2021 worse than 2020?!

It’s exhausting running a company.

It’s exhausting running a company during a global pandemic.

It’s exhausting running a company during a global pandemic with fibromyalgia.

It’s exhausting running a company during a global pandemic with fibromyalgia and housing instability.

It’s exhausting running a company during a global pandemic with fibromyalgia and housing instability, right after: your grandfather passed away behind closed borders to a zoom funeral, and your father just had surgery for cancer, and you just took you last set of law school exams during second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and you just moved cities and have to find a medical care team from scratch, and you just closed a round of venture capital, and you’re trying to recover from a massive fibro flare triggered by the above, and you need to plan a wedding in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

But at least we’ll (hopefully) have a permanent home soon and be reunited with all our stuff. Plus dad’s surgery was a success, and he was able to celebrate law school graduation in person with me. We have a wedding venue. Rest of family is in good health. Even though feels like I’m failing my company because my health is struggling, I did close our round and money is in the bank. Life is good.

Hopefully 2021 trends upwards and to the right!

The Dangerous Precedent of CA Prop 22

The passage of California Proposition 22 in the November 2020 election sets a dangerous precedent: that money can override our legislature and courts. California is unique with its proposition system, which allows voters to directly decide matters of the state. However, aggressive campaigning, insufficient summaries, and an overwhelming number of propositions on every ballot has made it vulnerable for corruption — Prop 22 is a clear example of that.

Proposition 22 grants app-based transportation and delivery companies (aka. Uber, Lyft, Postmates, Instacart, and Doordash) a special exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as “independent contractors,” exempting them from providing benefits to certain drivers. This bill was created in response to the California Supreme Court Ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. In short, it defies a law that was passed by the CA legislature in response to a state supreme court ruling.

These companies were hoping to carve a path to profitability, in an existential struggle to prove that they have a sustainable business model. They needed to shift away from venture capital investor subsidies, and there are only two main ways to do so: raise prices or shift the costs elsewhere: the government and the drivers. Rather than incur the significant expense of transitioning their drivers to employees, and passing that cost onto consumers, they instead threw money at a proposition that would carve out a dubious exemption.

Companies poured a collective $204M into campaigns to pass Prop 22, making it the most expensive ballot proposition in California history. But $204M was a small fraction of the costs they would have incurred to pay to cover health insurance for drivers, payroll taxes on driver wages, and significantly, ensuring that drivers were making minimum wage. Many independent studies have shown that once the cost of car depreciation, car maintenance, health insurance, and gas is factored into wage calculations, most drivers do not make minimum wage.

Ironically, many billboards insidiously professed that Prop 22 would provide health insurance for drivers. What Prop 22 did was provide a cash pool for drivers to help “qualified” drivers cover expenses (aka drivers whose hours should have made them employees), but the burden of having health insurance still fell on drivers. The cash pool distribution would hardly cover any real medical costs, which can easily reach tens of thousands in a serious car accident.

These companies also further peppered their apps with messaging supporting Prop 22, and like spoiled toddlers, threw a tantrum and threatened to pull their services from California, their home bases, should the proposition not pass. By threatening to pull out of California, these companies used economic duress to force drivers to support the proposition. This classic legal principle usually means that a contract would be invalidated, but this is a proposition not a contract.

What makes Prop 22 particularly dangerous is that it provides a playbook for companies seeking to circumvent California legislation, whether it be labor law or tax law. No longer do companies need to heed labor laws — they simply need so spend a fraction of revenue to campaign a proposition past the population, and they then have leeway to treat workers in any way they want.

It is almost impossible to reverse a proposition once it passes in California, so the effects of Prop 22 will be long-standing, if not permanent. Companies with more capital to spend, like ride-sharing companies flush with venture capital money, will continue to exempt themselves from costs that smaller companies will need to bear, as they can’t campaign for special treatment. The gap between smaller businesses and larger corporations will only widen as a result of these unfair costs. And the gap between wage workers and white-collar tech employees will continue to spiral out of control in California.

The result of a widening schism between social-economic classes has already begun to seep into our society. It will only stain deeper, manifesting as greater housing inequality and thus great barriers to accessing education that provides social mobility. Lack of social mobility will feed further unrest into the lower classes, allowing for populist fascists like Donald Trump to seize power.

For me, Prop 22 was another wake-up call that it matters where we spend our money. If we continue to put our dollars behind companies like these, we only further feed the deep-rooted issues of inequality in this country.

For additional reading, KQED has done a great job here:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11843123/prop-22-explained-why-gig-companies-are-spending-huge-money-on-an-unprecedented-measure

Statement to Santa Clara County Officials

What can I say that hasn’t already been said to convince you guys that rape culture is pervasive at Stanford?

