Podcast
Join Viktor, a proud nerd and seasoned entrepreneur, whose academic journey at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley sparked a career marked by innovation and foresight. From his college days, Viktor embarked on an entrepreneurial path, beginning with YippieMove, a groundbreaking email migration service, and continuing with a series of bootstrapped ventures.
Links
Follow Me
Follow Me
Join Viktor, a proud nerd and seasoned entrepreneur, whose academic journey at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley sparked a career marked by innovation and foresight. From his college days, Viktor embarked on an entrepreneurial path, beginning with YippieMove, a groundbreaking email migration service, and continuing with a series of bootstrapped ventures.
Rethinking Startups: Inside the Venture Studio Model with Thorbjørn Rønje
Play On
01 JUL • 2025
1 hour 8 mins
Share:
Thorbjørn started with a simple insight: traditional entrepreneurship is inefficient. Too much learning happens on the fly, wasting time and capital. In this conversation, he explains how the venture studio approach de-risks the early phases by codifying what works, from building teams to finding product-market fit.
We dig into Bifrost’s “Purple Ocean” framework for selecting ideas, their rapid product validation process, and why the studio hands off each project once it’s ready to scale. It’s a model designed for speed, clarity, and capital efficiency.
Thorbjørn also shares how these playbooks apply to acquisitions, reviving legacy businesses using the same systems and technology. Underpinning it all is a practical philosophy: build what users need, test quickly, and avoid unnecessary complexity.
We wrap up by looking ahead at how AI and post-labor economics might reshape company building, ownership, and income distribution.
Transcript
Show/Hide Transcript
And over the years I've kind of come to the conclusion that entrepreneurship is kind of broken a little bit or let's say it has been evolving over the years that I've been involved with the startup scene at least.
And I think that the kind of one of the.
It will probably keep morphing.
But one of the more final iterations of entrepreneurship in its role I think is within the venture studio model that can be done in many different ways.
Welcome back to another episode of Nerding Out.
Today I'm joined by my good friend Tobia Rodier.
Welcome to.
Hello Victor.
Good to be here.
It's good to have you.
Today's episode is going to be about something that we've been chatting about quite a lot over the last few years, which is venture studios.
You've taken this concept and kind of built something pretty big around this.
So I guess maybe we kick things off with a quick introduction as to who's Thorbjørn and what should the people know to kind of prefix the conversation.
Yeah, sure.
So yeah, my name is Torbjorn of Thor.
For anyone who doesn't reside in the Nordic countries, I think that's a little bit more easy.
But yeah, I've been an entrepreneur my whole life.
I built a bunch of businesses.
I think I've maybe been involved with 20 businesses or something that I've been part of co founding, I've been the very first money in or pre idea or whatever and I have a portfolio of around 50 businesses.
So there's been a bit, a lot of stuff going on and over the years I've kind of come to the conclusion that entrepreneurship is kind of broken a little bit or let's say it has been evolving over the years that I've been involved with the startup scene at least and I think that the kind of one of the.
It will probably keep morphing but one of the more final iterations of entrepreneurship in its own I think is within the venture studio model.
That can be done in many different ways.
But this whole idea of like, yeah, let's be free friends and pick a problem and spend $5 million to somebody else's money to kind of figure out all kinds of things like I need to learn sales now or I need to learn how to fundraise, I need to learn how to hire, I need to learn all these kind of things within that kind of run rate that's probably not the most efficient way to build startups and that's probably also why let's.
If you look at VCs and investors, they love to invest in exited founders even without them having an idea.
Right.
Because it's a little bit like their micro venture studio because they went through the motions on everything and it's not always about having the best practice, but just having a practice on stuff.
Right.
So that's kind of the learning that.
Yeah.
So if you're an exited founder, right.
You did hire people before and the right people probably you do know how to make a financial model.
You do know how to run sales to some extent, or at least get the right salesperson involved, how to build product, find product, market fit, you know, all of the different components of building a business.
And in the venture studio, that's really what you're doing, Right?
That is codify exactly what does it take to get from 0 to 1 in the most efficient way, with the least resources spent and with the most learnings and just power through it.
Right.
And yeah, sorry.
Yes.
Before we dive into the venture studio world, let's actually talk what is a venture studio?
Because I think it's a concept been thrown around a lot over the last few years on LinkedIn and whatnot.
But let's take a step back.
Like what's your definition of a venture studio?
Yeah, so I think there's a lot of confusion around because some people say startup, like a company factory, or it could be like a startup studio, a venture studio, an incubator, whatever.
Right.
And probably I think that our friend Matt Burris, who is a pretty good voice in the venture studio kind of environment, he's been doing really championing that we should be calling it venture studios just because there's too many different.
So were actually calling it startup studios and we changed back to venture studios just to kind of be with all the other venture studio people in the environment to say, okay, let's call it this, so that we can create an asset class around this.
Right.
And just for people to understand.
YC Combinator, for instance, is an incubator.
Tech stars, these sort of things.
And the difference is in an incubator, you bring your idea and then there will be a set program and they will buy 10% at a set price.
And you will be okay with that price being a little bit lower than maybe what you could get because they will set you up with all the investors, run you through an insane program, mentors, all these kind of things.
Right.
That's an incubator, a venture studio.
On the other Hand, it takes some of the components of the incubator, you could say a very process oriented, playbook oriented kind of approach to startup building.
But it will own 100% per default of whatever company that it creates and take entrepreneurs in and work with them or maybe have them on the team already and say like we are built, we are a company factory from the very beginning, from the idea level.
Right.
And then obviously the founders will have Ekuchi and so forth and there will then be many versions of venture studios and probably we're going to talk a little bit about our kind of version of the venture studio model because they could go in many directions, but that's the kind of core of it, right?
Yeah.
I mean the first time I heard of this kind of concept, I guess it's been done internally quite a lot over the years.
Right.
In bigger companies.
But the first time I think I heard of the concept of this kind of startup factory was probably, I'm not sure you remember Kevin Rose had something called Milk like way back.
This must have been like 2008ish time area.
They've like they created the startup studio but they basically tried like there was something that this was in the.
When mobile first was like king and they started to spin up a bunch of these.
I think eventually they folded but.
But that was the first time like I heard somebody codify like the definition of this.
And then obviously I guess we kind of move from there into the YC dominated world and now we kind of see the next generation be bored in venture studios.
Right?
Yeah.
Or yeah.
Is that, is that how you see the market or is that how the development you've seen as well?
Yeah, just to kind of add a little bit for the audience.
