The entrepreneurial ecosystem isn’t evenly distributed across the globe. While brilliant founders emerge from every continent, there’s an undeniable gravitational pull toward one particular region: the United States, specifically San Francisco and New York. This isn’t nationalist cheerleading—it’s pattern recognition born from watching hundreds of founders navigate their startup journeys.
We’ve seen this play out countless times. Founders who launch in their home countries—whether that’s Barcelona, Berlin, Bangalore, or Buenos Aires—often hit invisible ceilings they can’t quite identify. They’re talented, hard-working, and building solid products. Yet something feels off. The conversations move slower. The ambition feels constrained. The default assumptions about what’s achievable seem unnecessarily modest.
Then they spend time in the U.S., and everything shifts.
It’s not that American founders are inherently smarter or work harder. They don’t possess some genetic advantage. But the environment—the density of talent, the cultural defaults, the operating speed—creates a fundamentally different playing field. And when international founders experience this firsthand, they return home transformed, carrying new mental models that compress their learning curves by years.
This isn’t about abandoning your home market or dismissing the incredible growth happening in ecosystems worldwide. It’s about recognizing that certain environments create disproportionate advantages for founders—especially in those critical early years when your beliefs about what’s possible are still forming.
The Openness Differential: Where “Yes, Let’s Talk” Becomes the Default
One of the most striking differences we notice when founders make their first trip to San Francisco or New York is the level of openness they encounter. And we’re not talking about superficial friendliness or polite networking—this is structural openness, embedded in how people evaluate opportunities and allocate their time.
Marc Andreessen has long argued that openness ranks among the defining traits of great innovators. In the American startup ecosystem, this trait doesn’t just exist in individuals—it permeates the entire culture. Founders are open to unconventional ideas. Investors are open to backing first-time entrepreneurs. Executives at billion-dollar companies are open to taking meetings with people they’ve never heard of.
The default position isn’t skepticism—it’s curiosity.
We’ve watched this play out in dozens of conversations. An unknown founder from Europe or Asia reaches out cold to a successful entrepreneur or investor. In most global markets, that message disappears into a void. In the U.S., there’s a genuine chance of getting a response, a meeting, or even a warm introduction to someone who can help.
This openness creates a compounding effect. When you’re not spending months trying to break through gatekeepers, you can test ideas faster, gather feedback more rapidly, and iterate your approach in real-time. Each conversation becomes a data point. Each meeting becomes a learning opportunity. The velocity of progress accelerates dramatically.
Compare this with the approach we see in many European and Asian markets, where the instinct leans more protective. Before people engage seriously, they want to see credentials: Where did you study? What companies have you worked for? How much traction do you have? Who else is backing you?
These aren’t bad questions. They’re reasonable risk-mitigation strategies. But they create friction that slows everything down. By the time you’ve assembled the right credentials to get taken seriously, months or years have passed. Meanwhile, your American counterparts have already run dozens of experiments, pivoted twice, and found product-market fit.
The openness we encounter in the U.S. doesn’t just save time—it fundamentally changes what founders believe is possible for them.
Read More: How One Founder Built A $100K MRR Newsletter
The Action Bias: Where Execution Speed Becomes Competitive Advantage
Americans don’t overthink things. If something seems like a good idea, they do it. Today. Right now.
This bias toward action might be the most contagious element of the American startup culture. We’ve seen founders completely transform their operating speed after spending just a few weeks immersed in this environment.
Here’s a real example: During New York Tech Week, we cold-messaged the CEO of WeWork to invite him onto a podcast. He responded the same day. We recorded the next day. This is the CEO of a company valued at over $2 billion, and the entire cycle from initial outreach to published content took less than 48 hours.
Would this happen in Europe? Almost never. We’d go through layers of assistants, schedule calls weeks in advance, negotiate terms, and likely receive a polite decline. The same interaction that takes two days in New York could easily consume two months in London, Paris, or Madrid—if it happens at all.
This isn’t just about individual responsiveness. It’s about systematic velocity. Decisions get made faster. Partnerships form faster. Products launch faster. The entire tempo operates at a different frequency.
We’ve noticed that founders who spend significant time in the U.S. start adopting this bias themselves. They stop waiting for perfect information before making decisions. They launch products earlier, even when they’re embarrassed by the initial version. They send that outreach email instead of drafting it seventeen times. They ask for the meeting, the introduction, or the investment—and they do it now, not next quarter.
