If Bitcoin reaches a price of $100,000 to $200,000, there will be more crypto-billionaires than *all* other kinds of billionaires...Combined. BTC reached nearly $65,000 this year, so Bitcoin at $100,000 is not that far off.
Cryptocurrency will change the world in many ways but there’s one question no one seems to be asking:
How will cryptocurrency wealth change philanthropy?
And of particular interest to organizations looking to raise capital, what will crypto-philanthropists donate to?
Let’s start with an example Crypto-Philanthropist
Vitalik Buterin, creator of the second most valuable cryptocurrency, Ethereum, and worth an estimated $21B, recently made his first high profile donations totaling over $1B. His gifts included:
Life extension, artificial intelligence and autonomous city-states. These donations are...unusual.
Let’s talk about some areas that crypto-philanthropists might focus on.
“Most of the people who bought crypto early on — they’re believers in the power of technology to change the world. They’re interested in the ethos of crypto in many cases, and I suspect that they would allocate their capital towards more things in that vein.” -Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, Interview with Tyler Cowan
Crypto’s “ethos” has traditionally been libertarian: skepticism of fiat money and financial systems, a belief in privacy and anonymity as enabled by cryptography, in favor of minimal government regulation and taxation.
Most the largest number of grants in the crypto currency space seem to be for other currencies and protocols like grants from Solana, Human Rights Watch and Kraken cryptocurrency exchange.
While not everyone in the crypto-community today holds these views, remember that those who were able to accumulate the most crypto wealth necessarily got started right in the beginning. And to start in the beginning when Bitcoin was a risky bet they had strong philosophical motives.
Crypto-Billionaires made their money by taking a risky bet. Their philanthropy might be characterized by similar levels of risk tolerance. Buterin’s donations (life extension, general AI, charter cities) suggest the same attitude is being applied to their donations.
Risky bets in grant making couldn’t come at a better time. Traditional grant makers are criticized for being too adverse to moonshot proposals, funding incremental, low risk projects for older and older researchers. At the NIH, for example, the average age researchers obtain their first Research Project Grant was 35 in 1980; in 2016 it was 43.
The crypto-community is younger. Nearly half of millennial millionaires have at least 25% of their wealth in cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency investing drops off for those 45 and up. It’s likely that early crypto-investors were young. A number of teenage crypto-millionaires have identified themselves.
Fast decision making
Money will also move faster. Institutional grantors take months to decide (6 to 18 months in our experience). Bitcoin has often risen or fallen 10x over the length of typical grant cycles. Those timelines won’t be acceptable for crypto-billionaires obsessed with the speed of transactions.
But is fast grant making even possible?
A number of tech leaders just experimented with grant speed in a Covid philanthropy project, FastGrants. As they describe it:
The original vision was simple: an application form that would take scientists less than 30 minutes to complete and that would deliver funding decisions within 48 hours, with money following a few days later.
This timeline would be radical to legacy grantors, but it’s natural in crypto.
Prizes rather than grants
With a grant, money is given to undertake a project. With a prize, money is awarded upon a project’s completion. Prizes have the virtue of always being tied to results. This has its parallels in the workings of cryptocurrencies themselves, where in currency is awarded to miners as a block reward for securing transactions. Prizes are already being seen in one of Balaji Srinivasan’s projects, 1729, where cryptocurrency is given to the winner of a prototyping challenge. For example $100k was granted to a decentralized inflation calculator. Again, a rather unusual grant topic. We would never see USAID or the Gates Foundation fund. And yet inflation is one of the biggest problems in the world, a regressive tax that poor from being able to rise up.
Increased Pseudonymous granting
Bitcoin was born out of the cypherpunk community of the 1990s. “Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age” their manifesto reads.
Most crypto-traders are pseudonymous. We do not know the person associated with almost any wallet. Crypto-billionaires may value their anonymity, both for legal and personal reasons. So they aren’t expecting their names on buildings, nor are they claiming charitable deductions.
For example, the Pineapple Fund has donated $86m in bitcoin. We know exactly how much money they have donated, when they have donated, and to whom they have donated at this address on the Bitcoin blockchain: 3P3QsMVK89JBNqZQv5zMAKG8FK3kJM4rjt. But we don’t know the Fund’s benefactor. The next John D. Rockerfeller might be a string of numbers and letters.
Only a small portion of US giving goes to international organizations, 6% according to Charity Navigator. But cryptocurrency is international. The community believes in the egalitarianism that emerges from cryptocurrency’s location independence: It doesn’t matter who you are or where you are; you can still buy cryptocurrency.
Whereas grantor like USAID or Gates Foundation often specify which country someone must be registered in to receive grants, crypto grants often don’t care at all which country someone is based in.
