Anonymous Interviews with Frontline Investors and Entrepreneurs: Who is Forcing Whom to Chase Consensus?

"VCs only invest in consensus now."

In recent times, we have spoken with many entrepreneurs, and this is a phrase that many mention. From the investors' side, however, we hear more about how "there are too few good projects."

These two statements sound like mutual accusations, but if we extend the timeline a bit, this kind of confrontation is not new in this industry. Group buying, shared bicycles, new consumption, large models—each round has a direction that everyone is investing in, and there are always entrepreneurs complaining about not being on the trend.

The difference this time is that there is more money, and the competition is fiercer. According to statistics, in the first half of 2026, local AI sector financing reached 307.682 billion yuan, surpassing the total for the entire year of 2025, with about 80% flowing into large models and embodied intelligence. During the same period, many entrepreneurs working on AI applications are unclear about what level their products need to reach to secure the next round of funding.

Why does money always surge in the same direction? Why does a sector go from hot to cold in just a few months? Who is deciding what can be invested in?

These questions are hard to answer candidly in public. Investors have LPs, partners, and companies they have invested in, while entrepreneurs have upcoming rounds, investors, and peers to consider.

We wanted to hear what people on both sides of the table say privately. In addition to having one-on-one long talks with several entrepreneurs, we also held an offline Meetup at the end of October, inviting some frontline investors to share anonymously.

After the discussions, it was hard to place the blame on either side. Young investors have their own assessments, partners have their own fears, LPs want to see exits, and exits almost only lead to IPOs; while entrepreneurs, to survive, can only lean towards the hot topics. Everyone makes reasonable choices from their positions, and when stacked together, it results in everyone chasing consensus from behind.

No one truly enjoys chasing consensus, but most people are doing it.

To allow everyone to speak freely, we anonymized all content, concealing the interviewees' names, their organizations, and any projects or details that might hint at their identities, while organizing quotes without changing their original meaning.

the dark please close your eyes

"The entire capital market is just a large game of musical chairs."

"Many executives from large companies are forced to start their own businesses. For them, the most important thing is to maintain their identity."

"Has anyone here ever seen carry? The primary market is not a place for young people to get rich."

"If you miss the next super platform, you won't be able to enter top-tier institutions in the next era."

"The biggest feeling I have throughout my career is that I feel like the other party is deceiving me at every moment."

"Talent density won't suddenly change. It's just that the capital's attention has selected a group of people at this point in time, making them the chosen ones. It's really just a lottery."

"Financing and such are all fake indicators. The only thing that matters in running a company is whether it can survive and how much value it can create."

"The FOMO level of each fund partner is more exaggerated than I thought."

"You always have to find a piece of chocolate that tastes like shit to eat."

"There may be no more than 10 funds that truly made big money in this wave of large models."

Powered by Love

In many institutions, young investors basically cannot earn carry. An entrepreneur working on AI applications described this situation to us, stating that promotions and year-end bonuses in many institutions largely depend on how many projects they can push to the investment decision meeting and get TS for; investors themselves may not stay long in the institution, and even if the company goes public, they won't get much excess returns.

"If I push 10 projects and get TS for them, then I will have returns for that year. As for what happens to the company later, it doesn't matter to me."

In this entrepreneur's view, according to this incentive system, the best projects to push are those with the least resistance at the meeting, which are projects that everyone recognizes. On a higher level, most institutions have top-down sector research, and very few institutions only look at people, while sector research seeks to ensure that "someone will take over later."

According to Carta's statistics, as of the end of the first quarter of 2025, the median DPI of VC funds established in the U.S. in 2017 is only 0.27 times; among funds established in 2019 and 2020, only 37% and 30% respectively have distributed money to LPs. Preqin listed the top 10 dollar VC funds that were established between 2015 and 2020 and primarily invested in China, of which only 4 returned more than the principal to LPs.

The industry itself is also shrinking. Data from the Private Equity Fund Association shows that as of the end of April 2026, there were 11,248 private equity and venture capital fund managers in existence, down by more than 800 from the beginning of 2025. According to media reports, many institutions first cut year-end bonuses, citing that projects could not be exited; some institutions also reduced salaries by 20% for grassroots employees and 30% for middle management.

