How to facilitate more longevity interventions

January 23, 2022

The Hypothesis

Why Bad if True

There is a direct relationship between the number of shots on goal (candidate medicines developed) and number of new medicines. Biotechnology and drug development will always have a randomness variable due to imperfect knowledge of biology - therefore while our shots will invariably become more intelligent over time (AKA - have a higher success rate) - pure numbers (shots on goal) will be important for the foreseeable future.

What are some the rate-limiters of biotech entrepreneurship?

Traditional academic culture. Traditional academic culture is diametrically opposed to startup culture. Most scientists

Democracy of information. It is very difficult for someone to learn about building in bio, build a community of other people like them building in bio

The lack of an angel investor flywheel.

Availability of funds for non-traditional founders.

Technical insight.

The challenges facing the longevity field today

Lack of entrepreneurs.

Charlatans and low quality.

Relatively few shots on goal.

Reputation.

Difficult to diligence for the average investor.

What if we brought successful tech models to biotech?

Hypothesis: Biotech is 10-15 years behind tech. We can look to macro tech trends to predict where bio might be going, and preempt.

We can learn a lot from some of the most successful models in tech. If you believe our thesis

What if we built...

• "The YC of Bio"

  Y Combinator famously bets on ultra-early founders, taking large economic stakes in exchange for quickly giving mostly unknown founders a network, social status, pattern matching skills, startup context, and link to some of the best investors and founders in the Valley.

  What this structure would look like: an accelerator specifically funding and supporting early-stage companies building in bio. Focus on education on how to think about building in bio.

  Economics: small checks, high n, heavy programming. Likely would require larger carry for higher ops costs.

• "The First Round Capital of Bio"

  FRC was one of the first funds to focus explicity on seed rounds, bringing a founder-friendly model to early stage companies. They help bring companies from the earliest idea stage to those ready for Series A/B funds. They provide programming, mentorship, and focus on these first 18 months.

  What this structure would look like: a $50M-$200M fund that leads seed rounds in biotech co's, with a strong founder-support backend, a lot of non-investor staff

  Economics: large checks ($1M-$3M) at mid-way valuations (<$25M)

• "The a16z of Bio"

  a16z has one of the best brands in VC. This:

  1. Increases their co's ability to recruit, ability to fundraise, and generally their probability of success

  2. Gives them exclusive access + first look at the best deals

  3. Gives them incredible leverage in 'willing into existance' contrarian realities (if they so desire)

  What this structure would look like: a large fund (eventually, >$1B) that leads seed —> growth, some crossover

  Economics: large checks ($1M→$25M+) at wide scope of valuations

• "The Super Angel"

  Brand-name angels like Patrick Collison, Elad Gil, Sam Altman give a stamp of approval to companies and help them raise future rounds with ease.

  In longevity, Laura D has played a critical role as a stamp of approval for a longevity co's scienceThere are very few angels or funds that can act

Building a vibrant biotech founder flywheel

Contrarian opinion #2: all other things equal, it is more fruitful to facilitate traditional tech founders to build in bio, versus turning academics into founders

What is necessary for an abundant biotech ecosystem?

Key Endpoints

• Number of T1 tech funds that invest in bio deals

• Number of T1 tech funds that start bio funds

• Number of Series Seeds and Series As for biotechs where a tech fund leads

• Number of longevity companies founded