Systems Investing Playbook Launch Event

Yeah, system investing is what we're talking about. Oh, too bad Anne. We'd love to hear from you. So, if you do want to say something, feel free. We'll see what happens. Welcome everybody who is still joining. We're up to 15 already. I'm giving it I'm going to give it 1 more minute to really start this off. I'm calling in from Amsterdam. I don't know where you are calling from. If you want to share, please do so in the chat. And you can keep yourself busy doing that. Ooh, Paris. Oui oui. Hi, Ireland. Ooh, Jura. I want to cycle there. Well, I think it's now 5 past. So, hey, let's keep my own word and let's start this show. So, this is an online event where we will share today the new playbook we made on system investing. And so, we're going to host a conversation around this today. It's going to be well, now 55 minutes. It's recorded. Uh so, if you don't want to do that, make sure your camera's off. Uh or you won't want to be in there. Uh this is a publication that you can download. The link is here uh on the screen in the Miro board in the Miro board, if you're from Australia. Link is in the chat for the Miro board, which you can then follow along this presentation. Um So, feel welcome also to keep chatting during the event. There's the link being highlighted in the screen. Uh you can chat continuously. We will be monitoring it. I will be answering and whoever else feels free. So, please be interactive. If you want to share who you are, use the stickies in the Miro board where everybody is welcome to add your LinkedIn link so you people can connect with you. That'll be fun. Um and I think that's mostly it. I think the setup now uh is done. If there are any questions, feel free to keep asking that. Um and Josh is now you will you you now take over. Do you want me to continue? >> Uh no, that's great. Um maybe I'll say a few words about our little team here. Um but I can pick up. Thank you very much, Martin. Good to see everyone here today. Um um for the people who'll be watching this in the recording, um we are coming to you live from the SI Finance Lab. So, this is a lab we've been running for the past uh 3-4 months exploring and co-designing uh methods and tools and ideas for Islamic investing and we've just got started with that. So, what we're sharing is the playbook, which is a lot of uh ideas um and principles and so forth. And in the future, we'll be working on tools and methods. So, I'll talk more about that. But just say a word about the team. This is us. Uh many of us are here today. Uh some are not. I think Ryan is on a flight back from Asia Asia at the moment, so he's not with us. I'm Josh uh based here in Ireland and um not really based here, but I'm here for 2 weeks. So, I'm I'm temporarily based here, right? Um we have Ushma in Germany uh from Ripple as you can see. We have Martin who just introduced himself. Parijat is hopefully going to join us at some stage. I think he had a wedding, so um that can make for an interesting background. If he does join us, we have Courtney from Paris and uh Nancy. So, this is uh the team. Seven of us. We started out uh me, Ushma, and Ryan and the others have joined since. And we've been working together >> [clears throat] >> in this lab meeting every week Um to uh to explore what what it takes to do investing in a different way based upon systems thinking and to invest in a more purposeful and intentional way towards transforming and changing systems for the better ultimately. So, it's been a collaborative space and it still is, but we're just in the first kind of leg of this journey. I'll talk more about what happens in the future, but we wanted to take a pause to share you know, our current findings, should we say, and what we put together in the playbook and that is VIVE. The link is there at the beginning, so welcome you to take a look at that. I'm going to talk a little bit about the contents of it. Um but yeah, this is ultimately what we're doing. Yeah, researching the nature of systemic investing. And that's what's in the playbook where we're going to be in the future designing tools and methods for this and ultimately developing and collaborating with others to put that into practice to really explore not just the theory, but what this looks like when you go and put it into practice. So, that's what we're up to. That's what the lab is about and it's an ongoing endeavor and we are here to share what we have so far. We are the core team, the people there. We have some associates, people who maybe want to collaborate with us in the future. We're open to new people joining us we go into the next leg of this journey. We have few people already started joining, but I'll share towards the end, you know, the possibility to do that if you're interested and um that's that. We've been doing weekly workshops. This core team they've been kind of learning sessions where So go kind of divergent and then convergent, divergent in terms of exploring what are we talking about here? All the topics we'll be presenting in the in the tool bit tool kit and then or the playbook and then convergent in terms of trying to define and put it into to print, should we say. So that's what we've been working on. Um This is a little bit the kind of the timeline and the way it's been working. And I'll share this again at the end in case you want to, you know, be part of the next leg of the journey, but this is the first track that we've been on, right? You'll see four modules in the playbook and those are the results of the We did a module every 2 weeks, which makes, you know, eight or maybe I think it was 10 weeks in the in total and this is the product of that. And it's been an interesting journey in terms of how to co-create amongst a diverse group of people who don't necessarily know each other beforehand. Neen Courtney and Martin maybe knew each other and Ashmar a bit, but Nancy's new and and Project and so forth. So we tried to figure out how to you know, share ideas and then synthesize that up and it's been an interesting kind of journey. But afterwards we'll be moving into design like what are the actual tool kit, what are the the methods and tools for going doing this and ultimately uh developing some kind of fund or collaborate with others on that. So that's where we are. And that is the Investing Lab and