Exactly one year ago, October 2019, the Association of American Universities (AAU) surveyed 33 colleges and universities across America, and Stanford respondents came out in full force. 62% of Stanford students — equating to roughly 10,000 people — responded to the survey, and the results are loud and clear: 40% of undergraduate women who have been at Stanford University for four years have experienced some form of nonconsensual sexual contact. 23% said they were sexually assaulted. I’ll do the math for you. That’s 6,451 women who have had unwanted sexual contact, and 3,709 who have been sexually assaulted in the current student population. Extrapolate that over a decade, and you have 16,052 women who have had unwanted sexual contact, and 9,230 women who have been sexually assaulted.

Stanford women who had been sexually assaulted said they had difficulty concentrating on schoolwork. Twenty percent said their class attendance went down and 13% had difficulty going to work. Eleven percent considered dropping out of school and 9% withdrew from some or all of their classes. That means that any given time, 334 women at Stanford have withdrawn from some or all of their classes due to sexual assault. This not only has significant physical and emotional damage, but also a very real financial harm to these women. I would know, I was one of them. Nine years after graduation, I am still paying the consequences of the fiscal, physical, and emotional damages resulting from my Stanford experience. It’s not cheap — we’re talking tens of thousands in extra tuition and medical bills.

Perhaps stories are more convincing than numbers. All of my stories involve women who were assaulted while completely sober, lest you blame them for drinking or drug use.

One of my best friends at Stanford had her very first kiss ruined by a another student, who despite knowing that she had no sexual experience and was saving it for someone special, decided to forcibly kiss her so hard he left marks, and then penetrate her with his fingers, despite her protests. She had to wear a scarf for days to hide the marks that he left on her face and neck, and wouldn’t show me the bruising on her body. The emotional scar resulted in her gaining 70+lbs from stress. He told her to “not make a big deal out of it” and she was scared into complying because she feared mutual friends wouldn’t believe her. Mutual friends still describe this guy as a “nice guy” today, and he still lives in Santa Clara county.

Another friend would get periodically beaten and raped by her boyfriend, another Stanford student, whenever he was stressed. Fearing that no one would believe her, she never reported his actions. After they broke up, he went on to beat other Stanford women that he dated. He also lives in Santa Clara county today.

My own experience at Stanford was one of harassment and rumormongering by men whose advances I had rejected, as well as multiple sexual assaults from fellow students.

Here’s an example of the kind of daily harassment I experienced: once, a grad student cycled up next to me as I was walking to class. He asked invasive personal questions, repeatedly tried to get my contact information, and stalked me all the way to class. This happened in broad daylight and not a single bystander stepped in to help me out.

Another incident, I hung out with a fellow classmate at his dorm. His roommate made a lewd comment about us being together, which we both denied as it wasn’t true. Later, I learned that this classmate had told his roommate that I tried to “climb into bed with him” and that he had rejected me. The rumor soon spread throughout campus, especially amongst our friend group. Throughout my undergraduate years, I would hear him spread similar rumors about other women, over and over again.

I was also harassed by the director of the Kyoto overseas program during my study abroad time in Japan. He would put his arm around me and comment on how pretty I was, while staring down my dress. He heavily pressured me into taking his class. When I refused to take his class, he retaliated against me and took away my summer internship, stating that it was to “accommodate” my disability — simply because I was registered at the Office of Accessible Education for a reduced course load. At the time I was taking a full course load, but had gotten that pre-clearance as a safeguard due to academic difficulties after an assault the year before. The impact of his retaliation forced me to eventually use that clearance and reduce my course load that quarter. The Stanford administration then used my disabilities status to disregard my complaints against him. Multiple Stanford professors, Kyoto program employees, and students had made complaints against him for years preceding and years after my complaint. Yet no action was taken until his “buddy” in the Stanford Administration retired. He suspiciously retired the very next year amidst a constant barrage of complaints.

I was also assaulted multiple times while completely sober by Stanford men. One guy had decided to eat more pot brownies than even the most hardcore potheads, and was so high he couldn’t even speak anymore. He ended up puking all over the dorm and clogging the laundry room sink. I decided to take care of him, out of care for his wellbeing, and his friend who was similarly incapacitated. Both of them puked nonstop and I kept them upright until 4am, when they finally stopped puking. That classmate then decided, still unable to speak, that he wanted action right then and there, and proceeded to reach under my clothes, pin me down, and penetrate me. I can still recall the stench of his mouth full of puke as he forcibly kissed me. He did all of this right in front of his other friend. This same classmate and his friend would go on to tell our mutual friends that I was a “crazy ex” and that anything I said was untrue. I later found out that he and his friend told 100 people in their high school in a group email about how he had sex with me. Since he had gone to a magnet school, about 20 of his high school classmates were at Stanford in our year.

