How to Identify Top 1% Talent (Keith Rabois, Investor in Doordash, YouTube, Airbnb & Lyft)

Alex: What's up, everyone? Welcome back to another episode of Founder’s Journal and the third episode of Founder’s Journal rebooted. I'm your host, Alex Lieberman, co-founder and executive chairman of Morning Brew. As I mentioned last episode, Founder’s Journal is back and better than ever with a new format that I know you are going to love. Each week I am going to curate a world class entrepreneur and interview them about their one thing, their one superpower, that one thing that looks effortless to the world, the one thing that stacks the deck in their favor as they build great businesses. And today's guest is legendary executive and investor Keith Rabois. Keith is currently a managing director at Coastal Ventures, which he rejoined after several years, investing at Peter Thiel's Founder Fund.

While researching for this episode, I heard a crazy stat that Keith has invested in a billion dollar business every single year for the last 20 something years, and his most notable investments, including DoorDash, Affirm, Fair, Stripe, Ramp, Even, YouTube, Airbnb, Palantir, and Lyft. And prior to all of this, he had senior leadership roles at PayPal, LinkedIn, and Square. This episode we talk about Keith's one thing, which is his ability to identify top 1% talent, whether it be founders or employees. We cover a lot of ground within this topic, including how to find undiscovered talent, hiring barrels versus ammunition, the two traits of 10x founders, and the biggest hiring mistakes that founders tend to make. So without further ado, here's my conversation with Keith Rabois. 

One of the key ways that you have always talked about trying to identify talent is by finding at least one thing that the talent spikes on. And so I want you to talk about what that means specifically, but then share a few examples of your favorite founders that you've invested in and what were the things they spiked on and how did you know that they spiked on it? 

Keith Rabois: Sure. Well, I basically get this question all the time. I don't really try to overthink things. I don't really try to think about markets or technology, just wanna back the right people. So the next question always I get asked is, well, how do you identify superbly talented founders or high potential founders? What's the traits you're looking for? So after many years, I try to distill what are the common themes, what are the common characteristics that resonated with me that predicted or predicted the probabilities at least would be high of success? And as far as I can tell, the only thing in common among successful founders that I've worked with, funded, interacted with is they have one comparative advantage with the rest of the world, where they're either in the top 1% or top 10 basis points, or sometimes even top one basis points on one trait. There's one trait where you can say, this person is the smartest person I've ever met in my life. Person is the most tenacious person I've ever met in life. The person is the best salesperson I've ever met in my life. This person is more strategic, and we can talk about what that means, than anybody else I've ever met in my life. 

And unless you find that trait, it's a very bad idea typically to invest in that startup. The reason why is if you think about how ridiculous from a rational perspective it is to wake up one morning and say, I'm gonna reinvent the entire world. I'm gonna reinvent an entire industry like financial services, aerospace, or defense contracting. That's pretty irrational. So the only people who have any probability of success in an irrational endeavor have to have an unfair advantage vis-a-vis the four or five or 6 billion people on the planet. So if you don't tap into an unfair advantage, it means the probability of that company succeeding, of that founder rearranging the world to their will, really reinventing the world, bending the world around their will or an industry around their will, it rounds to zero. So obviously If you round to zero, you really don't want to be investing in a seed round, Series A, Series B. 

So then the question is, does this person have some unique traits? I've actually found that this is pretty common also in other fields, other competitive fields, for example, in music or athletics or even politics, the people who really succeed, there usually are some traits that are very special. But let's talk about just technology founders 'cause that's what I've done mostly professionally for my life. So we'll stay mostly in that realm. 

So basically when I meet somebody, when I meet a potential founder, I'm really looking for some trait where I can envision them amplifying that characteristic and just driving an unfair advantage to create something that seems like absolutely ridiculous from scratch. And there are other examples. That's the number one trait, number one sort of predictive model I've run in my brain, the algorithm. 

Then the second that also can predict ridiculous success, and ridiculous meaning, you know, sort of irrationally successful companies, is an unusual Venn diagram overlap of two traits. So you don't find anybody else who is at the intersection or almost nobody else is at the intersection. So for example, someone like Max [inaudible] is a first rate strategist and a first rate technologist, business strategist. In fact, it was so obvious that that was true that Reid Hoffman mentioned this to me in January 2001. Literally in January 2001, we had a conversation when I was about to spend time with Max for the first time and really debate a sort of series of initiatives at PayPal with him. Reid helped prepare me for the meeting and he said, Max is a first rate technologist and a first rate business strategist and there's less than five of those in Silicon Valley, period. At the time I was very new to Silicon Valley, had only been in Silicon Valley for two or three months, but Reid had it perfectly figured out, and you know, explains Max's trajectory for the next 24 years.

