Maryanna Saenko of Future Ventures joins Nick to discuss Support for Ukraine, 3 Measures for Evaluating DeepTech, a 15-year Fund Horizon, and Today’s Most Compelling Climate Technologies. In this episode we cover:
How Maryanna and Steve Jurvetson Founded Future Ventures 3 Measures they look for when Evaluating DeepTech How to “Grow the Pool” of Investors Climate Tech Trends & Regenerative Agriculture And more!
The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran, General Partner of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in the exceptions. To learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our Website and LinkedIn and be sure to follow us on Twitter.
Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Subscribe to our podcast and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.
Are you a founder looking for your next investor? Visit our free tool VC-Rank and tell us about your business. We’ll send a list of possible investors right to your email’s InBox!
Transcribed with AI: Maryanna Saenko joins us today from San Francisco. Maryanna is co-founder and partner at Future Ventures, an early stage tech investor. She has led investments in Gameto, Earthshot Labs, Beeflow, Commonwealth Fusion, Verdant Robotics, and many others. Maryanna, welcome to the show. Thank you, Nick. Such a pleasure to be with you. Yeah, thanks so much for making the time today. I know that you were born in the Ukraine, and you have family there in I can’t even imagine challenges you’re dealing with with that, you know, before we jump into the tech side and the venture side of things, you know, do you have anything you’d like to share with regards to you know, the community and sort of your experience going through this horrible, tragic and extreme time with it the conflict? Thank you so much, Nick, for bringing it up. I was on a call with some investors the other day and someone opened the call with let’s not make this a political space. And I nearly fell off my chair, because I don’t think this is a political conversation. I think this is a human conversation. And, as you mentioned, my entire extended family is still in Ukraine. I’m from Lviv, and the horrors we’re seeing, they’re just on an axis that we really can’t fathom. And so the call that I would put out is for everyone to pay attention to care, to recognize that there are all things that we can do, I would ask, if people are willing and able to write to their congressmen and women in the US and ask for refugee status for Ukrainian refugees, I would ask tech company entrepreneurs and workers to say, what is our engagement with this regime in Russia? And how can we, you know, address the problem at its core, how can we make the Russian people realize that they are not in support of this war, and that they actually can do something about that. And they themselves are sitting inside a propaganda state. And I really honor the companies like Apple and Netflix and Cisco, and Oracle, and so many others that have stepped up and said that we’re not going to operate, we’re not going to continue operating in Russia, so long as these atrocities continue. I think that needs to be true of all of the tech companies, this is not a situation to sit idly by and support these companies. And then lastly, I think the simple reality is, this is what happens when the world is dependent on petrol states. And I think the regimes in those states take control and take advantage of our reliance on them. And so I would say, what is each of us doing in our own lives and in our investments, and in our work to not only make decisions that are better for our planet, but decisions that will ease our dependency on these kinds of regimes and situations, because it’s clearly not tenable, not just for our planet, but for our immediate existence? Yeah, some of us that have large portfolios have seen some effects in those portfolios. And that doesn’t even begin to get to the heart of the true issue on the human cost. As you’ve mentioned, if you’d like resources on blocking services, we will make sure to link that up in the show notes at Fullratchet.net Maryanna, you know, sorry, for all that you’re dealing with and the direct, you know, human relationships and everything that you have, as well, it’s your your home country, you know, you also have it sounds like extended folks that you really care about, and I’m sorry, you’re having to deal with that and, and still have the requirements to to operate, you know, within the venture capital space and, and continue producing outsized returns amidst you know, the circumstances. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And also share with you some of the humanitarian organizations that I believe are doing really good work on the ground immediately there. And if you’re willing to share that with your followers, I would deeply appreciate that. And also, just a shout out to my co founder, Steve Jurvetson, who has been the kindest human through this process. I’ve been so buoyed and supported not just in this partnership, but across our entire investor base. And yeah, it’s these moments where your for you realize, you know, the joy of working with good people really shines through and tough moments. Let’s get to hear. Well, can you tell us a bit about your path to venture and sort of how you found yourself to San Francisco working with Steve and building future? Yeah, absolutely. It was, I’ll try to keep it short because it was a circuitous path. At best. I think there are some people who are perhaps far more brilliantly aware at an earlier age of all of the potential career trajectories that they might go on. I was one of those engineering students that had no idea what venture capital was. I went to Carnegie