Alien Advantage: Pattern-Breaking Innovation/Manan Mehta, Rustam Esanov - Immigrants, Unshackled, mRNA+AI ~ Spark of Ages Ep 53 - Spark of Ages

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Manan Mehta (00:00):
US immigration is still the best in the world.
And it will be that way.

Rajiv Parikh (00:03):
Even with all the stuff that's going on, it's
still the best in the world.

Yeah, it's the best way.
No other country has suchpromising immigration policy or
access to it, right?
There are pathways alwaysopening up.

Rustam Esanov (00:12):
We came with nothing essentially with
backpacks to pursue our PhD andget technical skills in
different areas of biology andchemistry.
And now we're combining thoseskills to solve one of the
toughest challenges in medicine.

The conditions around entering the country have
changed a lot in the last 10years.
But when they do enter here,you do find people that are
hunger, ambitious, and have aunique self-belief that I think
really is reflective of takingon the impossible.

Welcome to the Spark of Ages podcast.
Today we're digging into theextraordinary force we call the
immigrant advantage, aconvergence of technical genius,
deep resilience, and radicalclarity of purpose that is
fueling innovation in the US.
My goal and our goal is tounderstand the infrastructure
and conviction required tounlock the potential of these

(01:07):
amazing deep tech founders.
We're asking how do you removethe overwhelming cognitive load
of bureaucracy so founders candedicate 100% of their bandwidth
to sparking innovation?
To do this, we're bringingtogether the investor who built
the platform to solve thisproblem and an amazing deep tech
founder who leveraged it tobuild a category-defining

(01:27):
biotech company.
Our guests today are MananMehta and Rustam Esanov.
Manan is the founding partnerof Unshackled Ventures, the only
inception stage venture fundfocused entirely on backing
immigrant-founded startups.
And that's right, they arepre-revenue, pre-product, and
pre-incorporation.
For over 11 years, Manan hasled the firm, along with my good

(01:51):
friend Nitin, which providescapital, network access, and
full immigration support, havingsponsored over 300 immigration
filings for founders, oftenbefore they incorporate their
businesses.
Rustam Esanov is the CEO andco-founder of Reprogram
Biosciences, a deep tech companydeveloping mRNA reprogramming

(02:11):
therapeutics.
His mission is to turn tumorsinto immune-like allies to treat
solid cancers by leveraging aproprietary AI platform to build
a precision cell reprogrammingengine to solve one of the most
complex challenges in medicine,cancer.
He holds a PhD in molecular andcellular pharmacology from the

(02:31):
University of Miami, MillerSchool of Medicine.
And he also earned hisbachelor's degree in biological
sciences from Fatih Universityin Istanbul.
Rustam and Manan, welcome tothe Spark of Ages.

Thank you.
Thank you for having us, Rajiv.
It's an honor here.
Thank you.

I've been wanting to have you guys, or at least
Manan here for a long time.
I've known him for quite sometime and really impressed me
from the beginning as to how hefelt immigrants can change the
world.
So I'm really happy to bringthis to you today.
So, Manan, I'm going to hit youwith a bit of a contrarian
question.
Unshackled's value prop is toremove the burden of dealing
with the U.S.

(03:08):
immigration system.
Beyond the legal fees, whichthe fund covers, how would you
quantify the lost bandwidth thatis drained from founders and
how much faster do foundersaccelerate when that load is
lifted?

First of all, I really appreciate the question.
And I think it's it's actuallymore nuanced than we might think
about.
And let's think about thestarting point for an immigrant
entrepreneur.
They left their home country,right?
That act in and of itself is anentrepreneurial act.
That's an act that requiressacrifice, but also self-belief,
right?
And so when you marry those twoqualities and they can find a

(03:40):
way to be in the United States,albeit the conditions around
entering the country havechanged a lot in the last 10
years.
But when they do enter here,you do find people that are
hunger, ambitious, and have aunique self-belief that I think
really is reflective of takingon the impossible.
One of the philosophies thatI'm starting to adopt and

(04:01):
crediting this to ScottGalloway, uh Prof.
G, is that America's bestpromise is to water as many
seeds as possible, notpredicting which will become a
redwood, right?
And those are immigrants.
And so immigration is just oneof those hurdles along the
journey, right?
Not every founder has heroic,overcoming stories of
immigration and adversity.
Some might have a very linearpath.

(04:22):
It could be marriage, right?
Marrying an American.
But I think what the biggerchallenge immigrants face is a
lack of network and resourcesand a believer that will
underwrite that friends andfamily stage.
And so, as somebody who's bornand raised in Silicon Valley,
I'm 41 years old and havewatched it kind of grow into
what it is.
I think the bigger challengethat we have today is that many
multi-generational ornative-born people, when they

(04:43):
want to start their company andthey're going through all the
challenges and the mindset andthe fear, they have friends and
family that might write thatfirst quarter million dollar
check.
Immigrants certainly do not, byand large.
And so I think the realopportunity here is to use the
curiosity of what broughtsomebody here and underwrite it.
You know, end of the day, I'llsay this US immigration is still

(05:05):
the best in the world.
And it will be that way.

Even with all the stuff that's going on, it's
still the best in the world.

Yeah, it's the best way.
No other country has suchpromising immigration policy or
access to it, right?
There are pathways alwaysopening up.
And so, yes, we are changing.
We are we're watching somechanges happen, but we have to
remember the current populationof immigrants in the country is
15.4%.
That is the highest it's everbeen in this country.
And that begs questions.
I don't think we disagree onwho we want immigrants here.

(05:31):
I think there's a conversationto be had around who gets to be
in and when.
I think that's what you'reexperiencing right now.
I don't think it's always a badthing to have a conversation.
So maybe a little bitcontrarian.
I might agree with some of thisadministration on some of what
they're doing.

We're definitely going to get into that.
That's going to be uh you havea whole section for that.
It's going to be fun.
But thank you for opening withthat because it is really
important to understand what,and we'll get into even more of
that, what got you into this andwhy you found this an
interesting way to create a fun?
So, Rustam, your team's journeyis encapsulated by the phrase
from two backpacks to building abiotech.

(06:05):
When you first arrived in theUS, what was the most shocking
realization you experiencedbetween the sheer lack of
resources and the massiveambition needed to tackle a deep
tech problem like transformingcancer cells?

That's a good question.
When I came to the US, I was 20years old, you know, ready to
pursue my PhD and start mycareer in biotech.
But really, I wasn't thinkingabout starting a company or
anything like that.
For me, the goal was to comehere, get my degree, and stay
here permanently.
That was my number one goal.