So same thing, Jack Dorsey has an unusual combination of pretty good design ability, serious technology ability, and pretty good strategy. Those three things are almost never found in common. So the Venn diagram overlap that's special and unique can also be an unfair advantage. And then third, the only other third alternative is there are occasional people who have insights into a particular market where they can walk you through what [inaudible] identified as this intellectual maze, and Chris Dixon blogged about intellectual maze, where they can really explain how you go from 0.0, where you are today, to this big prize. And they can do it in a way that combines insights that nobody else has really seen.

It's a little bit like Peter Thiel's zero to one secrets. There's these secrets about the world, there's a secret about how to get from point A to point C, and that navigation path avoids the trap doors. It avoids the distractions. That's extraordinarily rare. It may even be rarer than the first two, but that's it. If you don't have one of those three things, a seed investment is a horrific idea. 

Alex: So just to speak it back, basically the three things are, one, unfair advantage that the founder so overindexes on relative to the rest of society. The second is some intersection, some Venn diagram of a few things where they are top 0.1% in that intersection. And the third is basically they've gone through the intellectual maze with such clarity. I was listening to a relatively recent podcast you did about this. You talked about kind of [inaudible] description of this and how it's so incredibly rare for someone to have such clarity on basically knowing where they're going in the future, but to break down the steps in such component parts. Can you, I don't know if as you were talking through that you were referring to Mike from Traba or another recent founder, but I'd be super interested, like what does that actually look like in practice? Like what does it look like for you to hear from a founder, them having such incredible clarity on the idea maze? 

Keith: I wouldn't say Mike and Traba. Mike would be mostly category one, which is top one basis point, top 10 basis points on some traits. Examples of intellectual maze, I think Sadi at Aven had the intellectual maze of what he's building pretty nailed. And so it was so good. The compelling pitch and in financial services was so good that the only question I had is, why the hell had I missed this for 20 years of my life? Like it was that clear, it was like, oh my god, this is so obviously great that there's something I'm missing. 'Cause like I should have followed this for the last 20 years. Sadi has some other traits too; actually it was the combination he had, the intellectual maze is perfect and some other traits, but fundamentally that one was, you know, so starkly obvious, it's just like, oh my god, when someone's really good at, or just like, you know, kind of this once in a year type of founder who is able to walk you through the intellectual maze with such clarity.

Alex: What do you think makes them so good at it? Like what do you think are the exercises they've done or the inputs they've had on the back end that by the time you're seeing it you're like, holy shit, this is so refined, the way they're presenting this to me. 

Keith: Usually there's two formulas, sort of. One is they've had experience in that industry domain that's very, you know, special. So they understand what's broken and why, and they also understand how to fix it because they actually suffered through it and they're, you know, sort of good product thinkers. They combine the two and they really do understand this opportunity. The second is they've studied history really well and they've really studied everybody who's tried anything in a certain zone and really decomposed why these other companies either didn't succeed and failed or why they need to achieve their ambition. You know, why is the opportunity still there? And they really do understand and have mastered all the lessons and have taken advantage of the lessons to parlay that into a roadmap that seems pretty vibrant. So you can kind of approach it either way. 

Alex: Yeah. The answer you may have to this next question could just be simply reps, like you need reps to figure it out. But the obvious question to me as I'm thinking through you identifying people who are top 10 basis points in a given skill, spike, unfair advantage, how does one actually identify those things? Because there's like two things going on. There's the fact that if a founder actually has that unfair advantage and then there's the ability to identify it, and the ability to identify it to me is actually just as hard, because let's just say a founder is pitching you on an area that you know nothing about, or like, let's just say it's a skill like, I don't know, like sales where they are like top 0.1% in the world in storytelling and sales. And of course for you, like you've seen thousands of pitches, so you have kind of, you have data to compare it to, but is there any way, like to me there's like almost like a naivete issue, which is like, how do you know if someone's top 10 basis points if you actually don't know what a seven outta 10 is, an eight outta 10 is, or a 10 outta 10 is. 

