After 200+ investor conversations, I started noticing 3 very different types of investors
Over the last couple of weeks while building VIDI solo, I’ve had a large number of investor conversations across AI, SaaS, infrastructure, and workflow software.
One thing that became noticeable surprisingly fast:
different investors often think from completely different worlds.
The first type reminds me of old-school automotive corporations.
Very analytical.
Very structured.
Very rational.
A lot of the discussion revolves around:
competition,
market size,
risk,
distribution,
pricing pressure,
and whether a new vehicle can survive against giants already dominating the road.
And honestly, many of their points are completely valid.
The second type feels more like modern EV and performance companies.
Much more focused on:
speed,
distribution,
positioning,
behavior,
and whether something can gain momentum over time.
Those conversations usually feel much more dynamic.
But the third type has probably been the most interesting to me.
These are the people who feel like they started somewhere in the middle of the desert with almost nothing - then somehow built both the factory and the vehicle themselves just to keep moving forward.
The conversations feel completely different.
Less focused on immediate objections.
More focused on:
patterns,
conviction,
timing,
people,
and whether something has the potential to compound over very long periods of time.
It stops feeling like a normal startup conversation.
And honestly, I’ve realized I enjoy speaking with the third type of people the most by far.
Still extremely early obviously.
But some of these conversations genuinely changed how I think about company building overall.
Currently continuing conversations around the pre-seed round. At this point, there’s already interest from a potential follow-on investor - the main focus now is finding the right lead investor fit for the round.
For now, continuing to build, refine the product, and learn every week as a solo founder.
Also recently launched subscriptions:
TRENCHLINE → 30% off Starter
NANOMACHINE → 20% off Growth
Curious if other startup founders and business owners have noticed similar differences in how experienced people think once conversations go beyond the surface level.
Honestly, in business I probably see the first 1–2 types much more often than the third.
Yeah, I’ve noticed the same thing so far honestly.
Same here
Accept it
The third type is rare but the pattern makes sense when you think about it. Most investors who think analytically about competition and market size are pattern matching against things they have already seen. That is useful but it has a ceiling.
The ones who think about conviction, timing, and compounding are usually asking a different question entirely. Not whether this fits a known category but whether the person behind it will keep going when it gets hard and whether the problem compounds over time as the market shifts.
What struck me reading this is that the same three types exist on the founder side too. Some founders build against a market map. Some build for momentum and positioning. And a few just build because they genuinely cannot not build the thing. The last group tends to survive the longest.
Good luck with the pre-seed. VIDI has been moving fast from what I have seen.
Appreciate this a lot. And honestly, I think your point about the different founder types is very true too - some people are optimizing for categories, others for momentum, and some are just deeply pulled toward building something specific over long periods of time
It's interesting that you've identified distinct types of investors, particularly the analytical and rational ones reminiscent of old-school corporations. I'd love to hear more about the other two types you've encountered and how their thinking differs from this first group. Can you elaborate on the key characteristics that define these other investor types and how they impact your conversations with them?
Haha I think I’ve already gone deeper into this topic than I originally planned in the post/comments some parts are probably better left a bit abstract for now.
It's interesting that you've identified distinct types of investors, and I'd like to hear more about how you've adapted your pitch to effectively communicate with each group. Have you found that certain types of investors are more suited to your vision for VIDI, or are you trying to find a balance that appeals to all three. Can you elaborate on how the analytical and structured approach of the first type of investor has influenced your fundraising strategy.
Honestly, I think I already shared most of what I’m comfortable sharing publicly about that in the post/comments still figuring a lot of it out in real time myself.
It's interesting that you've identified distinct types of investors, and the old-school analytical approach of the first type reminds me of traditional financial institutions, where decisions are often made based on thorough risk assessments and quantifiable data. I'd love to hear more about the other two types of investors you've encountered and how they differ from this first group. What specific characteristics or priorities have you observed in these other investors that set them apart from the more analytical type?
I tried to summarize the general pattern as best as I could in the post itself honestly 😅 a lot of the nuance is probably hard to fully explain in a single comment.
It's interesting that you've identified distinct types of investors, and the comparison to old-school automotive corporations for the first type is particularly insightful. I'd love to hear more about how the other two types of investors differ from this first type, and whether you've found that certain types are more or less suited to your vision for VIDI. Can you elaborate on what characterizes the other two types of investors you've encountered.
