Qu’est-ce qui pousse les meilleurs fondateurs du monde à réussir, contre toute attente ?

Petter Made m’a demandé de m’appuyer sur plus de 1 200 investissements dans des start-ups et sur des décennies d’expérience entrepreneuriale pour analyser les traits essentiels qui définissent les fondateurs exceptionnels, de la curiosité obsessionnelle à l’éloquence en passant par la résilience extrême.

Je partage mes histoires personnelles d’échec, de persévérance et de réussite, y compris la façon dont j’ai survécu à la quasi-faillite et aux menaces juridiques tout en construisant une entreprise de plusieurs millions de dollars à partir de zéro. La conversation porte également sur le cadre de FJ Labs pour l’évaluation des fondateurs dans les transactions en phase de démarrage, sur ce qui fait qu’une présentation se démarque vraiment, et sur la manière d’identifier la rare combinaison de vision et d’exécution.

Je réfléchis au jeu mental de l’entrepreneuriat, en le comparant à des sports de compétition comme le tennis, et j’explique pourquoi la cohérence et le courage comptent souvent plus que l’intelligence brute.

Cet épisode est rempli de sagesse, de paroles vraies et d’idées pratiques pour tous ceux qui construisent ou investissent dans la prochaine génération d’entreprises formidables.

💡 In the episode, you’ll learn:

• Why great founders remind me of pro athletes.
• What FJ Labs looks for when evaluating early-stage teams.
• How to spot red flags before making an investment.
• Why are storytelling and focus underrated superpowers.
• And how failure, handled well, becomes a competitive advantage.

This is a must-listen for anyone who builds, backs, or believes in the power of entrepreneurial drive.

About Petter Made:

Peter Made is a fintech pioneer with over 25 years of experience. He co-founded SumUp, a global company valued at €8.5B, serving over 4 million SMBs across 36 countries. Then, as CPTO at Drooms, he led the development of the world’s fastest virtual data room, scaling the business to nine figures. Petter’s earlier career saw him in leadership roles at Inatec Payment AG, Ongame Networks, and Chinsay AB.

You can listen to the episode in the embedded podcast player.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XbhxcmGdzZJbQqwk8hYm5?si=afjLQoUxSpKeH1-Q4XpNvw

In addition to the above embedded podcast player, you can also listen to the podcast on Spotify.

Transcript

Petter Made: Welcome to Startup Insider podcast series on the topic of founder DNA. What is it that makes an outlier founder? What are the characteristics and traits that create the potential for startup success? This podcast series will explore this topic with a lineup of interesting founders to hear their perspective on founder DNA.

I am Petter Made. I’m a partner with EWOR and also a co-founder of the FinTech company. Sum up I have over 25 years within FinTech and payment space, and I will be your host for this podcast series. I hope you enjoy having these conversations with these amazing guests on the show.

Thanks for listening.

Okay. So today we have the next episode of a Startup Insider podcast series that we’re doing together with EWOR. The topic is Founder, DNA, what is it that makes an outlier founder? What are the characteristics and traits that create potential for startup success? So we’re gonna explore that in this podcast series with a lineup of really interesting founders to hear their perspectives on Founder DNA.

And today, which is our second episode, we have got the world’s most famous and best according to Forbes. And everyone else I talked to, angel Investor, Fabrice Grinda. Welcome to the show, Fabrice.

Fabrice Grinda: Thank you

Petter Made: Alright, so if I was to introduce you with everything that I’ve done research on now, it would probably take half the podcast.

So maybe you can do a quick little intro of yourself and your background and, what you’ve built in your career to date?

Fabrice Grinda: French originally came to US for college, went to Princeton, top my class, worked for McKinsey and Company for a few years, and then at the age of 23 started building companies.

I’ve been building and investing in tech startups for 27 years. I built three large venture backed tech companies. The last one is a company called OLX with like 11,000 employees, 30 countries over 300 million weeks a month. And I’m now an investor in 1200 startups. I’ve had over 300 exits my specialty is mostly network effect and marketplace type businesses.

Petter Made: Amazing! So what we’re gonna talk about today is not what you typically talk about in a lot of the podcasts you’ve done. I thought we’d dive deeper into what makes founders really tick and the patterns and some of the things that we can see with successful founders.

There’s such an incredibly wide variety of people and characters that have been successful in the past, when we’re investing super early at the angel stage the person or the founders tends to be very, very important or the, the thing that has the, the biggest determinants of success.

So I wanted to dig into this with this podcast series. the first question I’d like to ask you then on this topic I did quite a bit of research and looked at a lot of your, Excellent podcasts covering a wide variety of topics, what would you say are the main drivers in the psychology of a founder?

What is it that makes them tick?

Fabrice Grinda: I’d say there are few things that are necessary for a founder to succeed. first is like unshakeable belief in themselves. The reality is the five year survival rate in a startup is 5%, so there’s a 95% failure rate. You need to believe that these odds do not apply to you.

You are gonna bend the markets to your will by actually out executing and building something that is necessary. Number two, having a product, a vision, a market you’re going after that makes you tick. if you’re super passionate about solving a problem

You’re gonna go for it no matter what. people might tell you this is impossible, but You’re like, no, this is a problem. I’m gonna go and address it. it makes a huge difference because if you’re competing

with people that are just working to make money or whatever you’re gonna add, compete them because at some point they burn out versus you’re doing it for fun.

And so they’re like, this is your life’s mission. You have to solve this problem no matter what, and you’ll sacrifice anything. The alter of that success. in terms of the traits that are, relevant in being successful beyond grit, ambition, et cetera.

I would say the two most important ones are the ability to be an extremely eloquent person. it is often underrated because. You figure out, if I’m reading smart, I can execute. It’s enough. But actually, if you can sell the vision extremely well, you’re gonna be in a better position to raise capital to higher valuations.