I'm not going to say too much more about that. If you're interested I'll share a bit more towards the end and you can join us. So this is what I'm going to talk about, which is the contents of the the playbook. Hopefully you've already had a little look and you have an idea because I'm not going to go into details. Um just some of the kind of main points and then towards the end we'll be able to have a conversation. I'll also share with you what were the key kind of tensions we explored in the lab or what were the reoccurring themes that we kept on coming back to, which is quite interesting. Um, but before we get there, let's take a look at what we have here. So, as mentioned, it's four modules. And yeah, I could just explain what those four modules are. First one was kind of high-level overview, what is systems investing or systemic investing. I think in the end personally I I preferred systems investing. Um, these forth, but we'll we'll talk about that. Uh, systems evaluation or assessment was the second module. The third was about uh, creating funds. And the kind of parameters for that. And finally the initiatives that you might want to put into a fund. So, that's what we have so far in terms of the four uh, four modules. So, [clears throat] starting off with what exactly is uh, systems investing? And um, yeah, none of this is like a final kind of solution or a definitive statement. It's a starting kind of position, but this is an intersection of investing and systems thinking. Um, that is seeking to transform or change systems uh, for the better. And uh, we know it's not the way that investing is normally done. We can maybe contrast that a little bit. So, um, investing's kind of parts investing, uh, this reductionist approach. Um, where we Yeah, it's very much driven return on investment and it doesn't really connect the dots. It tries to optimize the individual parts in the way that we could do if we're really thinking about the system first instead of just how can we get an optimal part to return the best best return on our investments? If we started maybe with the system and asking questions about it and how we can improve or how finance could be part of transformation and systems change, the whole equation looks very different. And that's kind of what we're focusing on here and here's a little breakdown of that. Um and in some ways it's it's still the upon of moving beyond impact investing that we've heard a lot about. We've heard a lot about the limitations of that also. Um But if we look at it here, it's a whole systems and interconnected context that's the primary focus instead of isolated parts and individual assets. It's non-linear, multi-directional influence, emergent conditions, holistic transformation towards healthy regenerative systems. It's about a polycapital fostering ecosystems value model, full cost accounting to internalize externalities and address systemic risk. So, yeah, for me the word that pops out there is holistic. It means we're often not considering so many things when we do investment like systemic risk, like externalities, like actually the interrelationship, the network, the context that these parts fall part of. And of course, if we take a systems approach, we're really looking outside the box of that and we're trying to understand it in context, in relation to other things, in relation to changes over time. And in relation to how the overall system is doing in terms of its health and systemic risk and multi or polycapital in terms of most multiple value flows, right? That's part of the the challenge with traditional investing that's very kind of focused on finance and kind of uh forgets about everything many other things. So, it's about including all those different forms of value exchange to really um look at the system as a whole and think about our effects on that and can we use finance as a a tool or a uh approach to working with other forms to transform, build healthy systems. Um yeah, that's kind of uh the top line, the headline in terms of what we're talking about here. Hopefully all that makes sense uh to you. Uh we are actually going to take questions. So, if you have any questions, you can put them in the chat or you can come to the end of the mirror board here. If that didn't make sense to you, if you have any um pointers you'd like to add to that, uh please post them up here or post them into the chat and Pushmaka can pick them up. So, uh stay going. Um these are the core principles we came up with for uh going about doing this. And there's a bit of iteration on these, uh but we have four of them. Holistic, as I mentioned. Um shifting from isolated gains towards improving the entire ecosystem's infrastructure by braiding multiple forms of capital and nurturing shared resources. It's multi-dimensional. Emphasize Emphasize Emphasis moves beyond narrow economic metrics to orchestrating all forms of value exchange. Synergistic, cultivating dynamic connections and strategic collaborations among diverse assets drive non-linear compounding impact that exceeds the sum of its parts. It's contextual. Demands continuous systemic assessment to adapt to real-world environments actively internalizing externalities rather than extracting short-term values. That's kind of a lot of what I I talked about before, but it kind of solidifies key principles um that really characterize this approach and I think they could definitely help uh you know, kind of guide us in the right direction when we go about doing this. Um yeah, just keep going. If you feel there's something missing there, you can you know, put it into the questions at the end. Why does the world need this? It's a bit self-evident. I think we know the limitations of kind of traditional finance and also impact investing. We're getting a lot of silos. Um our whole approach to risk is a bit out of whack when we see what happened with the financial crisis and all the kind of systemic risks rising in the world and finance and insurance could be a system for really addressing those. Um and also this need for transformation. The finance can really uh help us in in transformative change here when often it's it's locked into traditional uh ways of working. Um as I talk to people not just in finance, but you know, working in public sector or wherever, they talk about how the funding structures