Honestly, I’d say the biggest difference is usually what they optimize for mentally. Some focus heavily on risk and structure, others on momentum and distribution, while the third group tends to think much more through long-term patterns and builder experience. That’s probably the simplest way I’d describe it
200+ conversations is a serious number — I bet the pattern recognition alone from that volume is worth more than most startup advice out there. As a bootstrapped solo founder myself, I'm always curious how people balance the investor conversation grind with actually shipping product. Did those conversations change anything about what you're actually building, or mostly how you talk about it?
Honestly, I’ve gotten pretty used to balancing both over time 😅 and yeah, some conversations definitely influenced parts of both the product thinking and the way I communicate it.
From the other side of the table, this maps. I built a company for 20 years before writing checks, and you can tell within five minutes whether you are talking to a spreadsheet, a pattern-matcher, or someone who has actually shipped something hard. The third group is rare because most investors never lived in the operating chair long enough to feel what compounds and what does not. At pre-seed, optimize hard for that founder fit. The capital is the same. The conviction is not.
Appreciate this a lot, Greg.
And honestly, I’m starting to realize the same thing - the most valuable conversations usually happen when both sides are thinking like builders first, not just capital allocators.
A lot of those conversations have genuinely started reshaping how I think about positioning, workflows, and even parts of the deck itself over time.
Huge congratulations on launching the subscriptions, Meirambek! That’s a massive milestone for a solo founder. Balancing product refinement, continuous learning, and hunting for a lead investor all on your own is no joke huge respect for the hustle.
Finding the right fit for a lead investor takes time, but staying focused on the product and traction in the meantime is exactly the right move. Loving the pricing/coupon code names by the way, very sharp!
Wishing you the best of luck with the round and the new subscribers. Keep crushing it!
Appreciate it 🙌 and haha the code names actually came from friends - mostly meme/game references 😅
Hi Indie Hackers,
I'm building SpendLens — a free AI spend audit tool for startups (tells you where you're overspending on Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT, etc.).
Looking for 3 quick conversations (10-15 min) with founders or engineering leaders who manage AI tool budgets.
If you're interested: what's your biggest frustration with your current AI tool costs?
Comment below or DM me. Happy to help with your projects too.
Honestly feels a bit unrelated to the actual discussion here 😅 comes across more like a promo drop than a real response to the post.
Very Insightful.
Appreciate it
great info
Appreciate it
Really sharp observation. The third type of investor usually understands what it actually means to build through uncertainty, not just analyze it. Respect to you for continuing to build VIDI solo.. excited to see how it compounds over time.
Appreciate it 🙌 still very early, but definitely learning a lot through the process.
Love this observation, and it's so true! I've found that investors often have their own biases and assumptions, so it's essential to tailor your pitch and messaging to their specific interests and concerns. I've found it helpful to create a 'pitch matrix' to visualize the different investor types and tailor my approach accordingly - it's saved me countless hours in investor meetings."
"In fact, I used to struggle with finding the right investors to talk to, but I solved that problem by automating my marketing outreach using a custom-built system of bots on Netlify. It's now handling campaigns on Reddit, Twitter, and email for me, with no monthly SaaS fees - it's been a game-changer for my own indie hacking journey.
Interesting approach, although I personally try to keep investor conversations a bit more natural rather than heavily systemized.
The third type and the first 5 right users share a shape. Both show up for compound time, not objection Handling. Founders learn faster from conviction buyers than from analytical skeptics.
Interesting perspective, although I’m not sure the comparison fully maps 1:1. Investor conversations and early user behavior can end up being very different dynamics in practice.
Crazy analysis you did about the different types of investors.
Appreciate it 🙌
The third type is rare and worth gold. They're not measuring you against existing categories — they're trying to figure out if the future shape you're describing actually compounds, which is the only question that matters at this stage.
What I've noticed across my own conversations: type 1 ends with "send me your model", type 2 with "let me know when you have X traction", type 3 with "what do you need to keep moving". The third feels different because it is — they've operated from the desert before.
Glad you're getting traction on the pre-seed. Following the journey.