Mellon and studied Material Science Engineering in Biomedical Engineering and did a lot of work in the robotics department and never fathom that I would do anything other than be a research engineer and a scientist. And essentially, through a pitstop over at MIT, briefly realizing that becoming a graduate student, and the long path to a doctoral degree wasn’t really the right path. For me, I’ve always been a bit of a generalist, a technological generalist, I love a lot of different ideas. And just it didn’t sit right in my heart to focus on, you know, achieving the pinnacle of human intelligence and a small subset of a subset of a field over six years, I’ve so much respect for the people who do that. And I just found that there, there wasn’t a topic within my sphere that I was ready to push to that limit on. And so essentially, what happened is I worked for a large chemical and materials company for a bit, I had joined a startup that went through some trials and tribulations, and eventually found myself at a consulting firm called Lux research where we helped large corporations investigate kind of new lines of business for themselves. And specifically, we worked at that nexus point of large companies thinking about startups. And we worked with a lot of corporate venture capital firms within that, and I ran a group there called autonomous systems that was focused on driverless cars, drones, robotics, and for all of the love that I had of my kind of fortune 500 large corporate clients, I realized that at the end of the day, I could write all of the reports on Earth, and realistically, no one was going to act on them because it would be at odds with those executives livelihoods and jobs and their own business lines. And then every so often, I’d hear about some random VC creature who had funded an idea that I thought had been quite clever. And suddenly that took off. Like I remember first hearing about DJI bringing it to one of our corporate clients who said, consumer drones are a useless business, so no one will ever buy one of these things. And this was kind of in this 2013 Time Range, you know, to say they got that wrong, this understatement beyond all understatements, and that was the thing that opened my eyes and said, Who Who are these VC creatures? You know, where do they get their capital from? How do they have the capacity to act in what seems to me a unilateral decision against the tides of the market, in many ways, and that sparked my curiosity. And then I was fortunate enough to meet a couple people at at Airbus who honestly took a big risk on me, and who were kind enough to shepherd me into that organization and say that they wanted to start a corporate venture capital firm. And I had the right mix of background and experience and understanding of how to deal with large corporations. And that was really where I cut my teeth, learning about venture capital having having joined the venture fund there. And from there, it was honestly a quick and a short hop to to DFJ, where I first met Steve, he was essentially one of the few investors who was really willing to go out on a limb. And we kept running into each other in deals that I was trying to bring to Airbus. And we became, you know, friends, and then joined him at DFJ. And we’ve stayed close. And so a couple of years ago, we were out for a walk and said, what would it look like to start a fund that’s a bit different, something that’s really just focused on deep tech, and you know, through a mix of ego and hubris and hope, that’s how we started feature ventures. Amazing. And so the experience back at Lux research, there’s no relationship with Lux capital, that correct? Not directly but indirectly. So Lux research actually spun out of Lux capital years and years ago as an independent organization by the time I got there, but I did get to know the guys at Lux capital for my time at Lux research and have stayed close with them. And yeah, they had a brilliant vision back in the day, which was let’s hire a PhD experts in fields and read that research, but also sell it to corporations. Well, in that deep tech world, it’s a unique name lock, so I figured there might be a relationship. So Maryanna, can you tell us more about the thesis at future ventures, obviously, deep tech, but more about stages and sectors and you know, your focus area? Yeah, absolutely. So Future Ventures, we are an early stage venture fund. We raise a $200 million fund on about an every two year cadence. So we’re on our second fund and The idea was to fund technologies unlike anything anyone had ever seen before, which is a great thesis to share, because it means that we know what that means you can share it openly. And nobody else is really able to discern what have you seen before what’s truly novel. The important subtext of that is that we try to fund technologies that are better for the world, things that don’t prey on human frailty that aren’t extractive to our environments. And within that framework, we’re always trying to be just ahead of where the market is moving. So there’s a risk of being too far ahead and too far off the technological Deep End such that no one is willing to come in and support you thereafter. Right? Right. So we just tried to say just enough ahead. That means that we do a lot of seed and Series A, we write one to $10 million starting checks, we follow on thereafter, we will do the occasional opportunistic later stage deal. Series B’s, for example, our first investment in deep genomics was their Series B. And those are, I would say, the exception rather than the rule. We’ve done some deep tech investing, although, you know, our core is more enterprise SaaS, but how do you balance sort of the demands, you know, we’re in venture, it’s