Studio Building
Internal Friction & Objectivity

This is an excerpt from "The GP Dilemma: Escaping the Venture Studio Trap"
To download the full report, click here.
Even the strongest venture studio teams eventually hit internal friction. Questions about strategy, intellectual property ownership, and spinout mechanics are rarely clear-cut. Everyone has an opinion, everyone cites theoretical benefit or value, and the General Partner (GP) ends up stuck in the middle, trying to navigate conflicting viewpoints.
“I need a bad cop.”
Instead of focusing on critical tasks like fundraising and external growth, studio leaders are forced to mediate disputes, weigh subjective arguments, and referee personality clashes. What should be a streamlined system of disciplined venture creation becomes bogged down in subjective debates, draining valuable time and energy.
Fear of Bias
They fear being seen as biased if they side with one co-founder, EIR, or partner over another, jeopardizing crucial relationships and team cohesion.
Conflict Escalation
They fear that unresolved conflicts will fracture the studio team, or worse, torpedo a promising venture, leading to significant financial and reputational loss.
Drained Capacity
They feel drained from constant mediation, which pulls them away from higher-value activities like capital raising, investor relations, or strategic partner development.
Structural Isolation
This isn’t just interpersonal—it’s a structural issue: the absence of a trusted, objective arbiter who can cut through competing narratives with clarity and authority, leaving the GP isolated.
Why It Limits Growth
Unchecked internal friction significantly slows a studio’s velocity and erodes stakeholder confidence, directly impacting its ability to scale and attract investment. This manifests in several critical areas:
Decision Gridlock
Strategic decisions stall as the team debates endlessly without clear resolution, delaying critical actions like venture validation, intellectual property assignments, or crucial spinout timing. This directly impacts market responsiveness.
Role Confusion
Without an objective referee, the GP becomes the default mediator—undermining their authority as a strategic leader and blurring their leadership role. This prevents them from focusing on the broader vision and external opportunities.
Credibility Risk
Investors quickly detect internal misalignment. If the studio cannot present a unified front on governance, venture priorities, or spinout mechanics, confidence drops, and capital commitments—essential for growth—vanish.
Objective Arbitration
At 9point8, we act as the arbiter of truth—an objective third party who enforces discipline through data, benchmarks, and process. We don’t play favorites; we run a system.
1
Best Practice Benchmarks
Reference external data to establish what “good” looks like. Replace opinion-based debates with precedent-driven decisions (e.g., IP assignment models, founder equity splits, board formation).
2
Structured Decision Frameworks
Use tools like venture scoring rubrics, IP valuation models, and stage-gate templates to guide decisions. Make sure every debate flows through transparent criteria—not personalities.
3
Arbitration & Enforcement
We serve as the external “bad cop,” allowing the GP to step out of the mediator role. Provide written decision memos, process documentation, and governance rules that stand up to investor diligence.
When studios embed objective arbitration into their operations, three things happen immediately:
Clarity
Debates shift from opinion-driven to data-driven, fostering a more productive environment.
Authority
Leaders stop playing referee and start leading strategy, focusing on high-level vision and growth.
Confidence
A unified front signals maturity, discipline, and investability, attracting crucial capital for expansion.

Objective arbitration transforms internal tension into forward momentum.