Like there is a lot of venture studios that have been very successful actually, but they have never had the same amount of cloud I think as some of the big startups and some of the big VCs like I don't know, Sequoia and Dries and these type of.
Because.
But they are actually have created insane amounts of value.
So Bill Grass with Idealab is like they had 10 unicorns, 50 exits, something like that.
Right.
That goes 25 years back.
So they're like the real OGs of vintage studios.
Then you have the rugged Internet guys, the.
Yeah, yeah, of course, yeah, of course.
They created five unicorns I think and had five IPOs as well.
And they were kind of just taking proven models mostly from the U.S.
adapting them to their home turf, Germany region market and the dac and also scaling it beyond that, I think that was in Africa and everywhere.
That was their model.
And then you have something like Sutter Hill Ventures, which I'm very inspired by.
Mike Spicer.
They were building companies in house to build like Snowflake.
And I think he personally was the CEO of something like three or five different unicorns.
So like they just have the blueprint, right?
They know all the best people in the world and they just follow their way of doing it, so.
Oh, he was not actually the CEO.
There's another CEO that has written a great book.
I forgot his name.
Oh, yeah, no, I know what I mean.
But anyways, the point is that there is.
There is, there is exactly.
Yes, it's great.
This little CEO book.
And he said like, I'm gonna write this book because not because I want to write a book, but because people keep asking me stupid questions about how to.
So now I'm gonna write this little book and you can all go read that.
It's a really good book.
So yeah, definitely recommend that one.
Anyways, it has been done for a while and I think that what people are kind of starting to realize is just that it's a, it's a superior model because you can build just as much value, you can own more equity and you can do it in a much more capital efficient way.
Right.
And especially with the sort of.
In this new era of company creation where the kind of the cost of building startups is plummeting maybe a few, maybe five, ten years ago, it'll cost you, I don't know, two to five million dollars to really build a startup, right?
Just to kind of test it out and de risk that kind of first phase that maybe cost you like 100 to $500,000 now, right?
So that's a factor.
It's factor 10 less.
Right.
And, and profitability is also interesting again because of interest rate, because of macro, because of a lot of different things that, that kind of makes the unit economics of the VC model a little bit wonky, which is also one of the big reasons, I think, that this model then becomes interesting again.
It has always been interesting, but why it's becoming more in vogue and why we also see it as the final boss of entrepreneurship to really kind of nail the model.
Because VC has been.
Been struggling, I think.
And this is not to say we are not anti vc.
We were VCS ourselves.
We've been on both sides of the equation, raised a lot of money for our previous startups and they're Great people in the VCBC world.
It's just that they were so good at branding or something that 10 out of 10 companies felt like they needed VC money when in reality it's maybe more like 9 out of 10 companies that should go for that model and the rest should just be great companies that make money.
And I think that the sort of studio model that can kind of lie a little bit in between and there's a lot of founders that won't get diluted that much and run for the next funding round and where they don't get xxx liquidation preference problem later on and all of this bullshit that also follows this model a bit and they get a little bit more just kind of build.
But that's.
That that has always fundamentally been the problem with why with VC money.
Right.
And well, I've.
I mean I've been always very reluctant to.
That is because it sets up the strategy that your only success criteria is to have a unicorn exit essentially because anything short of that is a failure in the book of a VC in general.
Generally speaking, right.
There are people without a thesis that.
But generally speaking that's thesis, right?
And, and just removes so much value from the market because there are so many businesses out there that are very good business, a very cash generated business, but there is no path to unicorn and nor does it need to be a path there.
Right.
So this is kind of why I am intrigued by this concept.
Like how do you short circuit that loop, right.
And not going back to like bank loans in the old school, but like finding a model that is somewhere more modern.
And that's why like the venture studio model is intriguing to me in general.
We have a specific take on this cash flow side of it in Bifrost.
So Bifrost Studios is our venture studio mother company.
And I will talk a little bit more about that.
But just to kind of touch on what you're saying there, we have something we call the Purple Ocean filter.
And for those who don't know, I think that in the US they use like Brownfield and Whitefield or something.
Brownfield, Greenfield.
Yeah, so it's something similar to that concept where you have like, you know, on the one side you have the red ocean that's like shark infested waters with very low gross margins and it's like basically selling rice or some commodity, something like that, right?
Yeah.
And then on the other hand you have the Facebooks of the world, but also the graveyard of startups, right.
Where it's like 99% of seemingly good ideas go to die because you needed to convince that you educate the market.
You had long sales cycles, huge R and D cost and complexity and all of that.
But in between lies an interesting sort of space where one of our companies that we built, that we co founded, Scala Finance, where we got like a million $ARR in nine months, lies within this kind of mix.
There is a kind of the Venn diagram overlap if you will, where you say let's take a market that is proven, which is big, where there's clearly a problem, but you want to say we don't want the long sales cycle, we don't want the long rd.
We want to always be able to know who the ICP is almost immediately and the capex is lower and you can test out faster.
And that is the purple ocean filter for us.
So for Scalar Finance, for instance, which is a CFO company, fractional CFO company, but with a heavy amount of kind of systems and software component on top that makes it so the customer can the kind of.
We knew that people were needed, you know that they needed everything from accounting, bookkeeping, financial modeling, everything that a startup is like.
Most startup founders are not very interested in that sort of stuff.
I know that you're also looking into the AICFO that we are now.
It's going to be very interesting.
We're very hyped about that.
But, but anyways the point is just there will be markets where you know that there is a huge need and a huge.
But nobody made the fractional model or made it with a brand like this.
You just need a little bit of a different attack vector and that's.
And it's kind of like it's the uber thesis, right?
Like how do you make something that's accessible only to the 1%?
In this case it's the 1% of the companies out there to the rest of the segment.
Whereas Uber made black cars available for the average person where and here you're making a service that's generally speaking only accessible to larger Fortune 500 and so on, or maybe not Fortune 500s, but larger companies and not startups, right?
Yeah, exactly.
But I don't know, maybe if just to kind of round out the kind of introduction to Ventus Studios, it would be meaningful to.
I brought this one slide at least that we could maybe just to kind of just show what does a normal or not a normal vintage studio, but at least how we see a venture studio, like what is the process?
How do we work in a Venture studio.
Because maybe some of your audience also thinking about maybe we should create a venture studio and what does it actually look like?
So just.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think in the era of AI code.
Gen.
Gen AI, I think every nerd out there has been thinking like, how can I create more startups?
All right, perfect.
This is your blueprint.
So yeah, this is.
