Thesis: Jumping Tech Trees
I grew up playing a lot of realtime strategy (“RTS”) PC games (there really isn’t much else to do when it’s 110+ outside in the middle of the desert). In RTS games, there’s often this concept of a “tech tree”. For example, in the game Empire Earth you start in the Stone Age with basic clubs and slings. You can perfect your Bronze Age phalanx formations and dominate for a while, but eventually someone who’s rushed to the Renaissance will show up with cannons and gunpowder units that make your melee expertise irrelevant
The real world is pretty similar. There’s often a tradeoff between continuing down a pre-existing tech tree that might be plateauing vs. starting on the bottom rung of a new tech tree with the promise of a higher theoretical ceiling. Take for example internal combustion engines vs. electrical vehicles, or traditional vaccines or mRNA, copper wires vs optical fibers, magnetic storage vs. solid state drives.
The way we're taught to do something carves deep mental grooves that we continue following long after they've stopped being optimal. We inherit these patterns from whatever was dominant when we learned them - the technological and social context of that moment becomes our default "tech tree." We keep optimizing within that paradigm even as returns diminish, because switching to a fundamentally different approach means abandoning years of accumulated expertise and starting over as a beginner.
As a VC I actively bet on founders with the vision and conviction to jump from their industry’s dominant tech tree to a new one before it’s obvious. The challenge is threefold:
Timing the jump - is the tech tree viable yet? Think quantum compute, fusion, etc. Jumping too early might lead nowhere, jumping too late and you’re competing with everyone else who see the writing on the wall
Psychology - many successful people get there by mastering an existing paradigm. This has a mental and identity-based sunk cost. The same things that made them successful (persistence, deep expertise, pattern recognition within their domain) often become liabilities when paradigms shift.
Market education - new tech trees often require teaching customers to think differently. The first company to do this might bear enormous costs and struggle to capture value. Being a 2nd or 3rd mover might be better approach.
If you are someone who deeply understands why your industry does things the current way and have a thesis as to why that entire approach is about to become obsolete - I'd love to chat.