This action bias compounds over time. When you’re moving twice as fast as your competition, you’re not just getting ahead—you’re learning twice as much, iterating twice as often, and building twice as much institutional knowledge. Speed becomes your moat.
The cultural norm in many international markets leans toward thorough planning, careful consideration, and risk mitigation. These aren’t bad instincts. But in the startup world—where uncertainty is guaranteed and perfect information is impossible—they often become liabilities. The U.S. ecosystem has figured out that imperfect action beats perfect planning almost every time.
The Respect for Builders: Where Early-Stage Founders Get Real Opportunities
In most global markets, there’s a harsh reality for early-stage founders: Nobody takes you seriously until you’ve already succeeded.
We see this pattern constantly. If you’re just starting out—pre-revenue, small team, minimal traction—you struggle to get meetings with serious customers, investors, or strategic partners. The implicit message is clear: “Come back when you’ve raised a significant round or hit seven figures in revenue.”
The U.S. flips this dynamic completely.
There’s a deep, cultural respect for people who are building—regardless of their stage. If you’re a founder working on something genuinely interesting, people will take your call. Enterprise customers will consider buying from you. Investors will have exploratory conversations. Strategic partners will discuss collaboration.
This respect isn’t naive optimism. Americans understand that most startups fail. But they also understand that today’s unknown founder might be tomorrow’s category leader. They’ve seen it happen too many times to dismiss people based on their current credentials.
We’ve watched this play out in countless scenarios. A founder with nothing but a prototype and a compelling vision gets a meeting with a Fortune 500 company. Not because they have an impressive deck or famous investors—but because the idea is interesting and the person is clearly committed to building it.
This creates a completely different trajectory for early-stage companies. When you can access real customers early, you validate your assumptions faster. When investors will take meetings before you have perfect traction, you learn what they’re looking for and can adjust your strategy accordingly. When partners will engage with you as a legitimate player, you can form relationships that accelerate your growth.
The respect for builders isn’t just encouraging—it’s economically rational. By treating ambitious founders as legitimate players early in their journey, the ecosystem increases the surface area for breakthrough innovations. Some of those bets won’t pan out. But the ones that do more than compensate for the misses.
For international founders, experiencing this respect firsthand recalibrates your sense of what’s possible. You stop apologizing for being early-stage. You start presenting yourself as a serious builder tackling a real problem. And people respond accordingly.
The Ambition Reset: Where Thinking Big Becomes the Baseline
Perhaps the most profound shift we observe in founders after they spend time in the U.S. is in their ambition level. Not just what they think they can build—but what they give themselves permission to attempt.
In many international markets, thinking big is viewed with suspicion. If you tell people in Spain, Germany, or Singapore that you want to build a billion-dollar company, you might get eye rolls, skeptical questions, or dismissive comments about “American nonsense.” The cultural default leans toward modesty, practicality, and realistic expectations.
In San Francisco, thinking big isn’t just accepted—it’s the baseline.
Everyone we meet is working on something that sounds absurd at first hearing. New AI models that could transform entire industries. Climate tech solutions targeting planetary-scale problems. Hard science breakthroughs that might take a decade to commercialize. The ambient level of ambition creates an energy field that’s almost tangible.
This isn’t delusion or hype. It’s a rational response to what the most ambitious founders have actually achieved. When you’re walking the same streets where Google, Apple, Facebook, and hundreds of other category-defining companies were built, billion-dollar outcomes stop seeming like fantasy. They become reference points—examples of what’s achievable if you execute well and get some luck.
We’ve noticed a pattern: When founders first arrive in San Francisco, they often feel overwhelmed by the scale of ambition around them. Everyone seems to be swinging for the fences. Everyone’s working on massive problems. It can feel intimidating.
But after a few weeks, something shifts. The audacious becomes normal. The impossible becomes merely difficult. And founders start giving themselves permission to dream bigger than they ever did at home.
This ambition reset changes everything. Instead of building a nice lifestyle business, you start thinking about category creation. Instead of targeting your local market, you plan for global scale from day one. Instead of incremental improvements, you explore breakthrough innovations.
The beautiful thing about ambition is that it’s contagious. When everyone around you is thinking big, you naturally expand your own sense of what’s possible. You stop apologizing for wanting to win. You stop hedging your bets with modest goals. You commit fully to building something genuinely important.
For international founders, this might be the single most valuable takeaway from time in the U.S. Not the connections, not the capital—but the mental model shift that says, “Yes, we can actually build this. And we don’t need to apologize for trying.”