(06:38):
And it just sort of happenedthroughout my career that I
started to learn more aboutcancer, why certain treatments
don't work as well in somepatients.
And sort of through curiosityand then speaking with other
founders, being in a bay, youyou get this exposure to many
different scientists andentrepreneurs.

(06:58):
So it sort of evolved as as thetime went by.
And I'm super fortunate that myco-founder actually, I knew him
from back in in high school,back in Turkmenistan, where I'm
originally from.
So we kind of went through thesame journey.
We came with nothingessentially with backpacks to
pursue our PhD and get technicalskills in different areas of

(07:21):
biology and chemistry.
And now we're combining thoseskills to solve one of the
toughest challenges in medicine.

That's amazing, Rustam.
I mean, you actually work withsomeone who you went to high
school with and got your PhDstogether, which is really
fabulous.
Before Unshackled Invest inyou, what was the most difficult
personal sacrifice or financialconstraint you had to do to
overcome so that reprogrammedbiosciences could continue,
particularly since biotechinnovation requires significant

(07:49):
initial resources?

As a first-time entrepreneur, it was extremely
hard to raise our firstfundraising round, a pleased
round.
And it was around the time whenit was peak uncertainty, right?
Trump just came into office,Liberation Day, all the
investors are getting called.
So for me, I have to quit myjob essentially with no investor
commitments.

(08:11):
So we didn't have any investorthat has committed capital and
kind of go in at it full-timewith no backup plan.
We did have some savings thatwould last maybe a year, a year
and a half, because we're usedto living a frugal life, me and
my friend.

You were at a pretty good company, right?
You were at GSK.

Yes.

You were at a pretty good company, but you
smartly built up your savingsbefore you went on this venture.

Yes, yes.
I specifically decided to quitafter I get my bonus check.
So that that kind of helps.
Well, I kind of did perfectlyin that regard.
But yeah, it was it was a lotof uncertainty.
We just didn't know whetherwe're gonna make it or not.
But super, super fortunate tomeet Manan and his team.
And now we're we're off to theraces.

That's amazing.
I love how you you know youthink about these things because
having been an entrepreneurmyself, biotech is one of those
things where you're just youknow you gotta pour in a lot of
capital and spend a lot of timebefore you get results out.
So I think it's really gutsywhat you did.
So for Manan, you know,Unshackled was founded on the
conviction that backingimmigrant founders on day zero,
when capital and competitivepressure are lowest, would

(09:17):
create category-definingcompanies.
The venture landscape today ischaracterized by capital
abundance and rising valuation.
So, how does anchoring yourentire investment model at the
day zero stage, where there'stypically no product, no
revenue, no customers, allow youto capture better economics?
And then you can get into IJpick rush stuff.
Biotech is hard.

I think we have to remind ourselves venture capital
is an industry that should bepromoting risk taking, right?
If you want annuity stylereturns and beta, you should go
invest in the public market soyou'll probably do better,
right?
Venture capital is aboutasymmetric outcomes.
I think the biggest problemright now in venture capital, as
a as a as a criticism, is it's40 years or so old.

(09:58):
As many financial servicesindustries become at 40 years,
they become concentrated power.
And concentrated abundance isreally what we're in.
I personally believe indistributed abundance, right?
I think that's thecounterpoint, and that's that's
the heritage of Silicon Valley,it's the heritage of venture
capital.
When you think about thepotentiality of human beings,

(10:19):
it's the story of Nvidia, thestory of Moderna, the story of
Doordash, all immigrant foundersthat have built these massive
redwoods that we all use everyday in some way.
But what they all need issomeone to believe as if they
had friends and family, the waythat a multi-generational
American might have, right?
It's those dark moments, thosequiet moments between, as Rustam
described, new administration,I gotta quit.

(10:41):
Should I do it?
Do I have savings?
It's those moments that if youcan capture the entrepreneurial
like belief and invest in it,you actually are really looking
like at the starting line again.
And that is why the economicswork.
And I actually told this toRustam, we got coffee in San
Francisco after the investment.
I admit this, right?
We are probably more expensivethan the average fund out there

(11:02):
for you.
And I told them there's areason for it.
If we become cheaper, if wewrite bigger checks at higher
valuations, then it's unlikely Iwill be able to bet on you
again.
Because I'll have to wait formore progress, wait for more
signals.
And that is the biggest problemwith venture capital.
It is a bunch ofconsensus-driven investment.
They're looking for highsignal.
And as a result, the price goesup because everyone's friends

(11:22):
are impressive that are GPs.
But I think there takes alittle bit of challenge of
status quo.
And this is the joy of it,right?
It's you're unearthing theuntold story.
And there's a lot of storiesRustam D will tell, hopefully,
this podcast that really givesyou a much stronger indication
of why he's here than theproblem he's solving, right?
And I think that's what youunderwrite.
And when you underwrite that,you're effectively getting in at
the ground floor of somethingthat might ultimately become the

(11:44):
next big redwood.

That's amazing.
And we definitely need to getinto those stories.
So, Mana, you're also launchinga new podcast this year called
Believe in Aliens.
And you have this notion of afounder archetype framework.
There's the technicalvisionary, high IQ, high AQ, so
IQ intelligence, AQ adversityquotient, and the system
disruptors, like high EQ,emotional quotient, slash SQ,

(12:10):
social quotient.
Which one is most likely tohave that crucial alien
perspective needed to find amispriced opportunity that the
non-immigrant ecosystem missesentirely?

Which one's most likely?
So, well, look, over the 11years we whittle down we're
going to help and invest inimmigrants that have immigration
and capital constraintproblems.
To now we're investing in twospecific archetypes, system
disruptors and technicalvisionaries.
As an approximation, there aremore technical visionaries in
this country that are immigrantsthan perhaps system disruptors,
at least those that show up inventure capital.

(12:43):
Why?
Because the most common pathwayand entry point for
specifically technical immigrantfounders is through our
university system, right?
They're coming in for, asRustam said, a PhD program,
right?
There's a technical capacitythat they're trying to develop
to overcome and maybe build acareer here.
System disruption, I think,takes a little bit longer to
understand that you can do it,right?

(13:04):
And that's why we think aboutEQ and SQ there.
That is about galvanizingsupporters around you, building
your networks, building yourgroup of people.
I think when you think aboutthose who are system disruptors
in our portfolio, you tend tosee people that have spent more
time in the industry reallydissecting it to first
principles, or they have a veryunique intelligence background

(13:24):
that helps them understandthings in a way that no one else
can.
However, technical visionariesare more obvious because their
degrees are reflective of whattechnical skill they've built.
And so I think there's balancesto both, but ultimately, if
you're a technical visionary,someday you want to be a system
disruptor too.
Right.
If Rustam is successful, hewill disrupt the entire way we

(13:45):
think about cancer treatment.
And that's a disruption.
I'll get RFK Jr.
happy too.