That’s come easier. You do better BD deals, you get better press, you’re gonna hire better people, but it’s not enough. You also need to be able to execute so that then diagram intersection, that’s pretty rare. People that can both be very eloquent and visionary and can execute.

Petter Made: Yeah, I totally agree with that. you can put that down to personality, charisma, communication skills. you need to be able to attract other people to your team and that takes a lot of communication skills and charisma all of those different traits rolled into one person is definitely quite unusual.

I think if we look at the storied founders that are the best at those kinds of characteristics, the one that comes to mind for me. Immediately would be Steve Jobs, who kind of had his own reality distortion field. He came up on stage and people were just looking at one word on the slide behind the background.

And you know, this guy tells a story that everyone in the audience absolutely believes hanging on his every word

Fabrice Grinda: But I actually know a lot of founders like that. You know, Brett Atcock and figures like that. Yeah. And by the way, the reason this is not a sufficient characteristic is some people had it and yet the execution was terrible.

Right? think about Elizabeth Holmes. she had a reality distortion field when people believed her. But ultimately she denied to execute her vision. And that’s why it’s a necessary but insufficient condition for success.

Petter Made: absolutely. we’ll talk more about execution later on

There’s so much that comes down to that. I listened to, a lot of, your backstory and your, beginnings in France talking to school teachers who really, didn’t support you and wanting to build the next big company like Microsoft or something like that.

If you look at the characteristics of your own personality, what would you highlight in terms of leading you on the path to founding companies? I know you’re a very curious person. you talk about this intellectual curiosity. Can you maybe double down a little bit on that and see where we go with this?

Fabrice Grinda: Yeah, I think it was a few different things. in 1984 I was 10. I got my first BC and it was love. I first click, right? Like, I knew computers and I were meant to be together forever. And so I started going down that path Because I had unshakeable belief in myself. The fact that everyone else thought I was crazy, didn’t matter to me in any way, shape or form.

I don’t know why so many people are worried about the thoughts others have of them or they have imposter syndrome. I’ve usually, I have the opposite problem, especially as a kid now, I’m way more modest than I was a kid. I was a kid of like, I could do anything. Nothing will sock me. And I very, I was very judgmental.

It’s like my, my value judgment was all around IQ and, intellectualism because of course those were the things I was good at. Took me a a lot longer to realize that those would not be absolute measure and everyone was as merit. But the, I think if you, if you have fundamental belief in yourself and you’re curious, you know, you, you start unraveling the threat.

But I think you still need the fundamental belief and not care about whether other people are thinking about you because otherwise you might just listen I just didn’t care what. My parents, teachers, or others would tell me, I would just go down and do the things that made sense to me, and I thought they were all idiots.

Petter Made: Yeah. I mean the whole part of curiosity with people that I meet that are founders, like in my work with EWOR, I coach a lot of startups and one of the things I find as a common pattern is that at least for the main founder, obviously you need people that can compliment your skillset on your team as co-founders. But the main sort of co-founder, the driving entrepreneur is someone who usually strikes me as being very curious in that they like to observe what’s happening in the world around them. And if you’re curious, you tend to be a learner. And what I mean by a learner, you’re a lifelong learner.

You kind of describe to this if I can make myself 1% better every day at my life, what will I look like in a year’s time?

Fabrice Grinda: Yeah. Look, I think the way it stresses itself is I, as a kid, I love to read, right? And I still to this day read 50 to a hundred books a year. I read a book an hour and a half every night before bed.

And so I’m not trying to read books, it’s just I did for fun. It just so happens that these things lead to learnings, whether they’re like silly sci-fi, which still gives you plots of ideas, imagination, or biographies in history. And I think if you’re curious, you’re often a student of history and a student and I think just makes you a

Better person to lead because you have enough curiosity to like, oh, how does marketing work? How does sales work out? Does customer service work? How do I optimize every one of these processes? And to your point, the CEO founders should be a generalist rather than a specialist. And then you hire specialists for the different functions.

But you need to have a level of address. Like every company I’ve ever built, I started out as head of customer service. You know, just so understand like what are the, and it may be about a product seal, and I also started out as head of products. each of the functions to make sure I understood exactly where the users wanted, where the problem or pain points were, et cetera.

Petter Made: Yeah, that’s something that really resonates with me as well, when you’re building a startup and you’re, one of the original co-founders, you end up doing everything from the beginning because it’s just you and your co-founder.

It becomes a journey of setting up different functions in the company and then recruiting people to take over from that. then you fix the next thing, and before you know it, you’ve got a company with a number of different departments doing different things, which I think is really important.

And I think some of the great, corporate leaders tend to be people that understand every single part of the business and can speak to that if there’s a problem. I think I heard the other day Marc Andreessen said that Elon famously, the way he works now, spends one week with one of his companies and just asks them, what’s the biggest problem you have right now?

And then he dives in and solves that problem in a week. in a year, he would’ve solved the 52 most important problems in the company that he’s the CEO for or involved in. I thought that was an interesting way of approaching CEO workload and how you spend your time.

Fabrice Grinda: Yeah. I think that said, identifying where the problems are is, is just important. ’cause sometimes people think something’s a problem and it may not be a problem. And it may not be the biggest problem. often you look at the constraints in front of you and you’re like, oh, this is the problem, but if you remove these constraints in some way, shape, or form, perhaps the bigger problem is something else. So I think thinking through that makes a lot of sense as well.

Petter Made: A lot of startup founders obsess over things that aren’t really worth their time at all, in fact.

Fabrice Grinda: Competition for instance, most startup founders over index and over worry about what competition is like, what they’re doing, versus the things that kill startups. When you look at the top 10 reasons why companies fail, they’re mostly intrinsic. It’s like, oh, we did product market fit or work for hundred KA month an MRR, but then beyond that, I can get the customer acquisition cost to work because this was a more niche problem than I expected.