Even after graduation, Stanford’s rape culture followed me. Two years ago, I reconnected with a fellow alum. He claimed to be sad about a recent breakup and insisted that we hang out alone, rather than with other friends. Thinking he wanted to confide in me about his recent break up, I agreed to hang out at his apartment. He pressured me to drink a few sips of a cider that he prepared, and then stay and watch a movie, then another. I blacked out during the second movie. When I came to, I was extremely lethargic, and unable to go home. The entire night he tried to touch my breasts and finger me, but I kept resisting. I finally fell asleep, immobile, and he took this opportunity to rape me. I later figured out that I had been drugged, after I needed medications for insomnia following this incident.

If these stories and numbers don’t convince you that action is needed, then you are purposely turning a blind eye to these people in need, just like the Stanford administration.

Crazy Month of May

Last month was one of the most eventful in my life.

May 1 – Get married
May 5 – Meet Luna and Artemis for the first time
May 6 – Husband returns to medical school
May 7 – Find out husband’s cousin my age has cancer
May 13 – Fundraising Seed Deal Closed
May 16 – Move into new office
May 21-23 – Fly to NY and compete in Finals for VISA pitch competition, one of 10 finalists out of 1300 applications
May 22 – Adopt Luna and Artemis
May 31 – Received an apology that should’ve been said 18 years ago
May 31 – Kittens in hospital (luckily ok!)
May 31 – Find out my mother-in-law has cancer

On Resilience

Investors often state that they want to invest in founders who have “grit,” “resilience,” “perseverance,” or any number of synonyms. But how do they measure said resilience? A gut feeling? A well-crafted story of overcoming failure?

We signed a term sheet in December, and our $1.1M seed round has yet to close. The hold-up is the lead investor’s eleventh hour insistence that we obtain signatures from our ex-cofounder who has left the company over a year ago. She and her family are litigious so their concern is understandable. However, at this point the delay in financing is far more damaging to the company than any “distraction” that may occur from a lawsuit.

Continue reading

State of Female Funding in 2018

It’s well-known that in 2017 only 2.2% of VC dollars went to women last year, and only 0.2% went to women of color. According to a Techcrunch article published yesterday (11/4/18), that number hasn’t improved in 2018 — we’re still at 2.2%.

Having recently gone through (and still going through) months of fundraising, I can tell that change is still far from happening. Even more “progressive” and “female-friendly” firms have unconscious bias. Yet with all the press around equalizing the playing field, I’ve heard people say “aren’t there all these new female-focused firms now? Shouldn’t fundraising be better now?”

Although many new female-focused firms have popped up, they are nowhere near the level of support that is necessary to change the playing field.

Most of the female-focused firms have raised smaller funds (fund sizes of $10M), and thus can only deploy money at super early-stage startups at check sizes of around $100-$300k. This is a great start, getting startups with female founders their first check in the door.

For female-led teams that are beyond the “pre-seed” stage, however, there is little support. Check sizes of >$1M are not yet targeted by this new wave of awareness.

Furthermore, a lot of female-focused firms will fund markets traditionally ignored by male VCs (beauty, childcare, etc.), but what about support for female founders within male-dominated fields like supply chain?

I posed a question to an investor who strongly supports female founders (and puts his money behind his words): do you know a single enterprise SaaS company with a large exit (>$1B or even $500M) that has an all-female founding team, or even just is female-led? Neither he nor I could name one. (If you know one, please tell me!)

It’s difficult to get over that unconscious bias that comes with not a single success if your industry, not to mention the male-dominated supply chain software world.

Either way, all we can do is persist and push forward! The only way to truly enact change is to be that first success in the field.

We’re super grateful to all the investors who have believed in us and our mission to revolutionize supply chain. Together, we hope to change not only the supply chain industry, but the larger tech community as a whole.

Here’s my mini-database of female-focused firms (incomplete):
https://airtable.com/shr9dfFIwxwsLng8i

A larger, more exhaustive list can be found here:
https://www.foundersforchange.org/diverse-investors-list/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyhoey/2018/07/12/ten-female-founded-venture-capital-funds-you-should-have-in-your-network/#517d8e167565

April 28, 2017

Belated post for April 28, 2017.

Today was a great day. I was determined to start the day right. Woke up to Jay Park’s Joah, steamed my outfit, and got dressed in my new Reformation lilac-colored uber-chic dress. Drove down to Palo Alto and worked out of Philz on Forest Ave, with a delicious sausage breakfast burrito for lunch and a mint mojito ice coffee for dessert. Two hours of hyper-productivity. Then, ran some errands at the Stanford mall, rehearsed and performed with Swingtime, and attended a social dance at the Elliot Program Center, where I got a solid 3 hours of exercise. It was great to dance again. The only wrinkle in the day (literally) was my dress, which I found out wrinkles easily. But all in all, still felt like a boss wearing it, so I think it’s gonna be ok.