Right.
It'll be a fundamentaldisruption.
It'll be a big change.
So really what you're saying istechnical visionaries and
social disruptors are twocharacteristics you want.
This is what you're lookingfor.
This is versus not having them.
It may be more of a somethingthat looks like a traditional
business.
Maybe you could characterizethat.

Yeah, so what is it not, right?
At the end of the day, thesearchetypes, uh, I think they
have attributes, right?
Technical visionaries is thatwe're willing to underwrite
technical risk of provingsomething that they think, in
this case, who stum thinks ispossible.
But we are underwriting affectyou that journey.
Should he prove it, by the way,there is so much capital out
there for him waiting, right?
He knows it.

(14:26):
Like if he can prove this inmouse models or anywhere else,
they're waiting.
We are willing to do, by theway, what universities used to
fund for a long time, technicalbreakthroughs.
Currently, that's getting morechallenging, which makes early
stage venture capital reallyinteresting.
System disruptors tend to bepeople that have spent time in
the industry, understand thestakeholders, who could pay for

(14:47):
what?
Why won't they pay?
And they have this lifelongpurpose that shows up as to why
they're doing it.
And so it's not a lot ofvoyeurism in the end, right?
It's not like I just thought asan idea and I want to build a
consumer app.
No offense, does work.
I get it.
There needs to be somethingthat keeps you up at night to
move forward, right?
And I think that's those arethe traits that we're looking
for.
And then we measure themultimately through our quotient

(15:08):
framework, which allows us to bea psychology investor.

No, it's really cool.
And you guys have worked thisout over a long time.
I don't think you originallycame in thinking that, but I
think you found it as you went,which is really cool.
So maybe both of you respond tothis.
So, Manan, you seek to breakpattern biases by backing
entrepreneurs with uniqueperspective or insight.
And Rustam, your corescientific insight involves
turning cancer cells into immuneallies.

(15:32):
Just totally just think aboutthat again.
Cancer cells into immuneallies.
This high risk, high rewardapproach fundamentally
challenges establishedtherapeutic paradigms in
oncology.
So, Rustam, what unique insightfrom your background or
research led you to thispotentially pattern-breaking
idea?
How did you successfullyarticulate the clarity of your

(15:52):
purpose to convince an earlyinvestor like Manan that this
path was viable?
Or did he just really like youafter you met him?

I don't know.
You're gonna have to ask him.
But yeah, great question.
So for me, the the journey tostart reprogram biosciences
really started from a personalexperience.
You know, someone from myfamily faced cancer.
And as a result of that, youknow, you start doing your
research, trying to understandwhy certain therapies work.
There's always a subpopulationof patients that don't respond

(16:20):
to therapies.
And then you look on, youprepare for the worst case
scenario, right?
What would happen if they don'trespond?
Me being a scientist, I was atan advantage because I could
look into approaches that arenot necessarily approved right
now, but are being tested in aclinic to see what is the next
most promising thing.
And for me, what was kind offrustrating to see is that a lot

(16:42):
of the approaches that arebeing tested in a clinic,
they're sort of like incrementalimprovement to the standard of
care.

I mean, basically, right?
A lot of these treatments areyou get another six months.

Exactly, may get another year.

And it's terrible during that time that you're
getting treated.

Exactly, exactly.
So to me, I I kind of wanted tothink outside of the box and
see what we could do for cancerpatients so that they have
another option that isfundamentally different, high
risk, high reward, as you said.
But if it works, it would be agame changer.
And again, I was fortunate tohave a technical understanding

(17:19):
of cell reprogramming.
That's how you change cellidentity and give a cell a new
function, let's say.
So that's what sparked the ideaof turning tumors into allies.
And initially, once once I quitmy job, I did pay for some
experiments out of pocket tokind of test pressure test the
idea to see if it works.
And we got some promisingresults.

(17:40):
And with that, we were able toapproach Manan and his team.
I don't know if it was theresults that convinced them or
something else, but super, superhappy that it worked out in the
end.

Yeah, Manan, maybe you want to respond.
Like what motivated you?
I mean, you guys see tons andtons of ideas.
You guys have a great way ofcapturing people who apply for
opportunities to work withunshackled.
So, what made Rustam stand out?

End of the day, if you're curious to know about a
person, you realize thatperson's not going to waste
their time on something thatcan't be done or that they can't
do themselves.
And so, more than the resultsmattering to us, I don't know
how to read clinical outcomes orwhat they do.
I can you can teach me, but atthe stage where we invest, we're
really underwriting thatfounder self-belief.
And he clearly proved to usthat he was willing to spend the

(18:24):
time, quit his job, spend hismoney, prove that it works.
And now he wants to do this forthe next decade.
What our job is to uncover isthe why.
Why do you care?
Because ultimately that'swhat's going to keep him going
when it gets really hard.
And when you uncover that,that's what you underwrite.
Everyone experiences people'swhys differently, and they all
will have their own subjectiveexperience with it.

(18:44):
But in the case of Rustam,there's a really clear
distinction between technicalgift that he has and the
humility to keep on beingcurious to learn more.
Right?
Those combinations, when youknow you can evaluate, he said
it.
I could evaluate all thesetherapies out there, and they
may not work, but now I havecuriosity, spend my own money
and time on trying to figure outwhat would work.

(19:06):
Those are, I think, the mostconsistent attributes of great
entrepreneurs.
They know their life workmatters here, and then they know
that their life work only takesthem so far.
So they better get curious,right?
And I think that's what youultimately invest in, right?
And part of what you alsoappreciate about Rustam is h
e started his PhD at 20.
I don't know if you youremember, like, I don't know
anyone who's 20 that startedtheir PhD.

(19:27):
Let me just like that isungodly early in life.
And so how?
Why?
Rustam, tell me more.
What did it take?
Why'd you do this?
You start to uncover somethingthat happens to most of us at a
much older age.
In his teens, he was buildinghis adversity muscle.
He was building his self beliefand you underwrite it, right?
You you price the risk and youunderwrite it.

So maybe Rustam, you could just talk a little bit
more about what you're doing.
Cause like traditional biotechdevelopment cycles can be 10, 12
years before you get to even adecent stage.
But with mRNA and AI.
There's a potentially differentand maybe faster way of getting
answers.
And you did some of that workto prove that.
So maybe you could just talk alittle bit about the technology
behind this or your thinkingbehind this.

Totally agree with you.
I think AI and some of thegenetic technologies and
developments there allow us tomove much faster than it was
possible, let's say, 20 even 10years ago.
So maybe I can go talk a littlebit about our approach and how
we're different from everyoneelse's doing.
I like to use analogies.
Essentially, what cancer is,it's a war.