velocity over everything, its growth first, you know, you can take a precede SaaS startup and take it to 2 million of ARR. And in some cases in less than a year, whereas deep tech, you know, it takes a lot longer. And there’s different sources of risk, right, could be applied science risk, technology risk, and, and certainly some market risks to, you know, how do you balance sort of the demands of the market to grow at all costs, with, you know, the long term development cycle that’s required to kind of, you know, deliver true value with the companies you back? Yeah, it’s a great question. I, I would say, there’s no perfect answer to this the same way that you know, each each investment is kind of a bespoke decision space. But I think we balanced this on a couple of fronts. The first is we’re really fortunate in terms of our our investor base, or our LPs, our majority family offices, wealthy individuals who have made their successes in the tech industry and understand the landscape and the cadence, essentially, the the topology of the space and the life cycle of the companies within it. And so we’re first bolstered by the fact that our LPs are a bit more patient. So our funds are 15 year funds. It’s not a huge difference in terms realistically, for companies, but it really does help us alleviate some of that early pressure. The second is we’re very strict with our investments and understanding. Okay, what is your actual burn rate? And what milestone do you prove or achieve or show viably to the next inflection point, because there are plenty of very interesting technology companies that will burn through $50 million in a year and show effectively nothing. And that’s a really, really hard decision space. So I think we’re we’re particularly stringent in assessing for any particular investment round, where do these dollars get you and then essentially going around and trying to understand like, does that cause the company to arrive at a position that ameliorates some of the perceived risk for others later down the line? The third is actually we’re not tolerant of science risk. And this is an interesting thing to say, right, as a deep tech investor, but the reality is making fundamental advancements on first principle, chemistry, material science, physics, you know, I can’t tell you how many companies come in here and present physics that as far as I can tell, don’t quite work in our universe. And I love that kind of perspective and strength of belief of its philosophical and an ideological belief on behalf of those founders, rather than functional proof points in the lab. And what we really focus on is saying, if you can de risk the science to the point where this becomes an engineering question, we’re all in. But if this is a fundamental science question, like a brand new battery chemistry, or a therapeutic modality that has never seen effects on this particular target type, or something where we don’t understand why a speed of experimental design could be really stepped up, right. So a lot of the A lot of the questions and the things we look at is, how fast is your learning loop? How truly iterative is your design process? Because if the answer is you have to spend the next six years building a quantum computer that only after you’ve achieved this viable size of it, you can test. That’s a tough investment, because now you’ve committed hundreds of millions of dollars before deciding if any of the underlying science holds. And so I think those are kind of our three major axes on which we maybe relieve some of that high growth consistent March pressure that that certainly exists in the venture world. You had mentioned other investors in the space, you know, later stages. How do you deal with downstream financing risk when the overall pool of deep tech investors is just more shallow than you know that of SaaS? It’s true, it’s true. And it’s funny, you know, you you get to know everyone, you kind of see your friends over and over again, which in some ways is tough in and other ways you develop a strong intuition for what’s going to drive conviction, not just an individual’s, but in broadly in institutions. And I think one of the things that we try to do is actually invest in things that are sufficiently inspiring that once we get to a later stage proof point, that you’re no longer pulling from the shallow pool. The depth of that pool is extreme in terms of integrity and thought. But the reality is, there’s just not that many people, right. And so what you actually want to do is fund the kind of thing that becomes everyone’s desire for that company to be like, their one deep tech investment. Oh, interesting. And so that’s kind of how we think about it. So Commonwealth fusion systems is a perfect example. This is a company that raised nearly $1.8 billion in cash and their series B, and tell you that did not come from y our standard tech investors. That’s a sizable B Round! Yeah a sizable B Round. A little frightening when we saw with our pro rata percentage. But to that end, what Commonwealth was able to prove was the magnet around which they’re the morels most powerful electromagnet around which their fuse and technology hinges, the proof plane of that magnet was so clear, and so obvious, and so well supported by the broader scientific community that every investor of investors who were thinking about energy investors who weren’t thinking about energy banks, like the breadth of investors that were willing to look at that round, was exactly what we’re hoping to see now that that’s a special case, we won’t always see that. And so we do spend a lot of time getting to know later stage investors and understanding what their concerns are, what their interests are, what their perspectives