But what we are seeing lately is a different order of magnitude. It is no longer just founders, it is also just tons of service providers brute forcing their go-to-market for VC-adjacent services.

Sales automation has been a key driver for these increased volumes over the last decade. But that felt gradual and pretty easy to filter (Priority Inbox has done a good job, at the cost of missing a few important emails). 

But the combination of GPTs with the wide and cheap availability of tools, and the increased sophistication of lead funnels and targeting has changed the game. I would estimate volume is at 10x of what it was even 2-3 years ago. 

I have fully given up on Linkedin, and am closer to email bankruptcy every day. 

For what it’s worth, we are seeing these channels decrease in conversion across verticals for all companies selling B2B software and services. That's probably well-deserved, but it is a pity for those businesses solving real problems. 

My advice to founders is to go back to basics: warm intros from qualified fellow founders or angels. They'll always get attention. 

My advice to businesses is to iterate your channels now, because this is a problem that won't go away anytime soon. Not unlikely in consumer, you need to put a good 20% of marketing into experimental. As you can imagine, I have _thoughts_ on where to deploy this. 

The other answer, however, must be technological. The arc of innovation in spam filters, which I thought was over, seems to be just beginning. The right response to this level of spam needs to be a level of not just filtering but response automation. I know Google and Superhuman and others have begun to experiment with this. 

If it is something you are working on, Heartcore would love a look.

What stands in their way? Very simply: unions and regulators. Both are formidable adversaries to change. In the case of regulators, they work from texts written from wrong assumptions. In the case of unions, they are fighting for their life and are out for blood. Just see the stevedores - those fights are happening across industries. 

And so it got me thinking about where AI-driven automation will have the greatest immediate impact. My current thesis is that, not dissimilar to the internet, AI will choose the path of least resistance. And so it will come for the squishies first. 

The internet was truly destructive first to the media industry. It dealt in text and video and it assumed a price of distribution. Well the marginal price of distribution went to quasi-zero with the internet and we're left with a lot of information (some of it quite bad). And the media industry is intact only in remnants (and even those are starting to be poorly edited, partisan, or plain trading on former glory). 

Then under the guise of ecommerce, the internet came for retail. Retail benefited for a long-time from protected supply chains, cornered supply, complex operations, and limited store front/foot traffic. But it turned out it was fragmented and competitive and low-margin. And so the internet overwhelmed it with competition based on selection, convenience, and price. Then travel, which was similarly fragmented and opaque. 

And only then did the internet come to other industries. Not sure if you noticed, but it is only now coming for the government and its regulators, the industries that are possibly the best protected. Government is putting up quite a fight in order not to be run by Elon Musk. 

I'm a child of the web and I think history does rhyme. Hence the thesis that AI will hit hardest in those professions that deal primarily in transforming information (looking at you, wordcels) and that lack regulatory oversight/government control or union organization. This isn't because they are necessarily easier to automate, but because they operate within frameworks that offer the least resistance. Wherever structures are loose and flexibility is high, I expect AI to take over in a surprisingly rapid way. 

Copywriters, customer support agents, data entry professionals, content creators, loan officers, risk assessors of all types, paralegals... you saw what happened to the stenographers of the 70s, the typists of the 90s, the stock traders of the 2000s…

Hence, psychotherapists of this world: time to unionize! (If you still can). 

As always, if you are founding a business in the area identified above, Heartcore is a great first call. 

I’ve been lucky to be involved in some large travel businesses early: Onefinestay in 2010, GetYourGuide in 2013, TravelPerk in 2016, Roadsurfer in 2020, Fora in 2021. These companies are doing billions of dollars in booking volume and are on track to surpass an aggregate of a billion dollars in revenue in 2024. 

I’ve recently attended some travel industry events and what struck me is that the large incumbents in that space – Booking, Expedia, Trip.com – are theorized to just remain incumbents forever because an OTA is really a large marketplace with a ton of network effects. Selection, convenience, and price drive consumer conversion and a steady albeit pricey demand creates lock-in on the supplier side.

Booking and Expedia might be squeezed by Google’s universal search on one side and loyalty programs to encourage direct booking on the other (most notably Marriott’s Bonvoy push, but e.g. also the rapidly growing Wyndham program). But since they have supply locked in, I’d wager they are not too worried. 

I think agentic AI changes that equation. My thesis is that we will see some "disintermediation of the disintermediators." 

Here’s why: as generative AI becomes more adept at using computers, making phone calls, and completing other complex interactions, it should start bypassing expensive inventory. Imagine a future where a highly sophisticated AI can scrape vertical search, query hotel databases, communicate directly with accommodations, and negotiate better rates — all without going through an OTA. The quasi-exclusive supply that has historically made these marketplaces indispensable may no longer be their edge.

And the consumer side may also change dramatically. Consider this scenario: instead of visiting Booking.com, you ask your personal travel advisor or their AI assistant to find the best boutique hotel in Rome for your dates. Your advisor, enabled by AI, scours the web for direct listings, emails smaller hotels, and makes calls if needed. What was once a necessity to ensure access to a wide range of options becomes optional, as AI handles the discovery and booking process independently. And what's more: since your travel advisor goes directly to the hotel, they can get upgrades, perks, or discounts which are not publicly available on the OTAs.

I do believe this type of disintermediation is less likely in marketplaces where immediacy, a critical mass of supply, and local operations are necessary. Uber requires the rapid fulfillment of real-time demand — something that AI can't easily do without tapping into a dense, active network of drivers and riders in specific geographies. The value of such platforms isn’t just aggregation but coordination and matching in a time-sensitive environment. But, of course, it’s the agentic AI that will be driving you. 

The key distinction, then, is the type of service offered. Marketplaces like Booking.com or Airbnb, which have historically been more reliant on inventory aggregation and search convenience, could face challenges as AI can increasingly accomplish these tasks autonomously. But platforms for services requiring immediate, hyperlocal supply, may remain resilient, albeit offered by AI itself. 

I see the broader trend here as the potential for generative AI to break down middlemen in industries where their core function is aggregation. The higher the value of the service, and the more tailored the interaction, the more likely AI will step in to disintermediate. But in industries where real-time execution, trust, and density of supply are critical, AI will enhance rather than replace intermediaries or potentially be the end supplier altogether. 

So are we approaching the end of aggregation-as-value or merely seeing its transformation? What’s clear is that as always companies need to evolve their model, or they may find themselves on the wrong side of innovation for the first time in 25 years.

If you read about the development of the semiconductor industry (DoD, for missile guidance) or the internet (DARPA, for defense comms), innovative consumer applications are frequently a beneficial side effect of government financing. In the case of OWS, however, the actual application was the objective. 

Government entered the market as a massive buyer: "make this to our satisfaction and we will give you an insane amount of money". It acted as a facilitator, guiding timelines and goals, but leaving R&D and production to private companies. OWS heavily mitigated risk by guaranteeing large purchases regardless of efficacy. It streamlined regulatory processes, allowing "at-risk" manufacturing (trials + production run simultaneously). And it offered logistics, the scale of which could only be government-mandated or -operated given time frames. 

Ignoring the eventual failure of the product (vaccines did not reduce spread, had serious side effects, and efficacy decreased rapidly with strains), it showed that the government still has the ability to bring about significant technological and social innovation in a shorter time than the market can. 

Knowing this, and given that I am generally in favor of less government, where are innovation markets failing our future today? Where could the government make the highest return on investment and impact for its population? A few things come to mind. 

Rebuilding the European defense industry. The US is increasingly becoming a reluctant partner. Europe needs to build its own weapons, not least in recognition of land war returning to the continent. Given the changing nature of the battlefield, such weapons should yield a decisive battlefield advantage. Autonomous systems, cheap and fast to produce, are probably top of this list, but offensive/defensive cybersecurity isn't far behind. How much is the security of your country worth? €1 billion for each company sounds like a good start.

Ensuring AI sovereignty. If you follow the machinations of Google and Microsoft/OpenAI around regulating AI ("we are building something insanely powerful but also very unsafe, so don't let anyone else do it at scale"), it is clear that Europe, much less than precautionary AI regulation, needs more than just Mistral, Aleph Alpha, et al. Billions should be flowing into these companies coffers from public funds in order to produce applications that put the end user in full control. Bonus effect: you could probably decrease EU and national bureaucracy by 80%+ using AI. 

Nuclear energy. Renewables are well researched, but the West is falling behind in nuclear energy capability. America can build a reactor for $12 billion (and endless amounts of red tape), while China is selling them to Africa for $2B (zero downpayment of course, we already own your port). Nuclear is the very best climate mitigation technology we have and prosperity comes down to kWh per capita, especially given the need for both AI and AC.

Antibiotic Resistance, Superbugs, Prions, etc. There are increasing biological threats that look high-risk. Where's the research prize for solving them? €1 billion? Probably too low. 

Supply chain security. Europe's ships are increasingly threatened at sea, avoiding Suez. This will only get worse if the US withdraws from its role in policing the seas. The new merchant marine would need to equip tankers with cutting-edge anti-missile and terrorism defense. Equally, North Sea oil platforms are at risk from unmanned submarines. Remember Nord Stream 2? Let's not have that again. There are a myriad of small issues here because Europe is import-dependent in a variety of ways. I'd probably put lab-grown meat into this category as well. 

Alright, that's enough for me. Remember, I actually don't like big government at all. I just want their money to build useful stuff. 

Madeline's argument goes like this: a lot of travellers say they care about sustainability, but their actions don't really reflect this. Interestingly, though, while only 6-12% of travellers avoid a destination because of unsustainable practices, 24-40% avoid it due to overcrowding. And overtourism is very much a part of the sustainability calculation. 

We know this from research in other consumer studies, of course. People say they want what's sustainable, but end up doing what's readily available, convenient, and cheap. Change the balance of selection, convenience, and price, and you can change behaviour. 

Some places just feel well over capacity. We attended a wedding in Venice two years ago - despite it being May, it was crowded. Rome, last year, was clearly over-run. Barcelona, where we combined our 10-year anniversary with a TravelPerk board, has had aggressive anti-tourism protests. And prices everywhere, most notably in Portugal where we were in June, have seen dramatic inflation from the influx of US tourists (and prior to that the Chinese, and prior to that the Russians). 

I took a brief look at the numbers. In the early 2000s, Venice had 6-7 million inbound visitors per annum. Just before the pandemic, those numbers had risen to approx. 20 million (thanks, cruise lines). Rome is even more extreme: from approx. 8 million twenty years ago to over 35 million arrivals (!) today. It has almost doubled just in the last five years. 

In some ways, this is not surprising. The total travel market is on an ever-steady growth curve, at around 6-7% per annum. Covid was obviously a major hit, but "revenge travel", which only really ended this year, reverted us right back to the mean. And 7% compounded over 20 years just is a cool 4x (that Einstein quote keeps being right). 

In part you can blame low-cost airlines and short-term rentals really: over the past three decades it has gotten much cheaper to get there and much easier to stay there. But in a sort of Jevons paradox, that increased demand is now producing even more demand through a cycle of social media-induced FOMO.

67% of 18-34 year-olds (versus a negligible amount of olds) say social media heavily influences their travel plans. And a good 40% pick their next spot based on how it will look in their feed. Folks are there for the experience, but the image matters. And hence the masses queued at the Bali Swing, in Santorini, Machu Picchu, Trolltunga, the Maldives, Blue Lagoon, in Positano, the Trevi foundation, and other major snapshot destinations. 

Short of major geopolitical dislocations, which will probably come, this is the new normal.

So just about how we developed a thesis to back an outdoor travel company about five years ago (Roadsurfer), or how we thought in-destination experiences were the strategic white space in travel over a decade ago (GetYourGuide), we started the work around how to benefit from the fact that the world's favourite places are less interesting now than when some of us were kids.

In that context, we met Cat Jones, who had approached this problem from the perspective of sustainability and introduced us to the concept of "slow travel": "Slow travel is like slow food. The ingredients (hotels, transport, activities) are good for locals and for the planet. The recipe (route) is optimised for quality rather than speed. The result is often a much richer travel experience with depth of flavour and story."

Her company, flight-free travel specialist Byway, offers bespoke journeys across the UK, Europe and beyond, by rail, boat and bus. These trips across multiple countries and travel modalities can be prohibitively complex to organise, but Byway makes it easy. To create trips, it uses proprietary travel technology, called JourneyAI, which pulls together transport, places, experiences and accommodation to create multi-stop trips designed for enjoyment rather than speed, while avoiding tourist hotspots.

Alongside Founders Factory and Eka Ventures, we became investors in Byway earlier this year.

A Byway holiday isn’t about rushing to a destination as quickly as possible. Instead, the journey is a highlight of the experience, including super-scenic routes and detours to lesser-known places. In getting fewer folks on a plane, not only does Byway reduce carbon emissions dramatically, it increases the dispersal of tourism overall. 

Of course, there's a reason hotspot destinations have risen to such popularity. Byway recognises the draw of Venice for drifting along canals, or of Rome for ancient ruins, and for travellers very keen to visit, will include these places for shorter stops especially out of season. But where similar experiences can be found in lesser-known places (with fewer crowds to boot), Byway suggests carefully curated alternatives. There’s magic to be found in swapping the crowded canals of Venice for Bruges, or Italy’s over-touristed capital for the ‘French Rome’ of Nîmes, or Barcelona’s city-beach combo for coastal Cadiz - so well-loved by Spanish holiday-makers. 

People will keep travelling, and they should. As the economy continues to pivot away from things (which are cheap) to experiences (which are invaluable), we believe more and more people will choose the actual adventure, not the photo opportunity. And by meeting locals who may actually want to chat instead of protesting outside your Airbnb, we believe we can recover the connection that tourists used to build with their destination: a discovery of the other, a connection to a new culture, a rediscovery of self in the beauty of elsewhere. 

Madeline's talk (in the context of another conference) is here.

I had lunch with a founder today. We don't know each other well, but I really like and respect him. We were thinking about where we had both made mistakes in the last few years.

One thing that struck me in particular was his description of how transactional the VC-founder relationship has become. It rang true, maybe because I've seen my share of bad behavior over the years. Lots of fear and greed. Hard selling from both sides. Lots of fake smiles and charisma. And then the reverse when things go south: lies and legal threats and banging on the board room table.

Maybe it has been the fact that volumes are just so high. Maybe that VCs were desperate to get into hot deals. Many had and have way too many boards. And many founders also raised much more money that they needed. And at valuations which were clearly disconnected from reality.

Part of the reason I got into this business is because venture is an investive, not a speculative business. Because a good VC-founder relationship is a supportive partnership that can last a decade or more. Because it is a multi-stage reputational game where neither party gains from playing hard ball.

He told me that from his point of view this was pretty outdated. That e.g. YC coaches founders into treating their investors in a certain way. That he had personally been sued by one of his early investors. That the playbook post-2015 was definitely much more transactional.

I hope that the current correction provides an opportunity to reconsider this relationship. I think a true founder-VC partnership is possible.

What do you think?