The Talent Density: Where Every Conversation Becomes a Masterclass
The concentration of ambitious, skilled people in San Francisco and New York creates an environment unlike anywhere else on the planet. This isn’t just about quantity—it’s about the relentless density of talent in every direction you turn.
Walk into any coffee shop in the Mission District or the Lower East Side, and you’re likely sitting next to someone building something remarkable. Attend any tech event, and you’re surrounded by founders, engineers, operators, and investors who’ve solved the exact problems you’re currently facing. Send a DM to someone you admire, and there’s a real chance they’ll respond and offer to help.
This density creates a continuous learning environment that we simply don’t see replicated elsewhere. Every conversation becomes an opportunity to level up. Every chance encounter could turn into a cofounder partnership, a key hire, or a strategic introduction. The bar for what’s considered “good work” rises constantly because you’re benchmarking against the best in the world.
We’ve watched founders go through this recalibration process. In their home markets, they might be the most ambitious person in their network. They’re pushing boundaries, moving fast, and building impressive companies by local standards. Then they arrive in San Francisco, and suddenly they’re average—or below average.
This could be demoralizing. Instead, most founders find it energizing. They realize how much more is possible. They see patterns they’d never noticed before. They understand why certain approaches work and others fail. They’re not just networking—they’re absorbing years of compressed learning in weeks.
The talent density also affects hiring dynamics. When you’re building a company in most international markets, you’re competing locally for talent. Your hiring pool is limited by geography. But when you spend time in the U.S., you gain access to a global talent pool that’s concentrated in one place. Engineers who’ve scaled products to hundreds of millions of users. Operators who’ve taken companies public. Designers who’ve defined entire categories.
Even if you’re not ready to hire immediately, building relationships with this caliber of talent changes your reference point for what “great” looks like. You stop settling for good-enough. You start understanding what world-class execution actually requires.
Perhaps most importantly, the talent density creates accountability. When you’re surrounded by people who are shipping products, closing deals, and hitting milestones, you feel the pressure to perform. Not in a stressful way—in a motivating way. You don’t want to be the person making excuses while everyone around you is executing.
The Practical Reality: Three Months, Not Permanent Relocation
Here’s what we’re not suggesting: that every international founder needs to abandon their home market and relocate permanently to the U.S. That path works for some, but it’s not necessary for most.
What we are suggesting is a strategic, repeated investment of time. Three months per year, especially in the early years of your startup journey. Not as a tourist, but as an active participant in the ecosystem.
Three months gives you enough time to build real relationships, not just collect business cards. It lets you experience multiple product cycles, fundraising processes, or hiring campaigns—enough to internalize how things actually work rather than just observing from the outside. It’s long enough to shift your mental models but short enough to remain connected to your home market.
The timing matters too. We recommend front-loading this investment early in your career. The mental models you absorb in your first few years as a founder compound over decades. If you wait until you’ve “made it” to visit the U.S., you’ve already solidified patterns that might be limiting your growth.
For many founders, this might mean splitting time between cities. Spend Q1 in San Francisco meeting investors and potential customers. Return home for Q2 and Q3 to execute. Come back to New York for Q4 to close partnerships and plan the next year. The specific pattern matters less than the consistent exposure.
We understand the practical challenges. Three months away from home is expensive. It disrupts your personal life. It requires careful coordination with cofounders and team members. These aren’t trivial obstacles.
But consider the alternative cost: building for years with limited exposure to the highest-performing ecosystem in your industry. Making mistakes that could have been avoided with better mentorship. Missing opportunities that were invisible from your home market. The compounding cost of constrained ambition and limited learning far exceeds the upfront investment of time and money.
The founders we’ve seen succeed with this approach treat their U.S. time as intensive learning sprints. They pack their schedules with meetings, events, and conversations. They say yes to opportunities that seem tangential. They push themselves outside their comfort zones. They’re not on vacation—they’re on a mission to compress years of learning into months.
Read More: How Startup Founders Can Turn AI from Hype into Real Revenue
Making It Count: How to Maximize Your Time
Showing up isn’t enough. We’ve seen plenty of international founders spend time in San Francisco or New York and return home with little to show for it. They attended some events, had some coffees, and maybe made a few LinkedIn connections. But they didn’t fundamentally change how they operate.