Effective Altruism (EA), which encourages people to maximize the amount of good they do in their lives, is also rising in popularity in the crypto-community. A number of Buterin’s investments were connected to EA: MIRI is a favorite charity of EA, and he also made a donation to GiveWell, EA’s default charity evaluator. Another high profile crypto-billionaire, Sam Bankman-Fried, publicly identifies as an EA. He plans to give the vast majority of his wealth (now over $10B) to effective causes.
Solving philanthropy’s Impact Crisis
Right now, there is a quiet crisis in measuring impact in development projects. Here’s the problem:
Let’s imagine that I receive two grants to plant trees. At the end of the year I report back to both them that we planted 100 trees. Each of those grantors now reports on their website: we funded the planting of 100 trees! But if you add up the claims on their websites that comes to 200 trees. Where did those extra trees come from?
Obviously grantors try to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but it’s often difficult, especially as results get tangled up together (one pays for the labor and the other pays for the seedlings, for example). There’s also the additional problem of time scale: if 50 of the trees die the next year, neither grantor may ever know. Do they ever revise their websites? Unlikely.
Crypto grantors would never stand for this. The point of the blockchain is you know for sure how much money is in each address. Could there be a Blockchain-ish way to enable grantees to certify the impact for a project?
There might just be!
NFTs are a smart contract on a blockchain to certify digital art or collectibles. This could be the same for impact. All impact these days is presented in a digital format (PDFs, Spreadsheets, dashboards, etc)--why not put it on a blockchain, just like jpeg NFT art?
Some NFT art is just so satisfying, right?
With an NFT, the seller, who gets paid in cryptocurrency, can then pay their subcontractors in cryptocurrency. If we apply this to philanthropy, this could solve a lot of reporting and transparency issues. If grantees use crypto currency to pay their subcontractors, the whole process of grant reporting would be as easy as pulling data from the blockchain.
So when is all this going to happen?
If anything holds true in the new world of cryptocurrency wealth, it may be the tendency of billionaires to hold out until most of their growth potential has past. Tech billionaires typically do most of their giving after they leave the company they’ve created and begin to liquidate their stock. Cryptocurrency investors still see an enormous amount of growth potential, so have little interest in cashing out now.
But cryptocurrencies can’t grow forever. In fact, if we project the growth curve forward it looks like the growth is slowing down and by 2025 or 2030 most explosive growth might be over:
In 2017 I predicted that cryptocurrency would reach a market capitalization of $10T. It has reached nearly $4T already this year (up from $100B when I made the prediction) so my prediction wasn’t that far off.
When will crypto-billionaires really start donating? Let’s put some rough numbers to it: People who will become billionaires in cryptocurrency were probably between 20 and 30 when they invested around 2010. Now they are 30 to 40. Philanthropic endeavors tend to take off between 40 and 50. Finally, cryptocurrency will be a mature asset class (not growing in value as fast) in 5-10 years as well, which encourages people to spend rather than hold. So 2025 to 2030 is when we might expect philanthropy to start seeing the full influence of crypto-wealth.
What should I do to prepare?
Here's a starting point:
Examples of Crypto-Grants
My experience as a grant reviewer.
How many times have you wondered “What does this grantor want? How do they decide?” I know, I’ve been there. I’m a professional grant writer.
Recently, I had an opportunity to sit on the other side of the table and serve as a grant reviewer.
We had to do a sub grant of roughly a million dollars. We accepted proposals, evaluated them, had video interviews with the finalists, selected one winner and, unfortunately, let the rest know they lost. What an experience! I have new sympathy for the challenges grantors go through. Walking a mile in their shoes showed me some of the mistakes that I've been making when I write grants. I’m going to share some of the mistakes applicants made so that you can improve your applications too:
Some people talked to us like we are technical experts with sentences full of jargon. They treated us like their supervisor at their University. Some of the proposals went way over our heads. Most of them, actually. It seemed like they were trying to impress us. If I have to open Wikipedia to figure out what you are trying to say, it's too much.
Don't expand the scope
Some proposals offered more than we asked for. We asked applicants to cover three essential points. Some proposals added in fourth and fifth points. That's not what we asked for and there was a reason why we didn't ask for it.
Make sure you answer all the questions
We specifically asked for a budget from the applicants. One group submitted a proposal and said their organization would have to go through a budget approval process that could take several weeks. Sorry, no, the application needs to be complete. Especially the budget.
Ask questions, don’t pitch
The groups that performed best in the video interview had a conversation with us; they didn’t try to “sell” us. The other applicants had a PowerPoint presentation full of text and literally read it to us. No bueno—not to mention a snoozefest.
The groups who asked questions about what we wanted to accomplish stole our hearts and made it clear they understood the project. They showed us that they’d be fun to work with and not robotic. Some presenters repeated back to us what we already told them in our grant description. We already know about our product; we want to know about you!