Keith: There's a little calibration, but I think it actually defies industry. So most of these traits show up early in life. Like you don't have to have a professional experience. You can illustrate through high school experiences, college experiences, intent, like if you're better than everybody else in a particular trait, it will show up. You don't really have to have a lot of domain-specific content. I think the intellectual maze one is maybe a little harder to assess without experience, but the traits, like, so for example, if you're the most tenacious person in the world, if you talk to that person's mother, they can probably give you examples from the time that that person was five years old. And if they can't, that's probably not top 10 basis points, or if you're the smartest person ever, that just manifests itself in certain dimensions. Or you're definitely not the smartest person on the planet, it's the failure, it's the absence of signal in some ways on most of the traits that's fatal for that trait being top 1%. 

Alex: Well, you mentioned tenacity and that's the second thing I wanna talk about, because my understanding kind of this intersection or like kind of the sweet spot for great founders is someone who is wildly tenacious and someone who has kind of one of these things that they spike on or kind of the three different ways that you can spike. And I love this quote you had from a recent interview where you said, basically you described tenacity as going over a wall, under a wall, through a wall, making friends with the wall, figuring out why the wall doesn't matter. But I will say tenacity feels like a difficult thing to vet for until you actually see the way in which someone works or it's very easy to get false signal for it. Like as an example, I was listening to the conversation you had with Mike from Traba and I think it was with Harry Stebbings a few months ago, and you know, he talks about the Olympian mindset in their culture and working 12 to 12. But until you actually see him work in that way, how did you know that he would have that level of tenacity and you could use him as an example or basically anyone?

Keith: Sure. Mike is very tenacious. I described him more recently as the most persistent person I know, which is close cousin. But I think persistent is slightly more accurate for, you know, the trait that came up in the first two weeks I knew him when he wasn't even the founder, he was just a PM at Uber, was he told me a story about how he considered to go to business school. I was like, thank god you didn't go to business school. But the second reaction was he told me that he took the GMAT eight times and I was just floored. I was like, I didn't even think it was like humanly possible. I thought it was illegal sort of thing. Like who the hell would ever do that? But his persistence of getting the ideal score was like if he was gonna take the GMAT, he was gonna get the ideal score and he would take it like the absolute maximum limit that's humanly possible.

So once you see that trait, you know that that's what he's gonna apply to everything in his life. And in fact, he does like pretty much everything that way, he runs the company that way. He runs his own life that way and it's all, you know, it's kind of everywhere you look. 

Alex: You know, I also feel like there's this feeling I have that most people just haven't actually seen what truly tenacious is yet. Like they get impatient and they pick someone that they believe to be tenacious, but they literally just haven't talked to enough people to get to the outlier who defines what tenacious is. 

Keith: That's true. Although you can, you know, one thing you can do is the bar just keeps going up in your life, so you can start with a pretty good filter. Like for example in high school if I said who's the smartest person, I would've named a couple people I went to high school with; they were not the smartest people I'd wind up meeting through my entire life. So you kind of constantly like sort of top grade, but you could start with whatever context, whatever zone, you know, kind of whatever realm you've been in and then adjust the bar. It's a little bit like sports, you know, in high school you may think this athlete's the most amazing person in the state of New Jersey, where I grew up. Like they're the best soccer player in New Jersey, which is a pretty good proxy actually, you know, a third of the Olympic team, US Olympic team, it's usually from New Jersey so it's not bad, but yeah, typically like three or four members of the US Olympic team are from New Jersey. So it's a pretty good feel. But like as you develop, you know, more exposure to soccer players, you may realize, oh my god, like wow, I what I thought was exceptional is a mediocre division one software player.

Then you start meeting and playing with some division one soccer players and you're like, huh, okay, what I thought was an amazing division one player, and then you get to get on the field, you know, with some MLS player and you're like, oh my god. You know, so like you keep raising the bar based upon exposure, but you can start with whatever exposure you've had, at least have a directional, you know, sort of crushing. 

Alex: Just the standard of your reference point just keeps getting bigger and better. Why don't you really focus on domain expertise when you fund founders? 