are in different spaces. But mostly, we push our companies to say, Look, don’t build a story for an individual build proof points in your technology, and then your early market acceptance that are inscrutable, right, just arrive at points and perspectives such that your group, for example, Nick, would take a look, you’d say, Oh, this is the kind of tech company that we would want to fund because it really fits our profile and our desires for doing deep tech. And look how much they de risk the fundamental science platform. I love that because there’s more than one categorical identifier on every company, right? You can, you can attach all these things, you can find the firm’s that really care about health care and the firm’s that really care about construction. And depending on the type of startup, there is a broader base to appeal to than just the deep tech community. Love it. Maryanna, you know, your investments also cover a wide range of sectors and technologies. I’m curious, you know, how do you think about diligence? When is such a wide breadth of evolving sectors? And also, you know, a wide range of Applied Technology and in some cases, Applied Science? Yeah, I think that’s the that can be the head scratcher. When people look at our group and say, you know, where are the 60 PhDs hiding out in your office? And the answer is that the entirety of the investment team, future ventures and Steve and myself, we are Yeah, we are to person partnership are incredible assistants, Laura and Lauren and Nora actually make this office run, but on the diligence side at Steve and myself. And that can be daunting. Especially when you look at you know, we’ve invested in things as far flung as software for construction. and technology to bolstering immune systems of bees to green ammonia does your head roll off your shoulders? And I think one of the constructs here is that we’re not doing like a pogo stick hop through random ideas space. What ends up happening is that over the course of months and years, we develop intuition for spaces. And we rarely invest immediately, once we’ve determined that a space is interesting, but we take the time to understand what are the key pain points? What are the biggest problems, who’s solving those problems and novel and interesting ways. One of the interesting questions because we start with this basis of, you know, is this technology, unlike anything we’ve seen before is that if someone comes in pitches to us, you know, the next iteration on something that we’ve seen 10 versions of we just say, we just don’t really know how to pick, the next best winner in this space. Seems like lots of people are trying to solve this subset of this market. Direct carbon capture is like a perfect example of that. The other side of it is, is that, you know, I think so many businesses, particularly deep tech businesses can be looked at from a first principles level, which is like, first and foremost, do like do your physics hold in our universe. And I really shouldn’t be able to ask a founder of one of these companies questions where like, they stumble on their, you know, scientific explanations, right? You’d be surprised how often this happens. It’s concerning to me. And it’s concerning to me, because we often get founder saying, Wow, we haven’t had as deeply technical questions asked of us, which is just frightening on all sorts of axes. But it basically, you know, I think that there’s a handful of questions that you can ask across any space that can drive particular clarity, like on at least on a first first basis filter. So in our healthcare companies, like Cambrian life science, like cometo, one of the first questions was, how do you drive to meaningful clinical endpoints like walk us through that strategy? And then we take those meaningful clinical endpoints, and we call her friends who are in those medical spaces and say, hey, if a company was to prove this, would that be convincing to you. And so we do spend a lot of time understanding what the experts sentiment in a market is, and what the market sentiment is. But we don’t go so far as saying, you know, and here’s our patent attorney who’s gonna review the validity of your entire patent portfolio, because we assume that you know, you as an entrepreneur have a decent patent portfolio. And we also just think that speed of innovation is more important than setting up a defensive structure. So I think what ends up happening is a lot of the people who do the very, very specific diligence, how do I ensure that I’m investing in a defensible technology? And we’re thinking, how are we ensuring that we’re investing in the right mission driven companies that are attracting the best talent to keep that flywheel of innovation moving as quickly as possible? I love it. I love it. The the questions to the founders in the stumbles, like we just had this happen. About two weeks ago, we had an experienced VC participate in our weekly deal meeting. And he was shocked that we’ll take two meetings with a founding team before we’ll ever bring in experts in a certain field. And he said, Well, why wouldn’t you bring in experts earlier? And I said, well, because this is gonna sound terrible, but because the founders often disqualify themselves. And we don’t want to waste the experts time, if like, we ask open ended questions, and we can’t really get clear answers. We don’t want to go down a rabbit hole with experts on things that just are not going to be a fit. It’s so true, right. And the other aspect of that is, we need to remember that it technical brilliance is paramount, but it’s also table stakes. The other important thing for any entrepreneur in the deep tech field is the capacity to explain what they’re doing in a way that’s