Yeah, honestly it’s different every time 😅 but I do get what you mean. Some conversations definitely feel much more focused on long-term continuation rather than immediate metrics alone.
The three-archetype framework is a useful lens. What you're describing as "type three" sounds like the investors who've actually built something themselves — the ones who ask about founder conviction and market intuition rather than just TAM slides.
One pattern I've noticed in early-stage fundraising for consumer products: investors who've never dealt with B2C unit economics often underestimate CAC complexity and overweight "market size" as a proxy for quality. Meanwhile the best investors ask "who specifically is your first 100 users and why will they care?" That question cuts through a lot.
The hard part is you can't always tell which type you're in before the meeting. Have you found any early signals in the first 5 minutes of a conversation that help you calibrate which mode to be in?
Interesting point, although honestly I’m not sure I fully agree that it’s always that predictable that early. Sometimes people surprise you later into the conversation, and sometimes first impressions end up being completely wrong.
The 200+ conversations hit home — you really had to put in the reps to see the patterns. Curious which category surprised you the most?
Honestly, probably the third one. I expected analytical and momentum-driven investors, but the long-term builder mindset surprised me the most.
The third type of investor usually understands the founder journey much better than just looking at numbers. Those conversations feel more real and long-term focused.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Those conversations usually feel much more grounded in real experience and long-term thinking.
Great breakdown. The third type is gold. How do you spot them early before wasting time on the first two?
Honestly, I don’t think there’s a shortcut. Mostly just comes from having a lot of conversations and gradually noticing patterns over time.
The "desert builders" archetype is the one that really resonates from the indie hacker side (where I'm sitting right now: 0 funding, 0 product yet, trying to validate before writing code). Your line about it stopping to feel like a normal startup conversation is exactly the vibe I'd want from any external feedback at this stage.
Curious, when you spot one of those in an early investor conversation, what's usually the tell? Is it a specific question they ask, or more about what they explicitly don't push on?
Great observation. For me, the biggest tell is: they don't ask about competition. They don't care who else is doing it. They care if the problem is real and if you're the right person to solve it. Also - they ask "why now?" not "when launch?" That's a huge signal. And yes, they listen more than they talk.
What are you building? Sounds like you're on the right track.
Honestly, it’s hard to describe precisely. It’s usually less about one specific question and more about the overall feel of the conversation. They just tend to think very differently from the start - you notice it almost immediately.
Makes total sense, that "feel" you can't fully articulate is usually the strongest signal. Curious if you've noticed the same kind of pattern on the customer / user side too. I'm starting validation interviews this week, and from what others have told me, the strongest "this person will actually buy" signals come from a similar overall vibe rather than any specific yes-or-no answer. Was wondering if your investor pattern recognition transferred at all to evaluating early users.
Honestly, I’m still figuring that part out myself 😅 but I do think there’s often a similar overall feel on the user side too, not just one perfect answer or metric.
Nice way to frame it. The third type of investor sounds much more focused on people, resilience, and long-term potential than just numbers on a spreadsheet. I can see why those conversations would leave a bigger impact. Thanks for sharing your view :)
Appreciate it 🙌 Yeah, those conversations usually feel much deeper and more memorable than purely numbers-driven discussions.
I hadn’t really thought about how investors’ backgrounds shape their thinking this much. The way you describe the third type makes me reflect on my own approach sometimes it’s less about the perfect numbers and more about showing genuine conviction and adaptability. Definitely gives a fresh perspective on founder-investor conversations
Yeah, I’ve started noticing that too. Some conversations become much more about mindset, adaptability, and long-term thinking than just numbers alone.
This is a phenomenal observation, Meirambek. That third type of investor—the "desert-builders" who had to manufacture both the bricks and the vehicle—are incredibly rare but absolute gold for a solo founder.
When you are building early-stage software, old-school spreadsheet investors try to fit your future into a rigid box, while the hype-driven EV types just chase immediate momentum. But builder-driven investors understand compounding value under extreme uncertainty. Speaking from our journey building ShipMitra in the complex Indian B2B logistics space, we've noticed the exact same pattern. The investors who spent time in the trenches care infinitely more about how your mind works when a distribution channel breaks, rather than just looking at a polished pitch deck.