The difference between founders who transform their trajectory and those who just have a nice trip comes down to intentionality. Here’s what we’ve observed works:
Be absurdly proactive with outreach. Don’t wait for introductions or warm connections. Cold email fifty people you admire. Half won’t respond. Twenty will politely decline. But five will say yes, and those five conversations might change everything. Americans respond to directness and clarity about what you’re building.
Optimize for learning, not fundraising. Many international founders treat their U.S. trips primarily as fundraising missions. That’s fine if you’re ready to raise, but even if you’re not, the trip is valuable. Focus on understanding how top founders think, how great companies operate, and what best practices look like. The learning compounds; the capital is a one-time event.
Attend the events that matter. Not every meetup is created equal. YC Demo Days, major tech weeks, industry-specific conferences—these create concentrated opportunities for connection and learning. Research the calendar before you arrive and build your trip around the highest-leverage events.
Create reasons for follow-up. After a great conversation, don’t just say “let’s keep in touch.” Offer to share insights from your market, make an introduction they’d value, or send a relevant article. Give people reasons to remember you and continue the relationship after you’ve left.
Document everything. Take notes after every meeting. Record your observations about how things work differently. Capture the mental model shifts you’re experiencing. This documentation becomes your playbook for implementing changes when you return home.
Bring your team into the experience. If possible, bring your cofounder or key team members for at least part of the trip. Shared experiences create shared mental models, making it easier to implement what you’ve learned when you’re back in your home market.
The Ripple Effect: What Happens When You Return Home
The real value of spending time in the U.S. doesn’t just manifest while you’re there—it compounds over the months and years after you return home.
We’ve watched this ripple effect play out across hundreds of founders. They come back to Berlin, London, São Paulo, or Singapore operating differently. They move faster. They think bigger. They’re less tolerant of unnecessary process and more focused on what actually drives outcomes.
This creates tension. Their local networks often don’t understand what changed. Team members might resist the new pace. Investors might find the increased ambition concerning rather than exciting. This friction is normal—you’re importing operating principles from one cultural context into another.
The most successful founders navigate this by being explicit about what they learned and why they’re making changes. They don’t just announce new policies; they explain the reasoning. They share examples of how things work differently in the U.S. and why certain approaches might benefit the company. They bring people along rather than imposing changes unilaterally.
Over time, these founders often become hubs in their local ecosystems. Other ambitious builders gravitate toward them because they recognize someone who understands what world-class looks like. They become the people who make introductions to U.S. investors, who host visiting American founders, who bridge the gap between ecosystems.
This bridging role creates opportunities. As more founders in your market adopt U.S.-style operating principles, the local ecosystem starts improving. Deal velocity increases. Ambition levels rise. Talent that might have left for Silicon Valley stays local because the opportunity gap is narrowing.
We’re not suggesting that every market should simply copy the U.S. model. Each region has unique strengths and cultural advantages worth preserving. But the specific practices around speed, openness, ambition, and respect for builders—these are transferable and valuable anywhere.
Addressing the Skepticism: Common Objections and Real Responses
Whenever we discuss this perspective with international founders, several objections consistently emerge. Let’s address them directly.
“The U.S. ecosystem is overhyped and overvalued.” There’s some truth here. Silicon Valley does have its share of hype cycles, inflated valuations, and companies that raise massive rounds before figuring out their business models. But the hype exists alongside genuine innovation and execution at a scale we don’t see consistently replicated elsewhere. The question isn’t whether the U.S. is perfect—it’s whether exposure to its ecosystem provides valuable learning, and empirically, it does.
“My market is different; U.S. approaches won’t work here.” Partially true. Consumer behavior, regulatory environments, and competitive dynamics vary significantly across markets. What works in San Francisco won’t necessarily work in Jakarta or Lagos. But the meta-principles—speed, ambition, openness, action bias—are valuable everywhere. You adapt the tactics to your market while maintaining the underlying operating system.
“I can’t afford three months away from my business.” This is the most legitimate objection. Three months represents significant cost in terms of both money and opportunity. Our response: Can you afford not to? If your startup succeeds, this investment returns exponentially. If it fails because you lacked key insights or connections that U.S. exposure would have provided, you’ve lost far more. It’s about calculating the expected value across all outcomes, not just the immediate cost.
“I can learn everything online now; physical presence doesn’t matter.” The internet has democratized access to information, and we can learn tactics from anywhere. But mental models, cultural defaults, and ambient ambition don’t transfer through blog posts or podcasts. You need to feel the energy, experience the pace, and have dozens of in-person conversations before the operating system truly updates. Remote learning is valuable; immersive experience is transformative.