At the Beating Meetup, an investor asked if anyone in the audience had ever seen carry, and after a few seconds, someone said they might have seen it. In this investor's view, the primary market is unlikely to make young people rich anymore; when asked what they are looking for in projects now and what their original intention is, the answer was four words: powered by love.

Investors do not deny the pressure to act. Few institutions have clear assessments of the number of deals to be made, but the anxiety of acting when peers are densely investing is real; some openly admit that investing in projects with the element of resume padding "is the norm." The bar certainly exists, but it fluctuates with the heat of the sector; if the sector is important enough and the team barely meets the threshold, the shot must be fired. One investor admitted that there are quite a few projects that are unsatisfactory but must be acted upon, "You always have to find a piece of chocolate that tastes like shit to eat."

The pressure is not only on the young people. The same investor admitted that the FOMO among founding partners this round is more severe than he expected, and the veterans are even more eager to gamble. The reasons are twofold: first, they fear missing out on the super platform of the AI era; if they miss it, they won't be able to enter top-tier institutions in the next era; second, being far from the front lines, the changes seen by the front lines take time to reach the partners.

Entrepreneurs see another side. One entrepreneur mentioned that about 30% to 50% of frontline dollar funds have been in the industry for over a decade and are mostly strong, able to see through the underlying logic and provide real feedback; those chasing trends are investment managers who have only been in the industry for a few years, "They don't understand business, nor do they understand products, they only understand transactions."

Outdated and Unattended

The consensus in the AI sector roughly has four sources.

First, the big shots calling out. One entrepreneur recalls that in February of this year, a batch of OpenClaw-like Agent products suddenly became popular, starting from Wang Huiwen's statement on Jike that he really wanted such projects.

Second, top institutions seeing the data, although "the data may be inflated." Last year, dollar institutions noticed a type of AI interactive content product that had cheap customer acquisition and decent retention, and soon a company compared itself to the previous generation of short video platforms in its investment decision materials.

Third, the narrative of technology, the wave of world models is largely related to Li Feifei and a group of recognized researchers.

Fourth, the industry research of each VC.

Once these forces overlap, it may only take a short month from forming a consensus to actually investing real money.

This year's OpenClaw is a great example. One entrepreneur observed that within a month, almost all VCs swept through teams in the relevant direction; if the team was good and the direction was right, they would be invested in.

OpenClaw Hong Kong Meetup｜Image Source: X

However, once the window closes, the situation for newcomers is completely different. That entrepreneur has a friend who started working on interactive content almost simultaneously with several "star projects" at that time, but the team was not in Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen and missed that round of financing. By the time those two became consensus, when they went to raise funds, the most frequently asked question from investors became, "How do you beat them?"

The "Battle of a Thousand Groups" around 2010 saw group buying websites exceed 5,000 at one point; in 2016, there were about 80 bike-sharing applications in the Android app store, and two years later, Mobike was acquired while ofo faced long lines for deposit refunds; in 2021, new consumption saw 842 financing rounds totaling over 90 billion yuan, with a snack brand in Changsha seeing its valuation rise by about 500 times in 10 months, only to cut 40% of its brand employees the following year. Compared to these, the window for AI opens and closes even faster.

The window for AI applications closed at the end of April this year. This is the timeline given by investors at the Meetup, while one entrepreneur feels that this year has been the year with the lowest investment enthusiasm for applications. The reasons given by both sides are almost the same, citing that there are no new stories, and the model's capabilities are strong enough that many tasks that applications need to accomplish can be done by the model itself. Additionally, looking back at the past investment returns of software applications, they do not look good, while the rapid progress in AI coding further compresses the imaginative space for applications.

As the window tightens, even signed TSs are likely to be withdrawn. Before this year's Spring Festival, a fund was preparing to invest in a video generation company, but in mid-February, when a large company released a new generation of video models, some funds tore up the TS, citing that "they definitely can't compete." When sectors rotate, projects that were wanted for investment last month may be abandoned the next month. Externally, the most common explanation from funds is that their money has not yet arrived. One investor said, "Before the money is delivered, you can do whatever you want. Although entrepreneurs cannot afford to wait."

This is in stark contrast to the rhythm a year ago. At the peak of enthusiasm, some institutions would transfer funds the day after meeting the founders, with millions of dollars sent to personal accounts even before the company was registered. Now, signing agreements quickly takes about one to two months, and fund transfers may take even longer.