Adapting organically and staying flexible—just like you mentioned in the comments—is the only way to filter out the noise and find that perfect lead investor. Massive congrats on launching the TRENCHLINE and NANOMACHINE subscriptions, man. Keep putting out these raw insights!
Appreciate the thoughtful comment man 🙌 one small thing though - comments usually hit harder when they’re a bit less self-promotional. Your experience itself is already interesting enough without needing to push it too much.
Not just investors, talking to people in general about your product is important. It's a great way to get new ideas and insights on what to improve on your product.
And don't be afraid for negativity, discover where it comes from and try to change it.
Yeah, definitely agree. Customer and user conversations matter a lot too. This post was just specifically about the investor side since I started noticing very different thinking patterns there.
this is actually really interesting, never thought
about investors being split like that
the third type sounds like the ones worth talking to
honestly, the others feel like they're just checking
boxes
im 17 building my first saas and reading stuff like
this helps a lot, gives a different perspective on
where things can go
congrats on the subscriptions launch 🔥
Appreciate it man 🙌 I actually started getting into startups around 15 too. One thing I’ve realized early is that learning how to adapt matters a lot more than trying to know everything from the start.
The strongest investors tend to bet on people and timing, not only numbers
Yeah, I’m starting to believe that more and more after these conversations.
"Spot on analysis. There is a massive difference between spreadsheet-driven investors and builder-driven investors. Finding those people who understand the long-term compounding nature of software makes all those conversations worth it. Keep pushing!"
Appreciate that. I’ve definitely started noticing how differently builder-driven investors think once conversations move beyond short-term metrics.
Great breakdown, Meirambek! It’s fascinating how the 'desert-builders' (3rd type) focus more on conviction and compounding rather than just market risks. In your conversations with them, did you find that they cared more about the technical moats of VIDI or the founder-market fit? Good luck with finding the right lead investor!
Appreciate it. Honestly, some of the most interesting parts of those conversations are probably the hardest to discuss publicly in detail 😅
investors really play their bet on how they live their life ; its a pattern, sometimes there would be no sense in investing in a company but then out of no where an investor would show up and invest in it, cause maybe sometimes its not about its credibility or potential but more about what the investor sees and feels through it based off their own life experiences,
maybe something they thought would never work but somehow it did cause it was never about making it work, it was passion and it being profitable was just a by product of it.
Yeah, I’ve seen that too honestly. Sometimes a decision has less to do with pure spreadsheets and more with how someone personally sees the world through their own experiences and convictions.
the 3rd type is the most fun to talk to but also the hardest sell - they pattern-match on conviction, not slides. for early-stage founders that flip from rational-to-narrative pitch is huge.
Yeah, I can definitely see that. Those conversations usually feel much less about polished answers and much more about how someone thinks long-term under uncertainty.
I appreciate your observation about the different types of investors you've encountered, particularly the analytical and structured approach of the first type, which is reminiscent of old-school automotive corporations. This highlights the importance of understanding the investor's mindset and tailoring your pitch accordingly. Can you elaborate on how you've adapted your approach to effectively engage with each of these distinct investor types?
Honestly, I wouldn’t even say it was something highly intentional or scripted. The conversations just naturally evolved differently depending on how each person thinks about markets, risk, and company building. I mostly tried to stay flexible and listen carefully rather than force the same discussion every time.
did you find type 3 self-selects by stage, or do they skip the very early ones too? curious if 'compound thinking' even shows up before traction exists
Honestly, pretty mixed from what I’ve seen so far. Some definitely wait for traction, but a few surprisingly think that way very early too. Probably closer to 50/50.
Interesting how different investors can look at the exact same company and see completely different things depending on how they think and what they’ve experienced themselves.
Exactly. Same company, completely different interpretation depending on how people think.
Yep, different perspectives.
Accept it
Really insightful breakdown. The third type of investor usually sees beyond the current market and focuses on long-term compounding, conviction, and the founder behind it. Those conversations tend to feel very different.
True, I’ve very rarely seen that third type in real life too - most conversations stay pretty surface-level.
Yeah, that third type feels much rarer in practice honestly.
Yeah, those conversations usually feel very different from typical surface-level startup discussions.
nice
Appreciate that - those conversations definitely tend to feel very different.
This comment was deleted 2 days ago.