Avoid sending red flags
In one presentation, the Head Applicant’s boss led the discussion. The boss also made the final submission. The optics were off. Either the Head Applicant didn’t care about the project OR wasn’t competent enough to lead the discussion. Why wasn't the Head Applicant presenting and sending us the submission? It just seemed weird.
Follow the guidelines
The day before the proposal was due, one team emailed me to ask for a one week extension to write their proposal. No, sorry, that’s not going to work. Everyone else worked hard to get their proposal done ahead of the deadline, so please, respect the grantor’s (and your fellow applicants’) time.
Our call for proposals asked for one or two pages but left it open to add more pages. Some groups submitted 14 pages. The winning proposal was just two-and-a-half pages long.
Domain expertise goes a long way.
Sorry, that’s just how it is.
One team’s domain expertise buoyed their application. Even though they lacked detail at times, when they said they could do it on time and on budget we were less skeptical than for groups who were doing this for the first time. It’s worth bringing some expertise to your team, at least in the form of advisors.
The decision is not the decision
Our decision making process went as follows: first, we scored each application against each criteria in a matrix. Based on the total score, we could rank the proposals from highest-scoring to lowest-scoring. However, the score wasn't the be-all and end-all: it just provided guidance. We then voted on the applications as a committee. Based on my conversations with other grantors, this dual quantitative and vote-by-committee approach is common.
Even still, the grant committee’s decision was not final. Ultimately, our CEO, who was responsible for delivering the project to the funders, had the last word. Whatever she chose, informed by our suggestions, would have been the winner in any case. It didn’t come to that, but it could have.
Ask for feedback
Whenever I apply for a grant and lose, I always ask for feedback. About half the time, the grantor will actually let you know why you lost. In my experience with this sub-grant, not a single group asked for feedback on why they weren’t selected. I was shocked. Personally, I was ready to be completely candid about what they could do to improve. As weird as it may sound, grant writing has become a passion of mine. I was happy to help them improve their applications. But no one asked for feedback, so I never gave any. Until now.
Their loss is your gain—because I am now sharing the feedback I wanted to give them with you. They say things happen for a reason. Maybe the reason no one asked is because I was meant to share the feedback with the world.
Other resources for writing a good grant application:
USAID’s advice here on how to write a good application rings true to my experience.
Many grantors I talk to complain that they can't get enough applicants. So we created a post on how grantors can improve the quality of the applicants they receive.
Ever wanted to know whether it was a good idea to apply for a grant? Is it worthwhile? Many people come up with sweeping conclusions that “all grants are a crap shoot” or “grants are good because they are free money.” But the truth is more subtle and I don’t think anyone has published work on this before.
There are many dimensions of whether a grant is worthwhile. What are the chances of winning? Is the prize worth the effort? Once you win will their be so much bureaucracy that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, as they say?
I remember winning a grant for my biogas company several years ago. We were so excited. And then it took 18 to get the money. We were almost out of business by then. And we had only survived because I stopped taking a salary for a few months.
Whether to apply for a grant seems like more art than science. However, I think that we can quantify this.
Any time you take on a new project one way to think about it is ROI. If you spend $1,000 on ads, how many sales are you going to get. We can do the same for grants. I’m calling the metric of how worthwhile it is to apply for a grant the GrantROI.
Nuts and Bolts
I’ll explain the formula here. Feel free to skip to Results below if it is too detailed.
Let me dig into a few of these variables.
TimeDelay. Because time is money, you’d rather have the money now than 18 months from now when you might be out of business. This is the delay between the application deadline and the day the winner gets cash in the bank. There is a way to account for this using a Net Present Value calculation which you can read about on wikipedia.
To figure out how much to discount future cash flows you use an interest rate. Typically the prevailing bank interest rate (let’s say 16% in Kenya) plus an additional factor for the added risk you experience as a startup, perhaps an additional 10-20%.
The NonMonetaryGrantValue is usually zero, but in the case of a startup accelerator most of the value might be in the network you make rather than the cash they award you.
YourTime and GrantWriterTime is how long it will take to complete the application. I broke down each application into parts and figured out how many hours I would bill a client to complete the application and set YourTime to 10 hours for each application for general oversight and editing my proposal. Clearly this formula rewards grantors for having shorter applications.
ImplementationCosts is an especially important factor. If a grantor awards you $100,000 but expects you to conduct M&E activities and reporting that will cost you $90,000 the grant is obviously not worth it. That's just too many hoops to jump through.
Chances of winning can be derived from previous calls for proposals from the same Grantor or from their annual report where they say “we received x applicants and gave y awards.”
There are other features that I thought of including in the formula which might make it into the next version such as whether the grantor provides feedback on rejected applications (which is a non-Monetary value) and whether the grantor hosts multiple rounds which enables applicants to improve their application from one year to the next. Whether grantors respond in a timely manner was another factor I considered, but that can be part of the ImplementationCosts variable as timeliness should decrease ImplementationCosts. The general idea would be to reward all good behavior of grantors so that more are better to work with.
So what are the best grants to apply for and what are the worst?
The results are pretty clear. Some grants are clearly not worth applying to. For any grant with a GrantROI of less than 1 it means that the grantor is adding less dollars to the sector than it is sucking out in terms of applicants' time.
This GrantROI is only correct for the average applicant. Perhaps your application is an especially good fit or you have a personal connection that increases your chances. That would increase your GrantROI.
Furthermore, you are not a lottery ticket. Just because you submit an application doesn’t give you a fixed probability of winning; a lot depends on the quality of the application. So GrantROI is not a silverbullet solution to determine whether you should apply. But! I hope this is a useful tool as a first step.
Just as US News and World Report publishes an annual college ranking, I hope we can make a grantor ranking. This could create more accountability for grantors to have entrepreneur-friendly applications.
If you have data points for other grantors you’d like me to add let me know by email or by commenting on this post. If you know of a good place to publicly host a ranking wiki let me know as well so that other people can edit this list with more updated info.
To use this tool (and other tools I developed) click here.
That’s what this is, the governance of the average of my readings and experience on many successful and unsuccessful SMEs, Non-profits and romantic relationships. There is probably no organization with exactly this structure. But when I was running a company it was confusing. Whether you are running a for profit, non profit or even an organization that is not registered with the government or even romantic relationship, you want to set policies in place when you are “emotionally sober” before you have a disagreement. Emotionally drunk adults who are already distrust each other will have a hard time putting policies in place.
This seems like something that can wait. When you are starting a business you have lots of things to do. There isn’t time for making policies. I understand. I’ve been there. And even after I learned the hard way from experience I still forget to create policies upfront. There is always a good reason to put it off. So I suggest, right now, before reading any further, put an event in your calendar in the next week to talk to your partner(s) about this. That is, put an event that says “talk to [cofounder] about when we can have a talk about governance” during which time you talk with [co-founder] and agree on a time (1 hour to start with) to talk governance, which will likely take several meetings to work on. If your partner(s) are unwilling to take the time that is a red flag.
You might say, “but I don’t have the time for all that.” Well, if your house is built on a bad foundation it’s not gonna last long…
You might say “but I don’t know what governance structure I want.” That might be a good thing. Going into the conversation with a fixed point of view can be dangerous. This is a sensitive conversation that will bring up childhood insecurities, etc. Going through this without a preconceived notion about what is “right” might be beneficial. Share this article with your partner(s) so you have a common language to speak.
Beginnings are special. Peter Thiel, first investor in Facebook says “a startup broken at its foundation cannot be fixed.” Here are more details on Thiel’s Law. This is a moment where it is easy to make huge changes that will be impossible later. That Montana has as many senators in the US as California is something of a bug, but we are stuck with it. There is no way Montana will ever agree to have less senators. In a company, this is the chance to set up your governance. Down the road, I guarantee, it will make or break you. Beginnings are special so take advantage of moulding the clay while it’s still soft.
The Recipe for the idealized organization structure:
The confusion between Directors and advisors.The board of directors can hire and fire the CEO (and usually C-level employees like COO and CTO). The directors in an organization registered with the government (for- or non-profit) have a fiduciary responsibility and if the product you sell is a scam, the customers could go after the board of directors.
Advisors are often unpaid (they might receive shares). They are mentors to the CEO and are a phone call away. They are sometimes there only to look good. I recommend having a board of 2 to 5 advisors because they can instantly and cheaply increase your perceived and actual experience in a way that a young team is sorely missing. But there is a big difference between advisors and directors.
For further confusion, Directors or partners in a law firm often have to buy in. In SMEs usually not. In brittish commonwealth countries there is one further confusion: C-level staff are often called directors, like the Managing Director (same as CEO). While in any country, staff below the VPs are often called directors, like the Director of Communications. The latter is not on the Board of Directors (usually).
The Chairman leads the board of directors, organizes the meetings, breaks a tie on the board in the case of a tied vote and in the US is usually the same person as the CEO, while in the Commonwealth countries is usually NOT the same person as the Managing Director.
When you register a company some of these items are laid out, but usually, and any good investor will require it, a Shareholder’s agreement is also signed by all shareholders and often directors. It states how you can vote on things. Do you need a simple majority or a super majority of 75% to sell the company? Etc.
Personally I believe that you should agree on these things first without getting a lawyer involved. Only involve lawyers for the last step of figuring out the legalese (there may be some back and forth required, but generally, make sure you understand each other and agree to terms in good faith, not being manipulative. An organization, as a default setting, should be designed to last 10 years. Maybe the market is good and you can sell it earlier, but most likely you’ll have to work together for 10 years before you can get liquidity.) If you are not creating a legal entity then you might not need lawyers at all, but it is still important to hash out these items while you are emotionally sober. You may think you’ve agreed to the same terms verbally, but I guarantee you that in 1 year, much less 10, you will both believe you have agreed to completely different terms. Get it in writing.
Here are the general terms to hammer out:
Once you have this figured out, get this signed. Here’s why...
When I was running my first company, my co founder surprised me with a decision. I said, “no.” He said, “but you agreed to it already.” I said, “what?” He said, “yeah, see this email I sent you last year? This is what we agreed to in the meeting last year.” I said, “I don’t remember agreeing to it, I didn’t sign it and I didn’t respond to your email saying I agreed to it. So therefore you don’t have that right.”
We spent the next month trying to resolve our differences and eventually split up. By that point we didn’t trust each other to act in good faith. We were no longer emotionally sober. However, the real cause of the break up might have run much deeper. 6 months earlier we had stopped having one-on-one meetings because we would argue too much. That should have been a red flag. You need to be able to argue in good faith. And a signed agreement (or acknowledged by email) could have saved us and we could have dissolved our company in a peaceful way. Instead it was a mess.
How to talk with each other
“What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say”
Watch this talk on Non-violent communication with your co-founder here from the Y Combinator MOOC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30a5yFBd7Fo
How do you want to resolve differences?
This is the heart of the matter and perhaps more important than anything else in this doc. If you are clear on this you can figure out the rest. Inevitably you are going to have differences. Any shareholder agreement can’t anticipate every possible eventuality. This is more art than science, as far as I know. Monthly one-on-ones are a good place to start, perhaps with the McKinsey format of: Issue, example, effect, agreement and action item. Maybe you like criticism sandwiches. (I thought I would like more direct feedback, but it turns out I like criticism sandwiches. Others find them patronizing.)
Often the language of logic is not enough. Your partner is against your idea even though it’s in his/her best interest!
Is your romantic partner really angry that you forgot to buy paper towels or is he/she scared that his/her father is going to die and wants a hug and consolation. Use the emotional language instead of logic about why you forgot to buy paper towels. The same in business.
There is an idea that there are 5 Languages of Appreciation, which apply just as much in romantic relationships as the office. The theory is not perfect, but it goes a long way to helping you figure out how to communicate with someone when logic isn’t working. The languages of appreciation are:
Another strategy is to block off time on a regular basis to talk with your partner(s). I find one-on-one works for me.
What’s your partner(s) personality type?
There is some debate about whether MBTI and other personality type indicators are accurate or have clinically relevant levels of utility. I don’t know. Understanding personality is at the stage medicine was at in the 1800s. “Let’s put a leech on him and drain some blood out. That might help.” We have a long way to go to understand how people’s minds work. MBTI, Big Five and Attachment Theory aren’t as bad as leeches. And they aren’t as effective as vaccines. But they are better than blindly trying to establish a 10+ year relationships with your partner(s). At the very least, my big insight is that people have VASTLY different personality types, internal worlds and emotional needs. That was eye opening.
Might be worth creating a document that describes how you like to work, like your personal operating manual. You can share it with your co-founder. And when you hire new employees you can share it with them so that you don’t have to repeat yourself as much. I created one here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGI8s7L6edN2wykgTLq1LjTUYmjYyoo1OgRb5oZuI_Q/edit?usp=sharing
Winning?“You can be right or you can be effective; you can’t be both.”My coach taught me this recently when I was arguing with my girlfriend. What was I optimizing for? Did I want to win a he-said, she-said argument about who asked who to pick up what at which grocery store? Or did I want to have a great relationship with beautiful kids and a wonderful spouse? (I’m getting tears in my eyes just writing this.) I mean, obviously, I want to be effective.
The same with a business: Do you want to change how rural farmers have access to water? Or do you want to be right about who left the coffee out? You might win every argument about the coffee pot but create so much ill-will that the company fails.
Relatedly, in experiments with rats, researchers found that when two young rats play-fight, the bigger rat will often let the smaller rat win. This is odd because a rat that is 10% bigger can always defeat a smaller rat. The reason is simple: the smaller rat will stop playing if it doesn’t win at least 30% of the time. And the bigger rat wants to keep playing. So think about that in your company. What are you playing for? Do you want to win every debate or create a great company? If you have more business experience than your partner or are more intellectual or even have a higher IQ, you might be able to win 100% of debates, if you want to. But perhaps it’s important for your partner(s) to win sometimes so that you can keep playing “games” together.
I noticed this with a former co-founder. He was 38 and brilliant and I was 26. He had 4x more work experience than I did and essentially won every argument. It wasn’t fun and we didn’t last long together. It wasn’t even that he was right; he had just thought through his arguments more than I had.
Benevolent DictatorsFounders and CEOs often believe they know best. Sometimes they literally see themselves as benevolent dictators. Fun fact: all dictators of history believe they were benevolent. No one ever said “I want to be evil.” “Benevolent dictators” for the “good of the people” have removed anyone who didn’t have fair hair and blue eyes in Germany, killed the “evil” intellectuals and doctors in Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Mao Tse Dong herded millions to collectivist farms in China where millions died of starvation.
Operational vs. Board level decisions. Two people who deeply care about a company will often disagree on a decision. It is important to establish roles and responsibilities so it’s clear who decides.
Who gets to decide what? Take a look at these hypothetical situations:
When a decision needs to be made ask “If it goes wrong, who will be on the hook?” That’s usually the person who should be responsible, in most cases.
Decision by committeeA great way to kill an organization with lots of potential is to get things stuck in committee. This is the opposite of the Benevolent Dictator problem where you have too many people deciding. A group of people is more risk averse and slower than an individual, usually. That’s why the only committee should be the 3 member board of directors. Otherwise, figure out who is responsible if things go badly and that person is responsible for the decision. They have Skin in the Game, as the saying goes.
There is a temptation for the Benevolent Dictator CEO to say in #1 “if the VP of sales doesn’t meet his sales target then I’m on the hook therefore I should decide who he/she hires.” No. The VP of sales needs to make this call (with the advice of the CEO and other stakeholders, of course.) The VP of sales has many ways of closing the sales gap including making other members more productive or closing sales him or herself. If this still doesn’t work and the VP of Sales misses the sales target then the CEO can fire the VP of sales (with approval from the board as per #4, if required).
A related rule is the Two pizza rule: Any team that is too big to be fed by two pizzas should be split into two teams.
Chain of Command#3 is an example of chain of command. There is not time to debate every decision. Which customers to sell to affects the whole company--COO, Customer Service, etc. In the field of battle, with limited visibility with limited information and limited time, the commander in chief, the CEO, has been chosen for their ability to make good gut calls.
Similarly if the VP of Sales wants to use a new sales tactic, the sales reps must follow the chain of command (of course, with feedback from the sales reps and communicated in a non-violent manner that suits the personality type of the sales rep). The sales rep always has the option of resigning.
Everyone one has their One ThingInstead of a shopping list of KPIs, each person should be in charge of their One Thing, which doesn’t overlap with anyone else’s One Thing. Director of Customer Success’s One Thing is to make sure all customers have their needs met, as promised when when they signed up. East Coast Customer Success Rep’s One Thing is to make sure all customers under their care on the east coast have their needs met. The VP of Sales’ One Thing is to hit the company wide quarterly sales target. Etc. Everyone’s One Thing morphs over time, but each month their One Thing is clear.
Can this be applied to Romantic Relationships?
I’m biased here. I’ve never had a relationship I didn’t think could be spiced up with a little bit of business wisdom. So here goes...
In a romantic relationship you can have the same roles. Often they are implied but why not spell them out. One person has more say on how the money is made (the breadwinner), one person has more say in how the money is spent. Often a “board level” decision is made about how much to spend per month on household expenses but the house wife or house husband has discretion about how exactly to spend that money. That is, there is no micro managing in a healthy relationship. Another person is more in charge of where the kids go to school. Who packs lunch. Who makes sure the bills are paid.
A temptation is to say “how do we divide this up 50/50?” But this comes from a scarcity mindset and a belief that the other person won’t do their job. The only way to be sure of having a successful relationship is 100/0. An easy way to divide this up, instead is to say “what do I care about/like doing/am good at?” If I like having a clean house then maybe I should be in charge of making sure the house is clean. Why expect my partner to do that if they don’t care about it? If you enter this with a mindset of plenty, you will realize your partner(s) are doing other important things that you hadn’t considered. And your relationship becomes 100/100. Which is much better than 50/50.
My best friend from college would often forget to clean his dishes. No matter how often I reminded him. I could have gotten angry, but I just cleaned them because I wanted the sink to be clean. If I had gotten angry I would have missed out on everything he taught me about typography, hiking from Mexico to Canada and a conversation we had on a train to Providence, RI which was the impetus for me starting a biogas company in Kenya which I ran for 5 years. In retrospect, I got the better end of the deal. Cleaning about 100 plates in exchange for the motivation to follow my dreams.
Making it workNow all of this is very exciting. At least it’s exciting to me. And there can be a tendency to try to cover everything. That is impossible. As you add more clauses you open up more loopholes, which require more legalese, ad infinitum in a vicious cycle which is why these documents for public companies are hundreds of pages long. We don’t want that. There is a truism:
“what you gain in legalese you lose in goodwill.”