So Bifrost actually built Ventus Studios, but within the individual Ventus studio there will be a process and depending a little bit on thesis of the studio.
And it's great to have a thesis of the studio.
For instance, we just had our Bifrost defense studio go through our investment committee.
So it's going to be super exciting.
That's a very specific kind of vertical.
It will come with its own problems, pros and cons, but.
So we will have to adjust it.
But in general it goes something like you have idea generation and within the idea generation, that's just like kind of a continuous thing.
So for us, for instance, we have a Slack channel where we just put in ideas, all kinds of ideas also not purple ocean ideas.
And then you kind of have a.
You build up a bank of ideas and if you have a strong thesis, then you know it will be within thesis probably.
Right.
So you have ongoing idea mapping.
Then you have.
For us, we use the purple ocean assessment and we have kind of small investment committees and sometimes we take some people from the community and also say, hey, let's try to look at these three very promising ideas and choose one of them.
And then.
Let me, let me pause there real quick.
So.
When do you kind of assemble a team for this?
Do you start with a theme and a better theme, sorry, team and then a theme?
Or do you start with that idea and then assemble a team?
How do you go about that?
Or is it a bit of both?
Yeah, so for us, we have something we call the Apollo framework and it has some different dimensions.
One of them is the crew.
So especially like the people.
So for each individual studio, we believe there are like at least five things that you need.
You need leadership, you need go to market person like hit of go to market, if you will.
You need product.
So it could be like either cto, cpo, gtpo.
You need what we call muscle, which is really just kind of gets it done kind of people.
We really like this founders associate type role where it's a little bit younger guys that really maybe they've had like three years at McKinsey or something like that, or it doesn't really matter what it Is, but they' proven themselves and they work like, you know, really hard and a lot and just move things along.
Right.
But it could also be a more classical CEO type person.
Right.
And then the last thing that you need, which is more like it's not a person, but it's more like you need the main expertise across that fits the thesis.
If you have that, then a lot of the other things that you need to do, which is also within the Apollo framework.
I don't know if we will have time to go over it, but at least just to suffice to say we bring.
We built out the team first and then the team will build the idea bank and they will then be the ones that look at that does the product validation, the GGM validation that launch and then go further out and spin out the company and get maybe a new team to take over.
But if we, let's take, let's go through the process really kind of methodically and then people, they're kind of can understand it.
So you build up the ideas, you have the team then that can at least look at what is.
Then you take it through the purple ocean assessment and you make a research paper.
And this process will probably take, you know, a few weeks.
Then when you kind of did the kind of feasibility study, if you will, you go to the idea validation board.
And that could also be, if you have a small venture studio, could also just be whoever is in the venture studio so far.
And they say like, okay, we have these three ideas.
Which one is the best?
And you will.
We have some workshops that we go through where we score things and we do things.
And then after that you start the product validation.
Right.
And it's very much about understanding your icp going out talking to whoever this idea there always be some kind of type of customer, client or whatever that you need to speak to.
And then you just dig into the problem and you try to.
We love this Charlie Munger approach where we inverse invert our thinking.
Right?
So, so he said, Charlie Munger said invert always invert.
Right?
Because so we asked like, what is 15 reasons this is going to fail?
Right?
Because if everybody can come up with those, then you can pretty much make a solution for it as well from the beginning instead of realizing that later.
Right.
But you kind of go out and you test your idea with the icp, understand the idea and build out the first prototype.
And this is before.
So you've done this before, you write a single line of code.
Yes.
So it's like we call it simple, lovable and complete.
And it's basically the same as an mvp.
And a lot of people have a lot of opinions on what you should call this.
I like it because it signifies something and that is you want a clean signal to what you're actually building.
And that's not always about building the perfect product.
It's also about building the brand.
And a slice of.
So the simple level will complete, will have more a slice of all of the dimension in a pyramid where the minimum or the minimum viable product would be a little bit more just the back of the envelope solution.
So we tried to see if the one feature that is very core to this thing, can we also build a kind of a startup brand around it.
And also because if you make a solution that is not branded the same way as what you're going to make, maybe that's also.
That was what they were reacting to in the first place.
Right.
So you want to make it as close to what you're actually going to build without spending too much resources.
And this is kind of, that is the crux of getting really good capital efficiency in the studio is to understand this.
How fast can I go from idea to give the user some sort of perceived value at least so I can get the signal that I get to some sort of validation, but that's sort of the next step.
Yeah, this is really interesting because this is where I certainly done this myself and this is hardly something unique to me in the startup world.
It's like you're spending a lot of time building things that you do not know if they matter.
Right.
Because you have a theory, they have a thesis like we're solving for X, but you don't know what part of X that actually customers will care about.
And that quick validation is really interesting.
And building a framework around that, like zooming in and being able to pinpoint that exact problem and the branding offset problem is key here.
I think that's an elegant way of expressing that, right?
Yeah, yeah.
And you're very correct.
And I think the more mature I've become in my kind of entrepreneur's journey, the more I just realized that everything is about icp.
Like you can never talk too much to your customers, you can never spend too much time understanding what the real problem is, you know, and so that's why we are very much in this ICP discovery kind of thing.
And then we try to build out something for them again with the high speed, low cost of resources, but still high signal for what the final product will be.
Then what will happen is that you get some kind of product.
You say like, did we validate this?
Did we get a good enough response from let's say the design partner cohort or whatever you might beta tester cohort or whatever you might call it and say like, and you probably put some targets to how many do we need to kind of care about this or engage and what kind of metric it might be?
Like a pre revenue metric.
Like how much value are they getting from this?
Get some signals from that, say, okay, that was good, we did that.
We built the whatever landing page and thesis and the kind of thing.
And there's a lot of people who wanted this.
And then you go into the TGM validation after that where we kind of try to sell it as well.
Right.
So you also want people to actually swing their card.
And this is of course a little bit like a gray zone area.
But you should try to sell your product even if you don't have it.
You can always come back and say, bro, here's your money back or whatever.
Right?
But the point is just you want to see that they actually care enough, right?
And it's just a good way to kind of get high signal to noise because maybe people are a little bit, you know, they can say many times that and depending on cultures as well, like, yeah, we want this.
But then at the end they don't.
Right?
Well, I mean, it's a very good point, right?
Because people say they want a lot of things and I'm sure we've both seen this a lot over the years.
Like people say they want this, but do they actually care enough to swipe their card?
Like, it's the same thing with feature development.
I mean you could, like a feature development is sub project, sub product of of this whole problem.
Right?
Because it's like people say they want all, but in reality it's only there's 1 out of 10 things that you really care about because that's really what solves the problem.
