Founder-turned-VC: What Thomas Panton did next

Strategy & Tragedy: CEO Stories with Steph Melodia is the best business podcast for curious entrepreneurs featured in the UK's Top 20 charts for business shows.

Hosted by Stephanie Melodia, Strategy & Tragedy features candid interviews with entrepreneurs who have scaled - and failed - their businesses - sharing their lessons in entrepreneurship along the way. From Simon Franks who co-founded LoveFilm to Maxine Laceby of Absolute Collagen; from Matt Lerner, the GOAT of Growth, to Nina Briance of CULT MIA.

This is one of the best podcasts to listen to if you're looking for educational and inspirational content on Spotify, Apple, Google, Amazon, YouTube or watch the clips on Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, or YouTube Shorts

In this episode, Stephanie Melodia interviews Thomas Panton, serial entrepreneur and co-founder of Canopey, now Venture Fellow at Endgame Capital, investing in early-stage 'climate-change-denier-proof' tech startups.

In this interview, Steph and Thomas discuss:

• What happened with the eco marketplace he co-founded, Canopey

• The key lessons from Canopey's post-mortem - and how he's applying them to his new stealth startup

• Co-founder alignment - red flags / green flags - and the best way to test them

• How being a serial entrepreneur has helped him be a better investor now

• What Endgame Capital looks for in their investment deals

• How to help remove some of the unconscious bias in VC

• What makes a 1% founder

Watch on YouTube via the link below or keep reading for the transcript:

SM: Thomas, we last sat down on Monday, August 2023. You were building Canopey, the world's eco verified marketplace. You were fundraising at the time. What has happened since then?

TP: Steph, that's the biggest question you could have asked me to open with.

So much, right?

Canopey doesn't exist. So that's the biggest sort of alarm, I think. But also I've gone, like, deeply to the dark side into venture capital, which is the other big thing that I'm sure we'll dig into.

I think fundamentally, like, the what's changed since 2023 is that, you come and learn so much in startups. So, what feels not that long ago - it's like a year and a half - but actually, it feels like 10.

It feels like so much has happened. I've learned so much about startups, about VC, about the world, of course. So yeah, so much has changed.

SM: So why did Canopey end?

TP: Yeah. The big question. I think fundamentally, what happens with startups is that you have such a big hairy audacious goal as a founder. And sometimes, it's not the right thing. And I think that it can be really hard as a founder to let go when it's not the right thing or when something's not working. My lesson throughout all of that was my startup closed not because of anything I did wrong, but just because a pandemic came. And I hadn't really gone through the the trials and tribulations of a founder making mistakes because I've been so lucky with the start up, right?

So with Canopey, there was a lot of learning just like even though, yes, I knew about setting up a company, I knew about fundraising, yada yada yada. But it was like this this whole shift of now okay, now we've raised venture capital, now we're growing. How you navigate the challenges as a founder, but also with your team, and the dynamics between that changes.

There's no one thing you can say which this is why Canopey didn't work. But, I mean, I left Canopey, sort of middle of last year, so not that long after we spoke. And and it's crazy because when we spoke, it was a big fundraise coming up. This was gonna be our big seed round. It was gonna really take us from sort of being a, like, this really ambitious, young, new disruptor to actually establish processes and growing - and we had a real good plan for that.

And I think fundamentally what happened is we experienced a lot of challenges. It put strain on the team. So when I left, I think that the others did the best they could to keep it going. And, unfortunately, it didn't work out.

But, you know, that maybe there are other plans for for them and me in the pipeline. So you take the learnings and you grow from it.

SM: And with those learnings is something I really wanna dive into here because you amass these battle scars. And, you know, the whole purpose of the show, Strategy & Tragedy is not to put anyone off entrepreneurship - just to relay that realistic view.

I think in the in this age of social media it's more important to have a show like this to showcase the realities, the stories, because even when we post this stuff on so we've talked before about how much the algorithm does seem to reward, like, the humble bragging and the celebrations, all these sorts of things.

So what are some of the biggest lessons that you've learned from Canopey not working out?

TP: I think there's another thing just to add on to that is that I turn 30 in two months, and Forbes 30 under 30 was just announced. And LinkedIn goes crazy. Now we all know it's a bit of a bit of BS. It's kind of a bit of who you know. I'm not putting any shame on the people who win. They do amazing things. But, and I think that when you're coming up to 30 and you're a startup founder, particularly when you had a couple of startups, you know, you've raised venture capital, it kinda becomes like a stupid vanity metric that you look at.

And I think that maybe is one of the learnings is not getting too obsessed with what others are doing, not getting too obsessed with, like, the vanity metrics around startups, and really just building really good solid business that really solves a problem for your customer.

And I think, actually, with Canopey as well, as much as there's this huge growing want to be more sustainable. We kind of knew that what we were trying to solve was this difference between wants and action - or intent and action gap. I think that we underestimated the lack of willingness from the mainstream population maybe - to even if you sell the argument that, okay, there's a there's a price premium on purchase, but it saves you money over time. Like, it's quite hard to do when you've got big economic macroeconomic changes happening.

Maybe you can underestimate that when you're so bullish about your own solution.

The biggest learning I think - it's not that we didn't know this as founders, or I speak for myself, but more that we didn't follow it - we knew it, but we kind of ignored it - is that you should be absolutely obsessed with your problem, not with the solution you think is gonna solve that problem because you have to be willing to sort of wiggle your way around startup world to solve the problem for your user.

SM: So one of the many contradictions within the world of entrepreneurship that I'm obsessed with is trying to reconcile, on the one hand: the tenacity, the persistence, the determination, the clear vision, everything that, Thomas, you have in spades - versus that agility, letting go of certain aspects and just focusing purely on the problem, on solving a customer need.