Or if I fought what my co-founder and that destroyed the company, or I raised too much money at too high price, and then I didn’t grow into the valuation, and so now the company’s dead because no one wants to. And, you know, triggering the anti-dilution provisions and doing it Dan Round, I mean, these things are way more likely to kill your company than competition.

So if you do everything right internally, things will work out Don’t worry about what the competition’s doing.

Petter Made: Absolutely! A hundred percent agree with that. And especially the co-founder fights. that is more common than you could possibly imagine. A lot of the startups who, who asked me that question, especially the ones who don’t have a co-founder already, how do you find a co-founder?

I’ve heard incredible and unlikely stories around that. But at the end of the day, figuring out whether you are compatible with your co-founder or not, I tend to tell them, go away for a weekend. Go hiking in the mountains and just spend the whole day together. if you survive that weekend, you know.

Chances are you’ll get to know each other. that you can stand each other and actually work together would be some sort of a litmus test to see if you could stand the test of time.

Fabrice Grinda: I don’t think this is even enough. Like the, the foundry dating do work sessions together and problem solving, understanding how you would work together, go on a weekend like hiking or whatever together, meet each other, significant others.

Like really spend, I would spend like a few weeks, if you can make it work before you commit to anything. Before you go down the path. I wouldn’t start working absent having done that because many people realize they were not that compatible from a personality perspective.

some people need to be constantly encouraged or told that they’re doing good things and the other person is not that personality. Some people I. Want clear path of what to be done. Some people are open and free and maybe you even have different visions for what you should be executing.

And also what is the overlap of skills? If you have similar skill sets, it’s not necessarily a problem as long as you are very explicit about who’s doing what to make sure you’re not taking away from each other’s work. So anything is possible, but you need to test it out basically.

Petter Made: absolutely. that was the case when I founded one of my companies.

We had very similar skill sets in both FinTech guys, but we did exactly what you said. we were very clear on who was doing what and when you’re literally starting from nothing, there’s plenty of work to do. That was never a problem. Yeah. I mean,

Fabrice Grinda: My co-CEO at OLX in a way on paper looks the same as me. You did Harvard. I did Princeton. You did BCG. I did McKinsey. He built eBay of Latin America. I built eBay of Europe. But he was in Argentina, I was in New York, and I was much more technically focused and product minded. So I ran product, I ran BD in every country except Latin America.

I did PR except Latin America. he actually ran the entire team. Most of the office was in Buenos Aires. So he actually managed all the day-to-day operations and you managed local strategy and marketing in the countries he was in and PR, et cetera.

And then we were both on the board. And even though it looked like we were similar, we made it work.

Petter Made: Yeah. That’s amazing. finding a co-founder is almost a bigger commitment than getting married, given how much time you’re gonna spend together.

Fabrice Grinda: Absolutely.

Petter Made: Scary thought at least for us who are married. Alright. In terms of your own stories of, resilience and grit. I mean, we talked about that obsession with the problem that you wanna solve is really important. But also the thing that keeps coming up and that I’ve discussed with some of the founders on coaching and the partners at where we’re trying to understand whether someone really is gonna be a great bet for us to invest in the resilience, the overcoming extreme adversity.

Can you share some stories of how you overcame extreme adversity to finally succeed?

Fabrice Grinda: So first of all, I’m not sure it’s easy to vet ahead of time if someone’s gonna meet that, because if they’re young and coming out of college They’ve had a life of uninterrupted success, right?

how do you succeed in high school? You’re smart, you do your homework, you get a pluses. How do you succeed in college? you go to class, you do the homework, you study, you get your A pluses. How do you succeed at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey? You know, there’s a very clear expected like that.

What do you need to do? how people deal with failure. Like when they go and pitch VCs in the first 50 pitches, they get their teeth kicked in and can’t raise money. when they’re low on cash, how do they handle it? It’s hard to tell unless they’ve been in these types of situations before.

maybe they go extreme, whatever they do extreme, extreme camping or they run old ultra marathons or whatever. And by the way, one of the reasons guys have a tendency to do better than women is because, because men ask. Women advocate rejected her constantly. They already are, are kind of better used to dealing with rejection.

and it’s kind of unfair. But that’s the way that social situation is set up such that men, by default are better trained at dealing with rejection. But obviously once you’re a founder, you figure it out. my example of extreme grit is after my first startup failed to have a success. I hoped it would have the company that bought us saw their stock price fall 99.98% during my lockup period.

Now, in my defense, I wanted to sell eBay for 300 in cash. But my majority VC said, no, we should sell to this other company. And of course, that was the wrong bet because that company felt, and I couldn’t, I didn’t have a drag, I couldn’t force it. So I went from zero to hero cover of every magazine back to zero again.

So then we’re in 2001, the internet looked like it was dead. It was not gonna be a big thing, but I’m like, you know what? I like creating something out of nothing. Capital’s not available. I also have almost no money. I need to build an idea that maybe I’m not the most passionate about, but that I think I can make profitable, because my objective at this point is not changing the world.

It’s actually, I like being a founder. I wanna create something. So I decided to build a ringtone business in the us and this is at the time, and pre-smartphone, 2001, 2002, 2003, where these things were big in Europe and Asia and there was nothing in the us. the US was years behind.

There was no payment systems on cell phones. there was no text messaging within care or prosecutor. I mean, it was like the dark ages. The US was years behind Europe and years behind Asia. But I’m like, you know, it’s worked everywhere else. I think I can build this reasonably cheaply and that the market will turn in the direction that will allow this to happen.

And the problem though is. It was unclear when that was gonna happen, and no one wanted us to have it. So I spoke to all the carriers that were not interested. They had no delivery systems. I spoke to all the music companies. They didn’t wanna give me licenses. so I launched literally hacking into the delivery networks of the carriers doing things they didn’t know was possible.

In order to deliver our ring tones, I couldn’t connect to their systems directly or charge through their voting bill, so I would charge my credit card which of course didn’t have their conversion rate. And because the music companies didn’t wanna license me anything, I violated every copyright possible.