The other nine things are nice to have.
Right.
So zooming in on that is super interesting.
Yeah, yeah, for sure.
And, and what you're really doing here is you're de risking.
And if you look at the old VC kind of de risking graph level, so like pre seed, you're de risking the team seed, you are de risking the product series A, you're de risking the kind of product market fit and maybe see it also the Go to market.
And what we're actually trying to do is we're trying to de risk all the way up to series A.
But like in two months.
Yeah, because.
And that is the power of the Ventus Studio model, I think where you say like okay, now we go, we know the product or maybe we built some prototype, now you can vibe code, all of these things.
I know you have some opinions of that, but for many of the products that are not like deep check or hardware or whatever, it's enough that you can get a good response and see like, okay, what's this idea that were working on to have the product ready in this very 0.1 sense.
And the idea is then if we can sell that to a hundred people and that's a shitty product, we know we can do much better.
When we spend the real resources and time on building out the code and doing a much better job on that, then we can sell it to 10,000 as well.
Right?
Yeah.
But what you actually now want to do, want to de risk is the GTM side of it, like the go to marketer.
Right?
So, so you do the GTM validation as soon as you can.
Kind of.
Because that's also just as big as a problem.
And especially in a world where you have a hugely saturated marketplace where because of also vibe coding and people are getting smarter and just, you know, like there's so many ideas coming to market, there's so much competition for attention that it might not only be that you created a great product, you also need to find the right channel.
Channel model fit as we call it.
Right?
Yeah.
So, so that's what you're also trying to prove out with the GTM validation that okay, now we have the product and seemingly the people in the studio or in the kind of design code they wanted it.
But can we also get it out there and can somebody swing the card and actually buy it?
So that's sort of the next point there.
Do you want me to just finish it?
Yeah.
One question that I like.
So, so you're basically ruling out a lot of possible cohorts, right?
Like you're basically saying no slow sales cycles, basically like no enterprise software like where there needs to be multi stakeholder sign offs.
Like you're focusing on like what if you, because if you try to do enterprise stuff like they will.
You're not going to validate anything.
If you.
In like a month, I mean you might validate something in a year, but it's going to be that level of sales cycle.
Right.
So, so I guess that's.
How do you view that from a.
Is that's part of like you filter that out earlier in the process.
I guess you like we're not going touch anything with low sales, slow sales cycles essentially.
And like even if it's a massively.
Interesting problem space at least then there would have to be some very, some other parts of that being build and that whole research and that whole architecture within some sort of B2B product that it could offset it.
So it's not the only dimension and it's not like binary as such where it's like oh yeah, we could never do an enterprise product, but maybe what we would rather do and what I've also seen happen many times when we build businesses start with smaller customers anyways and then as the roadmap matures, as your feature kind of set also matures and you have a full suite of things, you can also move up the ladder and start to sell to bigger but then you could start out smaller.
You can validate or maybe just find a very novel way to go to market on that idea where you kind of get, you know, you get 10% of the money because they really want it.
Right.
So we had a good example right now.
So we built a.
Within the finance and maybe like kind of wealth management space in London.
We built out Leopard Labs and within three months we built the studio, we built a team, we built the first product and we got like 50 to 100,000 pounds worth of ARR in three months.
Right.
And that was with enterprise type clients, right.
So some of the biggest banks and some of the biggest wealth managers in the world are buying our signal product.
We have a hedge fund on the side that, where we kind of get, get some of these leads and we can, can kind of understand that ICP really well.
But it's just to say it's not impossible to, to sell to people.
We just need to find a way where I can then hack it.
Right.
So that's also.
You basically need to sell relationships, right?
That's the only way you can actually hack that.
Yeah, and we had that.
So we said like let's build a studio around the fact that we have an unfair advantage.
And that's actually how we always think with mouse studios.
We say if we are to build something within some kind of thesis who has an absolutely unfair advantage that we can build that around.
So we have distribution already or we have very deep product knowledge or we have some.
And I would recommend that anybody who's looking into this model, that they don't just build a venture studio, but that they think about who am I, what is the founder model fit for me, or find somebody, then if they're, it's okay to start something new.
We all interpret as well curious, that's fine.
But then just find a team that could then have the domain expertise across.
But anyways, just to finish this off, I'd say like to do the GGM validation.
Let's say you get your 100 sales or whatever it is.
So you say, yeah, we validated the idea it was people wanted, they want to pay for it, they like it, they love it.
Then we go ahead and create the founding document, we call it.
So the idea of this is doing all of this.
There'll be a lot of workshops, there'll be a lot of artifacts, there'll be a lot of things kind of created that we can now collect into one big document or probably be something like 10 to 25 pages, let's say.
And what that allows us is that everybody has a shared sense of what actually happened, what went right, what went wrong, when did we pivot, when did we try something new?
And then when we then say, okay, we want to actually spit this out and launch it, we now can get a team from outside that will immediately understand what happened, how it came about and all of that.
Right.
So they will be kind of feeling like they were part of the team from the beginning and were part of all these.
It's a ratio so they don't make the same mistakes as we just did.
And then our model is then to kind of, you know, get, assemble a team.
You can either then invest the money from the studio into the idea.
You might always already be near cash flow positive at this point because the, let's say the validation went beyond your dreams or whatever.
But oh, you can also go out and say, okay, let's make a small fundraise for a small team.
Let's say two to five people probably something like that.
Probably use the same dimensions from the Apollo framework of who we want to hire.
You want leadership, you want pgm, you want product, you want muscle and domain expertise.
And then you assemble the team and then you make a big ship off workshop where it's like typically a couple of days where we then use another, we call it the liftoff phase where we have like kind of 100,000, 100 days sort of thing where we, you know, you go through the motions and then it's really off to the races.
Back to the drawing board.
Take the next idea, create more equity.
So you're kind of creating an equity printer of sorts.
This is so superior to a venture approach because they're going to buy in at a much higher valuation.
So they both pay more and they get less equity.
Right.
Where we can have considerably more equity, less risk, and spend many less resources on it.
Right.
But talk to me more about this because I think that's where you do things differently than, I guess, most other studios is this concept of that the initial team that builds and scopes this is not the team that kind of executes on the actual project.
They go back to a drawing board.
What's the thinking around that?
Because I think that's somewhat controversial.
Right.
Because normally they are the one that runs the team and then maybe they run like five projects in parallel.
So walk me through the logic of completely spitting that out versus just recycling a team and why, I guess is the question.
Yeah, so this is a great question.