How do you reconcile those to especially now having been through what you've been through with Canopey?

TP: I think they're not mutually exclusive for sure. Like, I think that with Canopey, I still believe that the overall solution that we were looking at is what's going to solve the problem. But I think I can be bullish about that. The way that we implement that or the way we roll it out can be different. It's basically the difference between your sort of North Star and the day-to-day operations of the company. How you get there is kind of irrelevant. That's what you need to be flexible with. But, like, what you're trying to do, it is ultimately you should be bullish about it and believe that that's true.

Obviously, there's always needs to be evidence. I was talking to my new colleagues, which we'll come on to you, I'm sure, in a bit, but, I was talking to them a little bit this weekend about what makes a sort of 1% founder.

We were trying to really dig into this, sort of power law of founders and startups. And one of the things that I'm really quite confident about an in a good founder is that there is an arrogance, but it's an arrogance with evidence. So, you know, you can be, I think we talked about it about being sort of, like, disagreeable but in the right way, you know? You don't you don't wanna just piss people off, but you you need this confidence, you need this belief that you know better because well, sure you do because no one has solved this yet, right? So you have to believe that you know better than me. But you have to evidence that with like your ability to to build, your ability to sell. Selling is everything. And I think like this makes a 1% founder and that they've got this arrogance but they they show again and again and again that the arrogance is justified, and it takes time. Like, no one can just have that as a time founder. Like, you've got to prove yourself.

SM: Yeah. For sure. And do you know what? That perfectly aligns with, something that an investor actually said on the show as well with, like, a bit disagreeable.

And I love how you phrase that around the, arrogance with evidence. That's a really good little pithy sound bite there. I love that.

How does that translate to fundraising? When storytelling is everything, especially in those early days, you've got to have that level of conviction.

TP: I think my approach on this and opinion of this has slightly changed in the last six months. So, again, we'll come onto it, but I work at a venture capital fund now. And I think that when when you're a founder, you believe that when you're raising money, your obsession is to sell your equity, basically. It's like for the best price, almost like you're selling your product for the best price. And that's true. And you need that. And you need the ability to weave your story and to navigate challenging questions. But I actually think, like, now, there's an aspect of also, like, honesty, humility, like, really in these conversations early with VCs or or any investor, is actually an incredibly valuable trait to bring to the table. You don't need to know everything. And I think that as founders, we generally think we do need to know everything. So we'll have an FAQ document which answers every question under the sun. And in a pitch, we'll, like, the the the pushback from a from a VC. Well, we should have the answer and we should become like, have conviction in that answer.

And actually, it's okay to go, we just don't know yet.

But here's how we're look we're trying to find out. Here's how we're learning. Here's how we've dealt with a different challenge. That shows that we can deal with these things even if we don't know right now. And actually, like, you know, when we look at startups at the at the fund, like, this is something which is actually really valuable is do they have the humility to be able to be transparent with us about those challenges, but the arrogance to know they can solve them?

SM: Yeah. Exactly. I was just thinking at least demonstrating you've got an awareness of your blind spot. I think that's a huge, when when the alarm bells kinda go if, like, you're not even aware of it. Like, how much does that arrogance seep into hubris. That creates those blind spots? Like, it's fine to not know to your point. Yeah. But demonstrate you're aware and that you've got the figure out ability, skill to solve it.

We will come on to what you're doing now and your perspective from the VC angle for sure, because now you can talk about from the founder perspective versus investors. So that's really exciting.

Just sticking with kind of the Canopey chapter for a sec as well. I'm sure you've done, even just in your own mind, a bit of a postmortem.

What are some of the other lessons that have come out of that for you, and how has it made you a better entrepreneur and even investor today?

TP: We're always told that that no one ever listens. It's don't build until you've got a demand for what you wanna build.

At Canopey, look, I've worked in the industry that Canopey was building in my whole career. So there was a there was a deep founder knowledge that I brought to the table, which shouldn't have dictated what the problem what the product was gonna be. But we let it. And it wasn't that we didn't didn't do customer research, but it was this underlying belief that we've seen all the problems in the industry, because Thomas has worked there for so long so therefore this product that we're solving is almost like every time we did a customer interview, we would be like, yeah our product solves this. Like, almost trying to mould our product into their problem rather than letting our product, be defined by their their issue or their problem itself.

So I think really fundamentally as a founder - and I mean, equally also, I mean, maybe we'll talk about that I also build I'm building something else as well - the way that that's being done is so inherently foundationally different to how we did at at Canopey;

We built nothing until we had people basically begging to use an imaginary product, which didn't exist yet. But we were like, okay. We can solve that problem. We know how we can solve that, but we didn't know what that would look like yet.

So then you get enough of these people saying these things, what they want solved, and then you go, okay. Here's what this initial product can solve. It's one of the thing that keeps coming up for these the the these problems of customers. And that's what we're gonna like really fixate on. Because it means you can just get it out there and solve the problem instantly. People will pay you. And then you can start building other stuff.

With Canopey, it was like, there are over there's this huge problem to solve. Let's build the the platform, the product that solves this problem. It was like, that's a monumental task. Like, there was no real MVP. It was like, let's just go all out. And I think that's a mistake.

And I think that's a huge learning curve for for me as a CEO. You know, I wasn't the techie of the company, but when you're when you're involved at, like, the head of the company and the head of the vision, like, you kind of you kind of get involved in all of those decisions. You have to be. And so I think that's a huge learning.

I think the other learning is just, it's people you surround yourself with.

Like, people have different ways of working. And it's so hard to know that until you've worked with them.

SM: So any tips now, like red flags, green flags? How can people start to assess what someone would be like to work with until they work with them?