Keith: Well, first of all, domain expertise comes usually with what doesn't work, not what could be possible. You know, [inaudible] has a good expression of domains are expert in the fire world and what you try to do is create a new world, and most people who have expertise typically have learned all the “rules” in quotes and are somewhat blinded to how to break the rules, how to reinvent the rules. Secondly, you can learn mostly what you need to learn about a domain just by interviewing people who have domain expertise. So you get up the learning curve really fast by being thoughtful in your questions, and you can usually get in front of a lot of people, like people are very friendly in talking to you as an investor or as a founder, and ask them various things. So I always, for example, as an investor, I always frame expertise back to a domain expert. My usual question is, explain to me why this can't work. That's the only question I ever asked experts with domain expertise, and if they can't identify anything, then I'm perfectly fine like investing in a company that's gonna try to reinvent, you know, some industry, but once a while they'll identify sort of in a laws of physics sense that there is this blocker that is very real that unless the founder has an answer to or an insight into fixing, they're going to foul. So it's a very thoughtful conversation but I can get what I need outta an expert in 15 minutes. 

Alex: I wanna switch gears for a second to great employees. Something that you've said you learned early from Peter Thiel is basically to build a great team as a leader, you have to find undiscovered talent because if the talent's discovered, a big tech company will likely scoop them up. So you just have to, I almost think of it as like the SNL writer's room or like, not even Alabama football, but like the high school that is able to get undiscovered talent before they become a division one player and then a professional. How do you find undiscovered talent as an entrepreneur? Like what are either specific questions that you ask or what are you looking for?

Keith: Yeah, so I mean the first, first basic premise that Peter taught me in November of 2000 is that to build a successful startup, it depends upon critical density of talent, the team you build as a company you build is kind of a way to know, to reframe it later in my life. But how do you assemble critical density of talent? The truth is if you go after people who are already discovered as a startup, you're gonna not have an unfair advantage of recruiting them. In fact, you're gonna be a disadvantage. Typically those people can be expensive, they know their net worth, they know their value, their market value. And the last thing you wanna do is a startup is compete on the basis of like cash compensation or something like that. So you've gotta go find people who haven't yet proven what they can do that these large organizations, think Meta, think Google, think Apple, think Amazon, think Microsoft or even these days OpenAI, they don't know how to assess these people.

And then if you can assess them correctly, you can assemble a team with incredible talent and ambition to achieve their life's work. Then you've got a shock. So that next opens the door to the next question, which is how do you assess people with undiscovered talent? And you know that you can have a theory, right? But if you can't actually in practice do it, tt doesn't get you anywhere, in fact can make actually sabotage things. So there are somewhat, you can believe completely in the philosophy that this is theoretically a hundred percent sound. Then you've still gotta develop the ability or techniques to assess undiscovered talent with some degree of accuracy or it won't work.

So that's the next challenge. And honestly, when Peter first explained the concept to me, it resonated with me. The logic was very coherent, you know, sort of self-evident. But for the first two or three years of my life after that I wasn't actually very good or proficient at identifying undiscovered talent and then I figured out a hack around it. So one of the critiques, I was trying to get promoted at PayPal from VP or SVP to EVP or whatever, and one of the critiques that was holding me back was I wasn't getting as much leverage outta my team. Like it wasn't one plus one equals five, it was like one plus one equals two. It was partially because my team, I wasn't hiring enough like incredible talent that would create this sort of 10x leverage. And so I got the feedback and I was really ambitious and wanted to get promoted. So I thought, well, what can I do? And I didn't think I could improve my interviewing techniques that fast, like I wanna get promoted in a quarter or two. And so what I realized is there were people in the organization in PayPal already as employees that were not being fully leveraged, that had really good talent, that had opportunity, that really were the right opportunity that thought could thrive. So I went and recruited them to my team and that worked magically well. The lesson to take away was I wasn't actually bad at spotting undiscovered talent, I was bad at assessing it in an interview. So that was like, oh okay, I now know what to fix 'cause I've solidified that if I have exposure to people, I can choose them well. So I just need to figure out how to get different data points in a random interaction in an interview context or some other environment. So I can give outsiders because you can't scale stealing people from everybody's team. That only works for a little while before people figure out what you're up to. 

Alex: Right? But so how did you scale that? How are you able to scale it if you're not just gonna basically try to internally recruit everyone? 