kind of perpetuate the same old ways of working and don't really enable them to work in new ways and so forth. Um A need to move beyond demands. And there's a need for move beyond symptoms. Systemic capital deployed for legacy. Yeah, people want to actually see enduring change, sustainable change that builds upon itself. And a need for kind of practical tools and methods. A lot of people interested in this and all the tools they needs. Um and [clears throat] then there's a bit about the state of the field. Maybe I won't go into straight uh right now. That's actually the first section, so it's really high-level uh overview of um, what we talk about here, key principles, why we need it, and so forth. I'm going to stay uh, moving along here. Um, so the second one is about systemic assessment and evaluation. Uh, of course, finance is is tied very intimately with this whole question of how we evaluate the state of a system, of its health, and where we're going, and whether we're going in the right direction. We talk about investment, we need to know uh, where we want to go, and whether our investments are actually taking us in that direction. And evaluation is is how we do that. So, they're pretty in in inseparable, and as long as we're locked into a kind of linear evaluation framework, we're not really going to be able to go very fast. So, that's also part of the challenge here. Uh, personally found it the most difficult part of of the whole journey. Um, trying to think through this, and we definitely don't have definitive answers. I'd say this is kind of part of the answer what we have, but it's far from uh, complete, and there's a lot of Yeah, a lot of people I talked to out there also struggling with this across so many different types of organizations, not just in finance. So, it's a big one, and it's super important. Um, and it's really yeah, the shift from linear evaluation that we so much depend upon still, because we haven't really got anything else, to a systemic form of evaluation. And we we did come up with some ideas. Uh, systemic assessment is long-term outcomes, systems health, and emergence. We've got to, you know, not just think about the present, but what's happening over time. Are we Are we moving towards a tipping point? Are we enabling emergence in these kind of non-linear changes, which are difficult to to track? Um, it's about understanding contribution when we don't have this cause and effect thing. I did this and I got that results. Um, we need something that's about people's contribution to the whole system, which is much more non-linear and complex to to track. So, it's it's shifting from A causes B to to influence instead of impact, maybe. Real-time and adaptive. Yeah, so so much of this data and tracking is legacy and from the past and it's episodic and so forth when we have the abilities, the technology to really make things adaptive and real-time. Um, continuous and also integrate learning into that, integrate learning continuously, not at the end of a program um, as a side note cuz we got to, you know, do some paperwork and tick some boxes, but actually how can we really um, integrate all these things, the evaluation, the information, the real-time um, adaptation and learning um, to build something's going in the right direction. So, it's about interrelationships, underlying structures uh, and mental mental models. Yeah, so we get to that, the warm data warm data thing, but ultimately we're trying to, you know, evaluate not just the fruits, but the roots. And the infrastructure that's enabling this thing to work, the soil, the health of the soil, whether there's lots of worms in it or not, right? Um, how resilient is the system? Is it adaptive? Are there synergies between the parts? Are they working competitively or destructively or in a synergistic um, way? The quality of the relationships. The context. Is this the right context out of which something new and beneficial is going to emerge? And um, integration, adaptive capacity and so forth. So, that's going to challenge to be able to put a framework together to be able to evaluate those things as well as the actual outcomes, right? You know, how productive is this thing? Are there, you know, how many fruits came out of it? What's the scale, the volume, the output, and so forth. Um so, it's trying to build upon the I guess the linear evaluation frameworks to create something that's more comprehensive, that really represents different system as a whole and it's it's health and capacity to regenerate itself over the time. And uh one could use the model of a system to do that and think about those different dimensions. That's uh we have one template of a site to to do that. We also uh talk quite a bit about this thing of vector alignment. Martin raised it first and then it became that kind of buzzword. And um it's thinking not just if we're doing the right thing, not if we're just doing well what we're doing, but are we actually doing the right thing uh originally? I'll not just the rate of change, but the direction of change. And uh can we evaluate both of those? Not just, you know, our GDP, which is just telling us a kind of rate of a rate of change rate of change, but actually are we going in the right direction, which is often kind of left out altogether. So, these are all critical aspects if we really want to evaluate in a comprehensive way. Um yeah, so moving from impact to influence, moving from um saying I did this and I got that result to attribution, how did all these people contribute to this change over time? Um which is ultimately what's what's needed if we're going to shift up to a kind of systems evaluation framework. So, yeah, you'll find it all in the playbook. Uh we also go a bit into warm data, which is about the relationship uh between the elements in the system. And um yeah, the quality of that relationship not just the quantity and this is all part of systems evaluation. And yeah, I'll zoom in down here around adaptation experimentation and learning which is very important in complex environments when you're trying to figure out something you don't know how to do. You really need to build this in not just as an end kind of product. So that's the second module systems evaluation and assessment. And then we moved on to the final two sections which is about a fund what what exactly