discernible, that’s palatable to those people who are listening. And that’s inspiring, because part of their job is to fundraise, but more importantly, to recruit. And the most interesting recruits into any company are not from people of those industries, right? It’s because you want to bring in diverse mindsets and talents. And so if a person can only speak to their subset of their field, then they’re missing the capacity to actually broaden the basis of the listeners, and inspire the right talent to come and work for them. Well, So, Maryanna, I want to get your thoughts on some areas and climate tech. Yeah. I’m going to give you a few options, and then pose a question. So we’ve got regenerative agriculture, carbon sinks, alternative proteins, alternative energy and fusion. Which of those do you think has the greatest impact on climate? Oh, my answer on this changes daily. I think the simple reality and you’re going to hate this answer is that it’s all of them. Because the reality is that it will be very hard to implement any one strategy to its fullest idealized potential. And so in a very, Paul Hawken project draw down like, we need to do all of the things. Great innovators in each of those. Yeah. And now I think the the, the construct is, where’s the capacity for the most good, that is the least served today. And I think regenerative agriculture is, from my perspective, one of those sectors that’s increasingly getting lift and conversation. But the reality is that particularly in the US, we have failed broadly, to support our farmers and industrial agriculture, workers with the tools and the means and the education to best understand how they can implement these strategies. And I think that is unfortunate, we have the capacity to change that. And that also means that by changing that, we can move to agricultural practices in the immediate near term that will have huge shifts, in our total carbon footprint in the food and in the cattle that we grow in this country. It’s such an amazing thing, regenerative agriculture, and one would hope, you know, it takes off with some scale. And in some way, that’s, that’s economically viable. But I know like the lay people around me, that’s like a foreign language, even bring it up, people just don’t even know what I’m talking about. And I live in the Midwest. So it’s kind of a land of the mono crop, you know, the industrial scale agriculture. That’s right. And I think one of the challenges is that we we do often think in with respect to crop crop production as the means of regenerative agriculture. And I think it’s a really important part of the story. One of the challenges in crops is that the next person to own or manage the land can tell the soil and kind of undo the last couple of years of good work. Cattle Farming actually is particularly interesting, we’re investors in a company called Bridge AI that is focused on producing net zero carbon cattle. And this is just a really, really interesting concept, which is can you actually use cattle to help increase the capacity of carbon sink in the soil, and it’s like, literally, the weight of the cattle pushed down in the soil help blocking the carbon, you can do all sorts of really, really interesting models to figure out where the cattle should be grazing, how they should be grazing. And then most importantly, and to your point in the Midwest is what we actually need to do is both educate and enable people to access the carbon credit markets and make sense and make use of the potential market resource of added economics flowing back to them by them making the correct carbon choices. So Maryanna, I’m going to do a rapid fire round here. I’m going to give you some quite hyperbolic statements and positions and ask you to pick one or you can plead the fifth. But we’ll run through these pretty quickly. And if there’s some interesting ones, we can circle back. Sounds great. All right. Number one, longevity tech, great investment opportunity or billionaires folly. Both autonomous robotics job destroyer or job creator? Creator. Healthcare & Genetics: a CRISPR future or one hamstrung by regulation? A CRISPR future. Ooh. Alternative proteins: the over under in years on widespread mainstream adoption? Eight years , Eight years. NFT’s: the foundation of future ownership or nice for niche applications? The latter. Oh, okay. And then the next frontier: space or the metaverse? I hate to say that it’s probably the metaverse, but I’m just deeply averse to that. Any of the previous ones that you’d like to double click on or explain. I’ll briefly touch on longevity, I think that there is just as much snake oil in that market as there is deeply promising meaningful companies that will affect the health span. And I mean, this health health span, right, because it’s not just about living longer. It’s about living healthier, of people’s lives. And so I think that some subset of the market is hyped up really deeply questionable science that people are funding, you know, some choice, billionaires are funding to their own drumbeat in hopes of addressing whatever situation they would like. But I also sit on the board of Cambrian is a company in the space that I’m deeply supportive of caminos and other ones. So I think there’s lots of exceptional companies in that space, but just as much noise CRISPR regulation, I actually think there are so many meaningful, life saving therapeutics that will be CRISPR. Enabled, that the FDA is not in, in support of precluding people from having access to life saving regulations, but probably is very thoughtful about doing blanket approval statements of therapeutic types. So I think that we’re not necessarily running towards mass approvals. And at the same time, I think that we’ll be able to