It's something that we've been thinking a lot about because on the one hand, if you're so successful with a build within the studio that the whole studio transform into one company, that's actually a good outcome because that means that you have product market fit and that's what startup people dream about having.
Right, Right.
So it's.
So first of all, it's not the worst thing that can happen, but we would still try to not have it happen and rather say, because we want these people to be the core, kind of absorb all of that knowledge that make them really efficient in going through this process over and over again.
And then maybe once in a while, you lose a person to a project because they fell in love with it.
They're like, they're indispensable or there's something that just makes sense in them going there.
And then you will get, you say, like I just brought up the slide here.
Like you lose your kind of product guy.
Right.
Then you have to go out and hire a new product guy for the core.
For the core team because he will now be the, I don't know, the CEO, maybe even CTO of this project.
Because he's just.
That kind of makes sense for him.
Right.
But in order to.
So there's also some, you could say there's some.
What are the bad things about the venture studio model?
Right.
To your question.
And there is, in the venture environment, at least we want to go that route because I also mentioned venture studios that go there's a build an idea, then we go to VCs.
That's like after the validation basically, right?
And that's perfectly fair and reasonable to do.
The problem is VCs, they have this kind of.
I find it to be quite poor thinking, to be honest.
I don't think clears wealth when you reason from first principle.
But their argument is like, yeah, back in the day there was like a rule of thumb that the founders should own at least 50% at the service a blah, blah.
And it's like it doesn't really take into consideration that it's like okay, but what if they're like they're going to stay if they have 8% or 12% and it's like that's not what they're doing.
They have a great salary and they're still going to make like $10 million here or whatever, right?
It's like that's not why they're here.
But.
But anyways that's like there's these rule of thumbs and this herd mentality a little bit in vc.
So you kind of have to say okay, what do we do there?
Because they're not going to put in money if the cap table is kind of wonky from their perspective because they will see the venture studio maybe as a silent partner even though maybe they don't just get how much work the venture studio actually is doing within each individual business.
But either way it is what it is, right?
So what we say is if we have this sort of venture case scenario, which is not we like to go default alive.
So we want to get cash flow as fast as possible and be a little bit on a sort of vin, you could say like you're a bootstrapper, right?
And we want to be venture bootstrappers, let's say.
So we like this one and done mentality, right?
Where we invest enough that because we already derisked all of the things that would normally be the reason why you would get a pre seed round, a seed round or whatever, right?
Then we can do a little bit larger round.
Let's say it could be $1 million, it could be a little bit more.
But then you say okay, that's enough to kind of at least here on the capabilities, the crew side say like that's leadership, that's execution muscle.
We have ggm, we have domain, we have product, that's it.
We don't need more.
We have AI, we have tech, we have frameworks, we have everything.
We have all these other things now that we can solve the rest of the.
And I saw yesterday there was a guy who exited his one man company for $80 million.
Right.
So kind of leveraging that thing and then say and we go to the default alive.
But if it is like we put in $1 and you get 5, that's a venture case, right?
Yeah.
Then you say okay fine, dilute us, whatever, we'll just figure it out.
Right.
It becomes an optionality thing for us then to say if it's worth that much to get in, I don't know, some big VC that cannot live with us owning more, then we just give more equity to the team and then just take it from there.
So of course it's a loss from a nominal perspective.
But if that means that then we have $25 million that we can pump into a money machine then it's like that's not the worst.
And then we could go back, build a new one.
Right.
It's like that's how thinking on disruptor getting waste.
There's a lot to unpack here.
Right.
So the one obvious thing that I think anybody's been in the startup world would immediately jump to here is like equity distribution.
Right.
Like what does that look like when particularly in a complex framework like this where you have like bitfrost on top and then you have this team and then another team like in my head it's just like this is very messy.
Like you're breaking the mold from like you were saying with like here's what you're expected to get at end milestone as a CEO, right.
Like you kind of if you're a founder of a company you want to have, you don't want to end up with like oh you sell your company and then you're like oh, you walk back, you walked out with peanuts.
Right.
So like walk me through like what you're thinking about equity structures across this for both initial team that then walks off and hands it off.
But then for the team that's coming online like what does those dimensions look like?
I mean obviously they vary from, from team to team but like ballpark.
Yeah.
So as you say I think it's very, it depends on the capex building a defense studio and gonna, you know probably had to fundraise more than you do if you are doing a venture studio within marketing products or something like that.
Right?
Yes.
Where it's like where I can build smaller solutions.
But anyways the core team will own a lot of the equity of the studio obviously typically probably 100%.
Right.
And then you say now we have validated this product.
We now need to go out and find a person who is the perfect, I don't know, sort of CEO refounder or just.
We would just probably call them founders actually of each because it just, it's just better.
And it'll be up to them to then say how much, but how much equity should they have?
But I would say that probably person be more than this person would get if he joined a startup that would have a smaller percentage chance of succeeding because they are not de risked as much as we are de risk when we do the product market, when we do the validation and the GTM and ballpark.
I would say 10, 20%, something like that for a person like this.
And I would probably think that.
And now I had a lot of venture cases as well.
Right.
Where it's like, it's very typical that you join, you get like 1%.
Yeah.
I guess the controversy is that you call them founders but you're giving them first employee equity, I guess.
Yeah.
It's in between kind of thing.
Right.
A little bit like with the one and done, it's between bootstrapping and venture.
It's between founder and employee.
But there is a lot of these founders that we found that has, like, we mostly want to work with exited founders for the same reason that we talked about earlier, that they kind of get it right.
So they very instantly understand the model.
But it is up to the venture studio, it's up to us as a venture studio and as a venture studio creator to really get the best talent.
And it's very kind of from good to great.
If anybody read that book, right.
It's about, if you get the right people on the bus, they'll do great things.
They can help themselves.
Right?
Yeah, but of course, so.
But there's a lot of entrepreneurs who also tried all the other ways.
And they're like, they're, they like this kind of thing where they're, they are heavily compensated and if it becomes big, they'll still make like tens of millions of dollars, but they also have a salary.
But it's like this kind of.
We need to find this.
Because there's also a lot of these corporate venture studios that yes, does not do well.
They do very poorly.
Corporate, I don't know, incubators or whatever they are.
Right.
And the problem with them as I see it is they don't give much equity and they have too much compliance and all of that and they attract.
I don't want to.
There are good people everywhere.
So I don't take this wrong way but, but like one Treponers, let's say they're not really entrepreneurs.
They're more like they've worked in some other corporate and now they want to be founders and then they go to these corporate kind of places.
And being very, let's say hardcore die hard entrepreneurs, we know what a real entrepreneur look like.
And that's the one, that's the people that we want to recruit to put into this kind of situation.
And maybe also if you find like a super superstar, it's like yeah, got a 50% of the company if that's what it takes, you know.
Yeah.
To, to.
But, but I think it's, it would be something like that normally per person.
Right, right.
So in between the models.
Okay.
And the other question I have here is you're talking about a one off founder foundraising event which is rare like because that's you kind of again you breaking the mold here because that's not how normally fundraising is done.
Right.
Like people like this is a, excuse me, this is the first out of many.
Right.
Until you either IPO or you go bust.
Like those are generally speaking like the two dimensions of fundraising.
Like you keep going until you.
Yeah, some event happens.
Right.
What has the appetite been for that and how does that resonate with I guess traditional VC or are you going into like family offices instead?
Which slightly more I guess flexible investment thesis or like have you seen that?
Like because that's an interesting one.
Yeah.
So for the investor type, just to take that question first, I definitely say that there's a lot of family offices, a lot of kind of super angels or high net worth that are probably easier in the beginning if you want to create a venture studio to talk to because they kind of get it a little bit more.
You do where if you talk to institutionals, they might, it might be a true new model for them or something like that.
And if you talk to venture then there's also cap table issue and also there's a little bit of animosity between venture and venture studios because sort of eating their lunch a little bit and they don't like it much and so, but there are also great people in the VC space that kind of totally recognizes and actually very interestingly Sequoia became like Andreessen became kind of a hybrid fund.
Now that is like this Everlasting vehicles.
They're going into pe.
These kind of, there's a lot of changes happening in this.
So I think this view is also changing.
But I would definitely say that to get that first one and done and probably wanna more go for these sort of family office type because they also like, at least for our model, which is a little bit more cash flow heavy.
We, they like that.
They, they want to see dividends.
They wanna, you know, they come from GAAP accounting, right?
They're like, they want to see EBITDA and so but if you then have a venture case or you are in a space that is a little bit more venture friendly, maybe more deep tech or maybe very high octane somehow, or you just simply hit the right kind of product market fit with the right channel model fit, then definitely go to VC and then you just negotiate.
It's always like that with fundraising.
I think that the better your case, the more you can kind of more leverage, right?
I mean, so at the end of the day if you have something right, you can get them to invest.
For sure.
It's like the old saying goes, right?
Like raise money when you don't need it, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.
And, but in the end of the day if you do that, then you're just in that race and that's fine because that's also a way to get to the exit.
It's just, it's not our default model, it's our optional model.
That's how she, yeah.
Okay.
That, okay.
The other thing I wanted to cover.
So we covered a bit of how you're thinking about this, how you kind of evaluate ideas, how you go to market, all that stuff.
That's super interesting.
The other thing that I guess I spoke a bit about with my, on my podcast with Kevin Henriksen about micro pe.
Right.
Because you have also a thesis around buying business as well.
Right?
Because, and I, I, I've heard this from more than one friend by now.
Like people who are getting into this kind of like, I guess buying boomer business is one way to put it.
Right.
And you, I think you put it similar terms before when we've chatted about this, right.
Buying businesses with a thes of people that there could be a lot more efficiencies gained.
Like talk me about your thes around that.
Yeah, so thinking if you bring up something here so it would be a little bit easier to understand.
But let's just try to take it without any slides.
But so basically what we discovered was that okay, we can build companies really fast or at least we can de risk the kind of.
We could de risk the process really fast.
So get from just from zero to one, right?
But what I also found, because we took over a couple of companies more or less for free that had revenue product market fit.
But maybe they were in a situation where the founder kind of was burned out or maybe they were, you know, they only had some dimensions of the crew that you'd need and therefore they didn't build the right brand, they didn't have the right go to market motion or whatever it might be, but they're so profitable or break even, right?
And we took over this company and say like, hey, if we can run it from 0 to 1 through the process, we can also just run it through from one to two and just kind of upgrade the company, right?
Because it's very much, it's a craft, right?
And if you have the right processes, frameworks and all these playbooks, then you can do the same with a bigger company as well.
And so that's why we found that.
Oh shit, it's such a layup for us also as we did it, that we found out, oh, okay, we can make a turnaround happen in three to six months, right?
So it kind of dawned on us that what we've been doing on the acquisition front, which was a little bit more in the beginning, was more an opportunistic thing and kind of dabbling in it, that it became like a real thesis around what we call venture roll up.
So we say that we build and buy profitable companies.
That's kind of what we do, right?
And our thesis now have become much more whole and it's going to be within the financial services kind of company.
So we're talking about accountancies, tech advisory, all of salary budgeting, all of these bookkeeping companies.
Because there is a huge sort of wealth kind of transfer happening at the moment.
It's probably the biggest wealth transfer that ever happened in the history of the world.
Because the baby boomer generation is the biggest one.
They have the most assets and they are getting old and they need to go on pension or they are dying off also.
And that is within thesis that we have in this space, in the financial services space just in the US where we'll be operating this specific strategy.
There is 88,000 companies that need to kind of transition, I think like well 3, 50% or something of that kind of cohort needs to transition within the next five years.
And these are all companies with say an enterprise value between $1 million and $5 million.
And that is the micro private equity space.
And the reason why this is interesting in the first place for us is that, and maybe for a lot of other people, there are search funders and there's boring businesses.
There's a lot of people talking about these kind of things, right?
But, but for us it is private equity.
It's too small for them because typically they raise like let's say $500 million, billions of dollars.
And then they say like, we're going to diversify, but mostly we have to, you know, we cannot buy a thousand small companies, right?
Like the operations of it.
And also, so they're more like if you look at it on a traffic light, right, it'll be like there'll be some dimensions like whatever, sales, brand people, whatever, that some of it is green, some is red and some are yellow and some is red, right?
And for private equity, normally it'll be more like green, green, green, yellow, green.
Because it's such big transactions that they will have some strategic advantage where they can roll up the revenue into an even bigger company.
And it has to work because else is catastrophic.
So, so they do a lot of due diligence and they put a lot of McKinsey people on it and they really make sure that it's going to work.
Right?
But we are entrepreneurs, we're like craftsmen, right?
Where like we can go in and say like as long as it's not a negative cash flow situation or like that we're losing money.
Well, okay, well actually the more red we have, the better, right?
Because then we can put that through the process, create a new brand, create a new go to market funnel, create a new whatever, work with the company and make it better.
Right?
And just.
I know this is a little bit long, but just stay.
The economics of it is super interesting because for the people who want to sell their companies, there are not any buyers in this space really.
Which means that the multiples and revenue is nowhere near the stock market or near the whatever.
When you talk with VCs on how much multiple would they give you on your ARR, whatever, right?
So they are more like 2, 3, 4.
We talk.
It's EBITDA multipliers, not ARR multipliers.
No, no.
Huge difference, right?
Gigantic difference.
So it's actually on the profit, right?
But within our thesis, right, this is what we're discovering that is probably.
And a lot of them, their alternative is just closed down because they're like, I need to go and pension now to all, you know, like, or whatever.
But they have like, I have a thousand customers, I'm making $500,000 a year.
And they're like, okay, you can buy it out for three and a half times ebitda.
And then it's like when you bought that and then you say, holy shit, there's a lot of problems with the company, but they're still making $500,000 a year, right?
They say, like, even if I don't do anything, I will make my money back in three years.
Right?
Because this is literally the profits, right?
And when you then.
And I don't know how much people know about it depends on the listeners.
But like the, in private equity, you have this thing called a roll up, right?
So you have a platform company and then you take companies that are smaller and then you buy them and put them into.
This is how most of big mergers and acquisitions actually work.
You check that revenue, you put it into the platform company.
And because that company is in the stock exchange or something like that revenue will now be recognized at a much higher multiple on the EBITDA.
So, so might go from 7 to 10.
So they instantly make 30% on the valuation that way.
Right?
We could just do that even more because we are so low down.
So if we roll up enough of the companies and we also build the brands out, we do a lot of different things, then we both move the total revenue and we also move the multiple.
And that's the case.
That's the case that we are working on.
So it's a bit long, but it's a complicated subject.
No, but I think it's interesting, right, Because I think there's a lot of lessons here for both existing entrepreneurs and people looking to do things.
Right?
Because I think one thing that really was interesting because I had a offline chat with Kevin about this stuff and we're talking about the innovations that you can apply to these companies.
And as tech entrepreneurs we're thinking like, oh, you need to rewrite code, you need to do some complicated process.
Innovation.
No, no, innovation could literally be like, oh, you moved electronic signatures rather than like and like the receptionist going and give papers to this.
Like, like the innovation is so trivial in our mind that we don't even consider it tech innovation, but it actually has a real implication in these businesses.
Right?
If you could actually like apply this as I thought that was an interesting one, right?
Yeah, that's a, it's a very interesting point touch upon because entrepreneurs as a cohort deliver very much in the future.
Right.
So they are very leading cohort.
And sometimes when you know, you have, sorry, somebody calling me, when you are surrounded by this group of people, then you're kind of like, aren't everybody investing in bitcoins and using AI and doing all these things?
And then when in the real economy, that's not really the truth.
Right.
So when you go into this kind of companies and you realize, holy shit, they're using fax machines and stuff like that, Right.
And you're like, there's some efficiency to be had here, right?
Yeah.
And we are building.
And one of the reasons then also why we think that this specific thesis makes a lot of sense other than being a lot of targets and to kind of look at is that we have built this type of company already with scale up and so kind of, let's say 2.0 tech enabled service company that is now where we are now very soon to release the first true really big AICFO.
So we spent like 20, 30 million dollars on kind of getting to that point where we could develop, to develop this technology and it's going to be completely awesome.
So when we take that into these type of businesses and they basically just become clients of Scala, Right.
Or new Messageware, then we think that we could probably take their gross margin from 20% to 50%.
So if you think about that doubles the amount of EBITDA that is there and we then also double the multiple or maybe triple the multiple on that ebitda.
And that's not even touching the top funnel.
Right.
Then you have a very explosive sort of case, but very low risk.
So it's an asymmetric opportunity.
Yeah, because you've de risked because you already have a customer base and then you kind of transition them from a service company to product company almost, which is like a huge difference in valuation between those two.
Right?
Yeah, that's what Jonathan, our head of this division, like our micro private equity division in New York, that he is very interested in that whole transformation, which is also very brand heavy, but it's also just implementing a lot of these technologies that we actually know how to do.
And for many, probably many entrepreneurs, there's a lot of these sort of opportunities where they could go in and old boring space and take something that is trivial to them, as you say, and really knock it out the park in that sector.
Yeah.
And I think that leads me to a pretty good last talking point, which is we can't have a podcast in this day and age.
We are talking about AI and you was talking a bit about things that kind of ties into the whole thesis of bitfrost around the future outlook.
Like if, I mean let's put aside the tool, the gen AI tools we have today, all that stuff because there are a lot of like where we would.
How the rate of innovation and all those, the rate of how much they get better.
We can talk about how good they are today versus what they can potentially be.
That's, that's a separate discussion.
But, but what I was curious about your conversation about that was your future outlook of where would we go 5, 10, 15, 20 years out.
Like you had some interesting takes on that.
I thought that was actually something that's interesting to take on air as well.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah.
So yeah, well I think this, everybody should care about this.
Right.
Because it's like probably the biggest transformation that have ever happened in human history or something like that.
Right.
It's like at least on par with the Internet and probably bigger really because it has many wider ramifications.
Maybe more like the industrial revolution, maybe even more than that as well.
So my outlook is probably.
So I've been trying to kind of study this problem and seem like a lot of people, they're kind of making the, you know like putting their head in the sand a little bit because they kind of, it's an uncomfortable subject also.
Right.
And, and I've been delving a lot into these post labor economics.
So it's like a kind of emergent school of economics.
You could kind of say shout out to David Shapiro who is kind of leading a lot of this.
What, what is kind of talking about is that the sort of heterodoxy of other economic schools like whatever you have Keynesianism or Chicago School or classical or Austrian economics, whatever it is though none of these economics that take into consideration what happens when you have another apex species basically like and, and what the post labor economics is talking about is like the four dimensions, right.
When automations and robots and in kind of a.
And I'm not so much trying to predict is this happening in three years, in five years, in nine years or for 30 years?
It's more just everybody agrees it gonna happen.
It's just a question of when do robots and automation become better?
They're already arguably better.
Faster.
They're faster on some things, they're very slow on other things.
Robotics are not very good at everything yet.
And that's probably like an optimus thing, right?
They're cheaper, they're cheaper on some things.
Now they are very much expensive on other parts.
It still makes sense to use labor in a lot of things.
But maybe one when Optimus Robot cost $1 to operate an hour.
And they are safer as well, right?
Because they don't mind crawling up in the top of the Empire State Building and fixing the whatever thing.
Right.
They're just going to do whatever they want and can work 24 hours.
