Here's something nobody tells you about the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible: the conventional wisdom is mostly backwards.
I've been in the Silicon Valley trenches for over a decade, and I've never seen a shift as massive as AI in healthcare. I'm sharing the hard-won lessons from my own startups and investments—the wins, the failures, and the counterintuitive strategies that actually work.
What I've Learned From 131 Companies
After investing in 200+ startups and running two companies to successful exits, I've developed a pretty clear picture of what works with the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible.
The biggest misconception is that you need to simplicity beats complexity every time. That's backwards. The companies that win are the ones that your team matters more than your technology.
I remember sitting with the Anthropic team early on and discussing how they thought about the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible. Their approach was counterintuitive but brilliant.
The Counterintuitive Truth
Here's what surprised me most about the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible: the best practitioners do less, not more.
When I was building MovieLaLa, we tried to do everything at once. We had the best technology, the smartest team, and we still almost failed because we spread ourselves too thin.
The lesson I took from that experience, and from watching hundreds of other companies, is that timing is everything in this game. It sounds simple. It's incredibly hard to execute.
Why Most Approaches Fail
Let me be direct: about 70% of the approaches I see to the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible are fundamentally flawed. Not slightly off. Fundamentally flawed.
The root cause is usually one of three things:
- Copying what big companies do without understanding why they do it. What works for Google doesn't work for a 10-person startup.
- Over-engineering the solution when a simple approach would work better. I've seen teams spend six months building something that could have been done in two weeks.
- Ignoring the human element. Technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it is where the real challenge lives.
The AI Angle
I can't talk about the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible in 2026 without mentioning AI. As someone who's invested in Anthropic, OpenAI, Scale AI, and Hugging Face, I have a front-row seat to how AI is transforming this space.
The short version: AI makes good practitioners better and bad practitioners worse. It's an amplifier, not a replacement.
I've seen companies use AI to 10x their the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible capabilities. I've also seen companies waste millions on AI solutions that solved the wrong problem. The difference comes down to understanding what you're actually trying to achieve.
This connects to broader themes around healthcare automation, AI mental health, drug discovery AI, medical AI that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Final Thoughts
After two exits, 200+ investments, and more mistakes than I can count, here's what I know for sure about the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible: there are no shortcuts, but there are smarter paths.
The smartest founders I work with treat the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible as a competitive advantage, not a checkbox. They invest in it early, measure it obsessively, and never stop improving.
If you're just getting started with the 5 unspoken rules of building a defensible, don't be intimidated. Everyone starts somewhere. The key is to start with the right mindset and the right framework, and then execute like your company depends on it. Because it probably does.
Frequently Asked Questions
What experience informs this perspective?
This perspective comes from over a decade of building companies in Silicon Valley, two successful exits (RemoteTeam to Gusto, MovieLaLa to Gfycat), and investing in 200+ startups including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Scale AI. I write about what I've lived.
Do all experts agree with this view?
No, and that's fine. The best ideas in business are often contrarian. I share my perspective based on my experience and data, but I encourage you to seek out opposing viewpoints and form your own conclusions.
How can I apply this thinking to my own situation?
Start by identifying the core principle behind the opinion, not the specific example. Then ask yourself: does this principle apply to my context? If yes, test it in a small, low-risk way before going all in.