Let's talk about your evaluation criteria for founders. What do you look for? For example, when talking to founders in SAS v/s talking to founders in other domains. It's a tough question to answer to that because I think very often we look for patterns. And at least I strongly believe that great entrepreneurs cannot actually be put into any pattern. In fact, the reason they are great is because they don't fit into any pattern. They define a new pattern. So my mantra by enlarge is that our job is to figure out where the spike or the spikes for an entrepreneur lie. And not try to box that spike anywhere. It can be in the way they sell, it can be the followership they achieve with their people, it can be purely their tech acumen, it can be variety of different factors which lead them to being successful. Our job as VCs is to figure out where that spike lies. So at a macro level I would argue that I don't go into evaluating entrepreneurs with any predefined notions of what I'm looking for, I'm trying to figure out what is.. what is it that makes them exceptional. If I'm not able to find anything exceptional then those are not the people I want to back. There are at least a couple of sanity factors that I look for. I think learning agility being the top most of them, because the world in which these entrepreneurs live, almost everything about their business if there's one thing we know is that it's going to change. And with that changing environment how do they rapidly adapt? How do they learn first of all to figure out that something has changed? How do they learn what questions to ask and how do they learn the answers to those questions.. is something which is very critical. And the second thing being how these entrepreneurs will build scalable teams? Though I would also argue at an early stage some of that is very hard to judge as well. Specifically for SAS entrepreneurs I put a lot of emphasis on their go-to-market Acumen, at least I believe that if you look at SAS applications the most critical factors which distinguish the great from the good is actually the go-to-market capability of the founders. So I do look for early signs of their ability to decode the go to the go-to-market required required for their product and for their stage of growth. So if you can share with the SAS Founders who are listening to this podcast, what have been the key 2, 3 go to markets wins for you in the same terms of what.. what were the key strategies if you You know Whatfix a phenomenal example, two founders Khadim and Vara they were both at Huawei and they were both actually from the technical domain. So neither of them actually had done any selling in their lives. What attracted me to them when I met them the first time is they had seven customers, all very small revenue run rate at that point in time but they had been able to sell to customers in U.S and in Europe and one of them was actually Procter & Gamble at that time. And having been at SAP myself, at least I knew how hard is it to penetrate companies like PNG. To be honest I couldn't figure out what Khadim and Vara did well to penetrate these customers but because I believed in the space and because they had demonstrated their ability to sell into these accounts I thought that it is worth a bit at that point in time, but I think what again separates these guys from many other founders is the way they have itrated on their go-to Market. When I invested their average contract value, ACV as we call in SAS was about $1,000 per year. Today it's not the $50,000 and they do many deals in the hundred, two hundred, three hundred thousand dollar domains as well. And therefore the go-to-market that they did at that time versus now actually has zero similarity. They were completely inbound, today they are a lot outbound as well. They were completely on the ground in India, today they are, they have actually a pretty strong team in the US as well. At that time it was just a founder who was selling, today there is a large team which includes SDRs, account executives on phone, freet on freet sales, named account sales, territorial sales so things have changed dramatically. But again what has separated them is that I would argue that every six months at least they've been able to figure out that to grow to the next stage what changes do they need to make? What are the different ways to make those changes? Do the experiments and scale what works and kill what doesn't work. So let's say in case of Whatfix, the early wins and for other SAS companies, it's very hard to get our time off, Alok as CEO of Sap Labs, so how do people crack that what have you seen? So in the early stage Siddharth first of all, I think it's the founders which have to sell. In fact many founders do the mistake that they want to go and hire these big gun large company sales guys, and that completely backfires. One has to remember that if I look at my type from the SAP days I was good at scaling a recipe, but I was not good at building a recipe. And which is what founders are very good at, they actually are very good at figuring out a recipe. They are very strong first principle thinkers. They're good problem solvers. They are iterative. They're very good at accepting their mistakes and that's what allows them to figure out what's the recipe. And actually six months later also kill the recipient build a new one. Whereas the classical career sales people they know how to scale working recipes. So I would argue that they should not even hire my type in those companies too soon. There is a time which comes at which they should hire but that time comes when the company is at least 5 to 10 million ARR if not higher in my opinion. And coming on to you know, the LP side of your business, you're spending almost thirty forty percent of your time in raising funds. So what are the challenges that you face while raising your funds because Stellaris is the isn't fund one right now. So very good question Siddharth, that I think most people don't realize that in many ways we are no different from the entrepreneurs we fund. Much like them they run their business, but at the same time they are keeping an eye on on their capital structures, on the cash in the bank and every founder in my opinion is always raising funds. That's very true for venture funds as well where we have both sides of the equation. On one side we are meeting entrepreneurs to fund them, but we are also talking to LPs to raise funds. In our business what makes it different is that we don't have usually the concept of one single lead investor. There are lots of different LPs that collectively constitute a fund, and to the point you made Siddharth you know ours is a long-term relatively illiquid investment and it's a blind pool investment because it's the GPs in a fund that drive the investments and not the LPs. And therefore it takes a very long cycle to build trust on fund managers. So it's not uncommon that you will continue to meet GPs for even four, five years or more before you build the trust to be able to back them. And we were very fortunate that we knew a lot of LPs before starting Stellaris by virtue of our backgrounds at Helion. We are also very fortunate that some very reputed global LPs, who were relatively early in building out their thesis and India, backed us at the time we started the fund. In my opinion like in most businesses timing matters, and I think we are very fortunate to hit the right timing with many of our core LPs as we raise our funds.