is a systems fund and finally what are the things we would put into that fund. In terms of the initiatives and so forth. So here in the systems fund we started kind of ideating on what would it take what sort of aspects would we need to consider if we're going about constructing a systems fund and different dimensions to that so you can see the best ones around framing and I guess sense making or setting the intention. If it's purposeful then we need to start with what's the intention for this overall fund what are we trying to achieve we're not just investing in parts for our return on investment where actually being intentional about understanding the system saying what we're trying to achieve and that's going to set the context for for everything and what follows is systems mapping trying to understand that system what are the factors the elements the interrelationships and the actors involved and so forth so we can actually ground this in a realistic understanding of the system. And then working with synergies in terms of we've got all these parts how do we put them together in synergistic ways which is really going to create you know portfolios that's greater than the sum of its parts and adaptive learning over time so this thing actually builds in uh learning and adapts uh as we go forwards. So, those are some of the uh key considerations and then we break it out um kind of as we go through that. So, the framing, uh setting uh understand the context, purpose, setting setting boundaries, uh mapping of researching a system, looking at the gaps, where's the opportunities, uh and so forth. Um working synergistically, thinking about the initiatives and how they can fit together and um uh co-create and uh work synergistically, and uh adaptive learning, getting feedback loops uh going so we can have a a system that's actually learning um over time. And that's the section about uh system design. There's quite a bit more in the guide when you go into that. I'm just going to keep going so that I don't uh talk forever. The final section is um select the initiatives and and then we got to the end and we realized we hadn't talked very much about risk. So, we talked about risk and we just put that in here also. So, um here we are. Key considerations. So, this is thinking about the things um the initiatives, I like to call them, could be enterprises, could be what whatever, projects, um that we're putting into this portfolio. What should they be like? What's the business model like? What's our criteria for selection? What stages of development are we working at? You know we know that, you know, venture capital has series A, B, and so on and so forth. How do we work at the different stages of development of system? Uh what happens at what stage? And how do we work with uh risk and in particular systemic risk? So, it starts off with being aware of um well, this, that money's not everything and that when we interact with a system and human beings in that system there's a whole pile of value exchanges intrinsic and extrinsic and when we introduce money it of course that affects kind of that affects that whole dynamic and we need to be considerate of it considerate of it as we go in because we are trying to get this thing working optimally not just return on the finance it's how do we use finance in a considerate way not to disrupt and disbalance imbalance these kind of dynamics so it's starting with this idea of potentially defunding before you start funding right do we actually need this money is there a much more creative and innovative way to do this so we need a lot less money our kind of upfront considerations before we actually go and you know deploy capital in many ways so this one here was thinking about business models and you know externalities and different types of business models so there's a lot of destructive ones in the world but there can also be a lot of you know creative and productive ones ones that are working with circular economy um working with ecosystems non-linear business models which are actually building the infrastructure of the system instead of just transacting parts and churning through resources and so forth is there a business model that can actually contribute to the regeneration of the whole system and the infrastructure and so forth so we did a bit of a dive into different business models that also this thing shouldn't be dependent on having the problem that it's trying to address it should be trying to dissolve the problem and do itself out of a job ultimately instead of just continuously needing more resources to address challenge and what stage is it at in its journey right like a startup staging it uh, stages of development for a startup needs a lot of investment up front here and this idea of uh, concessionary capital that maybe you need, you know, things that look like philanthropy or or um, charity or whatever it is up up front here that aren't looking for a return on investment to be able to stimulate and create markets for um, those who are looking for returns. So, how do you put those two together? It goes back to the intrinsic extrinsic kind of dynamic that's a um, a challenging one and a complex one to work with here, but yeah, one of the conversations was around how do you kind of put those different intentions together, right? Some people for profit, some people not for profit. Um, but ultimately you need to kind of get them working together cuz it's not just it's it's blended finance, right? It's all across the spectrum that we're trying to work with here. So, um, that's that's that. That's about the uh, initiatives. That's about the playbook. The initiatives go into the portfolio and the portfolio has a system of valuation and uh, this year is all about the um, the framing for the whole thing and the principles and so forth. Hopefully that was helpful. Uh, I know I'm going to go on talking cuz I've done a lot of that, but um, Perry Jets, I don't know if you made it here today, but he proposed that we uh, bring in some of the key reoccurring themes and tensions in the sessions that we had. Um, so we managed to get all the transcriptions and run it through an algorithm and these some of those, I won't go into the details, but just touching upon the uh, the headlines. So, the first one, point solutions versus combinatorial ecosystems. Direct