Now it turns out that if you, for each illegal download, you have to pay 250,000 fine per debt. And, but I had started tracking who owned what rights which was massive detective work. I started sending them checks for what I thought was the fair price, which is the mechanical rights.

there was a reasonably established price for where that is, and many of them were cashing down. And so a year later, a year or two later, people started getting cease and desist letters from music companies asking for billions of dollars because of course, 250,000 times a couple tens of thousand demos.

There’s billions. And so I would pick up the phone and call. The lawyer was like, I’m so excited that you’re talking to me It was like, maybe I’m taken aback, because they were like, wait a minute, we’re trying to sue you and shut you down, and you’re just so happy. I’m like, look, I’ve been trying to talk to you guys.

I actually want to pay you. you haven’t been willing to give me a license by the way, I’ve been paying you and most of you guys have cashed the check. So I think we have an implicit agreement. it turns out that because I kept feeding capital in the company and had no money in the company, it would cost them more to shut me down than to deal with me.

And so I was able to settle. With all of ’em one by one over the course of like 12 months. I ended up being the only person licensed by all my employees when they were seeing like were getting sued for $5 billion. They were like scared shitless. Like, nah, don’t worry about it. I had a pile you know, whatever, five feet high of cease and desist letters and like lawsuits for billion dollars and I’m like, nah, one more.

there’s a saying in French, which is, you can’t shave it at me. I have no money. I’m nothing to lose. ultimately I paid them. the biggest one is the MIII overpaid meaning instead of paying what I thought was the correct price, I paid two x that price and, and it worked really well.

Got all the licenses. the next problem was the, there was no capital to raise, right? Venture ca what I called VCs in 2001, 2002 and I’m like, Hey I want to build a direct to consumer telecom business. every DDC company like pets.com, e toys, Webvan, it got under, all the telcos, got under CI, WorldCom, et cetera.

They hung up. I ended up raising 1.4 million, but I raised it in five to 10 K increments. I would beat someone and be like, I have this amazing idea, you need to fund me. And I would get like 5K or 10 K or 15 K, and then I make payroll. So over the course of two years, I missed payroll 27 times, including four months in a row.

I would tell my boys I don’t know what happened. The bank didn’t process the wire. this is really an incompetent bank. I should probably change. Consider changing is my gross chase. I just didn’t have money, a bank account, but then I would get 10 k, poof, I’d make payroll. And yeah, we did lose a few employees but they all got paid everything in the end when we became profitable.

But as a result, I invested. So I, I left the last company with like 700 k. I spent every last penny in the company. I borrowed a hundred thousand of my credit cards. I couldn’t afford rent. I couldn’t afford food. I slept on the couch in the office. There was shot in the office. So basically I slept in the office.

I shot at the office. I was so poor. I decided, you know what? I’m going to get my cost structure. I think I was down at $2 a day. I would eat four cups of ramen noodle per day. I could even, I didn’t even afford coffee, like water ramen noodle, nothing else. For two years, I lost like 50 pounds. It was probably extraordinarily unhealthy.

But ultimately we grabbed victory from jaws the defeat. One through persistence of like, I kind of bribed Microsoft to take a deal with me for MSN, which led a press release, which led a Motorola, inbounding me, the Motorola deal led to Nextel, and then all of a sudden they were signing every single operator.

And so we went from poor to having every contract possible and exploding. After two years of pain, we finally became profitable, which to this day is the most meaningful moment of my professional career. not the day I sold my second company or the third company

But the day that we became profitable on August 15th, cashflow, profitable, August 15th, 2003. we paid back everything. I paid back the credit card debt. I paid back the employees. They had been paid for four and a half months. And I was like, okay, we are now masters of our destiny.

So it was hard. And yeah, everyone thought it was crazy, you know, like sleeping on the couch at the office missing payroll was like, why, you know, just go get a job in McKinzie or Goldman or whatever. But I’m like, no I I don’t think I’m employable. I want to do things my way and I’d like building something and I’m think this doesn’t work.

Whatever, go to business school, I can go find, find a job. Like I think my problem, people overestimate the risk they face. what’s the worst that could happen if you’re gonna get a job somewhere that pays? Well, boo ha. I mean, it’s not a big deal. Maybe you need to sleep with your, your parents on the couch or whatever for a while.

So you do that. all these things never bothered me.

Petter Made: That’s amazing. that story’s just wild. It sounds there’s a lot to be said for asking for forgiveness instead of asking for permission.

Fabrice Grinda: Never ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Except in medical stuff and financial stuff, you don’t want the FDA or the SCC to come after you, like, things that could lead you to jail. Yeah, ask for permission. Everything else, ask for forgiveness.

Petter Made: That’s a pretty good filter right there.

Fabrice Grinda: And in general, avoid regulated spaces. life’s too short to deal with slow regulators and governments.

Petter Made: that’s a seminar I give at the start of every EWOR class; regulated versus unregulated industries. Things to think about and watch out for if you’re getting into a regulated space.

Fabrice Grinda: it’s for maybe different personality types, right? If you do get in regulated safe space and you can do some level of regulatory capture, which people always do, you do have a barrier to entry, but my tolerance for low IQ regulators and public service workers and interacting with them is essentially dim minims.

Every time I go in a meeting with ’em, I just wanna take a machine gun and shoot them all. it shows that I’m like, okay, you are not worthy of my time and attention and I don’t know what I’m doing here. You guys are idiots. as a result, I am not the person, A probably not the right guy to build companies in the space, or b, definitely not the right guy to go interacting with these people.

You need to hire a much more diplomatic person. But I feel this way about most things in life. I optimize my life to be surrounded by super smart people that I find intellectually challenging and to interact with them whether they be founders that I’m interested in backing me, founders that I’m already backed, that I wanna help or vCs or general people that are smart and interesting.