If you are reading this article you are not running a public company. You have a small organization, perhaps with big dreams and, for the foreseeable future, this organization will be a labor of love. If it does have a financial payoff it won’t be for a long time. So you gotta make it fun. Avoid the temptation to make the perfect governance system. Keep the document to 1 page, 1” borders with 12 point Times New Roman and you’ll know it’s not too long. The most important things to get right are:
If you are gluten free (or vegetarian) and you ask the waiter to make sure there is no gluten (or meat) in your food, what is the probability that it will meet your dietary need? What is the probability that it won’t have any wheat (no soy sauce, no crackers, no breading, etc) or no meat (no fish, no oyster sauce, no chicken, etc)? It’s not 100% for sure. There is some probability that the waiter will understand what you mean when you say “gluten free.”
This is the problem of certainty. We think about the world as fixed. When Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France everyone thought he had won and that was that. But it turns out he didn’t. His medals were taken away. The world has much more uncertainty that we like to believe…. But how much uncertainty? If you were to bet your friend on whether your food is going to come back gluten free, what odds would you give? If the odds are really bad (let’s say 10% chance the waiter gets it right) then perhaps you need to carry around a roast chicken just in case wherever you go so you don’t go hungry.
Lots people people get probability wrong in their business. What is the probability that your COO quits tomorrow. Or gets hit by a bus? What is the probability that one of your C-level executives quits or needs to be fired in the next year? Probably pretty high, but you might not have a plan for that.
Let’s organize probability into operation and creative risks. What are the chances that a startup succeeds? Depends what you mean by success, but VCs typically expect only 1 in 10 investments to do really well. And to make those 10 investments they had to interview 100-1000 companies. So startup success let’s say is 10%. This is what I would call a creative risk.
What are the chances that your plane is going to leave roughly on time? About 90%. Sometimes flights are substantially delayed or cancelled but usually it’s pretty reliable. This is what I would call an operational risk. If there was only a 10% chance your flight would leave on time then it would be hard to plan your vacation. “Look there is a 10% chance I’m coming to your wedding…”
So we can put these risks on a spectrum. Maybe you’ve heard of 6-Sigma. Its a manufacturing philosophy with the aim that 99.9999% of products meet the quality standard, meaning that products within 6 standard deviations of the mean (6 sigma) are still accurate. It's a mental model that works for operational risk. It doesn't work for creative risk.
On the other hand we have extreme creativity. What is the probability that any given chemical will be useful for fighting a condition? It’s really low. In pharmaceutical labs they have thousands of compounds in thousands of test tubes to see if any of them will react with their target. After testing thousands of compounds they may get one drug approved. If they are lucky.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
Belt and suspenders.
This article assumes that much (20%+) of your revenue will come from grants for the foreseeable future (5+ years) and it’s worthwhile to invest in doing it right.
This year you’re going to be great at fundraising and here’s why: you’re starting with a plan. You know there is free money out there but somehow, even if you win a few, it seems to be a game where you don’t know the rules. That’s frustrating.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” -Art of War
To begin we need a strategy. From a big picture perspective, the strategy is that Grant writing is a sales process. This may seem odd (and it is odd) but once you start with this framework it makes everything make a lot more sense.
If you say “but I don’t know how to do sales” don’t worry. I believe you do. Here’s why:
You have been doing sales your whole life.
Dating is sales, getting hired is sales, getting into college is sales, convincing a friend to go on a road trip is sales.
Any sales process has a sales funnel:
At the top you have a lot of leads with Awareness of your product.
At the bottom you have a few sales who take Action to buy your product. Hopefully.
If you don’t start with a lot of leads you won’t have any sales.
So let’s start with the leads.
make a list of potential funders
To get started, here’s a spreadsheet of 300+ grants, accelerators, conferences and impact investors that I’ve curated. It’s the best of the best I’ve found for grants in Africa. It’s free to use.
(There are other funder lists for other sectors. If you are a non-profit in the US, GuideStar has a great database.)
To make this easier, get clear on the following:
With these three pieces of information you can filter the leads in the spreadsheet to something manageable.
Let’s say we want to win at least one grant this year. It’s realistic to apply for one grant per month. At roughly a 10% win rate, which is conservative, you should win one. Then, working backwards, you’d ideally need to be in touch with 25 grantors . And to do that you’d need to research 100+ (because not all grantors are going to be a fit).
You might be saying “whoa! that’s crazy. I can’t do all of that.” First, you now have a database of 300+ funders so you have a head start. Second, you can’t research 100+ grantors today or this month, but over the year you can. That’s why we are making a plan.
And you need a plan because this is a big project. It’s going to make up 20% or more of your revenue this year. If your annual budget is $1,000,000 expect to raise $200,000 to $1m in grants.
Of the ones who fit your criteria, figure out how they work. Is it a blind application like NIH or do they only work through referrals like Jasmine Investments. Do they make a decision by committee like InnovateUK or do they have one person who makes the final call like GIF. What are the chances of winning? I avoid Prizes as usually 1,000+ people compete for 1 winner’s spot. Government funding is usually a higher chance of winning but usually have an arduous application and reporting process.