TP: I honestly think it's an incredibly hard, question to answer. I had a call with another VC today who was looking at bringing in another cofounder to one of their portfolio companies, and it's like, how do you assess that? Because they could work together for two weeks, two months, and it might not be enough to tell you how they'll be in two years. Even in my situation, I knew one of my cofounders for years, like, nearly a decade, right, by the time we parted ways. And yet the way we worked together was very different. Even though we knew each other so well and we thought we knew everything about each other. It's not a criticism to either of us. It's just different. And I honestly don't think you can know that for sure. It's a bit of a risk you have to take as a founder with your cofounder if you have one.

Even with your hires; you can't - it's the same sort of experience because you can't spend two years hiring someone. Have a decade long trial, can you?

SM: Exactly. What's your stance on that then - on like psychometrics, personality profiles, all these sorts of things to help?

TP: I think the the the biggest thing I would say to look for if you're looking for a co-founder is their willingness to grind through really hard times. I think that it is probably the single largest pressure on you as co founders.

When things get tough, who's there every day, every hour solving the problem, and who still wants to consider the fact that things might be smooth sailing and, like, wanna take a holiday or whatever. Like, again, I think that there is no right answer here, but I think that if you're not aligned on what that that way of work is it will cause problems.

You could probably both do one one way and that it could probably work it out and build a great start up as long as you aligned with that. But you could also both be like super hardcore grinders like in the hard and even in the good times. And so long as you both were like I don't think you necessarily have to be exactly the same, but there's like a complete respect and understanding of it from both people, which again is a learning for me. Like, I never stop working stuff. And I love that. And that works for me. Comes from swimming days. We talked about this in the last episode, and I think that that's great for me, but needing to understand and respect others' way of working is so deeply important, which I hadn't fully gauged, even in my company.

And then I think I think - this is actually something that we all aligned with really well - a problem, or the empathy of the to the problem you're solving. I think that you really all need to be so deeply, caring of solving it for whatever reason. Doesn't even have to be an impact-driven company. But if you're for example, you could be building another Fintech SaaS platform, which, maybe I am. And so long as you really care about solving this, then that's fine. But if you're just doing it because you think it's gonna make some money or you think it's like, oh, there is a problem there. I mean, you might have really identified it. But you don't really care about solving it. It feeds into your point on who's gonna be there to pick up the slack when they're going out of task. Because if you just don't care enough, that's not something that you can instill in someone through any sort of training. No way. Motivational speech. It's like that has to come intrinsically from that person.

SM: Connecting the dots a little bit here is a little bit on your point on arrogance with evidence. There's something they're connecting, whether it's cofounder pairings, hiring team members, and indeed, even with those customers, you're kinda touching on all those points, is the case for past behaviors, like, that evidence.

Whether it's a customer interview like the mum test, running into the spike, avoiding hypotheticals, right, is like the art of customer interviews, right? It's like avoid "what do you think of the sound of this? Would you do that?" Instead it's "when in the past have you had that problem and what did you do about it?" And whatever variation of that needs to apply - whether it's to customer interviews, cofounders, staff to try and shortcut that a little bit.

Because I know there's so many resources online with, like, top 50 questions to go through with the founder, like, so many accelerators that do the matching. And so at least even though you can't tell for it completely until you get into it, at least your most solid reference point is gonna be the past behaviors. I think that, like, really fundamentally, you you need to look at the past.

TP: Yeah. And I think that's why in in VC, like, we look at these sort of, like, outlier traits, like, you know, really abnormal success. Was it sport? Was it, like, really good in a specific class? Were you a collector of, like, really interesting things. Like, I don't know. Just something which, like, really pulls you away as, like, an obsession. Because it it allows you to see what that person is really like, why they really love something.

I can't remember exactly who it was I was talking to, the other day - oh this guy who's connected with Y Combinator - and he was saying that the people who he surrounds himself with at the moment and he's building a platform with for them, it's not talking to them about the thing they do every day, which is their jobs. He's obsessing over the hobbies that they love to talk about because that's something that they'll pay to solve.

So if you can find a problem in the hobby that they do in the abnormal trait that they show then you're more likely to build an amazingly loyal customer if you solve something really valuable.

I think that's a really interesting point when you when you get to know someone and I think also, one thing that I'm still trying to work out how you could do it. But honestly, I think if you've got, like, two founders who have just met each other who wanna start a company, go put them in some sort of, like, escape room. Like, honestly, like, put them under extreme pressure in a nice way. But, like, it must show how these guys would work together.

SM: Yeah. That's a really good idea for maybe some accelerators to do.

TP: Maybe we should do it as a VC fund before we invest. That would be heavy. Get the founders all in a really stressful situation. We probably wouldn't be loved if we broke up loads of companies though, so better get it out of the way sooner than later.

SM: So we've hinted a lot at what you're working on now. We want I wanna hear all about that for sure. Closing the Canopey chapter, what would you do differently?

TP: I would spend more time obsessing over the customer's problem rather than my focus on the problem. My knowledge of the problem. Founder market fit is important. It absolutely is. You need to know, that this founder knows what they're talking about better than anyone who's tried to do it before. But that doesn't necessarily reflect what the customer needs to solve the problem. So I think, honestly, that's the probably the biggest thing.

And then if there was a secondary thing, it would get an escape room with my cofounder.

SM: Yeah. Exactly. Just with that focus of the pain point - as if we haven't belaboured the point enough for our listeners - another thought that comes to mind here is the problem needs to be so painful that somebody is willing to pay for it. And parting with your cash is essentially a conversion of your time, right? Like, we have two resources in this life. They are our time and our money, and most of us trade our time for that money. And so the value of that, however much the actual price is, it's just, like, taking on board, like, your reflections, especially from, like, the interviews and trying to make it fit, you're just backing yourself further and further into that corner. Like, what is it that someone is willing to part with their cash over? That's the main question to stick with.

TP: 100. And actually, one of the things I obsess now in climate tech when looking at climate tech companies, for example, but it doesn't have to be climate tech. It can be anything. Is are you saving them time and money? Because then there's no there's no logical reason why they wouldn't pay for it. Because if you can still save them time and money and they still put some money on the table to pay you to solve it, you literally make their life so much easier.

SM: Interestingly, on that, I have to plug my interview with Matt Lerner. He has a really interesting stance for, like, saving time and money. So have a listen to that one. Basically, his argument is because this is a you see it a lot with, like, B2B stuff. Like, on their way of, like, save time and money. It's just not and this is more from, like, a messaging perspective of, like, it's not compelling whatsoever. And then, like, his argument that just comes to mind on that is people don't actually mind, spending time. So I think he used the example of a good film. It's like, you'll happily sit through and watch, like, a two hour film if, like, you're being entertained if there's, like, that level of value, of course.

TP: But it's the difference between an individual and a company. So in my opinion, like, I think the individual absolutely obsess on their hobby and they'll spend time and money to see the hobby. Whereas with a company, it ultimately all comes down to the bottom line. How much money am I spending as a company? How much money am I making as a company? And how much time are my staff or my employees spending doing things. And if you can save all of that Yeah. And make them money then as a company, it's a no brainer. It doesn't have to be the the sell on your marketing. But it's the action. The internal, like, the whereas you're and and Matt's absolutely right. Like, with an individual, you're you're far more likely to put the money on the table to actually spend more time doing your hobby. Right?

SM: Alright. So what are you working on now?

TP: The main thing I'm doing is that I've gone to the the dark side. I'm a Sith lord. No. We're joking. I've jumped into investing. So I work at what was an angel syndicate, and is now building up to become a fund, called Endgame Capital. We're a climate tech fund.

SM: And how different is it being on the dark side as you say versus starving entrepreneur?

TP: I shouldn't say it say that it's the dark side because we're really trying to sell ourselves as a value add investor, right? So, like, every investor says it but you know, there is actual value that we bring. I promise. I promise everyone.

But anyway, honestly, it's been really enlightening. I think that there's so much chat about VC. There's so much chat about founders. And honestly, I think a lot of it is, like, either misunderstanding from one side to the other, which is a problem that needs solving, or it's just fluff and opinion. Once you actually go and work inside, it doesn't have to be VC, you know. It could be as a full time angel investor. It could be as a angel syndicate. Whatever structure is, an accelerator, it doesn't really matter. The point is is that you learn a deep respect for the work that's being done and why there are these things that don't get done - whether it's feedback whether it's like completely open door policy - you start to understand why these problems exist.

Like I want to solve those as well, but I think that as a founder turned VC, maybe I'd wanna speak to founder Thomas, and tell him, you know this is why it's like this. It's why it's like this. And also, maybe that'll give you a better understanding of how to play that game. Which is important. It's so important.

SM: And it makes total sense because I think just knowledge, information breeds that familiarity and understanding. And I think that the gripes, the common complaints that we hear about on both sides of the fence are weak excuses to make either side feel better about themselves because I think it is easier to finger point and blame others. Whereas it's like, actually, if we can put the ego to one side for a and sit down and be like, look, are they actually dicks? Were they, like, born this way? What's the purpose of their life on this planet to dick you around? Probably not. Like, maybe, but probably not, right? You know, maybe there's one or two. But, like, let's ask that question.

TP: It's like in sports. It's like anything where there's opposite sides, where there's opposite teams. It's easy to have that, like, tribal mentality a little bit, isn't it? And you and you understand. Right? You sympathize with your own community.

I think one of the biggest learnings as a founder going into VC is that:

if your business is good enough, it will be funded.

We see a lot of deals in climate tech, of course - sometimes get not climate tech stuff, like, don't do that because that's not what we invest in. It's very obvious that we don't invest in your AI agent for email sorting, like, thanks though. But the point being is that we see a lot of deals and frankly, the ones which are compelling businesses will get a call with us.

SM: On that note, and I know that what I'm about to ask you ties into something else you're working on, which we also wanna hear about.

But I have to ask you, straight off an interview I've just done, as well as, like, hearing accounts from female founders, BAME, black founders, unconscious bias is under representation.

I have heard time and time again how much evidence, how compelling a case it is, but there is this unconscious bias that's in the way of funding some companies, so how does that argument hold up?

TP: It exists 100 in in VC, particularly from the white male VC. It is there is no way to ignore that, and I think the more we talk about it, the better. I think that we know it exists, so therefore, how do we solve it is important.

I think that a lot of the solutions that are talked about are sort of plasters over never-ending open wound. You know, one thing that really frustrates me with these sorts of big questions is that there is an obvious lack of funding for female or non white founders, and but we also have to ask, how much opportunity is there right at the beginning of the rungs for female and non white people to become founders and actually and get the network to become founders. And actually, I think this is almost like it's a really difficult one because it's a huge societal sort of economic question. Right? Of course. You're basically trying to solve.

SM: We're not talking about the weather on this podcast. Forget VC at Starlight. Climate change. That's true. We actually do need to talk about the weather. All these typical, like, small talk so what is it like, weather politics? It's like, oh, no. Actually, these are huge issues.

TP: They're huge things that do need to be fair. But my point being is that, like, you know, fundamentally, these are issues which are just societal and it's not an easy solution.

This a a great parallel example to this is that people are in climate are really angry at the energy usage of AI. Instead of being angry at the energy usage of AI, why not be angry at what is sourcing energy or how we source energy, which is fossil fuels.