Petter Made: I a hundred percent agree. I had the same thing dealing with regulators in, in the past when I was building sum up, that was extremely frustrating where we felt like we were training the regulator rather than them evaluating us to give us the license we needed, which can be incredibly frustrating.

I’m gonna jump down since we’re on the topic of risk. I had some questions there that I’d like to dig a little deeper into. starting a company itself is an inherently risky endeavor. Like you said, the five year survivability, 5%, and if you tell most people that upfront when they’re about to start a company, that’s a bit of a downer.

Chances of failure are incredibly high. we’ve not talked about your own relationship to risk and how that shaped your life. But in terms of founders. A lot of people have a hard time taking that step out into the great unknown, right?

when you’re staring risk in the face and you’re like, I wanna start this company, what is it that some people, don’t take the step? And some people just, jump blind and go for it.

Fabrice Grinda: Well, two reasons. One is maybe you, don’t have a choice.

this is a problem you are meant to be solving and you have to solve it. It’s so painful to you that this exists in the world. You’re just gonna do it and the risk, damn. So that’s one approach, and that’s true for many people. But number two is, I actually think that the risks are a lot lower than you think they are.

You go create a startup, so you leave your job, whatever, and it fails. So what. You had amazing life experience that will make you a more interesting, viable candidate for any employer possible than the alternative of whomever was doing the boring nine to five job. what’s the worst that’s gonna happen?

You could go to business school and get a job at McKinsey or a startup I don’t think these things are inherently risky we live in a world that is so devoid of risk and it’s so privileged people don’t realize that like two years ago I walked to the South Pole pulling my hundred pound sled.

It’s like negative 30 temperature, negative 50 windshield. I needed to have my fuel, my food, my tents no connection to the world. It’s like 10,000 feet altitude. I need a poop and a plastic bag every day for like two weeks. You come out of that. I ended up in like a cheap motel, like full of cockroaches of the southern ghost tip of Chile, which is the staging area.

And you know, like even though it was like $2 a night hotel, like I take a shower and it was like there’s hot water, there’s toilet, the toilet’s like the greatest invention in the history of mankind. I have a bad pizza. It was the best food I’ve ever eaten. we are so privileged I would argue there is no risk if you’re in a position to build a startup, I suspect you’re the type person that doesn’t really face risk.

Now if you tell me you’re whatever a mother of three, no family support structure. And if you don’t feed your, if you don’t make money, you can’t feed your children, probably you don’t have the risk profile for it, but the people that typically go to elite schools and or young et cetera.

Like when you’re young, the opportunity cost few time is low. And you can live in your parents’ couches and you can, or your friends’ couches. it’s way less risky than people think this world disproportionately rewards slightly more risk than others are willing to take. Not a lot of risk.

In fact, I think there’s no risk. the worst that can happen is you fall back on your feet and you’re be fine.

Petter Made: Yeah, a hundred percent. I think it’s one of those things that between the ages of 20 and 30, you should be taking a lot of risk because exactly as you say, the downside is not that big and you can always go back to work. Then there are crazy people, like myself I hadn’t really achieved any real success financially with the startups and the projects I’d worked on up until I was 41.

And that’s when I founded Sum Up and I actually had to sit down with my wife. ’cause we had three kids at the time, between ages of five and six twins. and I had to ask her like, are you willing to go one more time and really burn all the bridges and try to build a company.

And for me, at that point in time, I guess it was one of those things where. You kind of feel like the stars align. Like I was super pissed off that I couldn’t pay with a card anywhere in Europe. And as a Swede, we’ve been paying with cards for the last 35 years, every time you go to the UK and you can’t pay with a card, had to go and stop at an ATM to get cash to pay the cabbie.

I mean, it was just ridiculous. They even got laughed at by my own kids up at a mountain Pitta in Switzerland, where I couldn’t pay with a card for the 20 buck pizzas we just bought. having experienced all this, I just felt I’ve gotta solve this.

Like, I can’t sleep I have to do this. at that point in time, I also had a bit of a chip on the shoulder syndrome, thinking, you look at Jack Dorsey, this bearded hipster over in the US having this huge success with, Square. this guy doesn’t know anything about payments.

I haven’t had 20, 17 years of payments at that time and felt like, yeah, come on. We can do this better in Europe. And I just jumped and there was no failure. I could not have failed at that point in my life. And so I succeeded. But that’s the other edge of the spectrum, in terms of your tolerance of risk, I think you’ll come to a point in your life when the fear of the risk and the opportunity or the drive to solve the problem and taking the risk. It’s like it comes at a tipping point and then you just, do it.

Fabrice Grinda: Totally agree.

Petter Made: So I’ve heard that you have a passion for tennis, which is something that, we both share especially competition, tennis playing matches, whether it’s at the club level or whatever. it’s an incredibly mental game for those who are not tennis players and who haven’t played competitively.

Do you see any parallels between that match competition psychology and the founder of mental game?

Fabrice Grinda: Well, I’ve always been into individualistic sports: tennis, paddle skiing, kite surfing, et cetera. Definitely, it is a mental game because a lot of it is, your technique and your physique, but then you have to, like, you need focus, you need grid, you need tenacity, you need to make sure you’re present.

a lot of the skill sets do translate, especially if you played reasonably competitively, If you were playing college tennis or whatever.

Petter Made: I didn’t play competitively much when I was younger. That was more later on in life. we lived in Germany and Frankfurt for eight years, and there the kids played club tennis and so I joined the club and started playing as well competitively, which is a lot of fun.

I’m also interested in longevity, but totally different topic. one of the interesting things out of playing tennis and being part of club tennis culture was that I read that tennis players or people who played tennis throughout their lives can live between seven to nine years more than someone who is, for example, not active at all.

Fabrice Grinda: that’s correct. it’s unclear that it’s causation versus correlation.

Petter Made: This is true.

Fabrice Grinda: Someone who’s fit enough to be able to play tennis, it’s probably in a much better shape than someone who’s not when they’re in their sixties seventies and eighties.