“The U.S. is becoming less important as other ecosystems grow.” We’re optimistic about emerging ecosystems worldwide. Bangalore, Berlin, Singapore, Tel Aviv, and others are producing remarkable companies and talent. But the concentration of capital, talent, ambition, and successful examples still tilts heavily toward the U.S. This might change over decades, but for now, the gravitational pull remains strong. As other ecosystems strengthen, they’re often doing so by adopting practices that work well in the U.S. context.
The Broader Context: Why This Matters Beyond Individual Success
This isn’t just about helping individual founders build bigger companies—though that’s valuable. It’s about accelerating the global distribution of startup knowledge and operating principles that actually work.
Every founder who spends meaningful time in the U.S. and returns home becomes a node in a knowledge transfer network. They carry back insights about how to hire, fundraise, build product, and scale operations. They introduce their local networks to U.S. investors and potential customers. They raise the bar for what’s considered “good enough” in their markets.
This knowledge transfer works in both directions. American founders who engage with international builders gain access to markets they don’t understand, perspectives they hadn’t considered, and talent pools they weren’t tapping. The ecosystem becomes less insular and more globally minded.
We’re also seeing a practical trend: as remote work becomes normalized, the advantages of U.S. incorporation, U.S. investors, and U.S. customers become accessible to founders based anywhere. But accessing these advantages still requires understanding how the U.S. ecosystem operates. Three months of immersion provides that foundational understanding in ways that purely remote interaction cannot.
The long-term vision is a world where world-class startups emerge from every geography, where the best practices from multiple ecosystems cross-pollinate, and where talented founders don’t feel compelled to permanently relocate to succeed globally. We’re moving in that direction, but we’re not there yet. In the meantime, strategic immersion in the U.S. ecosystem remains one of the highest-leverage investments an ambitious international founder can make.
The Call to Action: What You Should Do Next
If you’re an international founder reading this and feeling convinced—or even just curious—here’s what we recommend:
Start planning your first three-month trip now. Don’t wait until you’ve hit some arbitrary milestone. The learning is most valuable early in your journey. Block out Q2 or Q3 of next year. Make it real by putting it on your calendar and booking accommodation.
Be strategic about location. San Francisco offers the highest concentration of tech startups, investors, and operators. New York provides access to media, finance, and enterprise customers alongside a robust startup scene. Choose based on your industry and stage. Many founders split time between both.
Build a hit list before you arrive. Research fifty people you want to meet. Fifty companies you want to learn from. Twenty events you want to attend. Start reaching out two months before you land. The preparation matters as much as the execution.
Create accountability mechanisms. Tell your cofounders, your team, and your investors what you’re doing and what you hope to learn. Set specific goals: X investor meetings, Y customer conversations, Z operational insights. The accountability helps you maximize the trip.
Budget realistically. Three months in San Francisco or New York isn’t cheap. Between accommodation, food, transportation, and event costs, expect to spend $15,000-25,000 depending on your lifestyle. That’s significant, but it’s also less than most founders spend on ineffective marketing or premature hires. Treat it as an education investment, not an expense.
Document the journey. Share insights publicly as you go—on Twitter, LinkedIn, or in your newsletter. This creates accountability, attracts interesting people to reach out, and builds your reputation as someone who’s actively learning and sharing value.
Plan for re-entry. Before you return home, spend your last week consolidating lessons, prioritizing changes, and planning implementation. The learning is wasted if you don’t systematically apply it when you’re back.
We’ve seen this pattern work across dozens of founders from every geography. The ones who commit to this approach—who treat it as a serious investment rather than an extended vacation—consistently report that it’s among the highest-return decisions they’ve made in their founder journey.
Final Thoughts: The Unfair Advantage of Geographic Arbitrage
We started by saying that entrepreneurial talent is distributed globally, but opportunity is not. This creates an asymmetry that ambitious founders can exploit.
By maintaining your base in a lower-cost market while regularly accessing the highest-leverage ecosystem on the planet, you gain advantages that pure-play U.S. founders don’t have. You can operate more efficiently, understand multiple markets deeply, and build products that work globally rather than just locally.
But you only access these advantages if you’re willing to do the hard work of geographic arbitrage. Three months per year in the U.S. isn’t easy. It’s expensive, disruptive, and exhausting. But it’s also the closest thing we’ve found to a cheat code for international founders.
