I’ve read this article 2x. I’m a 32yr old, 3rd generation Tool and Die Maker. I bought the family machine shop when I was 25, and 3 other small shops when I was 27, 28 and 29. As much as I would like to write this off as another VC talking about how they can participate in “solving this” (fund the wave, ride it, then get out before it crashes), it’s not that simple. This will require a team effort. I grew up in the industry, but that is not what makes my opinion relevant. After all, many who have 20yrs of “experience” just repeat the same thing every year and in reality, only have 1yr of exp. What makes me relevant is that in SPITE of growing up in the industry for the past 20 years, I’ve never accepted things for how they have always been. I don’t just read, write or talk about ideas and possible solutions - I’ve spent the past 5yrs and invested all my money trying to fix this issue. -- Building something that solves for the resilience, succession and sustainability of the economic value of small manufacturers (and their communities). We wrote software in 2020, before vibe coding, to connect the companies, thinking we could build a networkmodel to save the small manufacturers. Here are my thoughts on this article: 1. Although they might make the headlines and investors salivate, raising capital and building software do not solve securing a resilient industrial base. 2. Software will enable a resilient industrial base BUT  ONLY physical proven capacity, throughput and parts out the door are the measure of success. At scale and up to this point, that relies on the “backbone” of small shops. 3. The existing base of 10k+ small machine shops have been purposely overlooked because, for the most part, they are not investable assets (from a competitive return perspective). 4. Most small manufacturers are worth more to their local economy (good jobs, owner’s equity, tax base, pillars of community support) than to investors. If measured solely as a multiple of EBITDA/SDE, the value of your small manufacturing company is inversely related to how well you pay your people when compared to a multiple of revenue like some other industries. The article discusses our “deep capital markets” as one of the most powerful levers we can pull to engage the industrial dominance engine we once were. Arguing that meaningful returns will be there for investors. Yes, that makes sense for Hadrian, Anduril, and Send Cut Send, but I struggle to see how those markets will directly support us smalls. (see Capital In, Capability Out? below) Robust capital markets are one of our super powers, along with the most brilliant tech minds in the known universe.   VC fuels what PE multiplies, and the average investor eventually benefits from in the publicmarkets. There is no doubt that manufacturing is a hot topic now and capital of all kinds is pouring in. Investment is being heaped on companies that understand the foundational aspect of software-enabled manufacturingand likely are building it on their own (factory operating systems). But who will build the network? The interesting part to me is that the article exposes the weakest link and points to no specific solution – a robust industrial network. @ConnorLoveCA and @a16z what is your plan here? Connor isn't the first to identify an industrial network as the answer, many are currently and have been for years working on this solution. It remains to be seen who’s model of network will answer this most favorably among the shop participants who ultimately hold the reigns. I have Identified 4 different general network solution categories out there each with multiple competitors: A. The Marketplace B. The Directory Platform C. The Data Connector D. The Franchise Network Capital in, Capability out? Connor mentions “This is the industrial whitespace Silicon Valley has largely ignored. We funded the companies building the systems. Now we need to fund the manufacturing layers beneath them so every new prime does not have to rebuild American industry inside its own walls.” Maybe I am just too simple to understand this, but the argument that VC, PE and credit can fund the capital-in, capability-out cycle for the overlooked sub tiers of the under 50 employee industrial base still does not come through this article for me. The examples of Hadrian and Anduril are not relatable to the smalls. How could investment in the smalls math for VC and PE? Connor says “Hadrian’s progression from venture-backed factories to larger equity and factory-expansion financing shows this handoff in action. One week after raising $1.37 billion in equity, Hadrian closed a $360 million revolving credit facility specifically for manufacturing infrastructure, machinery, and hardware. Then institutional entrants like Apollo and JP Morgan signal that industrial production can attract larger, cheaper pools of capital. So, contrary to instinct in most venture-backed markets, private equity flowing into American manufacturing can be a good signal. Critics will say this is exactly how private equity hollows out American manufacturing. Fair enough. The standard should be simple. Does the capital leave behind stronger engineering capability, qualification capacity, equipment, skilled workers, reliable output, and independent sources? If yes, great! If the plan is to buy an aging shop, lever it with debt, and hollow out its productive capacity, that is not industrial renewal. It is stripping the industrial base for cash. Acquisitions should leave America with stronger suppliers, not fewer qualified sources. The goal is more winners, not fewer owners. Anything otherwise is dangerous to the national interests.” I am not sure how the beginning of the second paragraph in quotes above actually makes sense. Q1. What in the first paragraph describes “critics” and PE hollowing out American manufacturing? Q2. “Does the capital leave behind stronger engineering capability, qualification capacity, equipment, skilled workers, reliable output, and independent sources? If yes, great!” -- I think there’s a huge oversight here, entirely blows past the HUMANITY aspect which also happens to be the main weakness of private equity. The main issue with PE is that it overlooks the HUMANITY of the small business (communities) and in doing so trades human value for profit. This is a problem worth solving and will take uniting the country to tackle it. Time to build!