So you have this better, faster, cheaper, safer sort of outlook.
And if you look at the economy just kind of from a western globalish kind of outlook, you probably say that 60 to 80% of all the consumption and demand of the economy comes from wages.
So it's like basically employees getting paid, right.
Then you have maybe 20% depending on the country.
The debt market is probably like 40% or something.
Very high is transfers from the government.
So kind of redistribution of wealth.
And then you have probably something like 10 to 20% as well.
That is property based.
So that means you have stocks that give you dividend.
You have a second apartment that you rent out.
These sort of things.
Right.
And what's interesting to think about I think and that this is a question that everybody should be asking themselves is what happens when that.
And this is the research that I'm.
That I've seen when this over whatever time span it is.
But it's probably more.
It's probably more seven years than 15 years.
I would say that these 60 to 80% wages goes to 20% of the economy.
That is a huge delta like difference between these numbers is huge.
And that's a lot of unemployment, right.
Where there will be a transition phase to a new economy.
And I'm not saying that then everything will collapse or something like that, but it's just to say it's going to be very kind of hard birthing phase of a new potentially super abundant society.
Because the distribution of that new GDP maybe we go to growth rates of 7% and you're going to get 100x the global economy over 50 years.
But if nobody is getting that GDP growth kind of distributed in the right way, we're going to have very social strife sort of revolutionary problems.
Yeah.
So anyways, yeah, it's a very big topic but it's a really interesting one, right?
Because I mean not only do you have massive unemployment potentially then, but you also have far fewer.
I mean if you look at tax contribution, right.
Like that's a huge part of of where tax are collected from is.
Is from payroll.
So that is interesting.
So, so where do you see that are all Roads leading to UBI or where's your head out around that?
Because I thought it was interesting overlaying thesis around bitfrost and both configuration and also how you see that.
Yeah.
So we just had a great event with Bifrost in the uk.
We got all the founders together and we're trying to discuss this more from a sort of on a personal level, like what investments should you hold, how to protect your family in this situation, but also from a business perspective.
And the venture studio model lends itself really well to this kind of environment, we think.
Because when there is a lot of change, there'll be a lot of opportunity as well.
And to kind of think about what businesses should we build, what will change?
Because let's say that all roads do lead to UBI and for those who are not familiar with the concept Universal Basic Income, UBI is basically just a welfare kind of program where we give everyone, not depending on how much they make some amount of money, just to kind of baseline the economy.
And the reason why this also is kind of makes sense and I'm talking from completely apolitical point of view here because I come from a very libertarian kind of tradition, let's say.
But I can see that there is probably no other way because if you don't have the demand side of the economy, it's not very fun to be a Max 7 company either.
Right?
Because if nobody's buying your AI or whatever thing, then there is some kind of collapse in the whole economic kind of paradigm that doesn't make any sense, especially in the depth, very highly leveraged society.
Right?
So it's also in their interest.
Also it's no fun being a millionaire when there is social strife and revolution and you cannot go out in the street, right?
So it's in everybody's interest to kind of say, okay, we need some solution here, right?
And UBI will probably be.
Maybe we'll start with ubi.
What I probably kind of foresee will happen is we'll go to some unsustainable amount of unemployment at some point in X amount of years.
I don't want to guess because it's simply too hard.
But somewhere after 27, 28 it will start to become very apparent for governments that.
And some new parties will be like we are the UBI Party or we are the universal high income party or whatever, right?
And they'll start to text shit out of these Mega Corp.
So if you're in the top 100 companies, you'll get like some extra mega tags that probably they won't care.
It'd be.
I think that there is some game theory here where it is actually in everybody's interest, which can create some.
There's of course a lot of problems with it, but let's just say that it is in everybody's interest to have also demand for your products.
Right.
So I think that.
But I think what will happen first is that we get some sort of economic problem.
Right.
Where they kind of, they're not realized this in time.
And I think what I've seen research wise is like if you had 14% unemployment, like on a structural level, then it's catastrophic.
And if you look at the Great Depression, for instance, unemployment went to 25, 30% but for six months.
Right.
And then it went sort of back.
And that was very catastrophic.
Right.
And they didn't have much depth compared to what we have now.
Right.
So if you go to.
If you had those levels at a sustained environment and like in a sustained kind of time frame, then.
Well, then it's extremely problematic.
Right.
So I think that the response will be something like that.
And there's a lot of these other things they could do.
So sovereign wealth funds will become a much bigger component, I think also like, so no fund, the Norwegian, all the.
Successful sovereign fund in the world.
Yeah.
And there are all these, especially in the Middle east, have a lot of sovereign wealth funds and the US are creating sovereign wealth funds and these will all start to capture.
So we need to go to basically a property based system where people also get ownership.
Because from a very human perspective every.
It's, it's.
There will be a lot of kind of spiritual and emotional problems with no longer being able to kind of have a purpose.
You could say, right.
That is very obviously be given by your job right now.
Not that I say that it should be like that, but, but it's just there will be some meaningless problem where people would then say okay, how can I get back into the.
To be something.
And that would probably be owning property in.
It could be whatever.
Right.
You used.
I don't mean when I say property, I don't mean properties like real estate.
It could also be that.
But I just mean like that the lowest part of society will be on UBI and they'll probably as always hit the people who have the more menial jobs first.
But.
And then, and all of those transfers will then still kind of sustain the economy.
But you will try to say, okay, can we go together in this DAO or collective to own something together and have the higher amount of income that will come from property generator, there will still be salaries, there will still be jobs, there will be much less.
I'm not saying that everybody will be out of a job, actually.
I'm just saying that it's a problem if 50% are going to be out of a job.
Right.
From an economic perspective.
But yeah.
So we need a lot of new sources of income for everyone that is relies more on property and less on transfers.
And that will be the battle of the political future, I think.
I think that's fine.
Toby, this has been super interesting.
Anything closing notes on you want to get to the audience before we wrap up for today?
I guess.
Yeah.
We are fundraising, of course, so that's interesting.
I don't think I'm allowed to talk too much about it, but Biffrust is racing fun too.
So, yeah, it's always great to talk to anyone interested in what we're doing at Bifrost with founders who are thinking about this model.
And, you know, we are always trying to create a great network around us.
It's very much what one of the big parts of what we do.
And yeah, so feel free to hit me up on LinkedIn or whatever.
Good stuff.
Perfect.
Again, thanks so much for coming on the show, Tobyan.
Thank you, Victor.
It was a pleasure.
Cheers.
Found an error or typo? File PR against this file or the transcript.