attribution versus systemic uh, contributions. So, these are themes that came up throughout the 10 or 12 sessions or how however many. Uh, mission drift, we talked about that versus adaptive evolution vector alignment, Uh, blended finance catalytic blended finance catalytic capital versus subsidized extraction. That's about yeah, these these philanthropy or kind of trying to kickstart stuff are they just are they full profit, you know, just using them in an extractive way to to be able to create good returns for themselves or is it really capitalizing something? Interesting conversation. The jargon barrier versus practical transitions. And the stickies there this subtext explains more about what we're talking about in that. I'm going to draw to close to enable the space for conversation and hand it over to Ushma if you have questions for me or anyone else on the team or anything you want to talk about. >> Uh thank you so much Jess for the presentation. Um so we've had a couple two questions that came in and one was from actually from the team, from Martin, um a question perhaps would be good for those people that have joined already if there is any or start a conversation on any concrete example or known example of systems investing. Perhaps we can um start off there. What is a good or at least a well-known example on systems investing? >> Uh I think there's few case studies out there from Transcap is they take the I think the original one was from the Midwest trying to finance regenerative agriculture in the Midwest in the US. Um I think they have few few more out at this stage, yeah. If but if anyone else has one uh feel free. >> Actually, I was thinking and and and that's why I asked this question is because the field of system investing is emerging, the canonical story of the Uber story, if you will, uh in in system investing is not there yet. And it's about to emerge. And uh so I think on one hand, there are some stories, but it's not that everybody knows it. So I think maybe a key activity for people active in it is to work on the lighthouse case that it's repeatable, which is of course scary because it will never be complete then because it will be simplified. I remember when I was still in startup world, I remember reading a book called Startup, you know, like like and this was a story in the '90s about somebody creating a tablet and then totally effing it up. Uh but but it showed how that world worked and and you know, and and you need lots of those materials, books, stories, etc. Probably TikTok videos in this uh millennium, uh to to yeah, load this, to to activate this industry, if you will. >> but but also say um you know, the whole system has to change, too, doesn't it, Martin? So just giving case studies and then we try and, you know, Yeah. Do like that to is one dimension, but another dimension is actually these bigger kind of changes across insurance, across, you know, the way we do all different sorts of things that need to change, which, you know, a kind of one case study doesn't necessarily help with that. But yeah, I I agree. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. >> Yeah, I mean, just briefly also, the whole question around um you know, some of the people I was talking to, they're they're also about, okay, systemic investing, great, but like actually there's so much more that needs to change around fi- uh in finance. There's so many uh we talk about all the good things, the kind of upside of doing great new forms of investment, but there's so many things in the kind of existing system um that that needs to change um also, you know, in the way we currently do finance. So, yeah, it's it's it's broad big big topic. Yeah, and not just in finance, in the way so many organizations do. Every organization has money flows, right? And they affect how it works. So, we need to think in that broad way also. >> Okay, then there was one question from Anne Sneek. Um, do you also take into account monetary design as drivers of extraction versus regeneration? I think you had mentioned that in the considerations of um, the key considerations, business models, I think selection criteria as well. But, um, yeah, maybe Anne, if you'd like to unmute and um, give a little context to your question. >> And also, what is what what do you mean specifically by monetary design? Um, um. >> Anne, would it be possible for you to unmute and >> She was saying she was in the train earlier in the chat. >> Okay, okay, okay. Yeah. Okay, well, um, yeah, then to you, Charles. I was I was thinking um, uh, at incentivization structures, but of course, I don't know what Anne meant, but monetary design, incentivization structures, perhaps. I don't know. >> It's um, So, the current monetary system um, she's on the move. Uh, as as I interpret it, currently the monetary design is an extractive system and is not wholesome and geared towards regeneration. Yeah, too bad Jakob is not on the line as well, because he signed up. He can also explain this really well, Jakob Blunk. >> Yeah, and people argue that it's very much built on debt, right? Um, and of course, it's built on the nation state and it's built in a deep uh non-digital world and and and so forth. Um, yeah, and if you get into token economics and and blockchain and all this, you start to have the potential to actually design and people have done it and do do it in monetary systems that look very different. So, yeah, that's pretty bottom of the iceberg kind of stuff. Like, what is money and um what are we accounting for and how does that system create money at the moment? And and yeah, and many people argue that it inherently creates debt and this kind of slavery to some extent. So, yeah, a lot of things unpacked there. >> Yeah, cool. Um, thank you. I think Courtney gave an example for the for Martin's question before as well. Um, an example that's underway from Zambia. Thank you very much uh Courtney. Um, then there was one question from Bowen on um how to how do you identify and facilitate collaboration opportunities? So, we had a lot of conversations always on unusual suspects. Um, but yeah, over to Jess. >> Uh, well, Bowen, do you want to uh share a little context? >> Yeah, this is um the part that really interests me because it feels like potentially one of the hardest parts to get right. Um, because when you think about like traditional finance, you know, this idea of having a vision, possibly even, you know, looking at the ecosystem, uh they're not let's say as um inherently radical, even though obviously what the intention is and how you look at the system and all that are things that can be improved and and and I think they're very important. Um, but this idea of actually having a portfolio of different projects which, when they collaborate directly or indirectly, you know, lead to something greater than the sum of its parts, is very interesting and obviously a key component. Um but I do wonder like practically speaking, you know, how you facilitate that, right? Um Yeah, that's kind of the background of the question. >> Yeah. I mean, there's a few different dimensions. I think one is around an issue around the selection. I I um I think there's a case an example of the what's called the convergence stack, um a VC investor in the UK, that's intentionally um and it goes to I I shared it with you, Mantzi, because it's an example of kind of a conventional VC, but they're kind of doing uh purposeful um investing um which is to try and build the, you know, decentralized web. Like that's their purpose. So, then they're selecting initiatives and startups from the cross, you know, the different levels uh Bowen of that stack and across different dimensions of it. And if you think about that, they're kind of building into it something synergistically, right? If you're level one versus level whatever, level three, um or if you're doing token exchanges versus whatever, you know, infrastructure blockchain over here, then there's pretty good reasons you'd want to collaborate, right? Versus everyone in blockchain um building level one blockchains, you know, there's probably not much reason for you to collaborate. So, I think that's an interesting one. Are you actually from the beginning uh intentionally we want to build this whole system? There are all these different dimensions. Let's choose things not fall in the same space that actually So, I think it goes back to the mapping kind of stage there uh Bowen and in that mapping um identifying those leverage points and intervention points that they're different places across system and that sets a kind of initial condition that makes sense for collaboration, but then of course there's a lot more to it. You'd have to actually, you know, be facilitating those spaces cuz as you say, naturally it doesn't really happen. We all talk about collaboration, but then we go back to a business of you uh business on Monday and we we get caught up in that. So I think you'd have to be facilitating that, you know, like like a startup kind of um spaces hosting you know, co-working and events and all this sort of stuff. So I think you have to do that and then, you know, financing also in development and other areas they start to finance for projects that require different organizations to work together instead of just funding that initial that individual organization. So I think there's multiple dimensions to that actually. Um >> Thanks, Charles. And maybe a question to to everyone else who's joined here. >> Courtney also has >> Ah, Courtney also. Yeah. >> Yeah, I don't want to overdo it with just the the examples from from UNDP which um what I was just saying or reflecting in the chat is I think intuitively it starts with ensuring you have like a a diversity of stakeholders or cross-sector group that are on the same page around what do we even mean around a systems approach, right? So there's kind of that initial field building around the concept level or the framework level of taking a holistic approach. And then it's you know, the next stage of that is the maturation or the kind of um becoming more sophisticated and and being able to build that case so concretely that it's you can bring in capital to to finance that. So is I I haven't seen a case where it starts the other way exactly, where you just start with a fund that has a systems investing ready logic and it just gets deployed. It really needs to to understand, I think before deployment, that there's a lot of layers of of um connectivity in that polycapital way we've talked about in the past, which means you have human resources, you have the relational capital, you have the the intent. It's not only about having the the the fiat currency or the you know, the the finances um in a conventional frame. That's just a reflection and and that's also a lot of what we're I think trying to to to kick off as well. We have some more research with PariSots specifically around this, you know, how do you that connective tissue that holds the portfolio together, which might be intellectual capital like this conversation is cross-pollinating that kind of capital that's not financial, but it's intellectual. Um so there's like a lot of nuance around it and in many cases it's also kind of I think not always easy cuz language, right? So we were talking about this throughout the past few months like jargon is is is really sometimes helpful because it helps you speak and exchange on a level that is more um detailed and precise just like a a a doctor, you know, who goes through a whole you know, eight years of medical training for example, there's a level of like jargon to me, but that's to them their expertise. But if you're trying to get a cross-sector group together, it's not necessarily easy to um to make sure that everyone's on the same page with with language itself. I think that was what we came up with as a discussion point throughout the months, you know, what is the right terminology here that is inclusive and it helps people be on the same page. >> Yeah, I think it touch on it just just briefly about the thing of time time and um you know, we have it here in this this graphic. But if you look at the development of many ecosystems um the ones that got here, the really successful an ecosystem really gets going like Boulder in the US, Silicon Valley or or Chile in South America um they really get going once they have these success stories and you have these you know, the way it normally works, the exits and then they have a bunch of money to pile back into the beginning here, right? So there's kind of a synergy there, right? Over the time horizons Um you know, uh particularly as thing of the way those ecosystems got going with this kind of flywheel of reinvestment and then growing and reinvestment so you get to these astronomical sizes of Silicon Valley and so forth. Obviously, we're not going in that direction, but there is that kind of interesting synergy. These guys back here don't have any money, whereas these people are exiting do have money. How do you kind of get that recycling going is an interesting dynamic, yeah. >> I have a very interesting comment from uh Jordan uh here on example from global health. I don't know Jordan if you want to explain a little bit on uh >> Thanks, Ishmael. Yeah, um so coming as a fellow, you know, global health lens, like a lot of the the really great examples we have in the space have been around the sort of systems approach where they've catalyzed a particular um uh intervention and then crowded in a market around it. And HIV medications being like a really classic example where um we've brought the price of drugs down, we've increased the the coverage, and we've like crowded in a you know, what was a very very um sparse market around the turn of the century. So, like I think the point I was trying to like articulate here is that there's probably a lot of system people who have done systemic investing in principle, but have not called it that. So, then it comes back to like language and identity and sort of like extracting the lessons and and really like synthesizing them together so that people can see themselves in this approach. >> Yeah, and the whole catalytic capital is I think part of what you're getting at, too. And how do we Yeah, learn from all those And that was Perry Jack brought in a lot of that language, you know, catalytic concessionary capital, blended finance, and all So, it's all stuff we need to kind of build upon because those are important innovations and developments, but I think we know there's another level to all of this, right? Where we need to start talking about the system rather than just impact here and impact there. So, yeah, yeah, a lot of what we can learn from the past and that's Nansi kind of focuses on that a lot about how traditional, you know, VC and finance does leverage a lot of systems thinking, but maybe not always in the right way. I don't know if you want to share that, Nansi, but yeah. >> Yeah, sure. I I can um share. It just um I think this year was the first time that um was Andreessen Horowitz um closed the biggest fund ever in venture capital history, but then when you analyze it from the lens of all of these things that we've talked about today, um it feels like they're doing a lot. They are investing all types of capital, um you know, whether it's intellectual capital, um owning media outlets to uh to influence the narrative, um um having a policy arm to influence uh the rules of the system. Um they're doing so much more than just investing in a startup. Um so, it it led me to the conclusion that they seem to be doing systemic investing if you take away the positive impact aspect of systemic investing. Um and uh and and it's uh it's it's no longer experimental if you look at just their actions um without the moral lens. >> Wow, what a great framing, Nansi. I I do not thank you for this, but uh I don't know if you saw my Anil Dash article I shared earlier. It's definitely uh he called it cancer capital. Uh Wow, you're so right. >> I think Bowen had his hand up. >> Yeah, it's um it's just relating to to to something that Courtney said which um yeah, actually changed it got me to question my own view cuz when when I think of investing even systemic investing, I come in with certain assumptions. Um and and actually one that I I mean makes so much sense when you say it is that it shouldn't be about, okay, let's just try to raise as much as we can and then, you know, decide what to fund. Um I mean, it's I'm speaking of this, but you know, the the the financial ecosystem or whatever investing means or systemic investing means in this perspective is, you know, it's you're obviously investing towards enabling a um a certain future or a certain world that maybe doesn't exist yet. And in order to enable that, there's as as you were saying, Courtney, like multiple different types of things. Um but then if you and then to which areas does different types of capital become the bottleneck and become a requirement for building the infrastructure of the soil or whatever for enabling this possible future. Like if you start from that point and then say, okay, well, this is our analysis and this is what we feel is needed across the ecosystem and across, you know, individual projects and across, you know, the infrastructure uh gluing these different products together, let's say, or the platform. Um and then you start this thesis from there and then get the funding to actually do that, it's all built from the same place. So, the investing isn't coming from out there. It's actually all just part of the same thing, which is enabling this future. So, um well, that wasn't really a question or really adding very much, but it was just >> Yeah. >> you know, it helped me to reconceptualize what what this is about, let's say. >> Yeah, well, that's so core to what we kind of uh in a way, it's kind of obvious about as to say, but it is was a bit of an aha. But yeah, I mean, the big flip is like we approach the whole thing of finance investing the way we do because of the because it's about that return on finance, you know? And when you let go of that and here you have to put the system in the public system first, then that allows for something totally different and all this stuff starts to make sense, right? So, yeah, I think it's letting go of that initial kind of uh framing and why you're doing this and then it this approach becomes so much more natural um and you could still, you know, get a return on investment. It's just that that's not the purpose, right? You set the purpose first and then to what you're saying about the mapping um yes, you you map out those different opportunities and gaps and so forth, but yeah, you're also saying like what's actually the money that's at those different places what's being done those different places is a good point, yeah. And then and then how do you go and get it? So, it is like flipping everything upside down exactly as you say. It's it's it's the normal thing of like having a hammer, which is money, and