actually fundamentally address and solve acute disease states that will be exceptionally meaningful. And NF T’s me, I don’t get it. And I’m not a technology a lot i but it’s just one of those things where I kind of question the amount of resource both, you know, in terms of mental power and computational cycles, that we’re dropping into this space when it feels like a it’s like the Tamagotchis of the the the 2020s they’re mostly things to amuse themselves with the counter to that, that I deeply appreciate is actually the capacity for original artists to receive gain on every subsequent sale, which is so broken in the art market, right? And so actually having revenues flow back to original designers and creators and have their the work and the popularity of their work be immediately and consistently rewarded back directly back to them. I support to the ends of the earth. Feels like one of the killer apps for sure. It’s just obvious, right? I wish that the majority of the NFT proposals I got were like that instead, they’re basically like, here’s this, pick your favorite random mass produced ideology or perspective turn it into an NF T and the only person benefiting from that is the clearing house platform. So not categorically against them, I think they’re doing good in the world. And the metaphors, I don’t know I’m a huge fan of this physical reality that we exist in, despite its, you know, horrors. And I, I hope that people for the sake of their health and well being and their children’s health and well being unplug from their devices and go outside and interact with one another, because we’re already seeing that children who have too much screentime lack the capacity to understand aspect and micro expressions and have higher levels of anxiety. And I think spending more time plugged into gamified environments that pull on the heartstrings of our, you know, point gathering natures, is not going to lead to a happier and healthier society. It’s hard to disagree with that. When kids are taught by a screen versus a teacher in person, they’ve shown the massive gap and retention and you just think we have more senses than just sight and sound, right? Like this experience we’re having over Zoom is a decent approximation of real life, but it’s not the same. It’s not as rich as if we were in person, right. And I just I so deeply believe in somatic intelligence, and that our bodies really spend so much time calculating what’s going on in our worlds. And I think cutting off our capacity to have that type of input is cutting off at least half your brain Couldn’t have said a better. Maryanna, if we could feature anyone here on the show. Who do you think we should interview? And what topic? Would you like to hear them speak about? One person who isn’t maybe necessarily lauded enough, is Lorena Powell Jobs and the work with the Emerson Collective. I think it’s a really, really interesting institution that’s doing a lot of good across diverse sectors. I think it’s just one of those groups that’s like, out there heads down with great people doing good work, and doesn’t necessarily get a lot of lift. I’m not sure they’re looking for lift, I think there may be just quietly executing. I have deep respect for organizations that that do that. But I also think it’s worth us all remembering that those exist. Amazing. Maryanna, do you have any tools or hacks that are a secret weapon? Archery. This, this is really ridiculous. But actually, so I live in Pacifica, California. And it’s this delightful little beach town. Don’t tell anyone. I recognize this podcast, but I have deep love for my hometown. And when we move there turns out that there’s this world class archery range. And an archery range actually looks like a golf course where you walk between targets, and you shoot and then you walk to the next one, it’s one way so there’s no risk of arrows flying at you. And I have found that this is the most exceptional way to do immediate character understanding of people. Because archery is something that you can pick up in five minutes, you’re not going to be good at it. It’s about being able to come back into quiet and stillness and like particular focus, and to then to do that repeatedly. And I think that those kinds of activities really show you kind of the underlying character of a person because like, what’s nice is it’s so easy that I basically invite people to come and do archery with me all the time. And in one hour of walking, of course, I can tell you exactly how that person is going to react when they’re frustrated. How I rate they get when they’re not very good at something, how excited and celebratory they are when they get lucky. You know, it’s like an entire aspect of being able to really, really understand the full range of a person’s emotional response to a novel situation. That’s amazing. You take the cake, that’s the best answer. And then finally, Maryanna, what’s the best way for listeners to connect with you and follow along with future ventures? So broadly, my email is Maryanna at future dot ventures. I am not the most active on social media, but my partner Steve is a avid Twitter user so you guys can follow him at Future Jurvetson. And yeah, I would just love to hear from anyone on thoughts, comments, questions, deep disagreements, always delighted to engage. Deep disagreements pun intended, I’m sure Maryanna Saenko, You know, thanks so much for the time today, you know, best wishes to your family and all the folks in Ukraine. And you know, congrats on all the success and future ventures that you know, very fun to hear about the thesis in the way that you guys think about the world. Thank you so much Nick It was absolutely a pleasure.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai