I get asked this all the time. A founder reads the Fund page, walks away with a clear sense of what I bring — capital with the operator built in, real partnership, stay close after I'm in — and immediately asks the obvious follow-up. "Cool. But what's the check size? What stage? What sector?"
The page doesn't say. That's not laziness. It's the answer.
The trap of publishing a number
Most investor pages have a "Sweet Spot" section. "We write $250K–$1M checks at seed stage in B2B SaaS." Clean. Specific. Useful for filtering inbound.
It is also the wrong frame for what I do.
The moment I publish a number — say, $25K to $250K — three things happen, and all three of them are bad for the founders I most want to hear from:
One. The right-sized founder for me reads the number and self-disqualifies. The founder building something that warrants a $400K check looks at the high end of my published range and assumes I'm not their guy. They never write. I never know.
Two. The wrong-sized founder for me reads the number and self-qualifies. The founder who's actually pre-product, pre-traction, looking for $50K to "validate the idea" sees the bottom of my range and thinks they fit. They write. I have to say no. The conversation accomplishes nothing for either of us.
Three. The number becomes a brochure. And brochures are the opposite of what this is.
What I actually mean by "I can write checks"
The Fund page says I can write checks. Not I will write checks. That distinction is everything.
I can write checks at the scale of a serious angel — for the right opportunity, at the right moment, with the right founder. The scale is determined by the opportunity, not by a sweet spot I committed to on a brochure.
One quarter I might write a $40K check into a founder I want to help signal their first round. The next quarter I might write a $250K check into someone who's three years into building a real business and needs the partner who can sit with them on hard calls. The quarter after that, I might write zero. The dollar amount is downstream of the opportunity, not upstream.
If I publish a range, I commit to it. If I don't publish a range, I get to keep the judgment.
What "wide open by design" actually means
Some founders read "wide open" and hear "I'll fund anything." That's not it either. There's a bar. I just don't publish it.
The bar is judgment-based, not formula-based. Real business or credible path to one. A founder I'd want in my corner if our roles were reversed. Work where the operator-investor combination actually matters — i.e., where my time on the hard calls is part of the value, not a nice-to-have. If those three lights are green, the dollar amount sorts itself.
The serious founder reads the silence on the page and understands what it means: "There's a real bar here, and the way through it is a conversation, not a checkbox." The casual one moves on to a site that's easier to game. That filter is doing exactly the work I want it to do.
The honest version
I have an internal phrase for how I think about every check I might write. I won't put it on the site because it doesn't read right to a corporate prospect, but I'll put it here: "I'm crazy, but I'm not stupid."
The crazy part is the willingness to be the early believer, to back unconventional bets, to write the check the more cautious investor wouldn't. The not stupid part is the operating judgment that comes from decades of having to make these calls inside organizations where the dollars were even bigger and the consequences even higher. Both halves are required. Publishing a range collapses both halves into a brochure.
So the page stays quiet on the number. The serious founder emails. We have the conversation. The number reveals itself.
If you read this far and you're trying to figure out whether your situation is the kind of situation I'd write a check for — that's the conversation. Let's have it.