest the opportunities Pinterest has yet to completely tap.

Paul Sciarra, Ben Silbermann and Evan Sharp
portal.rism.ac.th/kanruetaiy16/

One step towards doing this, recently, Pinterest has started using promoted pins which allows outside advertisers within guidelines to create their own pins. Joanne Bradford head of partnerships at Pinterest says that better targeting is among the wish-list of items she often hears from clients, along with better conversion-tracking and showing how online exposure led to offline sales.  The challenge is to try and keep ads transparent, tasteful, relevant and in line with what users want to experience. In keeping with those aims, they have also acquired Kosei. a Stanford start-up that created that was able to decipher and map the relationships between different products in a catalog, enabling it to make smarter recommendations to consumers.

Pinterest was initially designed as a platform that appeals to users visually that worked best with a monitor. They have had to re-adapt their platform to take advantage of mobile and incidentally took it a step further with guided search which basically suggests search terms that others find interesting. Guided search has had surprisingly serendipitous outcomes because although Pinterest had dominated its native demographic it has also pigeonholed itself and had difficulties gaining much of a male following. Guided search has helped boost queries by men in addition to boosting overall queries by 30 percent and gained attention by other tech giants as a tentative step towards the internet of things. It also led to one of the most promising partnerships, prompting Apple to team up with Pinterest to allow them to suggest apps that relate to a users style and pinning preferences.

Pinterest.com

Rather than try to expand to different demographics Pinterest has also tried moving horizontally to reach an international audience. Back in February 2013 Pinterest during Series D funding Pinterest listed “international growth” as one of the initiatives that the money would be used for. During that time it also received a $100 million investment from Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten — another sign of its international ambitions. Pinterest started off its international "localization" strategy in the U.K. by tweaking the site so that it highlights U.K. content to U.K. users and also adding a British English language settings to suite British users. It has since announced it will open offices in Spain, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden. Whether it will be able to completely bridge cultural gaps in such a style sensitive platform and gain the same kind of following and make good on promises still remains an unknown.

Polyvore co-founders Jess Lee and Pasha Sadri
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/27/polyvore-launch/

Valuation and Risk  In 2013 Pinterest raised $200 million at a valuation of $2.5 billion. and in 2014 the tag had gone up to 3.8 Billion. 5 months later in May 2014 it was valued at $5 billion and then in a funding round in March this year it had more than doubled to a price of $11 billion thanks partly to guided search. While its hard to access reliable financial data, considering that Facebook is valued at $200 Billion multiplying number of user with a slightly higher AOV value that facebook by its total number of users very rough estimate agrees that Pinterest is potentially worth $10 billion at current market valuation. I question whether Facebook and other social media could over-valued with a P/E ratio of 80, but the general attitude seems that their potential future earnings justify the price. As Benjamin Graham wisely points out, “One fairly dependable sign of the approaching end of a bull swing is the fact that new common stocks are offered at prices somewhat higher than the current level for many medium sized companies with a long market history.”  Considering their lack of history the market may be over anxious to place a high value on their future earnings because it is at the center of a particularly popular industry. That being said of the companies in this space Pinterest seems to be one of the more prominent and their growth appears real.

Flash in the pan? hedgeconnection.com/blog/?p=2147

Another question that investors might ask is whether these social sites which have come into popularity so quickly and are so subject to user tastes might fade from favor as quickly as the fashions they convey. I suggest this is a major lasting shift and Millenials and those growing up using social media will be as at home using this medium as much or more than a catalog. The fact that other sites like Polyvore etc are doing similar work indicates that Pinterest is the natural and obvious application of technology to already set habits, a logical progression of how things are done rather than a short lived trend. There will undoubtedly be more opportunities as technology progresses so Pinterest's competitive advantage will partly depend on them staying on top of emerging consumer technology like they have done with mobile. Other deeper questions like whether Millennials will prefer buying products online over in-store and what types of items are people okay buying online rather than needing to see it in person continue to be answered individually and collectively. In a downed economy as with TV, during recession there were more internet users because they use the internet for outside idea resources and the wealthy if they have are shopping online now, wouldn't change.