(20:30):
You have a battle betweencancer cells in your body and
your immune cells that are thesoldiers that are trained to
recognize and attack tumorcells.
Now, cancer, as they grow, theybuild this sort of fortress,
especially with solid tumors.
They build a fortress around itso that your immune system
cannot recognize it anymore.
And they're very good at it.

(20:52):
Existing therapies, what theytry to do is they try to break
the walls of this fortress fromoutside.
So what we're doing is we'retrying to treat tumor from
inside.
So we actually go inside thefortress and try to convince
some of the soldiers to turnonto our side.
We tell them, give theminstructions in a form of mRNA

(21:13):
and tell them, tell us yoursecret.
How do you evade the immunesystem?
How can we recognize youbetter?
And with that, they kind ofsort of like open the gates to
their fortress and now yourimmune system can attack it.
So that's kind of a simple wayof explaining what we do.

Help me with this, because I've seen other cancer
cell therapeutic companies.
I helped one years ago from amarketing point of view and
describing what they do.
Are you doing something whichis custom that you take a biopsy
of a cancer cell in aparticular body and then you
find a way to reprogram themRNA?
Is that a fair way of lookingat it?
Or are you looking at somethingmuch more that can work across

(21:51):
any cancer cell?

Exactly.
So we're not going after apersonalized space where you
have to change your approachdepending on the patient.
We're developing something thatwould be applicable more
broadly.
So what we have identified withthe help of computational
methods, AI, and some syntheticbiology experiments, we're able
to identify a set of mRNA genesthat can transform or reprogram

(22:17):
cancer cells into immune-likecells.
That set of mRNAs is so far,it's working across multiple
tumor types that we've tested incells and also now in mice.
So the idea is to haveoff-the-shelf therapeutic that
could be injected into multiplesolid tumors.
We don't have to changeanything.
And then we would let the mRNAdo the job and trick the tumor

(22:42):
cells into thinking that they'reon our side and help cure
disease.

So this is much more fundamental.
This could literally be a drugthat you buy or a drug that you
get prescribed and it's injectedin your body.
So it's that fundamental.
Okay, so for both of you, forimmigrant scientists and
researchers, one of the biggestchallenges is not the
breakthrough itself, but theframeworks needed to translate
that science into aventure-scale company,
specifically shifting from whatI built to what problem this is

(23:08):
solved for and for whom.
So, Rustam, as a founder withdeep technical roots, what was
the most practical piece ofgo-to-market advice you received
from the unshackled team thathelped you define your product's
market and value proposition?

I think the the best kind of advice that I got,
and I gotten many, and Manan andI are in touch for quite some
time now.
What he told me in that firstmeeting was that your job now,
as like you're you're not ascientist anymore, right?
You you have to be able to tella compelling story.
And that story needs to be isso easily digestible that even a

(23:43):
teenager with no technicalbackground should be able to
understand.
So I think about that a lot,and I'm still uh kind of working
through it, but I think it's animportant skill for a CEO and a
founder to have to be able toattract attention and capital.
And I think that's somethingthat a lot of technical founders
maybe lack in the beginning,and they they kind of learn as

(24:06):
they continue to grow theirbusiness.

That's amazing.
Man, you and Nitin havedescribed Unshackled.
It's a full service platformfrom providing capital,
immigration support, access to atight-knit community.
You believe a lot of whatdrives venture success is who
you know and when.
So for deep tech companies likeReprogram Biosciences, they
face long development cycles.
Although he talked about howhe's speeding that up and

(24:29):
significant technical andfundraising hurdles.
How does being embedded withinunshackled, unique community of
immigrant founders rather thanthe general Silicon Valley
network act as a vital resourcethat helps mitigate risk and
accelerate growth?

Look, I think our job as an organization, as a
fund is fundamentally to be alead gen company.
So you like marketing, let'stalk about marketing.
What is a good lead gencompany?
You can source your own leads,you can price them better than
anybody else, and then you cansell them off to somebody else.
That is venture capital.
We are reliant, and part of theadvice that I gave to Rustam is
we are reliant on him raisingmore money.

(25:02):
You've asked the question acouple of times as well.
It is capital intensive.
We all know this, eyes wideopen.
He's aware of it, I'm aware ofit, you're aware of it.
That means we need other peopleto believe.
And so the most important rolethat we play is to be the first
believer and then work with thefounders as they're working
through their technicalmilestones.
And then quote unquote, sellthe lead to another investor,
right?
In his case, it's likely goingto be somebody in biotech.

(25:24):
We know that, right?
We know that pretty clearly.
It's not going to be ageneralist firm probably too
soon, right?
And so understanding theequation that needs to be solved
for this stage is what we do.
You're not going to see me haveprofound advice at your series
B stage.
What you will see means thatI'll remember you from the day
we bet on you.
And I'll remember you as ahuman and I'll help you there.

(25:46):
But I'm not going to have thiswise sage advice on how you go
from series B to series C.
I need to rely on the adventurecapital ecosystem to do this,
right?
And so I think really the magicof Unshackled is really
embedded in this age-old theoryof someone's going to source,
someone's going to price, andsomeone's got to sell.
And the more efficiently you dothat, it's better for the
founder, it's better for us,it's better for our LPs, right?

(26:07):
Because if someone else buysinto the company, we all get a
markup typically, right?
We're investing so low, andthat means the company's worth
more for Rustam as well, right?
So it actually lines up theincentive structures really
well.
And I think this is what themagic is.
And serving that need ends uprequiring not a generalized
platform, right?
It requires uniqueunderstanding of what Rustam is

(26:28):
going to want to overcome, whoare the people that help him,
and when is the right time tointroduce those people to him?
That's the magic, right?
It's it's personalized, it'scurated, it's not one size fits
all, it's not an accelerator.
It is about understanding thehuman need because we're not
investing in just biotechcompanies.
We're investing in things thatare do things like logistics and

(26:48):
transportation and robotics.
Space.
You've done space too, yeah.
We have to be connected.
And so, long answer to say ourjob is to be trusted.
And when you're trusted, youlearn a lot more and you can
help a lot faster.