LA, NY, SF, HI, home

On March 20 at 2am, when I descended upon LA driving down the 405, I felt joy for the first time in ten months. It burst forth, welling up from within, and I almost literally shed tears of happiness. Homesickness has always been a foreign concept to me. This was the first time I’ve ever thought, “Ah, I’m home.”

I spent the first eighteen years of my life in beautiful Hawaii, with summers in Taiwan. In Hawaii, I was the children of Taiwanese immigrants who were always too intense for the locals. “Da loco kine” island life is all about being relaxed, “overachievers” were frowned upon. In Taiwan, I was too American; too tan, too “athletic,” and too accented. I was an outcast, neither a Hawaii local nor Taiwanese.

I then moved to the San Francisco Bay Area for college, and spent the next 8 years there. Again, I didn’t fit in. At Stanford, my lack of respect for social norms made me a weirdo. Beyond Stanford, I often felt a suffocating lack of diversity, whether it was socioeconomic diversity, ethnic diversity, industry diversity, or diversity of thought. Luckily, I made a few life-long friends, despite my social awkwardness.

Los Angeles was different. Here, I had friends who accepted me for who I was, tons of family nearby, beautiful weather, and cheap yet delicious food. There was diversity in all ways, every passion hobby imaginable, amazing arts — a true metropolitan city. I could lose myself amongst the crowds. I was no longer in a small town, with a narrow, small town mentality.

Now, I’m based in Brooklyn, New York. We’ll see if this will be another “home” or just another stop in my life journey.

At this point, I’ve moved 24 times since turning 18, and 12 of those times were post-graduation. My heart remains in the city of angels — home.

I end with a poem, which I saw on the metro the other day:

A Map of the World
by Ted Kooser

One of the ancient maps of the world
is heart-shaped, carefully drawn
and once washed with bright colors,
though the colors have faded
as you might expect feelings to fade
from a fragile old heart, the brown map
of a life. But feeling is indelible,
and longing infinite, a starburst compass
pointing in all the directions
two lovers might go, a fresh breeze
swelling their sails, the future uncharted,
still far from the edge
where the sea pours into the stars.

Social Good

With the recent political turmoil in mind, I have began to be more generous in donations to organizations that I feel make a difference. Previously, I had only donated to friends’ Kickstarter campaigns or foundations (Dragon Kim Foundation), on occasion a crowdsourced campaign (for example, Stand with Leah), the World Wildlife Fund, Volunteers in Asia via Amazon Smile, The Stanford Fund (designated to Swingtime), and other various charities that I vetted. I’ve donated time to volunteering at CARECEN, helping domestic violence victims process paperwork to gain legal status. I tried to volunteer at IRAP, but they didn’t have enough attorneys to supervise the willing volunteers.

Yesterday and today, I decide to be more proactive with my donations. I donated to the ACLU and International Rescue Committee. I bought an annual subscription to the New York Times, in an attempt to support honest journalism. I also pledged to help my friend’s Kickstarter campaign, but that has no political implications, only support for an aspiring entrepreneur, haha. (Though I do believe that innovation is the key to “keeping America great.”)

My old mindset was to keep these donations and volunteering pretty private; I’m pretty private about my political beliefs to begin with, and these “causes” that I support seem to me an extension of political beliefs. I also felt that the point of good deeds was to help others, and not to get praise or recognition for these deeds. However, I’ve become increasingly public with my actions…publicly donating to ACLU on Facebook, occasional articles shared on Facebook, and writing this blog post (not that anyone really reads this or connects it to me).

I’m still hesitant to go public with a lot of the issues I care about. Some of them, like women’s rights (equal pay and equal education, domestic violence, sexual assault, etc.) are pretty socially acceptable. Others, like mental health awareness or Taiwanese independence, may have an adverse impact on my career. If by going public, I would have some sort of positive impact on these issues, I would gladly go public; however, I remain cynical that my exposure would have a meaningful, lasting impact.

The last couple days, I decided to be more proactive about taking a public stance. Although I don’t really believe that it will have a meaningful difference (and will potentially harm me instead), I decided to say “fuck it” and take the gamble. As an entrepreneur, I’m always taking risks that may leave me with nothing, so I believe I can survive through whatever adverse effects may arise — I only hope that even a little bit of positive sway will result from my gambit.

If the name of the game is survival, then I have plenty of endurance to tough it out. I also bought some iodine tablets today in preparation for nuclear war, so there’s that too.
Continue reading