If fossil fuels weren't the source of energy, then we wouldn't be angry at the consumption of AI because it would be renewable. In the same sort of sense, I think that we're angry at VCs for having this unconscious bias. Well, it's not a VC problem. This is a societal patriarchal problem. White patriarchal problem. We can go deep into politics, which we're not going to. But I think that what VCs can do about that is surround themselves with those people. So for us, for example, we have operator LPs and we're starting a venture scout program.

A lot of that is really focused on bringing people who aren't looking like me around the table to help us make decisions on deals so that it does remove some of the bias. But it's not a perfect solution because these are, like, societal nurturer nurture things. Right?

SM: For sure. And this nicely segues into your other start up that you're building.

TP: So on the side (which no founder should ever say!) is Morpheus. The whole concept of this came from originally that founders never receive feedback when they, don't get a call. I mean, I try to give feedback to people, but for example, we have an inbound form as well at Endgame. If you aren't gonna get a call on that inbound form, you won't hear from us. And that's a problem, I think. I think that founders should know why. And if there is a reason, then it should get back to them somehow. So that's where it sort of started. That's even more rife of exactly what we were talking about. If you're non white female, you're even more unlikely to hear back, particularly if you're not from finance. And even for for white straight men, like, if you're not in finance, it's immediately harder, like, as well. Obviously, not on the same level. This is where it all sort of started.

And then I started working in VC. And I was like, well, sh*t. It's like, this is why this doesn't happen because it's so inefficient. We spend hundreds of hours, like analysts particularly spend hundreds of hours reviewing deals, which need to be done but the way it's done is so inefficient.

So the whole concept of Morpheus is how do we speed up and get the best founders in more calls with the best VCs quicker. By doing that, you also automatically allow for feedback to go back to every single founder who ever applies or wants to reach out to a VC or an angel investor.

The idea being that you that everyone hates these buzzwords, but democratise the investment cycle and remove that unconscious bias or conscious bias, at least until the call. There's nothing we can do. There's nothing that any tech can do once I'm on call with a founder opposite me, right? Then it is in my mind again, how do you get bias out of that without it being run by robots, which there are VC funds, which we're trying to. But I think you still need a bit of human touch, but at least to get these people in the course. I think you have to make it more data-driven. But you also have to make it unbiased, which is what Morpheus is completely. So this is the problem that we're obsessing over. And, yeah, we've already sort of been working with some VCs on on what that solution might look like. And so, yeah, it's exciting days. Early days.

We haven't even incorporated because what's the point until you've got a paying customer in our opinion. But, yeah, it's exciting.

SM: So you're doing so much of this completely differently from before.

TP: 100%. Really taking on board all of these lessons learned.

SM: How exciting.

TP: Yeah. Particularly as well with team. My cofounder who I won't mention on the podcast because we both still work our full time jobs, but, her and I have been friends for four years.

I actually interviewed her four years ago to become the CTO of Canopey when Canopey was greener right at the beginning of the journey. She wasn't ready to jump in startups. Totally fair. We kept stayed in touch. We're aligned on morals, on ethics.

I've seen how quickly she's progressed in her career to become a head of a department in this specific topic in AI agents. In the specific industry that we work in. So there's obviously founder market fit from a technical perspective. But the speed and the grind that she's put into her work really attracted me. Because I was like, oh, it's like I'm looking in a mirror.

Someone who actually works like super super hard like it doesn't stop because they're so driven by their mission. So we met up, at the end of last year when I was still sort of trying to work out what I was doing. I was doing a bit of work at Endgame before joining full time. I'd experienced this problem. I started talking to her about it. And what was originally meant to be, like, an hour dinner catch up ended up into, like, a four hour brainstorming session. And it's just been brilliant. In many ways, I think she's got this fire of a time founder, which is actually I need. Like, I'm a bit bitter as a founder. I'm a bit old. I feel a bit, like, frustrated. I've had two start ups. Grey hairs. They both failed. I've seen lots of start ups fail. So I think, like, her fire and almost, like, naivety, which which is not an insult. It's brilliant because we balance each other in the best way possible.

SM: Love that. I mean, I don't know how many founders would be where they were now if they didn't have that initial naivete.

TP: We need it. Yeah. And even I, look, I can't claim to be an experienced VC. I haven't worked in the industry that long on this side of the table. So I think, even with me, there's a certain naivete in believing, like, 100% that people will want, like, will definitely wanna solve or every VC wants to solve this problem. Well, I can only know by the VCs I've spoken to. Right? There's nothing and I haven't worked in VC long enough to be able to go, yeah, but I believe enough That it is a solution. That this is a problem that needs solved. That optimism that which you absolutely need. You need it.

SM: You need it. Given that you are bitter now, bitter old man with these with these battle scars that you have so painfully amassed through multiple startups, now - and knowing you as I do and seeing you through this journey, I too have post mortem in mind and these scars and the cynicism that has been, like, bred over the years - not to dampen your spirits too much, but are you taking any pre-mortem now with your new ventures, with your new career change?

TP: Actually, I don't have that same level of blind optimism that my cofounder has, which is great. That balances me out. How can I now use that to my advantage to mitigate risks and and make this a success this time around. I think there needs to be a bit of context as well. Like, when I left Canopey, I was so bitter about startups that I almost left the industry entirely. I was like, I don't wanna work in a startup. I don't wanna work with startups. I don't wanna work with investors. I just really had a huge chip on my shoulder - not in a good way.

SM: Were you gonna go back into swimming? Were you gonna do that? Let's be real. What was going through your head at that point where you were just, like, so fed up with this?

TP: I think that, really, fundamentally, it came down to, like, really digging deep into my principles, my ethics, feeling frustrated. Like, maybe it's lack of that in startup industry. You know, a lot of people sacrifice that to be successful. I'm unwilling to do that. So I think, I literally just turned back to where I started, NGOs, charities. I was like, these guys, and I know them because I've worked there, are as selfless an employee that you can be. But there was also a reason that I left. Right?