That's brilliant.
All right, thank you for that,both of you.
Great answers, great responses,everything I ever hoped for.
So now we're gonna talk aboutyour opinions about US legal
immigration policy.
So, Mana, you touched on this alittle earlier.
Here goes.
We're gonna have some fun here.
We're debating that deeplypolarized high-stake world of US
legal immigration policy.
For high skilled workers andfounders, the current system is

(27:21):
a bureaucratic maze thatdirectly impacts the global race
for talent and innovation.
Our guest today live thisreality.
We've compiled somecontroversial opinions that
challenge the system's coreassumptions, from the economic
logic of the H1B lottery to themoral implications of green card
backlogs.
Get ready to debate.
Is US immigration policy acritical engine of economic

(27:44):
growth, or is it an outdatedpolitical barrier that actively
pushes away the world's best andbrightest?
So here we go.
All employment-based greencards or permanent residency
should be issued on apoints-based system tied
directly to a national RDscorecard.
Criteria should be heavilyfavor, patents filed, scientific

(28:05):
publications in high-impactjournals, and capital raised,
not just a job offer, thusprioritizing national scientific
competitiveness over simplelabor market demand.

Manan, you want to start?
Yeah, look, 43% of PhDscientists, engineers are
immigrants.
30% of all STEM students areimmigrants, or then half the US
unicorns are immigrant founded.
Immigrants work harder, theycreate more value, they created
your COVID vaccine, your EVmachine, your microchips, and
your cloud software.
Immigrants have done all ofthat.
And so that's the people wewant.

(28:37):
Those are the job creators.
We all know this.
You don't create jobs withoutnew companies.
Verizon to lay off people,Amazon to lay off people,
they're not going to create morejobs anymore.
You need new startups.
And so if the pathway is topreserve those who are inventors
and creators and innovators,then let's give them a green
card.
I don't mind a scorecard thatultimately prioritizes invention

(28:58):
and innovation because that isAmerica's national advantage.
It's immigrants.
That's awesome.

Rustam.

I agree.
And in retrospect, thatprobably would have made it way
easier for me to get a greencard and for my co-founder as
well, if that was the case.
So yeah, I couldn't agree morewith what Manan said.

That's a great answer.
That means there's a lot offamilies not getting green
cards.
But, anyways, let's go to thenext question.
Any US university that acceptsfederal research grants and
enrolls international PhDstudents like Rustam should be
financially obligated to fund aportion of the national
immigrant-founded startupecosystem.
They profit from the talentpipeline, yet abandon the

(29:35):
graduates when their F1 visasexpire.

Strongly agree.
You know, I think I love thefact that I was able to get my
degree.
And then also I did a shortpostdoc after my PhD.
But I do think, you know,scientists in my area in
biotechnology, they do get paidway less.
You can say when you're a PhD,maybe part of your salary goes

(29:59):
to tuition.
But uh as a postdoc, once youleave, once you graduate, I
really think a lot ofuniversities benefit from
postdocs and immigrant postdocsprimarily.
So I think if there was a wayto fund the startups, or if
there were more unshackledfunds, that would be a good
thing for everyone.

All right.
Running, that's a great answer.
I love it.
I'm on board.
More unshackled, more fun forunshackled, more entrepreneurs.
I think what you're hearingkind of undergirding all this is
that immigrants aren't lookingfor handouts, they're looking
for opportunity, right?
And that's what's beingdescribed.

Definitely.
But in Rustam's case, he workedfor a company first, right?
So it wasn't clear at the timethat he's gonna go start a
company.

Yeah, so for me, that's true.
But to get to company, like alot of companies won't hire you
unless you have the rightpaperwork.
So a lot of PhD students end updoing their postdocs, immigrant
PhD students, just to stay inthe country and get their
citations and publications to beable to apply for a green card.

(31:01):
And then the green card istheir golden ticket to industry.
At least that was the case forme and many of my friends.

Love that.
That's a great point.
Okay, so the next point the USis losing the global war for
talent, especially recently.
The most effective and leastcontroversial reform would be
for Congress to abandon allcurrent proposals and simply
adopt Canada's point-basedmarket-responsive immigration
system, word for word, acceptingthe loss of national uniqueness
for the sake of economiccompetitiveness.

(31:28):
All right, Manan, you'vethought about this.

Yeah, look, Canadian GDP, Canadian economy,
Canadian population is vastlydifferent than ours.
I think that's just that's abad starting point, despite what
in the first administration,the Trump administration, he
talked about the point-basedsystem.
I think an application leveldoesn't make any sense.
And to the first point that youmade around the US is losing, I
disagree with that premise.
I do not think so.
I think it's gotten differentand more challenging.
I think there is moreopportunity globally, but I

(31:52):
think there's something that isunique about why the resurgence
of San Francisco, the Bay Areaagain, AI boom.
There's a culture, there is arisk-taking attitude, and
there's also a market largeenough to serve to make sense of
the risk that you're willing totake.
You're seeing more unicorns,yes, certainly around the world.
Yeah, we might see a 20 to 40%decline in student enrollment
for international students thisyear.

(32:13):
That's what we're anticipating.
That is going to be achallenge.
But let me remind people thatif that happens, we're still in
post-2015 enrollment numbers forimmigrants.
And before that strike stillcame, right?
Tesla still came.
So there's still somethingabout the culture and the
opportunity of America that Ithink will transcend this
administration or the next,regardless of politics.

(32:33):
And I think ultimately it's theprivate sector's job to show up
and be a part of the solution.
We have to do our part.
We can't rely on government forall the inflow and outflow.
We have to tell the governmentsometimes what's best for the
country.

That's right.
Rustam, do you have somethingyou want to add to that?

I mean, Manan is way more educated on this topic
than I am.
I trust him completely.
I guess take a more zoomed-outview.
From what I see, I don't thinkthe United States is losing
their place as the number onedestination for talent in
IPACSO.

All right.
That's a bold statement.
I love it.
The biggest legal hurdle forimmigrant founders isn't the
visa itself, but the culturaland legal mistrust of foreign
investment and capital enteringU.S.
markets.
Restrictive policies designedto protect national security
often unintentionally choke offthe initial seed funding needed
by early stage companies.

I don't think that's the biggest challenge at
all.
I think the challenge is muchmore domestic and capital from
here.
I think whether CIF YES or allthe rules that you've seen kind
of come up, I think there's anecessary evil to it, right?
We've seen some real, realnational security challenges
with foreign capital, foreigninvestment.
That's not what'sshort-changing immigrants here.

Great point.

It's about capital coming from domestic sources.
And to be clear, there's a lotof capital in the United States
and evidenced by the numbers.
And so I think we have to kindof take more of an internal view
here and not blame the worldfor if we're seeing any slowdown
innovation.

All right.
I'm going to go to the nextquestion.
And Rustam, I want you to startwith this one.
Permanent residency or greencard should come with a
five-year probationary clausefor employment-based applicants.
If the individual, particularlya founder or investor, has not
demonstrated created asignificant number of US jobs or
achieved a revenue milestonewithin that period, their
permanent status should besubject to review and potential

(34:15):
revocation.

Well, I disagree with that.
I think five years is tooshort.
And as we know,entrepreneurship is not about
succeeding 100% of the time.
It's about trying, right?
As we know, startups fail.
So strongly, strongly disagree.