The question isn’t whether the U.S. ecosystem provides advantages—it clearly does. The question is whether you’re willing to invest the time and resources to access those advantages while building your company.
We believe you should. Not because there’s anything wrong with building from your home market, but because the compressed learning, expanded ambition, and recalibrated mental models compound over decades. The founders who invest early in understanding how the best builders in the world operate simply end up building better companies.
And in a competitive market where every edge matters, that difference might be what separates the companies that struggle from the ones that become category leaders.
The opportunity is there. The playbook is clear. The only question is whether you’ll take it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the best time in a founder’s journey to make this trip?
The earlier, the better. Mental models formed in your first 1-2 years as a founder compound over your entire career. Ideally, make your first extended U.S. trip within the first year of starting your company, even if you’re pre-product or pre-revenue. The insights about how to think about building, not just tactical execution advice, provide the highest value when absorbed early.
Is this advice only relevant for tech startups?
While the examples focus heavily on technology companies because that’s where the U.S. advantage is most pronounced, the principles apply across most high-growth industries. If you’re building something with global ambition—whether that’s fintech, biotech, consumer products, or climate solutions—exposure to the U.S. ecosystem provides value. The specific locations might vary (New York for finance and media, Boston for biotech, Los Angeles for entertainment), but the benefits of speed, ambition, and talent density remain relevant.
How do we balance U.S. learnings with our local market realities?
The key is distinguishing between principles and tactics. Principles like “move faster,” “think bigger,” and “be more open” work everywhere. Tactics like specific pricing models, go-to-market strategies, or product features need local adaptation. Apply the operating system from the U.S. while customizing the applications for your market. This requires judgment and experimentation—some things will transfer directly, others will need significant modification.
What if we can’t afford three full months? Is a shorter trip worthwhile?
Shorter trips absolutely provide value, though with diminishing returns. Two weeks lets you attend key events and have initial conversations. Four weeks allows some relationship depth and pattern recognition. But three months is where the real transformation happens—your mental models actually shift rather than just collecting new information. If three months isn’t feasible initially, start with one month and build up as your company grows and you can afford more time away.
Should we focus on fundraising during these trips or purely learning?
Unless you’re actively raising a round, prioritize learning over fundraising. U.S. investors increasingly invest internationally, but cold fundraising as a visiting founder without traction is low-percentage. Instead, build relationships with investors who might lead or participate in your next round, understand what they look for, and demonstrate progress over time. The “fundraising as a byproduct of building relationships” approach works better than “show up, pitch fifty investors, leave.”
How do we maintain business operations at home while spending three months away?
This requires advance planning and strong delegation. Before you leave, ensure your cofounder or key team member can handle day-to-day operations. Set up clear communication protocols (daily standups, weekly reviews). Use the time zone difference strategically—handle U.S. meetings during their day, then manage home market operations during their evening. It’s challenging but very doable, especially with modern communication tools. Many successful founders maintain this cadence for years.
Won’t our team feel abandoned if we’re gone for three months?
Transparent communication prevents this. Explain why you’re going, what you’re learning, and how it benefits the company. Share insights regularly via team updates or recorded video messages. Bring key team members for part of the trip if possible. Make sure they understand this isn’t a vacation—it’s an intensive learning sprint that will help everyone long-term. Most teams support this when they see the value and feel included in the learning process.
Are there specific cities beyond San Francisco and New York worth considering?
For most startups, San Francisco and New York provide the highest concentration of relevant opportunities. However, other U.S. cities excel in specific domains: Austin for certain B2B and consumer categories, Los Angeles for entertainment and creator economy businesses, Boston for biotech and healthcare, Seattle for enterprise software. Choose based on your industry and goals, but if you’re unsure, default to San Francisco for the broadest exposure to startup best practices.
How do we measure ROI on this investment?
Track both leading and lagging indicators. Leading indicators include number of high-quality relationships built, mental model shifts documented, operational changes implemented. Lagging indicators include fundraising success, customer acquisition improvements, product development velocity, and hiring quality after applying learnings. Most founders report that while quantifying precise ROI is difficult, the qualitative impact on how they operate becomes obvious within 6-12 months of returning home.
What’s the visa situation for spending three months in the U.S.?