Note: if you already have grants you plan to apply for this year, go ahead. This blog series will only make your grant applications more effective as we go through this process together. My goal for you is that by the end of this you will increase your win rate by 10 percentage points. That is, if you were winning 10% last year then you’ll be winning 20% the year after this. That’s my goal for you. That means you can either double your organization’s income or halve your work.
online audit (of your company and your personal brand)
Remember that grant writing is a sales process and for a sales process you need marketing support. Even though the grantor plans to make an unbiased decision about whether to invest in your organization, they are human. If they have heard of you before they are more likely to buy.
Here’s how they might have heard of you:
There are other organizations applying to the same grant as you. How well known are they compared to you?
I like to summarize the results compared to competitors.
The 3 on the right have raised a lot more money than those on the left. Can you see any difference in the data?
You’re right, they have a lot more online traffic, backlinks, followers and news mentions.
You might say “but maybe they got more news mentions because they were more successful.” And you are certainly (partly) right. But at one point, just like you and everyone else who started something great, those organizations on the right had zero news mentions. Everyone starts at zero.
Here’s my template for doing your own Online Audit.
More tools for tracking:
What’s coming up later this year
Mark off half a day each month in your calendar to work on this project. I find that if I’ve already committed the time I’m more likely to do it.
Second, sign up for this newsletter here so you'll get the next article on winning low-hanging fruit.
Good Grantor; Bad Grantor
Good grantor asks the entrepreneur “what impact metric is the most important in your business and is cost effective to measure?” Bad Grantor gives a laundry list of 5-20 impact metrics they want measured, regardless of how useful they are or costly to measure.
Good grantor has a short application form to quickly evaluate if there is a fit with the enterprise. Bad grantor asks the entrepreneur to write down a 20 page business plan as the first round of an application before they can talk to the grantor. SNV CRAFT and GIF do this well.
Good grantor knows the entrepreneur is extremely busy and on the verge of mental breakdown and burnout and respects the entrepreneurs time even by paying the entrepreneur if they are late to a meeting. Bad Grantor thinks they are more important than the entrepreneur and shows up to meetings when they are ready. A16z (a VC) does this well.
Bad Grantor believes that seeing an entrepreneur would make their decision biased and tries to avoid meeting the entrepreneur. Good Grantor knows that human connection is one of the most important things and that trying to remove bias in this way causes more harm than good.
Bad Grantor lets the entrepreneur know if they are awarded funding 6 to 18 months later, when the funding is likely no longer relevant to the entrepreneur’s goals. Good Grantor knows the best entrepreneurs are in high demand. IF they don’t fund them someone else will and they move fast.
Bad Grantor is okay with procedural delays like waiting to get a check signed for 2 months. Good Grantor knows that a 2 month delay could put an entrepreneur out of business and fights to push finance approvals through.
Bad Grantor thinks that sending $1m in funding 2 years later is still worth $1m. Good Grantor knows time is money, with a discount rate in startups around 40%, $1m two years late is only worth $360,000. Saying they gave $1m would be a lie.
Bad grantor gives an entrepreneur 1 time slot option to present their business to the board. Good Grantor finds time in the entrepreneur’s busy schedule for the board to come to the startup’s office.
Bad Grantor doesn’t allow project management costs to be included. Good Grantor requests that at least 10% of the budget be for overhead to avoid burnout and ensure the sustainability of the project.
Bad Grantor has an application deadline. Good Grantor has rolling application deadline to be ready for entrepreneurs when they need the money. DOEN does this well.
Bad Grantor believes that micromanaging a company to come up with innovative ideas is the solution. Less innovation means more micromanagement is needed. Good Grantor knows that any team capable of coming up with meaningful innovation will be exceptional. And Exceptional people don’t work well with micromanaging. Gates Foundation does this well.
Bad Grantor is a bean counter. Good Grantor is a sounding board to bounce innovative ideas off of.
Bad Grantor goes home at 4:45. Good Granor goes home when their portfolio companies don’t need them anymore.
Bad Grantor communicates through an info@ email address. Good Grantor gives their personal email and whatsapp to their portfolio CEOs.
Bad Grantor has an opaque application process. Good Grantor is transparent about the application process. USAID GDA does this well.
Bad Grantor says “I know you asked for $1m but what can you do with $200,000?” Good Grantor asks “what would happen if the budget could be increased?”
Bad Grantor has bureaucracy creep until a $1m grant requires $1.1m of paperwork. Good grantor has one metric.
Bad Grantor won’t reinvest because they don’t want organizations to be “dependent.” Good Grantor has a fund set aside to increase the funding of their most successful investments. Gates Foundation and SBIR do this well.