Strongly disagree as well.
I love that, you know, we'retrying to push for results, but
we got to get the kinds of folkswho will make mistakes, screw
up.
I mean, Edison didn't hit itthe first time, Henry Ford
didn't hit it the first time.
You got to give multiple shotson goal.

Any policy of fear limits the country, right?
And America is the land ofopportunity.
And so we got to be really,really careful on implementing
policy of fear.
Because if you're worried aboutyour status, you're not going
to push as hard.
And so I just want to becareful on drawing that line.

I appreciate that.
All right.
You both give great answers.
Appreciate your points of view.
I know we were trying to pushyou a bit.
Now we're going to move to whatwe call the spark tank.
Welcome to the spark tank.
Today we jump into the minds oftwo leaders who demonstrate
extreme sustainedcompetitiveness, not just in
business, but in life's mostrigorous intellectual and
strategic arenas.

(35:15):
First, we have Manan Mehta,founding partner of Unshackled
Ventures.
We are also joined by RustamEsanov, CEO and co-founder of
Reprogram Biosciences.
Gentlemen, your careers fromglobal science competitions to
day zero investing are definedby your ability to dominate
extreme mental challenges.
You succeed by finding the onedecisive truth where others only

(35:36):
see risk or impossibility.
But for now, we're settingaside the challenges of day zero
investing and deep techbreakthroughs to tackle the
wildest form of humancompetition.
We're going head to head onunreal competitors.
The real, the weird, and thetruly committed events found
around the world.
So this is called the unrealcompetitors.
Let's see if that trulybrilliant ability to spot a

(35:57):
massive non-consensus truth isas sharp in competitive cheese
rolling as it is inbillion-dollar biotech.
Here we go.
It's called Unreal Competitors.
All right, guys, this is a gameof two truths and a lie.
Two are true, one is a lie.
Your job is to identify thelie.
So after reading all three, I'mgoing to count down three, two,
and one.

(36:17):
And you're going to put up yourfinger so you can't cheat at
the same time and tell me whichone is the lie.
All right.
And then I'm going to scorethis for about three questions
and see who the winner is.
You ready?

All right.
Let's do it.

Here's question one.
Every year in the northernFinnish city of Ulu, people from
around the world compete in theAir Guitar World Championships,
where they're judged on howconvincingly they shred an
invisible guitar in front ofthousands of fans under the
midnight sun.
Number two, in Switzerland,there's a fondue fling where

(36:50):
contestants catapult moltencheese at targets.
And whoever hits a ball withthe most drips wins a year's
supply of fondue.
And there's number three, inEngland's Cooper's Hill cheese
rolling event, people chase arolling wheel of cheese down a
hill so steep that the cheesecan hit around 70 miles per
hour, and spectators sometimesget injured just standing there.

(37:13):
Okay, so one is air guitar, twois fondue fling, three is
cheese rolling.
You ready?
Three, two, one.
I got two for Manan and one forRustam.
So, Manan, why did you picktwo?

It just felt like the Swiss would never want to
hurt their cheese.
Like, I just think they want toprotect their cheese.
Like, I felt what the Swiss do.
They're too kind, too neutral.
Why would they do this?
Make those.

Rustam, why'd you think the air guitar one was
false?

I tried to picture it and doesn't sound
like something Finnish peoplewould do, but I might be wrong.

Sounded to be too much of Bill and Ted's excellent
adventure.
Okay, so the lie is number two.
So Mana wins this one.
There is no documented Swisscheese fondue fling catapult
called multiple keys and targetbells.
It sounds like something theyshould have on a future food
network special, though.
So number one, the air guitarworld championship in Finland.

(38:09):
Since 1996, Ulu has hosted aworld championship where
competitors mime guitar soloswith no instrument at all,
scored on airness, stagepresence, and how hard they sell
the invisible shredding to aroaring crowd.
Winners even get a real customguitar as their prize.
Number three, so the cheeserolling in England at Cooper's

(38:29):
Hill in Gloucestershire.
Organizers send a heavy doubleGloucester cheese down a
brutally steep hill.
People sprint and tumble afterit.
And the first to the bottomwins the cheese with broken
bones and dramatic wipeouts socommon.
The event has become infamousworldwide.
All right, so I got one fromAnan.
All right, here's question two.
There's a real dance your PhDcompetition where scientists

(38:50):
must explain their doctoralthesis entirely through
interpretive dance with cashprizes and online voting for the
best performance.
Wish them you might have had todo that.
Number two, a popular scienceoutreach event called March
Mammal Madness, which runs justlike NCAA March Madness, but
instead of basketball teams,academics and students bent on

(39:11):
simulated animal battles likehoney badger versus elephant
seal.
And number three is the brainfreeze bowl.
It is an annual neurosciencecontest where graduate students
drink slushies until they get anice cream headache, then race
to draw a diagram of which bloodvessels are causing their pain
on a whiteboard.
Okay, so one is the dancer PhDcompetition, two is the March

(39:36):
Mammal Madness, and three isBrain Freeze Bowl.
Ready?
Three, two, one.
Which one's fault?
All right, I got a tie forthree.
Rustam, why did you think threewas just complete BS?

So I just don't see grad students trying to hurt
themselves.
I mean, brain theories ispainful.
Not everyone is aneuroscientist to be able to
draw a Of brain structure andvessels.

So uh I think it's neuroscience angle.
Manan, what about you?

One feels like PhDs wanna do anything and get more
dates, so they'll dance forsure, right?
That helps them get dates.
Number two, it just feels likea low effort, low intensity type
of thing that could beentertaining in March Madness
because they're not probablywatching basketball.
And number three, look, theidea of drawing cellular
structures is not thatinteresting to PhDs.
Like they don't care.
So why would they do it, right?

(40:26):
Why doesn't make any sense?
It's intellectually too simplefor them to want to do.

All right.
So this is great because bothof you were correct on this one.
So congrats.
Number three is the lie.
There's no formal brain freezebowl where contestants chug
slushies and map their headachevessels.
Although it's something like achaotic neurolab might be able
to do unofficially.
Dance your PhD.
Rustam apparently didn't dothis, but he would like to.

(40:51):
Science magazine runs a realcontest where PhD students and
graduates turn their researchinto dance videos with
categories like physics,biology, etc.
And prize money for winnersjudged both on scientific
accuracy and choreography.
Number two, March MammalMadness, biologist Katie Hind
created this tournament styleonline science game.
Educators and students fill upbrackets while scientists

(41:13):
simulate who would winhypothetical encounters based on
ecology and behavior, completewith play-by-play battle
narration, or maybe it's battlemammations.
Wow, there you go.
I gotta tell you, the brainfreeze one just made me laugh
out loud.
Here's question three, and thisis the potential tiebreaker.
Rustam, because you're theirentrepreneur, I'm gonna give two

(41:35):
points to you if you beat Mananon this one.