Good Value for Money

"Dollar funds only act after forming a consensus," is a judgment from one entrepreneur. We brought this to the Meetup, and a dollar fund investor responded, "Overall, I think so."

The investor explained that this is due to the decision-making mechanism. The partners make the final call, and the information, industry background, and projects that each partner has encountered are quite similar, so it is not surprising that they reach similar conclusions.

However, this investor does not believe they are chasing consensus.

"We are not looking for non-consensus; what we actually want is to lead consensus. Today, if I can understand it and a few people can understand it, in two months, if everyone can understand it and wants to invest, that is the best state. But if two months later, everyone still cannot understand it, then the project is in trouble."

This state of consensus, in simple terms, is actually "a still cheap consensus."

Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff once said that to make big money, it has to be non-consensus and right. Howard Marks of Oak Tree Capital also stated that consensus is not necessarily wrong; excess returns come when consensus is wrong, and you happen to be right.

"A still cheap consensus" is different from both of these statements and is closer to the beauty contest that Keynes wrote about in 1936, where the judges had to guess which face others would find the most beautiful.

1930 Beauty Contest Group Photo｜Image Source: Maurer

However, the reasons for this situation are quite realistic. For an AI company to grow, it often needs to secure several rounds of funding consecutively; whether there will be someone to invest in the next round is more critical than whether the current round's investment was correct. A founder met with a seasoned investor in May this year, who is known for not chasing trends. The investor liked their team but gave a sober assessment, stating that there are no more than 10 investors this year willing to invest in AI to C applications. Even if this investment goes well and the company performs adequately, if the next round of funding doesn’t come in, the company will still fail.

Thus, the only two paths left for the entrepreneur are to either stick to their direction and leave financing to chance, hoping that some VC among dozens will take an interest; or to align with mainstream trends, thereby reducing the probability of financing obstacles. Most people chose the latter.

The entrepreneur used examples from the consumer industry to illustrate the value of non-consensus. The earliest funding for Pop Mart came from angel investor Mai Gang and the first fund of Qifu Capital, which was only around 100 million yuan, while Sequoia only entered during the Pre-IPO stage; the two rounds of financing for Bawang Chaji in 2021 totaled over 300 million yuan, with investors including XVC, Fosun, and Congbi Qiushi. These investors were not considered top-tier in the VC circle at that time, unable to secure mainstream projects, and could only seek out non-consensus opportunities, which ultimately led to excess returns.

Bawang Chaji's grand opening in the Philippines

Investors at the meetup also acknowledged that small funds and solo GPs find it easier to invest in non-consensus projects because consensus projects are too expensive for them to invest in. As for institutions that publicly claim to "like investing in non-consensus," the entrepreneur disagreed: "They are not investing in non-consensus; they are investing entirely in consensus, just packaged as non-consensus."

The Chosen Ones

Every year, there are favored groups in the AI industry. One entrepreneur observed that this year, it is PhDs coming from good laboratories, while last year it was people working in smart hardware. The density of talent does not change year by year; what changes is the attention of capital. Those who are noticed become the chosen ones of the year, which ultimately feels more like a lottery.

World models are a typical example. According to media statistics, by July this year, there were over 30 startups in China centered around the concept of "world models," with cumulative financing exceeding 26 billion yuan, and 7 of them became unicorns, with at least 4 founders being born after 2000. At the beginning of October, Tian Keyu's company was reported to have completed nearly 30 million dollars in financing, with a post-investment valuation of 200 million dollars, also working on world models.

Li Feifei HAI Roundtable | Source: Stanford

In the eyes of one entrepreneur, VCs categorize entrepreneurs into three types. One type consists of those who reach high positions in large companies by the age of 25; they will be funded regardless of what they do. The second type includes decent individuals who are not strong enough; at this point, the "thing" becomes very important. The third type consists of those who are not capable, and no matter how good the idea is, it won’t work. Most entrepreneurs belong to the second category, and whether they can secure funding largely depends on whether their direction aligns with that of mainstream investors.

Investors also admit that it feels a lot like a lottery, but the market does rotate. When the market is good, entrepreneurs with academic backgrounds are more favored; when the market is cold, they are no longer the main characters. Some investors suspect that some scholars venture into entrepreneurship not necessarily to build something significant, but simply because they see their peers succeeding and want to achieve a high valuation as well. Someone at the meeting added, "When someone sees that even Tang Jie has succeeded, they will wonder why they can’t. "Tsinghua professor Tang Jie co-founded Zhizhi, which went public in Hong Kong on January 8 this year, with an issue price of 116.2 HKD, peaking at 2980 HKD in June.

Zhizhi ringing the bell at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

Another layer of concern is the fallback. Professors can return to school after a failed startup; many entrepreneurs who fail end up with nothing. Investors generally have more faith in those without a fallback; some even consider insufficient determination as a reason for a veto. The entrepreneur stated this more sharply: "A true entrepreneur is someone who is always starting businesses; those who only venture out when the timing is right often have good backgrounds and a fallback."

Coming from a large company is seen as a plus by many. Investors cite that some individuals from large companies are good at reporting upwards and can explain what they want to do in an understandable way to partners; moreover, this generation of AI has not yet detached from mobile internet, and distribution is still in the hands of a few large platforms, with product methodologies unchanged.

However, this advantage is becoming less significant. A dollar fund investor commented on several entrepreneurs from large companies, saying that some companies have many people coming out, yet none are doing particularly well, and replicating the methodologies of their former employers ultimately leads to direct competition with them; some companies have people who are accustomed to using a few high-profile individuals in their teams as selling points, "but how much of the achievements obtained in large companies is due to the platform and how much is your own?"; and some companies are too comfortable, with executives rarely taking the initiative to start their own ventures.

One entrepreneur added another perspective, stating that many executives from large companies are forced into entrepreneurship when they can no longer continue in their jobs or are about to be laid off. For them, preserving their identity is paramount, and aligning with mainstream trends is a natural choice. High-profile individuals who have achieved results have lower financing costs, while the biggest challenge for younger individuals is proving traction to investors.

The Wolf is Coming

Entrepreneurs and investors have very different views on "telling stories."

Some entrepreneurs feel that jargon is useless; investors are smart, and those who really need to ponder their narrative are the ones who do not want to focus on making products and only want to quickly secure funding. In this entrepreneur's classification, those who ride trends are mainly "pseudo-entrepreneurs," whose task is to become famous and then secure financing.

On the investor side, the sense of vigilance is much stronger. One investor said that their biggest realization in this industry is that they are constantly on guard against the other party lying. Both parties have clear objectives, trust is inherently difficult to establish, and once a lie is discovered, the other party is immediately blacklisted. Another investor's perspective is somewhat gentler; there are no perfect projects, and when it comes time to make a decision, there will always be concerns that a certain flaw will grow larger; if a project raises no concerns at all, it is either encountering a genius or is too good to be true.

However, there is still no standard answer for how to judge a person. Some investors will specifically ask entrepreneurs about the hardest moments they have experienced to see if they have genuinely reflected on them, and they will also ask what kind of person they want to become in ten years; but most of the time, the decisive feeling is simply "getting along well," being willing to chat for several hours. The decision-making materials of top funds have a framework, but at the execution level, everyone adds their own understanding. That investor believes this is probably the only reason venture capital is hard to replace with AI.

Technology is even harder to judge. The more cutting-edge directions in AI, such as world models, embodied intelligence, and underlying infrastructure, the fewer people at decision-making meetings can truly assess the technical routes. One investor shared an example from their previous experience with hard technology; it was a nuclear fusion project that was pushed back twice in decision-making meetings, and the reason had nothing to do with understanding the technology: "The partners didn’t understand, and no one present had more than a bachelor’s degree." Colleagues in PE read a lot of papers and conducted extensive research but ultimately could not provide a convincing judgment on the route choice, and the decision still fell back to the person.

When technology is incomprehensible, the only things investors can rely on are people and who else is investing. The latter is precisely the source of consensus.

A Single Path

Exit is the most discussed and heaviest topic this time.

One entrepreneur said that the fundamental difference between Chinese and American VCs lies in exits. In the U.S., there are numerous mergers and acquisitions; a young person can make money by creating a product and selling the company, and those who make money are willing to invest in venture capital; while here, exits are basically reliant on going public.

NASDAQ live broadcast room

According to PitchBook and NVCA statistics, in 2025, there will be 62 IPOs and 995 mergers and acquisitions among the exits supported by U.S. VCs; as of the third quarter, among the companies acquired that year, 75% had only raised up to Series A. AI companies in the U.S. also have an additional exit route of "talent acquisition"; in 2024, Google brought back the founding team of Character.AI for about 2.7 billion dollars in licensing fees, and in 2025, it spent another 2.4 billion dollars to acquire the core team and technology licensing of Windsurf; Microsoft took away most of the team from Inflection for 650 million dollars in 2024; Meta bought 49% of Scale AI for 14.3 billion dollars in 2025; and at the end of September this year, AMD announced it would acquire World Labs for about 8.2 billion dollars.

Su Zifeng and Li Feifei signing a contract | Source: World Labs

However, the data from Qichacha tells a different story. In the first half of 2026, among 2503 exit cases in the equity investment market, there were 1732 IPO exits and only 368 mergers and acquisitions.

The door to going public is not controlled by anyone.

In 2023, 313 companies went public on the A-share market, raising 356.4 billion yuan; on August 27 of that year, the China Securities Regulatory Commission proposed "temporarily tightening the IPO pace," and in April 2024, new capital market regulations were introduced, resulting in only about 100 new companies listed on the A-share market that year, raising approximately 67.3 billion yuan, a ten-year low, while 425 companies intending to go public terminated their IPOs. The Hong Kong stock market absorbed some of this; in March 2023, Chapter 18C of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange came into effect, allowing unprofitable specialized technology companies to go public; in 2025, the Hong Kong stock market raised 285.693 billion HKD, regaining the top position globally; in January this year, Zhizhi and MiniMax went public on the Hong Kong stock market one after another.

HKVCA Venture Capital Forum | Source: Hong Kong Stock Exchange × HKVCA Stage

However, the price trends in the secondary market are equally grim. When we asked investors whether such stock prices would affect their continued investment in large models, the answer was, "Of course it will."

The path of mergers and acquisitions is being opened up by policy efforts. In September 2024, the China Securities Regulatory Commission released six guidelines for mergers and acquisitions. In the first half of this year, the number of mergers and acquisitions exits increased by 94.7% year-on-year, but the 368 exits still only accounted for about 20% of IPO exits. The path for cross-border mergers and acquisitions has been blocked again this year.

This exit structure directly determines what investors are willing to invest in. At a Meetup, investors stated that the threshold is at least several dozen times higher, with valuations starting at 10 billion, reasoning that VCs typically invest in 100 projects and rely on one to earn a hundredfold return. Companies that can only see valuations of a few billion from the start, such as those optimizing open-source software or framework tools, may earn a few times for investors but find it difficult to go public.

"Having only a few times return is not enough."

With exits limited to IPOs, going public requires a scale of 10 billion, which necessitates several rounds of large fundraising, with each round needing someone to take over. The "passing the baton" concept mentioned by entrepreneurs translates to investors as a single exit path with no options.

The Seven-Year Itch

The changes in dollar funds represent another end of this chain.

Before the Meetup, we received an anonymous comment stating that dollar funds are becoming increasingly "localized," with both the capacity and willingness to take risks differing from the past. Investors present agreed that this is a trend, with more dollar funds starting to raise RMB, becoming more like RMB funds in terms of rules, pace, and boldness.

According to the "5+2" duration, the batch of dollar funds raised in 2021 and 2022 is about to raise new funds. This time, many LPs are looking at real distributions, and there is significant differentiation within the industry. Some attendees mentioned hearing about funds with a DPI of a thousand times, while others joked that they couldn't really say their DPI is only 0.1. Some investors estimate that there may be no more than 10 funds that have truly made significant profits in this wave of large models.

The form of dollar funds has also changed. In June 2023, Sequoia announced a regional split, which will be completed by March 2024; GGV Capital will also complete its split in 2024, with its Americas and Asia businesses renamed Notable Capital and Granite Asia, respectively. Washington's restrictions on foreign investments will take effect on January 2, 2025, limiting U.S. funds from investing in semiconductor, quantum, and certain AI companies here; the COINS Act signed on December 18, 2025, further codifies this mechanism into law.

For funds that need dollar LPs, AI should have been the easiest story to tell, but it is now also the most sensitive direction in terms of compliance.