Going Public- In the past Silberman has specifically said they are not eager to go public. Although it's not obvious when, they are preparing, allowing employees to leave when they like without losing their stock options. Since there is no official statement all is still speculation, but they do have over 500 employees and at a 10 Billion valuation they are getting to be a larger private companies which might produce some kind of pressure to do so. If all of their employees are issued shares there will be a need to publish their financial data.  As with their user growth they may lag behind what other social media companies have done for a short while because they are more custom made but as Etsy even the most hand crafted companies will not avoid it for too long and when they do I would expect a lot of buying interest. If interested in buying Pinterest stock, you will probably have to wait until well after 2016 before it actually goes public. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8crbW0q-_s Interview with Jess 2012

http://www.logicspot.com/ecommerce/polyvore-social-commerce-done-well/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinterest

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/10/15/inside-pinterest-the-coming-ad-colossus-that-could-dwarf-twitter-and-facebook/

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0612/pinterest-the-next-social-media-giant.aspx
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/160435/is-pinterest-a-top-ipo-candidate-for-2015

Value Investing in Start-Ups

Summary:
What to look for in a start-up:
-A committed group (could Polyvore be an acquisition target for Pinterest?)
-A monopoly ( can Tesla find a monopoly? )
-Growth ( does Domo fit Benchmark's standard?)

Especially near Silicon Valley, it seems almost weekly start-up are making huge amounts of money going public or becoming Google's next acquisition.  It seems with that much upside it should be easy to make a major gain, just pick your favorite start-up, get in and wait for them to make it big? Well things might not be quite that easy as a quick sampling of the start-ups or number of applicants to start up incubators or Y Combinator will show. There are nearly infinite start-up ideas and almost as many dollars willing to bet on them, so is there a way to know which one will succeed and perhaps more importantly which will be most profitable?

Pierre Omidyar Left with Robert Kagle right
doanhnhansaigon.vn/khoi-nghiep/ebay-cua-pierre-omidyar/1039849/

Venture capitalists devote their lives to spotting potential in start-ups and Robert Kagle who holds the record for the most successful venture investment ever is quick to warn that venture capital is an extremely high risk business. "In venture capital you lose all of your money over half of the time. In fact 10% of your investments deliver 90% of your returns." He goes on, "failure is the norm in venture capital, if you're not striking out you're not swinging for the fences." For Kagle and other venture capitalists, a healthy recognition of failure is a good idea so that when company looks like its going down they aren't freaking out about the lost investment. Accepting possible failure has allowed Kagle to get on early with Twitter, Uber, Snapchat, Instagram among others but it is probably his treatment of entrepreneurs has been more important. Before him entrepreneurs were considered employees to the investor, but he recognized Venture Capitalist's role not as one of superiority, but as "a privilege to invest in someone else's dreams." "We would be the stage hands and they would be the stars." he says.

Still, Kagle never claimed be able to consistently identify start-up successes, he knew the risks and took a swing, which kind of flies in the face of Warren Buffet's timeless wisdom that "You don’t need to swing for the fences in order to achieve satisfactory investment returns...”  But Buffet also says "risk comes from not knowing what you're doing." Implying that if you know enough of what you're doing you can avoid the risk, so you have to wonder, can anyone know enough to consistently recognize and invest in start-up successes? Building on Kagle's fundamental approach, I would argue one of his partners has done just that.

Peter Fenton at Benchmark Capital TechCrunch.com/ Flickr Creative Commons

Peter Fenton was likely drawn towards Kagle's team because of his history of seeing his dad's negative experiences dealing with Venture Capitalists, who to his young mind were like monsters, out of touch with the realities of running a business, abstract, with a false sense of their ability to predict the future. In his undergrad at Stanford and learning from his own experience Peter already had come to similar conclusions "If you can be in service to extraordinary people who are changing the world for the better, that’s a noble calling." Later after Kagle managed to bring Fenton onto his team, Fenton further refined Kagle's approach and avoided some of  his mentor's lost investments. He has gone on to be one of the most consistent, professional, successful, recognized, and awarded venture capitalists alive setting a high mark for others to follow.