And so it may not actually be causation, but yes. Is it great to have coordination balance and movement, good shape so you can stay thin et cetera? Absolutely. But it may be correlation, not causation.

Petter Made: Could be very, very much so. even with the structure of, club life you’re meeting people and being sociable, which from a mental health point of view, I think can also be a factor.

Fabrice Grinda: Cool. there’s a book on the mental game of tennis. I’m trying to remember what it was, but it’s all my bookstand and and it’s amazing. a lot of the lessons apply to building startups not just, tennis. Even if you don’t know anything about tennis, the book is full of tips that make you a better person and lead a better life.

Petter Made: I a hundred percent agree, and it’s a pretty short read. can you name the book on behalf of you know, our listeners? So for us Tech people, it’s kind of hilarious. It’s the Inner Game of Tennis. by Timothy Galloway. With a New Forward by Bill Gates.

Bill Gates,

Fabrice Grinda: he’s a tennis player.

Petter Made: Literally. Yeah. Holy cow. I didn’t know that.

Fabrice Grinda: He plays tennis and pickleball. Absolutely. He played famously with like Federer games. With Federer against someone else in a ProAm tour. He’s a big tennis fan.

Petter Made: That’s awesome. Didn’t know that. Yeah, me too. really enjoyed watching the mental tug of war between the top players. obviously Federer, Djokovich and, and Nadal. But now, now that you see the new players coming up, I find it really interesting to see that it’s the mental game that is the differentiator not the skills.

Fabrice Grinda: Yeah, for sure. Why, why do I think Sinner as an agile and everyone else is He’s just like, he’s like  Djokovich like so much more focused and like he has a killer instinct. Like he will break the right time. He’s gonna hold, he doesn’t lose his concentration, et cetera. Alcaraz has of course remains very young.

So he said opportunity to improve, but I’d say that’s the one area of Alcaraz could improve.

Petter Made: He’s mercurial and not consistent. consistency can directly translate to founders as well because it’s, solving problems all day.

I was talking to one of our ideation fellows the other day and she said, I’m just putting out fires all day, every day. And it’s just, next day it’s just a new set of fires. I said. that’s exactly what you can expect.

Fabrice Grinda: That’s, that’s the founder of life. Yeah. No. So someone asked me independently, like how to say fit and like you. Look, if you actually want to have sexy, fit, whatever, you just need to be at like 10% body fat. And the way you be at 10% body fat is actually reasonably easy, eat a lot of protein. Well, if you also wanna have you lean, you eat very little carbs and medium fat, and if you wanna go keto or, or the opposite meat medium, reasonably low carbs and even less fat.

And you do that every day and you walk to mass today and you’re good to get there but no cheat days. on cheat days, people end up overeating, et cetera. But like, you do that every day. It’s consistency. every day you eat healthy, you work out with lift weight three times a week, you walk to mass and stuffs, you’re gonna be super fit.

it’s consistency day in and day out. And this applies to being h to being fit. This applies to like building a startup, just showing up every day and like turning out the facts, whatever they may be.

Petter Made: Yeah, absolutely. the discipline is really showing up on the days when you don’t feel like it, it’s the same whether you’re going to the gym or walking in through the door of your startup. you gotta have a smile on your face and be ready to go every day. that consistency, is a big important factor of being successful. we’ve been talking a lot about the mental game and what’s important in terms of characteristics of founders when you’re looking at investing.

So I’ve listened a lot to the FJ Lab’s investment thesis and how you guys pick out companies. wanted to dig in a little deeper in the evaluating the team or the founder stage can you break down the process for evaluating the founders? Especially when you’re investing at the, I mean, you’re doing angel investing at Venture Scale, which is a very unusual and cool combination.

Fabrice Grinda: The thing is, most VCs are, angels will tell you, oh, I only invest in extraordinary founders. And the problem, everybody says that. right? So the thing is, they can’t define what it means for them. And it can’t be like porn. It can’t be, oh, I know it when I see it. It has to be much more exclusive than that.

especially since I’m not the only one taking evaluation calls, we tenant investors at FJ Labs, right? And we’re five partners. And so we’ve codified what we think makes for a good founder and how you evaluate it in a one hour time. And by the way, we don’t even do founder background checks because the background checks and the best vendors are often pretty awful. I mean, they were not good employees. They were talking back to their bosses. They were working in their startups where they write their job, et cetera. If anything, maybe a negative signal. so for us in a one hour call, we’re gonna tease that first, how eloquent and visionary, and are they like, can they sell, can they pitch super effectively?

And then you can figure it out within five minutes, right? Like the storytelling skills, how are they telling the story of how they got there, what they’re building, how they’re building. So the storytelling skills matter tremendously. and it’s half the story, but then also how do they deal when you’re entrusting them and you’re asking questions because someone can seem like they have a super polished pitch because they’ve repeated the same things over and over again.

if they’re following the same story and the same slides, they look very polished. But then you start doing rapid back and forth, et cetera. And then you realize, oh no, they, they practice that pitch, but they’re actually not as. Thinking on their feed and, and visionary and eloquent as you might otherwise think.

So that’s one element, like do they need that super fast, eloquent clarity of thought that is going to lead to better fundraising, bd, et cetera. And number two, we wanna evaluate how they execute. this is a very early stage company. We don’t know how they’re gonna execute.

the way we tease it out is how well do they actually understand the business they’re in. we care deeply not just about the team, but about the business. Like total addressable, market size, unit economics, the deal terms and the thesis. when I double click on the business, I want to make sure that they really have understood, okay, what is the margin structure of the business?

What is your average order value for whatever it is you’re selling? And by the way, may better be in line with what the market average is. What is your expected recurrence for it? Which again, better be in line with what the market average is, so you better know what those answers are.

what is your contribution margin on each of the transactions, and then how much is it costing you to acquire the customer? I don’t care if it’s a sales team or if it’s influencer marketing or your paid marketing, but have you done, landing page analysis? Have you looked at the density of keywords on Google?

