Stealing this - what a great quote and analogy.
Been saying this for a while: defensibility is overrated. It serves as a theoretical VC armchair exercise, it sounds smart and thoughtful but it holds little real value.
What’s widely considered a moat:
> Technical depth - whatever it is, it will be easier to replicate it in the future than it was to build it in the past
> Integrations - someone else can build that too?
> Creating switching cost / lock-in - yeah, kinda works for a while but it can be overcome if only your product sucks enough vs competitors
> Some regulatory piece - if one company gets approval, the next can get it too. And even if it’s a temporarily exclusive license, it’s always only temporary
> Partnerships - won’t stay exclusive forever, and actually creates an existential tail risk of the partnership getting cancelled by the other party
> Patents / IP - not irrelevant for DeepTech but often too narrow. Even here, actual academic excellence & talent gravity is more important.
> Brand - that’s a better moat than its reputation tbh, hard to destroy from the outside but so easy to destroy from within. And takes time to build.
> network effects - yes, that’s a moat but true network effects are so rare in real life.
> “data” - maybe. at a late stage but not at the early stage.
So many discussions about a company’s “defensibility” - when it’s much more important what a company’s“offensive capability” is:
Velocity, intensity, culture, hiring, commerciality, excellence, being early to a market and being relentless - founder traits and founder mentality that extends to the entire company.
Which is funnily enough exactly what creates a company’s true, real defensive ability over time.
Lots of VCs kindof sound like this: "Your basketball team doesn't have a moat, any healthy human can throw the ball into the basket thingy. "
People who have not run companies before don't understand how much the team matters more than some imagined structural moat.