How does he does it?  Although many would like to chalk Fenton's and others like Peter Thiel's ( who is a little more vocal and accesible that Fenton) success up to luck, their succesful exits seems to indicate otherwise. Calling their innate mental abilities, upbringing and graduate programs at Stanford luck is a different discussion, but as far as their ability to repeat their performance and make consistent investment in high growth start-ups, as Thiel says, attributing their results to luck is just an excuse for not thinking. And while their background no doubt plays a big part in their success, even for those who don't have their opportunities, there are still a number of basic lessons that all investors can apply.

https://www.etsy.com/market/wedding_silhouette

The first and foremost of these is long term commitment. Peter Fenton is a triathlete and that attitude of endurance is similar to his approach to business. Polyvore is a good example, Fenton has stuck with Polyvore through an initial change of CEO, slow growth over an 8 year period a major recent pivot as Pinterest has gained some major traction Polyvore seems to be finally picking up along with Pinterest and making it a possible acquisition target for Pinterest. Even with companies that have gone public, Fenton continues to sit on their board looking out for the long term welfare of the companies he's invested in. Although there might seemingly be a lot of differences between venture capital and more established business, long term commitment is a theme that is consistent throughout.  It is applicable in start-ups and established public companies.  As Buffet says,"you should invest like Catholics marry: for life." When you plan on investing long term you think more deeply about what you are investing in. As Peter Thiel likes to ask, has the team been working together for awhile and are they going to give up at the first sign of trouble? Will they enjoy working together or are they just sticking it out for work's sake?  Long term relationships between great people are both emotionally and in business is a lasting source of wealth.

Elon Musk and the First Tesla
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-co-founder-sues-elon-musk-2009-6

Monopoly-Genuinely useful, original and new ideas are interesting, beautiful and rare and when effectively made reality are one the most valuable phenomena on the planet. For Warren Buffet, he's happy with just one a year. Such ideas tend to be closely tied to their owners life experience and be protected like a child. To discover them you often have to go where others are uncomfortable going. This is another way in which traditional value investors are actually similar to VC's. They both must look from a contrarian point of view because when everyone is thinking about it, it is likely over-valued. Where traditional value investors find value in macro fears or over-reaction to bad news, venture capitalists tend to find it in novelty and being technologically advanced.  As one of the central ideas in Peter Thiels book Zero to One suggests a successful company really needs a monopoly because competition in fact kills business. This can be a problem where new ideas are seemingly obvious applications of current technology which can then be duplicated.  At the time of Elon Musk's first Tesla, it was effectively a monopoly but as companies like BMW, Audi, Chevy, Toyota Musk will have to remain committed to keep Tesla afloat.

Josh James Domo
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575453/

Growth-The widely recognized number one reason that start-ups fail is that they are building something people don't actually want. As Benjamin Graham observed, "obvious prospects in a business do not translate into obvious profits for investors."  Benchmark handles this by focusing on  products that delight the user and  favoring open source and consumer market. This has been essential to their success because the business to customer (B2C) market will always have more growth potential than business to business (B2B). Sometimes in looking for growth, investors want to see revenue, but as with value investing getting caught up in the immediate returns isn't as important user growth. In a sense it is odd than that Benchmark funded Domo as it seems to diverge from these characteristics. DOMO is sales driven over product driven as their CEO openly states: sales is number one. Also, Domo is focused solely on products for CEO's which is not at all consumer market. But even though Domo is well outside of Benchmark's usual sweet spot, as with Tesla, as long as they have the eccentric CEO Josh James, he'll find a way to make it work.

Obviously this is not the longest list start up rules but a place to start when weeding out potentials either as investments or job opportunities. As the examples show, it is nearly impossible to come up with absolute rules because the genius, renegade CEO will always break them. But since Silicon Valley seems to only become more and more relevant as technology progresses, understanding how to find value in the world of tech start-ups seems to be worth the effort.

Benchmark group interview forbes-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_nChmdMOgs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipmfg-A1LQw    How do we find new companies?