Keith: Yeah, so I think then you start saying, what was I actually noticing about these people that led to the conclusion that was accurate internally, and then how could I have ascertained that from strangers that I was meeting for the first time in an interview, you know, at some event, et cetera. And that helped calibrate. Second was one of the advantages of people you work with or in the building is you have shared context and you have more data points. So one of the other advantages to say, hey look, it is really hard to identify undiscovered talent in a 30 minute interview, you may need more data points. Like that may just be true. Like you know, you have one data point that's one interview, you can draw an infinite one geometry infinite number of lines through one data point, get five data points. The lines should be pretty easy to draw. So usually you have to make a decision with less than five data points, but maybe you can get two or three and find ways to do that. And so what I have had some success with or you know, real success with is people that I had more exposure to, even if they weren't like literally working for me or literally working in the same organization but had many more data points and soon material should be accurate and that proved to be true, then you try to develop formulas for random interactions with people when people you meet for the first time interview event, et cetera. Can you at least like sort into maybe or no? That helps. Like even if you're just doing, maybe this person is an undiscovered talent and no, then at least you can try to figure out time, opportunity, you know, to get more data points. 

Alex: Yeah, totally. There's a lot there. The first thing I want to actually talk about what that looks like in practice, even with Open Store, like thinking about a specific example of undiscovered talent you've brought into Open Stor and what that process to get someone who kind of fits the bill looked like. But when you were first thinking about what you were noticing about the really good undiscovered talent internally at PayPal, what did you notice about those people? What were the things you noticed about those people? 

Keith: I think in those cases it was mostly based upon lunch and dinner conversations about their, you know, insights into what the company could do better because we had that, we used to have like dinner all the time and then we would talk about like, you know, how to do this, what we can do here. And I think that was mostly reacting to that versus like some insights about their traits for the most part. 

Alex: Got it. So let's talk about within OpenStore, think about a hire that you absolutely nailed within OpenStore who was, you would describe in this bucket of undiscovered talent. Just paint a picture of what did the process look like for them and what did you see in them that you got that hire so right. 

Keith: Yeah, great question. So actually one of the things that has developed and changed since my early days of PayPal is I did develop a formula for once you're running an organization, a larger organization, people have potential to be undiscovered talent and you're like a senior executive, how to find them that I got really proficient at. So this is more what I did at OpenStore, two of the people that immediately occurred to me is like sort of undiscovered talent that are, you know, outstanding. Actually I didn't hire either of them initially, but once they were working at OpenStore I was very able to identify, you know, the potential. So I don't claim any credit for hiring, other people deserve the credit for hiring. All I did is identify that they had, you know, highly unbounded potential that wasn't obvious from their LinkedIn profile. And then challenged them to give the opportunities to thrive and then watch, you know, how they embraced the challenges. How did they perform, how did they grow? How fast did they, how steep is their learning curve or how steep is the performance curve? 

Alex: Well, I think that brings up a really good point, which is something you've talked about, is kind of with any employee, you just keep trying to expand their scope as much as possible until it basically breaks. Why do you believe that's an important thing to do in a company? 

Keith: Well basically this is how you [inaudible] undiscovered talent pool. This critical density of talent that Peter has identified into a functional organization is you wanna challenge people to the limits of probability. So this is a lesson I've actually learned from David Stacks initially; he had this philosophy very explicitly as such in early 2001 and articulated to me is like, take everybody on your team or keep pushing the envelope of what they can do until you see where they're struggling and everybody will have a natural limit, but keep pushing until you find it and then you're gonna get people to achieve things and achieve things from the company and succeed in ways that you never would've got.

So it's a constantly like push, push, push, push, push, push and monitor and then keep pushing envelope until you find like a actual limit. So I borrowed both of these philosophies, combined them from Peter and David. 

Alex: Yeah, I love that. Talk about what a barrel is and are barrels the same thing as hiring great undiscovered talent? Does not all undiscovered talent that you hire turn into a barrel? Like what is the profile of a barrel and how many barrels can you expect to have in your company? 

Keith: Great question. So a barrel, the basic definition of a barrel is someone within an organization who can take an idea, a concept and initiative and make it happen from beginning to end. They will just do whatever it takes and march for whatever resources they need and persuade whoever they need to persuade, they'll get you across the finish line.