And I think that I needed the time, months of and in that, I was still doing start up work. I was still mentoring. I was still, like, my I hadn't shut the door, but I definitely was most of the way out. And I think, mentally as well, like a mental strain, every time kind of an anxiety to come back into the industry, worried that, like, oh, the same thing would happen. And I think it talks to that sort of pre mortem of, like, doing a new startup is how do I mitigate that that that anxiety of that. But, actually, I think that the time allowed that to become a good chip on the shoulder to to start something new again and to work in in in the industry again, but on the other side of the table. Because I have a critical view of startup founders, but not in the way that it makes me bad at assessing them. It makes me Even better. Want to find the best founders who are head and shoulders impressive above other people who will build the best companies. Which is what you need in investing. So I think, like, from a VC perspective, I'm still learning the whole process of VC, and I will be. I'm not one of the partners of the fund. I am there to learn and work as well, and I bring expertise, but by no way am I coming in as a seasoned investor. But I think the the the beauty having this this sort of existential crises of startups generally actually makes me a pretty good eye on deals. A thousand percent. And deals where even my my other my colleagues or other VCs will will be so hyped up about something because they've been told this by the founder. Yeah. Or they've been sold it by another VC who's investing. And then I'll come in and I'll just be like the grumpy old shit who's like, yeah, but it's not that good, is it? And it's not that it's not that good. It's that I want evidence that it's that good. I want evidence that this founder is arrogant in the right way. All of this stuff.

You know, we announced it a couple weeks ago in this French start up. When I met the founders, I was so suspicious of their arrogance. Just because I was like, I know arrogant founders and I know like You can spot it. Arrogant founders. So like, I was really trying to gauge it. And after the call, I was like, this I wanna dig in on this more. And then we the team met their team and the team saw how they worked and and we had more calls of them. And just more and more realised these are arrogance but with evidence, 100%. These guys are 1% founders that we should invest in. And it was easy to find that conviction with my and and because also the colleagues had this, like, bullish optimism. Right?

It was like, okay. I should look into this, but, like, I'm gonna do it in a in a suspicious way. So I think I think that's that's good on the investment side.

From a startup side, I think that really fundamentally, it just means that I'm learning everything that went wrong with, like, the startup. I think honestly, Canopey could have succeeded, but I think that we probably weren't the right team to do it at the time. And because of that, I think I take a lot more focus on how me and my cofounder work together. How we solve problems, when we disagree, when we're working, how quickly we reply to each other. And I think that I'm really focused on it and not in a toxic way, but in a way where I'm giving internal assessment consistently about, is this right? And that now it's come to the point and you can see in the way that I talk to her that I feel so confident that I've answered those questions for me. So I think in any startup I do know. if there'll be one after Morpheus or if there or if I'll just stay in venture capital, who knows? But I think that in anything and in when assessing founders, it will be in, like, if I can get to the point where I find conviction in this person or these people, then I will allow my sort of chip on the shoulder to become more of, like, a bullish enthusiasm for these people.

SM: For sure. That makes sense. Given how impressive of an entrepreneur that I believe you to be, and I'm going on record with you being such a backable founder in so many different ways, given that you're now on the VC side of the fence, how does it feel to wake up in the morning and say, these bitches don't stand a chance?

(This meme interview question from Issa Rae to Zendaya, which is just like, how does it feel to wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror and think, damn, these other bitches don't stand a chance).

The conviction that I have as well, I've said to you many like, I'm not blowing hot air up your ass. I'm going on on the record with this. The conviction that I have is the vast array of hand data points that I have amassed as it relates to entrepreneurship. So number one, you've got my own business for five and a half years. We work with over a 100 startups in that period of time. That's just the number that became clients, let alone the much wider network. Now I'm at about sixty, seventy quality one to one hour long interviews. This is almost like a massive research project in itself, like getting to spend this much quality time with entrepreneurs. And I mentor MBA students in entrepreneurship. My network continues to grow. So I hope that that all adds to, you know, the the the justification as to why I say that. And I think, honestly, where I'm going with that is I feel really sorry to any fundraising founders that are pitching at Endgame Capital.

TP: No. But I I think that gotta be so good. But I think that even with John and Jina, the founders of the fund, like, they take that approach too. Jina is a two time founder turned investor. Like, she she also has been and there and done that and really understands that that problem from an operator perspective as well, has worked with huge international clients in her previous corporate life. And it's like I think that I think that we all come with this open door policy, but kind of a no bullshit policy.

Yeah. It's like, we're here to back great businesses that are led by the top 1% of founders that, like, will solve the biggest crisis that we have today, which is the climate crisis Yeah. In our in our opinion. Yeah. But they have to, like, really foundationally be good business.

So I think, like, you know, this is where John is so valuable in this, I think, because me and Jenna had this bullish enthusiasm as founders. And John has come from sort of private equity to to to Climate Tech VC, done his MBA, like, come back again to Climate Tech VC. So he has seen so many great amazing founders and so many founders that say they're great and and aren't. And I and I think that that mix of kind of approach and perspective from each of us allows us to make it make it challenging to get investment. But knowing that if you did get investment from us, we're so bullish about you that we will we will go all the way with you. We'll support you. We'll we'll open doors for you.

