Building Principled Alternatives
Most disruption optimises for growth at all costs. I'm more interested in building things that are worth keeping — and what that actually demands of a founder.
The Problem with "Move Fast"
Most startup advice is downstream of a single metric: growth. Move fast, break things, iterate until the numbers go up. There's nothing inherently wrong with speed — but speed toward the wrong destination is just efficient destruction.
I keep coming back to a simpler question: is this worth building?
What Principled Building Actually Looks Like
Principled building isn't slow building. It's building with a clear answer to the question of what you'd refuse to do — before the pressure arrives.
The decisions that compromise companies rarely happen in a single dramatic meeting. They accumulate in small concessions: a feature that extracts attention rather than creates value, a metric that flatters the story rather than reflects the reality, a hire made for optics rather than fit.
The antidote isn't more conviction. It's pre-commitment.
The Founder's Bias Problem
Founders are uniquely susceptible to motivated reasoning. You've staked your identity on the idea, your network on the team, your time on the execution. By the time a critical decision arrives, you're the last person who can see it clearly.
This is why external accountability structures matter — not as bureaucracy, but as a forcing function for honesty.
Where I Land
I don't think purpose and profit are opposites. The best businesses I've studied are profoundly purposeful — not because it's a marketing position, but because it's how they make hard decisions consistently over time.
The goal isn't to build something good despite commercial realities. It's to build something that's commercially viable because it's genuinely good.
That's a harder problem. It's also the more interesting one.