So they'll charge up that hill, and they're extremely difficult to find. An organization with a typical ratio, let's say an organization like PayPal, maybe we have between 10 to 15 barrels at PayPal out of like 254 people in. That's a pretty high ratio actually. I asked a board member of LADIS on stage about a year ago, you know, how many barrels in your company? And his answer was like two to three. That's much more typical by the way for a successful company. And the reason why barrels matter is you is you can only accomplish the number of things you have simultaneously in parallel that are defined by the number of barrels you have. So adding more head count does not allow you to accomplish more. You hire more and more people and you get less done. And the whole point of hiring more people is, it's supposed to be accomplishing more parallel, but the rate limiter is actually the number of barrels. It's not the number of people, most people all are like on munition not gonna back up the barrel. So if you add more barrels you're not gonna get more done and then there's a coordination tax, it actually returns your ability to do things in parallel.

Alex: Yeah, I think something I've even thought a lot about as a founder, and I've talked to my co-founder about it and other founders is like, we try to understand like are we good at hiring, and there's different levels, like are we good at hiring executives? Are we good at hiring kind of non-executives? What do you think the rough batting average should be for founders in thinking about are they good at hiring or not? 

Keith: So there's two characteristics, right? Is this person a barrel or like a 10x engineer, whatever, you know, because basically when we're hiring, until you achieve let's say success whatever defined is real positive momentum with accumulating advantage is kicking in. You need people who create value. And value creation is very different than optimization and value protection. And so to some extent the definition of success changes. Like there are people who can do the job very well, but that doesn't mean they're really gonna take you from a startup to a $2 billion company. Like those people are rarer. So I don't think you can, you know, I don't think you'd grade every hire and say, is this one the people that ratio's gonna be low. But on the other hand, you also don't want messes, like constant messes. And so you have to monitor, what are you aiming for?

I think a ratio of barrels of 10% of the organization would be phenomenally high. 5% would be damn good. Now that said, I think you want like 80% at least success rate on hiring where the question would be, if you can make the hire all over again, would you do it. Like that's the easiest way simple. There's lots of fancy ways to assess quality of hire, but like there's actually a research behind this that If you just ask that one question, would you make this higher? Again, you're gonna get like the predictive value of, you know, 0.67 correlation coefficient, which is good enough. 

Alex: Yeah, it's really interesting and I think something you've said before and it tracks, but I think sometimes it's hard in kind of having it compute for founders because they view it as a failure is like by way of hiring, especially undiscovered talent, mistakes in hiring under undiscovered talent are a feature of hiring undiscovered talent, because you are inevitably just taking a leverage bet on a person. 

Keith: Yes, there's no chance you have a hundred percent batting average with undiscovered talent. You have to realize that now you can control the tails of the distribution of it. Like, I don't know…catastrophic mistakes in an organization. It's easier to have catastrophic mistakes as a VC. Like let's say I'm looking for this, you know, proverbial top 10 basis point person. I don't really care that I'm right a certain ratio, right? In a company you can't just hire people with potentially undiscovered talent without thinking about the downsides of the catastrophic mistakes. 'Cause it will create dysfunction with the organization which will be suboptimal for the overall performance of the company. So when you're hiring employees, the tuning of the model has to be different than when you're investing in a founder. Like on the founder side, I only care about the upside. I don't actually worry about the downside of being wrong. When I'm hiring for a company organization or interviewing people as a board member for an organization that I'm involved in, I need to think through what are the consequences of being wrong and what the probabilities we might be on the wrong side of that equation. And then that might mean occasionally sacrificing some upside data. 

Alex: Yeah. Which I think, at least from my perspective as I hear you talk about this, it's why the early days of a business are so incredibly difficult from a team building perspective because you need, I would think a shit ton of value creators in the early days as you're trying to build like something new and get to product market fit. But at the same time you just are taking a leveraged bet on your first 10 or 20 employees, which means the downside is huge. So you kind of constantly need to reconcile these two things, of you need value creators, but each person matters so much. 

Keith: Yeah. Patrick Carlson had an interesting way of describing this on an interview I did with him in like 2015 or ‘16 and he'd actually say, look, choose your first 10 very carefully 'cause they're gonna replicate themselves each 10 times. So think about those, you're replicating them and make sure you really wanna replicate each one of those people 10 times. 

Alex: I love that. Keith, thank you so much for the time. This has been awesome. I know it's gonna help a bunch of people. Appreciate you. 

Keith: Cool. Thank you. Pleasure. 

Alex: That was my conversation with Keith Rabois and I would love to know what you thought about it. Shoot me an email to Alex at Morning Brew dot com and let me know what you thought about the episode and about this new format of going deep into a founder’s one superpower in general. Thanks so much for listening to Founders' Journal and I'll catch you next episode.