Fundraising data reflects the same changes. According to Qichao statistics, RMB funds accounted for 97.8% of the scale of new funds raised in 2025; only 33 foreign currency funds completed fundraising, totaling 35.808 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 36%. According to Qichao founder Ni Zhengdong's statement at the end of last year, foreign capital accounts for only about 2% of LPs. In the first half of this year, foreign currency funds raised approximately 45.26 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 122.5%, but only 19 funds completed fundraising, with the average scale of each fund increasing by 145.9%, concentrating money in the hands of a few.

Some investors are puzzled as to why global LPs are still reluctant to bet more here. Europe is on a downward trend, and no one wants to heavily invest in the Middle East; there are not many places where large sums can be placed. Another explanation is simple: the core issue is still U.S.-China relations, as LPs need to be able to withdraw their money when relations are tense.

When money becomes tight, the business of financial advisors (FAs) actually becomes easier. Investors say that 2024 and 2025 will be the two most profitable years for FAs, with commissions typically ranging from 3% to 5%, and good relationships can reduce it to 2%. However, when it comes to kickbacks under the table, the atmosphere becomes very cautious, and when asked under what name this money is taken, the answer is "various names. Friends, relatives, or relationships you can't quite define."

Renaming

In this interview, the only completely consistent judgment from entrepreneurs and investors falls on the "world model."

One entrepreneur listed the world model as the "most narrative-filled" track and described the process of the bubble bursting, where everyone realized it was not feasible, and then a strong piece of evidence emerged, causing the bubble to burst.

At the Meetup, when asked about the most overvalued track and the direction they would resolutely not invest in, several investors answered with the world model. Their dissatisfaction centered on the mismatch between name and reality, as many companies engaged in 3D generation and real-time generation call themselves world models, with valuations starting in the hundreds of millions.

Someone asked whether real-time video models count as world models, and if they wouldn't consider investing if they didn't call themselves world models. One investor replied, "If you don't call it a world model, don't ask for such a high valuation."

After the news of Tian Keyu's financing broke, one investor mentioned that there were originally expectations for the world model to "come back for another wave," but now it has basically hit the brakes.

However, the good news is that investors still believe there will be the next killer application. Without applications, models, computing power, and infrastructure will become worthless. "If you don't believe that, then AI cannot be invested in."

Preserving the Green Mountains

At the Meetup, someone asked a question that seemed unrelated to consensus: "With such a long feedback cycle in the primary market, doesn't it make people uncomfortable?"

An early investment can take seven or eight years from initiation to exit, and ten years is not uncommon. A relatively new investor said it doesn't bother him, as this industry is inherently long-term. The questioner followed up, saying that a long feedback cycle means you learn from your last failure very slowly. The response was more surprising: you don't learn much from failures anyway, as there are too many reasons for failure, and the more you review, the more chaotic it becomes.

If in an industry, right and wrong are only revealed after ten years, and failures hardly teach anything, how do those involved judge whether what they are doing today is right or wrong? The most recent and fastest signals are left to others' reactions, such as whether someone invests in the next round, whether valuations have been raised, and whether peers are moving in the same direction.

In an industry where it takes ten years to know right from wrong, consensus is one of the few feedbacks that can be obtained quickly.

It provides reassurance but can also lead to misjudgments.

Paul Graham wrote in his 2012 essay "Black Swan Farming" that the best startup ideas often initially look like bad ideas; if they obviously seem like good ideas, someone would have already pursued them. According to this reasoning, the few investments that truly determine a fund's success or failure are often not favored at the moment of investment.

Bessemer Venture Partners in Silicon Valley maintains an Anti-Portfolio on its website, listing companies they missed, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and eBay, with explanations for why they did not invest at the time. In an industry where everyone fears missing out, listing missed opportunities requires a bit of humor and a bit of confidence.

Entrepreneurs face the same question, just from the opposite direction.

When an entrepreneur first started, they treated VC opinions as the only exam paper, noting feedback from each meeting and adjusting their direction accordingly. Nine months later, the exam paper changed to focus on user experience and data performance.

"If done well, with good feedback, I might be able to create consensus."

This statement carries a bit of ambition; consensus must be created by someone first, and those who create it often have to endure a period when no one believes in them. The prerequisite for enduring is, in the words of this entrepreneur, "you must ensure that before the cycle comes, you are still at the table."

That young investor who said, "Failures teach nothing" was later asked about their proudest investment since entering the industry.

They replied that they haven't had one yet.

"Investing is about believing that investments can achieve something. If I don't believe that, I wouldn't invest."