I like it.

Here we go.
We're gonna bring it home.
Gotta beat the VC.
Number one, the mouthwashgargling championship crowns a
winner based on who can gargle apop song chorus the loudest
while walking barefoot on Legobricks.
Number two, extreme ironing isa real sport where people take
ironing boards to ridiculouslocations like cliffs, forests,

(42:02):
and rivers and are judged onboth ironing quality and how
dangerous or absurd the settingis.
Number three, in the world toewrestling championships in
Derbyshire, England, opponentslock big toes and try to pinch
the other person's foot to theground, all starting with an
official toe inspection beforethe match.
Okay, so one is the worldmouthwash gargling championship

(42:26):
where you gotta walk on Legobarefoot.
Number two is extreme ironing.
And number three is the toewrestling championship.
You ready?
I know this is a tough one.
I have no idea.
Three, two, one.
Both of you are two.
I can't lose.

I can't lose.

All right, why'd you pick extreme ironing as your
thoughts one?

I don't know.
It just didn't seem likesomething that would be a
competition, more like a TikTokvideo.
Like it's not like I don'tknow, like it doesn't feel like
a good idea.
And how you could get an ironplug into the most extreme, like
it doesn't make any sensewithout a battery pack.
Like, what are you doing?
Like, what is this?
So, yeah.

All right, you want to add to that, Rustam?
I couldn't even picture it,even if I wanted the other two,
I I was able to picture, butthis one.

You wouldn't go to some random cliff and iron?

No, I don't even iron at home, man.

He doesn't even own an iron.
That's a real scientist.
All right, the lie is numberone.
Oh there's no recognized worldmouthwash gargling championship
involving Lego walking and popsong gargling, judged for
volume.
Although, as far as uhpunishment games go, this is

(43:40):
pretty solid.
Who does ironing though?
We have to like find somevideos or pictures.
We're gonna put that in.
Okay.
Extreme ironing, it's calledGlobal Extreme Ironing, began as
a joke in the late 1990s andevolved into a world
championship with competitorsironing clothes in five extreme

environments (43:57):
forest, water, rocky, urban, and freestyle, and
scored on style, speed, andactual crispness of the clothes.
So there you go.

Sounds like a starchy experience.

Oh so there you go.
And then toe wrestling, toewrestling started in a pub in
Wetton, Derbyshire.
In the 1970s, players sitopposite to each other, link big
toes, and attempt to force theother foot to the side of the
ground with full-on tournamentbrackets and champions.
Well, congrats, you both didreally well.
And our winner is Manan.
He's the expected value winner,but we know Rustam is gonna be

(44:34):
the overall mega winner someday.

I win a lot more when he wins, so I want him to
win.

And we win together.
We win together.

If you can turn cancer, I what a dream that
would be.
I'd love to see you make thishappen.
Okay, here's some personalquestions I want to ask each one
of you and just answer whatevercomes to the top of your head.
Don't feel like you have tonail it.
So, Rustam, what's somethingyou're grateful your younger
self did or didn't do that'spaying off now?

I think about it a lot because now I have a son,
he's seven years old, and I'mtrying to Congratulations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think one of the best thingsthat my parents did is give me
to a boarding school when I was11.
So that was a school that waswhere you would go and you would
sleep, you know, Monday throughthrough Saturday and only to go

(45:20):
home on Sundays.
And since that like young age,I built independence and that
has helped me throughout mylife.
Like I left my country when Iwas 16.
You know, I didn't know anyoneor uh didn't have any family in
in Turkey.
So I think going to that schoolhelped shape my personality a

(45:40):
lot and super grateful for that.

Wow, that's fantastic.
Manan, what's the best exampleyou've seen of someone using
their influence or position tomake something better for
others?

I think it happens every single day.
I think people are inherentlyreally, really kind.
It's opening a door forsomebody, it's giving somebody
food on the street when you haveleftovers.
I don't think grand acts ofkindness is what measures
somebody's humanity.
I think I take a lot of pridein trying to notice the smallest
things constantly happeningbecause it gives me a lot of
optimism.
Grand gestures get typicallythe headlines, but it's a quite
regular, consistent ones thatmake the biggest impact.

So every day you see someone helping someone or
it's amazing.

It happens around us all the time.
But unfortunately, our brainsare oriented towards all the
negative stuff.
So if you just open your eyesand see all the positive, you
get a lot more happiness.

People are kinder than you think.
Rustam, what's something youwish you could experience again
for the first time?

Birth of my my son.
I think it's like one of thedays where he was born at 6 30
in the morning.
I couldn't believe that it wasreal.
Like it just felt like a dream.
Maybe it was exhaustion, youknow, didn't sleep the whole
night.
But yeah, that was one of thebest days of my life.

So you can always do that again, you know.

I know, but I I mean I have two kids.
I have two kids, and when mydaughter was born, it wasn't
quite the same.

We're gonna delete that.
Okay.
I'll say this.
I did tell my wife to be when Iasked her to marry me, this
will be your third best day.
And the first would be thebirth of our first kid, the
second would be our wedding day,and the third would be this
particular day.
So I have four kids, so Iunderstand where you're coming
from.
Yeah, I love each kid, they'reamazing.

(47:15):
But the first one is reallyamazing.

Every milestone is like that, right?
When when your first childstarts walking, it's like, okay,
you take out the camera and youtry to put a video, but it just
it's not the same.
It's not the same with thesubsequent.

I like your answer.
That's a great answer.
So, Manan, what's a skillyou're convinced everyone else
learned at some point, butsomehow you miss the memo.

I think one that comes to mind is that I learned
a little later in life is thepower of curiosity.
I'm struggling to have ananswer to what I can't think of
because it's not processed in myhead yet.
I think the power of curiosityis the highest form of
intellect.
And learning that a few yearsago has been one of the greatest
accelerants.
And then what also comes withthat, now one more skill that I
think is really important ismindfulness, is being an

(47:58):
observer of your mind and notbeing an active participant with
it all the time because it canbe really exhausting.

Yeah, and I think it's something that we end up
coming back to.
Sometimes you're exposed to itwhen you're younger, and then as
time passes, you come back toit.
Sometimes we fall off and weget intense in the day-to-day,
and then we realize wait aminute, we have some of these
amazing skills of mindfulnessand self-reflection.
And it's something I I have alot of respect for you about
because I know you spend a lotof time on wellness, health and

(48:24):
wellness.
So I appreciate it.
And you bring that to all yourfounders.
Rustam, what's a mistake youmade that taught you more about
yourself than any success everdid?
Oof.

