I'm Sajith Pai, Partner at Blume Ventures. Ask me anything!

@DarlesChickens

1. Hey, for our fund ($290m) and stage of investing (advanced seed / preSeries A where we invest $2-4m for 12-17%) and our profile, we do get a lot of high quality inbounds, and have access to top tier plays. We dont differentiate between founders on academic pedigree. Corp pedigree and where they worked (high growth startup experience primarily) does matter and to some extent it is tied but not exclusively dependent on acad pedigree. That said, if you are a first time founder we would like to see some significant product love and early market traction. I dont think acad pedigree matters at all.

2. Criteria mentioned on the site. But essentially / realistically if you are referred to us, $250k upwards of annualised rev for B2C plays and at least $100k upwards of ARR for B2B cos.

3. Ideally no....but if it begins in India and then sees a lot of traction from US (ultrahuman for instance) it is fine.

4. Again, acad pedigree doesnt matter, but we like to see some evidence of right to win / founder market fit. Great traction can make up for everything - no acad pedigree, no founder market fit:)

5. No!

a huge opportunity missed for #3. Hope some VCs explore this sooner.

@PracticalThrust Essentially signals of higher probability of success. I think it is a bit misplaced and i dont give it much importance, but from one angle it makes a bit of sense. IIT/IIM/BITS/ISB are proxies for high opportunity cost (higher pay) and hence starting up means a founder is giving up a higher opp cost, and hence it is a signal that this opportunity is more valuable. YMMV but to me this is the only logical explanation, and perhaps that other downstream investors will give more value to acad pedigree....but i suppose good traction will overcome all that.

@DaringTrain Great Q! This is something i have thought abt, and my team members have asked me too. No easy answers here.

It is true that my regret / antirportfolio misery was a bit mitigated by WHJ's later challenges.

I do feel that experience of passing because of a mistaken low TAM taught me a lot....and hence i consider it my antiportfolio but i feel less guilt / regrets with passing months given what happened.

@ebuHatela We see it from the MIS and one thing i always tell my founders is that there is no pressure on them to grow / crank up rev for the sake of it. We do look for high quality rev - rev growth w good retention and good unit econ - and do not encourage growth sans retention / repeats / good contribution margins etc. I never stress only 1 metric (like rev); i always push for a check metric on the north star metric which is a quality metric. Early days it is rev + engagement / retention usually.

What you are saying is true and it does scare me a bit as to a mojocare or gomechanic situation in my portfolio. So far havent had and i do encourage my founders to not worry abt growth for the sake of it or do short-term things. Ultimately it is their co, and i am only a temporary but long-term steward of the co.

Thanks for the insight

@AlphaGrindset Classplus, Virohan, Uolo and Leverage are all doing well for us. But yes, edtech has been a tough space. I like skilling, super early education (ideally w some daycare linkage), English-learning leveraging AI, adult lifelong learning (as we all seek to live longer and work longer) etc.

Re Byju's ya, what to say, so much has been said abt it ha ha. I suppose (early) investors need to push back on governance early when they see signs of founders not paying attention to it is one way....but perhaps there are other factors at play as well here.