Most international founders can spend up to 90 days in the U.S. on a tourist visa (B-1/B-2 or visa waiver program, depending on your country). You can attend meetings, conferences, and networking events, but you cannot work for a U.S. company or conduct business that generates U.S.-sourced income. For repeated trips or longer stays, you might need a B-1 business visa. Consult with an immigration attorney for your specific situation, as rules vary by nationality and purpose.
How do regional differences in work culture affect the applicability of U.S. practices?
Work culture varies dramatically across regions—attitudes toward hierarchy, risk-taking, work-life balance, and communication styles differ significantly. The U.S. approach emphasizes directness, individual initiative, and tolerance for failure. These may feel uncomfortable or even inappropriate in cultures that value consensus, respect for seniority, or risk avoidance. The solution isn’t wholesale adoption but thoughtful integration. Keep the principles (speed, ambition, openness) while adapting the implementation to respect local cultural norms.
Are there legal or regulatory challenges in applying U.S. startup practices internationally?
Absolutely. Employment law, fundraising regulations, tax structures, and corporate governance rules vary significantly by country. What works for Delaware C-corps doesn’t necessarily work for German GmbHs or Singapore private limited companies. Always work with local legal counsel when implementing new practices. The goal is learning the strategic thinking behind U.S. approaches, then finding legally compliant ways to achieve similar outcomes in your jurisdiction.
How do we handle language barriers during our U.S. immersion?
Most U.S. tech ecosystem interactions happen in English, which can be challenging for non-native speakers. However, Americans are generally patient with accents and appreciate directness over perfect grammar. If language is a concern, consider taking an intensive English course before your trip, focus on improving technical vocabulary, and remember that your expertise and what you’re building matters more than linguistic perfection. Many successful international founders have built U.S. relationships despite imperfect English.
Does this advice apply to founders from developed economies like Germany or Japan, or mainly emerging markets?
The benefits apply broadly but manifest differently. Founders from developed economies often have access to more resources and sophisticated local ecosystems, so the gap isn’t as dramatic. However, they still benefit enormously from the ambient ambition, talent density, and action bias in the U.S. Founders from emerging markets often experience more dramatic transformations because the contrast is sharper. Both groups gain valuable perspective; the specific insights just differ based on starting context.
How is AI changing the startup landscape differently in the U.S. versus other regions?
The U.S. currently leads in AI research, talent, capital deployment, and commercial application, particularly around large language models and generative AI. This creates a significant knowledge gap—founders in the U.S. are experimenting with cutting-edge AI applications months or years before these practices spread globally. Spending time in San Francisco specifically provides exposure to how leading teams are integrating AI into products, operations, and strategy. This early access to emerging patterns provides compounding advantages.
Should we focus on AI-specific learning during our U.S. trips?
Unless you’re building an AI-focused company, treat AI as one component of broader operational learning rather than the primary focus. U.S. founders are rapidly integrating AI into all aspects of their operations—engineering, customer support, sales, marketing, product development. Learning how they’re practically applying these tools matters more than understanding theoretical AI capabilities. Observe what automation works, what doesn’t, and how teams are balancing AI augmentation with human judgment.
How do AI tools affect the need for physical presence in the U.S.?
AI tools have dramatically improved our ability to learn remotely—we can access information, analyze markets, and even simulate conversations more effectively than ever before. However, AI hasn’t replaced the tacit knowledge, cultural understanding, and relationship depth that comes from physical presence. Think of AI as lowering the cost of information while increasing the relative value of experience, judgment, and connections. The two are complementary: use AI to prepare for and maximize your in-person time, then use your experiences to inform how you apply AI tools when you return home.
Are there concerns about AI companies specifically that we should understand from U.S. exposure?
Yes—regulatory uncertainty, compute access, talent competition, and business model sustainability are creating unique challenges for AI startups. The U.S. ecosystem is navigating these issues in real-time, and observing how leading companies handle them provides valuable pattern recognition. Understanding which AI business models actually work versus which are just hype requires seeing multiple companies up close over time. This learning is particularly valuable as AI capabilities and economics continue evolving rapidly.
How does the U.S. approach to AI ethics and safety differ from other regions?
The U.S. takes a relatively permissive, innovation-first approach to AI compared to Europe’s regulatory focus or China’s government-directed model. This affects product development timelines, acceptable risk levels, and go-to-market strategies. Exposure to U.S. perspectives helps you understand the full spectrum of approaches, even if you ultimately adopt a different position based on your market’s regulations and values. The goal is informed decision-making, not blindly copying any single approach.