We know the people who know the people who will get you to the right place. And I think that this is such a important reason why I joined Endgame is that it wasn't just VCs talking about investing in, like, the wishy washy climate problem that most VCs talk about. It was VCs who deeply care, firstly, but also, like, have a really critical approach on climate tech, and the climate tech founders around that. And I think that was so relevant to to me as well. I needed people who also have this critical approach because otherwise, I would consistently get frustrated at maybe naive optimism. So I think it it's valuable. And I really appreciate all the comments, but I also think that there are we see so many, like, founders who are so impressive that it's actually quite an inspiration as someone who's now building another company as well. To be like, wow. The like, these guys are so awesome that I would love to be in that category. Right? Like but I'm hopefully, like, honest enough to accept that I'm not yet. And I say yet because, like I'm not 30 yet. You know, two months to go. So still time.

SM: It sounds like a really rigorous process with Endgame Capital. And so for anyone who is fundraising listening in: what is it that you guys are looking for exactly?

TP: Fundamentally, we look for, at a baseline, exceptional founders who have really exceptional experience either in the space or can bring this real founder pedigree mindsets to startups, to climate tech, even if they haven't worked in climate tech necessarily.

As businesses, what we look for is really tech defensible software and hardware, but, it has to have a defensibility to it. It and it has to be near commercialization. Now what we mean by that is you could still be doing pilots, but there's not that much research or or R&D that needs to go from these pilots to being a scalable commercial solution or product in the market.

The best thing about what I love about what we do is that we use the phrase "climate denier proof." And what we mean by this is that even Donald Trump would buy it. You know, even the people who contest. Even the people who don't give a flying crap about climate will buy this product because it's good business. So more efficient, more affordable, better. And this is a a real foundational part of the Endgame thesis is this sort of capitalism but impact by design. So as you scale as a commercial business your impact scales.

And I think also, like, we're climate tech investors, right? We look for a really quantifiable impact. We have to see that. But I think if you're trying to sell to your end users, this that the impact is what they buy. We're gonna struggle to find conviction in you because really what you should be selling them is this brilliant business. And then it's also like we can see that if this succeeds, it's gonna have a 50,000,000 ton GHG mitigation every year for you at scale. Like it's exciting that we can have that impact, but it has to not be the selling point.

SM: What a perfect role for you, Thomas. Like, given everything you've been through your experiences, your roles at NGOs, your passion, Canopey, everything that's happened - it's almost like you were destined to be in this position. It's incredible.

And you know what? I can't remember exactly how I phrased the question, but I do vaguely remember asking you a similar question two years ago with Canopy around the capitalist aspect to it because we've already belaboured the point on on not having gone deep enough on on an intense enough pain point for people to pay. But I think knowing so many other amazing, like, climate focused entrepreneurs, what I'm at least from my point vantage point, what I'm seeing over and over is that it's a feel-good kind of lagging factor for consumers. It's not the leading decision driver. So everything that you're talking about in terms of the investment thesis now with Endgame relates exactly to that. So everything just feels like it's neatly all coming together now.

TP: And I think I had to go through the phase of Canopey because all that learning that comes with trying to solve this huge problem and really believing that people have the intent to do it gives you this real just, like, baptism of fire that people don't. And it's not to say people don't care. That's not that's not the point. The point is is that you there's so much going on in people's lives, so much going on in business that we have to solve a real problem for them, and it and it happens to have a great climate impact. And I think that's really, really pivotal to it. I think it's funny because we probably did talk about it in the last episode. Like, ideologically, like, you know, if you spoke to Thomas who did his politics degree, you know, eleven years ago, twelve years ago, he would would hate that I work in VC. But it because of the naive optimism.

SM: Yeah. It's not the wrong opinion. It's just that that Thomas hadn't experienced how people really buy things, how people put money on the table, and ultimately, like, how the world works.

I'm obsessed with this point as well because there's something on here too around, like, goal setting, ambitions, beliefs, and there's this element of, you know, I'm the most, like, consistent person. Like, we sat doing a podcast two years ago. I'm still going. Like, I'm very consistent, which, like, can be good, can be bad. Right? Like, not showing off about that. So this is where it's like, I can I can hold I can be like, this is the plan? I can be like, this is the plan. I'm gonna x I'm also, like, a good executor, which again, not good, not bad. Right? But I'm consistent. I execute. This was the plan. This was our mission. This was the goal. But what you touch on, which is so interesting, is yeah. But, like, in that space of time, you have gathered more intel, more data, more experiences, more learnings that you need it kinda goes back almost full circle to that tension point between conviction and flexibility. Right? Because it's like, I think we can sometimes get hung up on, oh my god. Would 20 year old Thomas or, you know, 16 year old Steph what would she think about what I'm doing today?

And it's like, you need to there's some things you need to let go of because they just didn't know what we know today.

TP: I think what's really interesting about that is, exactly as I said right at the beginning is that you can have this big hairy audacious goal - this North Star, which doesn't change but your way of getting there through all the learnings that you take does. There there are multiple different roads you can take through that. So I think, like, for for 20 year old Thomas, if you asked him, like, what did he wanna solve, it would still be the climate crisis. And the answer would still be the same now. But the difference would be in a surprising way. And it's interesting because, like, I'm still bullish about the work that Greenpeace do.

Yeah. I still encourage people to sign up as members. I'm still selling their mission to people. Yeah. I am still bullish about being a founder and like believing that I can solve things better than like a a lot of people can.

I still believe that. But I also believe that going through that organization Greenpeace, going through the startup as a startup as a founder puts now puts me in a position where I can look at other founders and hopefully, and hopefully John and Jenna would agree, have, like, quite a good perspective on what makes them successful and what's gonna work. And look, time will tell, of course, but I think that you you take these learnings as you go. And it doesn't matter if you, stick with it for five years or or or jump to every every it's it's how you're learning through that.

It's How you're listening to the things that are presented to you. And then how you use that in whatever you decide to, even if it's the same thing. Yeah. I think as part of getting older as well is a realisation that there are other levers to pull to have greater impact.