Even if you spend 500 bucks, because you’re pre-launch. Have you actually tested it? What did the CCPs look like? What did the CPAs look like with an expected conversion rate? What do you think the C to Lt V looks like? And how thoughtful are you in your economics? And if you can articulate these things very well, chances are you’re gonna be able to execute.

what we found for most founders is they fall in one of two buckets. Either they have this nailed, but they can’t sell, they can’t pitch. And by the way, pitching is, teachable. Or they have the oration thing, but they haven’t actually looked at the details of what they’re building.

And so that then diagram intersection of the people who are amazing salespeople, we can also execute is pretty small. in a one hour call, I feel that we can tease it out because we know exactly what we’re looking for.

Petter Made: Got it. in my experience, there are a lot of great founders that are great across all those different dimensions.

So we talk about the combination of communication skills, obsession and perseverance that you can see in a founder. Sometimes they tend to be a bit spiky. Is there anything that you zoom in on, and think is a green flag as opposed to a red flag. on those three important factors of a founder.

Fabrice Grinda: Look, I want them to be spiky on passion, obsession, writ, and whether or not there’s spiky in other areas. You know, are they introverted or extroverted, kind of relevant. Is there IQ? You know, treat deviation is actually less relevant than you might think. Grit and hardwork tenacity outperforms IQ. And often, in fact, two smart founders, or not the best because A. they were looking for the perfect answer and so they overthink things. And B. they feel things should come easier than they do. so they’re more likely to get discouraged easily, which is surprising.

So not true of all, but, so the spikiness, yeah, I wanted in a few categories and the rest I don’t care that much. I have extroverts, I have natural introverts, I have super high IQ, I have average IQ, like those matter much less.

Petter Made: And you can always cover for some of those blind spots with other members on the team, right?

So a common myth in startup culture is, the young, hyper intelligent, first time founder, you know, goes straight outta college or college dropout and, and then goes and build, goes on to build this huge company. how do you think that plays out in practice? is this just a great story meme that people like to tell

Is there actually something to this? are they so oblivious to the hardships of the world that they’re just gonna believe that they’re gonna be successful there?

Fabrice Grinda: it’s both true simultaneously, they did not know it was impossible, so they went ahead and did it.

if you’re in college, you’re living off pizza and you don’t need to sleep. You’re 21, it doesn’t matter. you can take a lot more rest than most other people with no consequences. But your failure rate is also a lot higher because you have no idea what you’re doing.

And so I think they’re both simultaneously true that yes, you can attack categories that no one else thinks of attacking because you’re not even aware of what’s supposedly impossible in the category. But also you’re, yeah, you’re gonna hire the wrong people, pick the wrong businesses and fail much more often.

and it’s totally okay. I think the flip side of that is, when you look at the stats, I read somewhere that the average age of successful founders is 42. does that reflect the importance of having deep industry knowledge and experience and actually knowing what you’re doing?

What do you think? I look at our success rate in founders and the first signed founders. we’re probably better than most in terms of successful founders because we care so much about valuation and, and unit economics. That or failure rate is lower. We, we make money about 40, 50, 40 5% of radis.

So only 55% in a we fail which is very low for the seed and pre-seed and a type sodom of the founders who have failed. So for us the second time founders. They fall in two buckets. Second time founders who failed the first time. Second time founders who did okay the first time and second time founders did extremely well the first time, second time founders who did extremely well the first time have the same success rate as first time founders.

Because what happens is they’re like, okay, now I can go big or go home. And so they take more risk. when they make it, they make it a lot bigger, but because they go big, they often fail. you end up with much more diverse outcomes. the average return ends up being the same, but fewer succeed much bigger and most fail the blended IRR for us and multiple ends up being exactly the same. Even though when they succeed, they do whatever, 20 x instead of three x and when they fail, there is zero as opposed to a 0.5 x.

Now this the best return for us. on a risk adjusted basis are founders who failed or did okay, but not great the first time. They’re way more likely to succeed the second time. But they don’t succeed big. They succeed, but they’re not shooting for home runs. They’re shooting for doubles and triples or even singles.

But they’ve learned on someone else’s diet. You know, the first species, you know, whether it failed or not. they’ve taken into consideration all the lessons from that, and now they’re applying it to their second startup. And so they do better, but they’re not the most successful. But they are successful.

Petter Made: Yeah. And what about third time founders? I mean, the second time founders one of the categories you mentioned was the ones that did super well the first time and then the second time they’re like, of course I’m gonna be successful ’cause I was successful the last time and it was super high risk and, and what whatnot.

And then they fall flat on their face. And then you have the ones that, do a second one

Fabrice Grinda: And then they become investors. There are not that many very successful first time founders who become second time founders.

Petter Made: Right? ’cause why would they

Fabrice Grinda: Because their ego is tied in their identity of success. So they don’t want to put that, and they realize that some of it’s luck but luck as in like the right category at the right time, et cetera.

And they don’t want to be failures. So many of them do not become founders again. But the few who do take more risks and it ends up with like, you know, higher failure rate, higher, but bigger, successful. They make it third time founders from the super successful category. I’m probably the exception in that category

People lived on okay the first time And pretty well the second time or an okay the second time. Yes. Way more likely to be third time founders.

Petter Made: Yeah, absolutely. you mentioned in one of your podcasts you said that you were, you became an accidental VC after your third company that you built, right?

Fabrice Grinda: Well, more than third, but third big venture backed company.

Petter Made: And so I, this is kind of the path I’ve chosen myself. I’ve only had one big success it was the last one, like when, when I, when I was thinking my, my kids are, they’re, they’re moving outta the house now, going, going off to university the last two this summer.

And I was thinking what am I gonna do? Am I gonna start another company, which my wife wouldn’t have been a great fan of. Or I can become an investor or startup coach and really work with sort of paying back for some of mys success in helping young founders to avoid some of the mistakes and failures of my past and maybe, make higher value mistakes on their path of making a company with some kind of impact.

