Why You Should Subscribe...
I stopped believing in my own ideas. It was the best strategic decision I have made.
There’s a fuel that runs through early-stage ambition, and for a long time I ran on it without questioning the supply. Call it conviction, call it vision, call it whatever founders are supposed to have. I called it delusional optimism, and I leaned into the label like it was a badge of honour.
Delusional optimism is seductive because it works, for a while. It gets you through the early mornings, the rejection emails, the moments where the rational move is to stop. It papers over the gaps between where you are and where you’ve told people you’re going. And in a slower world, that gap might close. You might actually arrive.
But we don’t live in a slower world anymore.
What Turning 35 Actually Changed
I turned 35 recently, and it didn’t arrive with the crisis people joke about. It arrived with clarity. The kind of clarity that comes when you stop performing certainty and start looking at the numbers.
The numbers, in my case, came from a project I’d poured real time and capital into - financial and emotional. It didn’t fail in the dramatic, instructive way startup stories are supposed to fail. It just became irrelevant. The space moved. The assumptions underneath it shifted faster than I could adjust. And when I looked around, the same thing was happening everywhere: ideas that seemed differentiated six months ago were now crowded, commoditised, or overtaken by teams with more resources, better timing, or simply a large language model that could replicate the core functionality.
That was the moment I stopped treating my own ideas as precious.
Not because the ideas were bad. Some of them were genuinely good. But “good idea” is no longer a durable competitive position. It might never have been, but the illusion was easier to maintain when the cycle from concept to competition took years instead of weeks.
The Arithmetic of Modern Innovation
Here’s what I started noticing once I dropped the optimism filter: the base rate for any given idea surviving contact with the current pace of innovation is very, very low.
This isn’t pessimism. It’s just probability. When thousands of teams can spin up a working prototype in a weekend, when foundation models keep turning entire product categories into features, when someone with more capital and distribution can replicate your differentiation before you’ve finished your pitch deck, the honest assessment is that most ideas will either fail outright or pivot beyond recognition.
I used to resist this framing. It felt defeatist. If you believe your idea is probably going to fail, why bother? But that question only makes sense if the idea is the point. And I’ve come to believe the idea is not the point.
The Substrate Reframe
The shift that actually changed how I operate was simple, almost disappointingly so: I started treating every idea as substrate for learning and articulation, and only secondarily as a potential business.
Substrate is a word I keep coming back to. In biology, it’s the surface on which an organism grows. The substrate isn’t the organism. It’s what makes growth possible.
An idea, explored honestly and articulated well, generates something more durable than the idea itself. It generates insight. It generates a body of thinking that demonstrates how you reason, what you notice, what patterns you can identify before they become obvious to everyone else. And that thinking, once articulated and shared, compounds in ways that a single product never could.
When the project became irrelevant, the months I’d spent on it could have been a total loss. But the observations I’d made along the way, about how certain markets were shifting, about what I’d gotten wrong and why, those retained their value. The project was temporary. The thinking was transferable.
Researcher, Not Founder
The posture that makes sense to me now is closer to researcher than founder. Not in the academic sense, where research means years of isolated study before publication. More in the sense that the primary output of exploring an idea is the exploration itself: what was discovered, what was surprising, what contradicted expectations.
This distinction matters because it changes what you optimise for. A founder optimises for shipping. A researcher optimises for understanding. In a world where what you ship can be replicated before you’ve acquired your first hundred users, understanding is the more defensible asset.
I realise this sounds like rationalisation. “I’m not failing at building companies, I’m succeeding at research.” But the proof is in what actually happens. The people I pay attention to, the voices I trust in any domain, aren’t the ones who shipped the most products. They’re the ones whose thinking I can rely on. They’ve built credibility by showing their work over time, not by announcing launches.
And credibility, unlike a product, is very hard to replicate.
What I Actually Abandoned
I want to be precise about what I’m not saying. I’m not saying ambition is wrong, or that building things is pointless, or that everyone should become a blogger instead of a founder. I still explore ideas with real intent. I still want some of them to work.
What I abandoned was the relationship with those ideas where their success was load-bearing for my identity. Delusional optimism requires you to stake your self-concept on the outcome. “I’m the person building X. X will succeed because I need it to.” That’s the fuel, and it’s also the trap. Because when X doesn’t succeed, and statistically it won’t, you don’t just lose a project. You lose the story you’ve been telling yourself about who you are.
The alternative is lighter and, I’d argue, more honest. I’m exploring X. I think it’s interesting for these reasons. Here’s what I’m finding. If it leads somewhere, great. If it doesn’t, the exploration was the value.
The Part Nobody Warns You About
Dropping delusional optimism doesn’t feel triumphant. It feels like losing a superpower. That irrational conviction genuinely does make hard things easier. It collapses the distance between doubt and action. Without it, you have to find other fuel: curiosity, discipline, the quieter satisfaction of getting incrementally better at understanding something.
Those fuels burn slower. They don’t produce the same manic energy. But they also don’t crash the same way. I’ve watched the crash, in myself and in people I respect. The post-failure depression, the identity vacuum, the months spent recovering before you can even think about the next thing. That recovery time is its own cost, and nobody accounts for it in their startup maths.
At 35, with the pace of change accelerating and the window for certain life decisions narrowing, I can’t afford three-year recovery cycles between failed bets. What I can afford is a sustained practice of exploring ideas, articulating what I find, and letting the exploration itself be enough.
Where This Leaves Me
I still wake up excited about ideas. That hasn’t changed. What’s changed is that the excitement lives in the right place now. It lives in the process of investigation, not in the fantasy of the outcome.
Any idea I explore today is highly likely to fail or pivot beyond recognition. I’ve made peace with that. The thinking it produces, the patterns it reveals, the articulation it forces, those are mine to keep regardless.
Delusional optimism got me started. But research is what keeps going, and i’ll be writing about it here every day.