Some tough questions here.
Maybe not keeping in touch withsome of my older friends and
childhood friends.
You know, I I kind of regret itright now because, you know,
there's always time to do it.
And just going through gradschool and then, you know,
industry, family, it just kindof wasn't a priority for me
anymore.
But now I'm actively trying toengage back and initiate contact

(48:58):
because they were part of mystory and my childhood, and I I
really enjoyed my time withthem.

So it's that sense of connection, capturing who
you are, what made you who youare, and some of these special
bonds, like when you get infront of someone you haven't
talked to in a long time, butyou remember from your
childhood, it's like thisamazing experience that pops out
and you just exact, exact.
It's as if you never left.

Yeah, yeah.
And I don't know with age,maybe I'm getting more
sentimental, but think aboutthat a lot of times.

Yeah.
Well, I think part of becominga father is becoming more
sentimental or a parent.
That's true.
It's really beautiful.
Okay, Manan, you got the lastquestion.
If you could give your team,current, past, or future, one
gift that's not money or timeoff, and I've seen you do that,
what would it be?

I think like what comes to mind is the safety to
experiment their boundaries.
I think I do do that.
It's the thing that I try todo.
That you can't just do it withan action.
It's a culture.
And so I think the gift is tohelp them express their infinite
potential as fast as possible.

Yeah, I think it is amazing, right?
That a lot of times that whenwe're starting these companies
or building these companies,sometimes we go back to the
incremental and what's easy.
And you have to keep remindingyourself the power of folks
taking big risks.
I mean, you deal with it everyday, but when you get pushback
from someone, you feel like,well, I should come back to it.
But you have to remindyourself, no, no, we're here to
take risks.
That's what you should bedoing.

(50:14):
Don't take the easy path.

We're a society that celebrates a lot of problem
solvers, but incumbent incelebrating a problem solver is
that they all they see isproblems.
And that's not always the mostfun way of expressing
opportunity.
That's right.

You both have done it in a very positive way.
So I want to thank both of youfor being on the show.
I'm such a big fan of whatyou're doing at Unshackled.
It's one of my favorite fundsto talk about.
You inspire me, especially whenyou have your meetings and your
communications about it.
And from the annual generalmeeting was just fantastic in
his vision and his set thefeeling that he could actually

(50:47):
make it happen.
I'm so excited about it.
So thank you both for coming onthe show today.

Thank you for having us and for all your
support.

Thank you.
Well, that was really amazing.
This was our first one where wehad the venture backer as well
as the entrepreneur together inone episode.
And really, I asked Manan whowould you like to bring on as an
example of the great work youguys are doing in Unshackled?

(51:14):
And he asked and chose Rustam,who is really changing the world
in a fundamental way.
I was always attracted to whatManan and then at the time Nitin
was up to, and now Shaheroseand Eric Ries, what they're
doing together along with thewhole crew, because there was
something fundamental aboutbacking immigrants before they

(51:34):
got anywhere.
Rustam said many of them wantto stay in the US.
They want to build theircompanies.
They're already risk takersbecause they've already left
their country.
They've already left the easycomfort of their home and their
friendships and all the peoplearound them to come to a new
place and be part of thismagical experiment that is the
United States of America.
They've come here for thatreason, kind of like my dad did

(51:56):
and my mom did, and so many ofmy family members did, because
they they came here not knowingwhat they were going to face,
but they trusted themselves,they believe in themselves.
And so Unshackled does is thatthey ignite that, they help find
you and help you startsomething even before you have a
product, even before you have agreat business, even before you
have any revenue.
It's such a thrill to see that.

(52:17):
I appreciated Rustam sayingthat, hey, you know, when I came
to the US, I came with theintention of staying.
I went for my PhD, but I wantedto stay because he may not have
thought he was going to starthis own company, but he
definitely was thinking thathe's going to do something
significant, somethinginteresting, something
fundamental.
And coming to America was goingto enable him to do that.
And eventually, after workingat some big companies, he felt

(52:39):
that he could truly do it on hisown.
And so he did the really coolthing, which is left his
company, didn't have anyfunding, tried a few things, and
looked for investment.
And maybe he didn't realize howhard biotech is.
And frankly, that's kind ofwhat you want.
Because if you overthink theexpected values of these things,
it doesn't pencil out, but youhave to believe that you're

(53:01):
capable of something bigger.
And that's what he is.
And God, I love how from ago-to-market perspective,
talking about turning soldiersinto allies or attackers into
allies, it's just such abrilliant concept, such a
beautiful visual way ofdescribing what you hope to do
or what you're looking to do andwhat you're proving that you

(53:21):
can do.
So that was just both of thosethings.
And I thought they had greatopinions about entrepreneurship,
about unique ways of looking atthe immigration system.
I deeply appreciate Manan'sinfectious optimism about where
America is and where it's goingand how there's a public aspect
to things, but it's also privateindustry will find ways to take

(53:41):
advantage of the gaps andenable great innovation to
happen.
And that's something that youcan do uniquely here.
Frankly, it's the reason Imoved to Silicon Valley.
So, and then as people, they'rejust really cool and fun people
who are very thoughtful aboutwho they are and what they're
doing.
And Rustam, his daughter maynot want to hear that answer,
but it's true.
You definitely remember yourfirst kid.

(54:03):
It's the most striking thing,even though you love every kid
to death.
So I appreciate that honestmoment from him as well as all
the things that Manan said.
So I want to thank you forlistening.
If you enjoyed today's podcastand you must have enjoyed it,
please take a moment to read itand comment.
I read every one of thesethings and I appreciate it.
You can find us on Apple,Spotify, YouTube, and everywhere

(54:24):
podcasts can be found.
Some of you are even on Amazonand we could be found there too.
So the show is produced byAnand Shah and Sandeep Parikh
with production assistance byTaryn Talley, edited by Lauren
Balint.
I'm your host, Rajiv Parikhfrom Position Squared, a leading
growth marketing company basedin Silicon Valley.
Come visit us at position2.com.

(54:44):
This has been an F and funnyproduction.
They are awesome, folks.
Hire them for doing yourpodcast.
You will be deeply appreciatedby all the people in your
community.
And we'll catch you next time.
And remember, folks, be evercurious.

All Episodes

Alien Advantage: Pattern-Breaking Innovation/Manan Mehta, Rustam Esanov - Immigrants, Unshackled, mRNA+AI ~ Spark of Ages Ep 53

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Burden

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Alien Advantage: Pattern-Breaking Innovation/Manan Mehta, Rustam Esanov - Immigrants, Unshackled, mRNA+AI ~ Spark of Ages Ep 53