going searching for a for a um a nail, what we do. What can we invest this money into to get a return on it? Whereas uh systems is kind of looking at totally different starting with the context and working backwards. >> Yeah, maybe maybe one um the what next question that was um said by Josh there is any ideas on what in this seems like it would not survive um [clears throat] with uh with a reality like what what how what would you criticize? What do you think is a bit too idealistic? >> Do you mean about the whole thing or one part of was just in general? >> Yeah, I think it in the whole thing, yeah. >> By just I mean the whole thing. >> Uh well, both. The whole and the parts, right? The systems thinkers we we think about both, right? But uh I mean I would say the whole thing is a bit idealistic, right? Um and we're going to find out about that as we go forward, but I think it's a good starting condition, but yeah, Courtney, if you have anything about the parts or the whole, we welcome those. >> Oh, no, I was just trying to locate the question. Like are we talking about what we just spoke about in the past 15 minutes or was there one particular thing just in case we're zooming in on something? >> I I'd say there's a lot uh in it, really. Like if you really went and looked at how finance worked, you could see it's Well, we know it's very different from this, and there's strong incentives in the way it currently works, right? So, I would say this is obviously quite aspirational cuz it's not really existing very much in the world. Um and in some sense idealistic, so I'd say there's a lot of dream killing to be done here, as you say, Courtney. And I think that's the point of us going forward to try to develop and take this into practice to try and uh make that happen. But yeah, if anybody else has ideas >> I was just going to maybe like underscore the notion that I think so much of this is about uh place-based uh concrete, you know, real communities, real places. Um with the UNDP, there's a lot of examples of this trying to take shape because we've been working on portfolios for over 5 years now, and it's finally getting to a place where it's socialized and and sensitized enough amongst um even government in certain places, not all. Um so, that's just like the groundwork, right? Like this the step one is making sure everyone is aligned before we think about redirecting finance, which is also happening in at the pretty big levels, too, with a lot of uh finance frameworks that are um that are well beyond just the UNDP's uh discretion or space of influence. But um yeah, one thing that comes up for me is I think, okay, if we are thinking about a systemic fund, then jurisdictions, right? Of like how like rules, regulations, all the like legal ease that has to happen when you're even thinking about transfer of capital and like taxes, etc. So, I feel like we always I feel like I always get stuck thinking it's kind of within one part of a almost nation-state system, wherever those that jurisdiction is, right? So, even just thinking now that for example, the UK is not part of the EU and it's totally different mess of papers and exchange if you want to think about like a system might be transboundary and beyond, like of course, you know, a region, even bioregions, you think about that, like all the complications if you're thinking about bioregions that might go across two different countries or multiple countries. So, I kind of get stuck there. I feel like that's a real space that very from a very concrete practical, like how do you make it happen kind of question. I really haven't seen haven't figured out where that's happening in a way that's figured out how to to crack that nut because it's usually like the bureaucracy and paperwork that just >> [clears throat] >> bogs everything down. And if you need to have a lawyer to help do XYZ, then it gets expensive. I mean, it's just to say that there's a lot of other un like layers of hidden costs of transactional costs to even make this work in a way that's not smooth and effortless or efficient like it might be if you just register a company in Delaware and you want to just become or in or in Ireland, right? Like a lot of people register companies where it's just it's easy or it's an a business incentive. So, the incentives are totally different in the bottlenecks to the point you're making, Bowen. Um, like requirements, all of that. That's where I keep hitting a wall. I don't know if anyone else has keeps thinking about those things, but um, implementation point of view, that to me feels really >> Great point. It's all the legal and contractual stuff and um uh, you know, Mansi, you mentioned here your husband's been in fact investment and spends all his time filling up forms and doing legal stuff and so forth and the time sheets and all of this. And it's interesting cuz when you I think we talked about at some point too. Also, as soon as you start going in that direction of contracts it becomes reductionist or it gravitates towards well, let's fill in all the details and make sure we're absolutely covered ourselves here, you know. But that also goes to new ways of doing contracts, you know. In some one of our partners in in Sweden is working on relational contracting where they actually put the relationship first, you know, and you set all the purpose and everything before you get into, you know, all the risks and all of this. So, it yeah, so you need different kind of legal and contractual agreement kind of stuff and systems thinking about all of that also. But I I totally agree that's where it would um, the dreams would would start evaporating into reductionist kind of uh, covering your all your potential savings, you know. The bureaucracy and so forth, yeah. >> Yeah, I think a lot of the questions or discussion points that we have today we're going to continue reflecting on in the upcoming sessions of the Investing Lab as well. So, slowly we can I think draw to a close. There is space in the Miro board. Here is again the overview of the lab program. So, as Josh had mentioned, the playbook was today and we'll then move to the next phase of design, develop, deploy with various outputs as well. If there is any way that you'd like to get engaged in that, feel free to reach out to us and we can discuss further. And then below there is the