One thing that I’m thinking about, and talking to young founders. what are your thoughts on this dichotomy between innate characteristics versus acquired habits or knowledge in accounting for founder success? Like you mentioned earlier that speaking publicly, for example, is a skill you can learn, but absolute grit or, having that what I call the unstoppable gene, when I see it I’m like, okay

Fabrice Grinda: you could teach grit as well, but it’s better if you teach them when they’re 10 than when they’re 20, right?

you can teach public speaking to someone when they’re 10. You can teach grit by like letting your kids take like controlled rest where like they fall behind their faces and like we live in an overly protective world. Where kids are not allowed to fail. You want them to fail.

You want exams to be hard so they get B’s and C’s and they have to work for the a’s. You can’t, the mean cannot be a a minus that, you know, that makes no sense. You want them to go out and. You know, play in the yard and like break their light once in a while. Like, my son just broke his leg as age three and I’m teaching him extreme skiing.

Proudly mindly, maybe over optimistic on my side. Alright. But it’s okay. You know, you test his limits, it’ll be fine. It’ll heal. it’s better if you teach these things early, but they’re all teachable. Now, the one thing that’s maybe not teachable, so it’s not great. Grid is teachable. Public speaking is teachable.

The one thing that’s not clear is ambition. Where does ambition come from? Why are you ambitious versus not ambitious, right? Like, there are a lot of high IQ people that are, great solving problems like brain teasers, but they’re not ambitious to change the world. But that’s true. It’s all of average IQ people.

But like where does that come from? That’s maybe more the X factor. Like how driven are you? So it’s not grit because grit, I think that’s each, but like you actually want to make a difference. You are willing to sacrifice everything to make a difference. That, where does that come from? Unclear. You know, I had it when I was five.

Like I knew I wanted to make a ripple in the fabric of the universe.

Petter Made: Exactly. You kind of have that inner belief in yourself that you don’t really know where it comes from, but you know you’ve got it. A lot of the people I’ve looked at who are very impressive founders have some sort of a really strong adverse event, like losing a parent or a sibling early on in life or maybe their family goes bankrupt and they have to live on ketchup and noodles.

a lot of these things where, you’ve been subjected early on in life to something that shapes you and provides this grit. You have this chip on the shoulder, maybe you want to prove yourself to your peers or to your parents a lot of those things tend to pop up with people that are just so, that’s true.

Fabrice Grinda: so there’s a book by Matthew Audible on David and Goliath. The people that have dyslexia are more likely if you can deal with it, you’re more likely to do things you would never want to wish on your kids.

Right? on average they’re negative. most people that face these traumatic events, it is a massive negative for them. And they do not deal with it well. There’s a tiny subset that overcomes it to the point that they become unstoppable machines. That said. That is not the big way I would teach grit.

It’s like I’m gonna create adversity. Your house is gonna burn down, your parents are gonna lose everything. I’d rather find other ways to, to teach that. And also people that do it because they have a chip in their shoulder and they’re doing it to prove it to their parents society or to themselves than usually themselves, that they feel they’re unworthy in their imposter syndrome.

I don’t think that’s very healthy. in the long run, you’re gonna burn out if you do it because you love it, you’re unstoppable. If you do it because you feel you have to prove it at some point, you’re gonna totally burn out.

So I don’t love these it works for you the first start, but I don’t think it works forever.

Petter Made: I think you got a good point there. I mean, that actually resonates with myself very heavily in that, when you’re building something where it’s a full rocket burn VC funded startup, and we were, five founders from the beginning and after two and a half years not wanting to miss my kids growing up I decided to pull back.

You know, working a hundred hours a week for two and a half years straight, and then seeing that the company was strong, we’d hired the first 200 people, we’d raised over 150 million. It was gonna be successful. I just didn’t know how successful. And for me at that point was when I pulled back and took a regular job and enjoyed being with my family and turned out to be a great investment.

Sums is worth a lot of money these days. that was, a very unusual outcome. An unusual sense, I don’t know.

Fabrice Grinda: Not as unusual as you think. Many founders at some point, they’re no longer the right person around the company or they get tired or whatever. sometimes it’s at the B, sometimes it’s a C, sometimes it’s at the IPO, but it’s not often that the founder from zero to one or zero to 10 or zero to a hundred is the right founder for, 100 to 10,000 or a hundred thousand.

So the opposite that Mark Zuckerberg’s of the world were more the exception

Petter Made: Yeah, a hundred percent. knowing myself as well, the reason why I’m doing what I’m doing now is because I really love the zero to one. I love the early stage ideation, the product market fit,

That is what really excites me. Scaling a company, doing the same thing day in, day out, just in another country or another market. Just not as not, not as exciting to me.

Fabrice Grinda: Totally agree.

Petter Made: Alright, Fabrice, amazing conversation. Thank you so much for taking the time. I think we’re gonna round off here with one final little thing.

Is there a piece of advice or a thought, something that you can leave with the founders that maybe have not taken the step or have taken the step and could use wise words on the path to success?

Fabrice Grinda: I’ll give you two. One is a quote from Goethe,

It’s attributed Goethe, which is « Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it » basically just do it. And the other one, which is my favorite poem, It’s called Invictus. Give me one minute to recite it to you, it matters. So deeply and profoundly.

Out of the nights that covers me,

black as the pit from pole to pole.

I think whatever Gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

And the felt clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried alound.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this wrath place of wrath in tears

Looms by the horror of the shade.

And yet the menace of the years

finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters now how straight the gates,

How charged with punishments the scroll.

I am the master of my fate.

I’m the captain of my soul.

And to me that is extraordinarily powerful. no matter what challenges you face, you can face them.

Petter Made: Amazing. what a perfect way to end this podcast episode. Thank you so much again, Fabrice Grinda.

Fabrice Grinda: Thank you.