That weren't immediately obvious when you were younger Yeah. Yeah. Or or at all obvious. And I think that with the Big vision, learnings, Greenpeace, to startups, to investing. you don't need to be a martyr in the process either.

And I think there's that, like, when you're younger and just more naive and you just don't have as much knowledge of, like, how the world works and systems and, like, I didn't I had had no clue about business. And I had no clue about that when I was young, obviously.

Right? So, and I think it's kind of, like, when you're younger, you've got that, like, I've gotta do something myself. It feels like you're one person against the world. You're on that mission, whereas, like, actually getting in the system and, like, affecting it affecting it from from within is is where I was going with that. Well, I mean, even but even the most even the most evidenced, arrogant founders know that even though they probably are and know it, that they are the best people to solve the problem, they also know that they can't do it alone.

Yeah. Exactly. They're gonna need to collaborate with investors. They're gonna need to collaborate with the partners that they sell to or the marketing people that come in and support them or the PR or whatever it is. And at the the most important level, their team, like, it's not a one man.

You can't do it as a one man match. So, like, I think that really importantly, like, it it's not so much about, like, believing you can just go it alone or it's not so much about, like, yeah, this martyrdom of, like, I'll sacrifice everything for the cause. Exactly. It it's it's just that you learn What's actually the most effective route? Whilst still believing. Particularly from a founder's perspective here, but, like, still believing that you're the best person to lead but just not doing it alone.

SM: So penultimate question. Similar theme with this kind of, like, it's just been such a great opportunity to be reflective. You know, these are markers in time where we get to sit down and, like, go through your journey.

We were talking before about the younger versions of ourselves. What would you say to not even the 20 year old Thomas, but the Thomas of just a couple of years ago to like, in those final days with Canopey? What advice would you go back and give him now?

TP: Honestly, just trust that it will work out. And I think that everyone says this when they've gone through difficult times or and they come out the other side of it.

And look, everyone consistently has other challenges that they're faced with. I mean, look. I'm Muslim. We know this. And I think that we believe that challenges are presented to us to help us grow and to prove our faith. Right? So even if you didn't have that, the same principles, even if you're an atheist, it's believe the process, trust the process, trust that you know how to get through this, and trust that this challenge is gonna help you grow as a person. And I can do that through my faith, but also I would do that regardless now. So I think that's really what I would I would say because probably a year and a half ago, Thomas was stressing the heck out. So I would honestly, I would just say, look, take a breather. It's gonna be okay. You know best, and listen to the people who care.

SM: Love that. Well, if there are any founders listening to this right now that are feeling, like, down in the dumps, things are stressful, this is the the version of you in a couple of years' time that you're getting to hear now on this show.

And also reach out. I say this cautiously, because when you've got VC in your title everyone reaches out. But it's good, I mean it. The difference that we we have as a team. I particularly care about it - we've been there. We've been in the trenches. We know how you feel. We might not be the investor for you, but I definitely care about what founders are going through. So if you're a founder that is going through, like, I don't know what to do. I don't know what's happening. There's these challenges. Look. Find me on LinkedIn. Drop me a message. Explain where you heard it, and I can at least try and give you my perspective on it. But it might not be relevant, so just be prepared.

SM: That's really kind of you, Thomas. Appreciate that. Alright.

Traditional closing question to wrap the show. One tragedy that's taught you an unforgettable lesson?

TP: I think last time I probably spoke about, at the ending of my swimming career. And and if I didn't, then it's a good it's a good one because it was the major tragedy that my in my own life experience. Like, this tragedy is always around you, but, like, this was something that I was passionate about, I wanted to do, and it was stopped because I got injured. I think I was your last this last time. But it it has to be the same because Yeah. Interesting. What it did is it laid the foundation for every major tragedy that came afterwards to know that look, swimming was my life. I was going to the Olympics. I was I deeply cared about that. I deeply cared about the sport. I cared about my my, my team.

And I was just like, that was all taken away pretty pretty quickly. And I think that that tragedy allowed me to kinda go where whatever tragedy comes, I can deal with it. And I think that every founder, if you can sort of anchor yourself in something that happened to you, and it doesn't have to be huge. Right? But it just has to be something where you really had this, like, epiphany of, like, well, fuck.

I can't do this thing I love anymore. You can use that to a to a a brilliant strength. And and it's whether the company fails or whether it's just a day to day challenge, use that feeling. But As reassurance that you got through it.

Reassurance that you can get through it. Yeah. Really specifically. Because sure, there are other people who can get through challenges, and I'm sure that every founder knows someone who could get through the challenge they're going through. But you have to believe that this was meant for you, and you will find a way through it.

If it works, if it doesn't work, it's not the point. The point is that there is another side to it. So, yeah, I think the swimming has to come back again. Incredible. I love that.

Thomas, thank you so much for coming back on the show. I love doing this, like, now that the show has been going for long enough now to kind of, like, actually revisit. Like, where are some of them? Like, how what happened during that time and use this as, like, a reflective opportunity for you as well, but also, I think one of the best opportunities to, like, relay those lessons learned the hard way again even more so. So thank you so much again, and thank you so much for listening if you're still with us then.

Thank you so much. Really hope you enjoyed this. Do hit that subscribe button, and I look forward to seeing you next time.

SM: And thank you so much for listening. Really hope that you've enjoyed this episode as well. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button. Honestly, it really helps me out.

Episodes are weekly, so make sure to tune in next time, and hopefully see you there.

Strategy & Tragedy: CEO Stories with Steph Melodia is the best podcast for curious entrepreneurs and ambitious founders. Learn from those a few steps ahead of you in these candid interviews of the highs and lows of scaling and failing business.

Watch the full episode here, subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music.

Thank you for listening and for supporting the show!