Investor Wu Zhijie on the Hunt for Tomorrow's Breakthroughs Amid Countless 'Read but Unreplied' Messages

During the interview, Wu Zhijie was on his way to “evaluate a project.” Arriving earlier than the scheduled time has been a habit he has maintained throughout his career. Taking advantage of this window, he and Chengguo Ju discussed the “challenges” faced by investors at a café near the industrial park.

“From the moment a project is sourced, investors’ intelligence war begins.”Having just ordered his coffee and taken a seat by the window, Wu Zhijie began his presentation.

Finding projects may seem to rely on channels, but in reality, it is a test of one’s network.An investor’s professional background also determines their network and the types of projects they encounter. Investors with a corporate background typically access deals through business-to-business referrals. In contrast, investors from academic institutions tend to discover new projects through their “campus networks,” including professors and alumni. Some universities also hold regular alumni association events to facilitate connections among graduates.

Certainly, the nature of the affiliated investment institutions also influences the areas of focus for investors. Universities that emphasize entrepreneurship, such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Fudan University, often establish on-campus investment firms, hold equity stakes in other investment entities, or leverage alumni donation foundations to support startup ventures. Examples include the partnerships between Tsinghua University and ShuiMu Ventures or Hetang Ventures, as well as between Peking University and PKU Ventures. Such investment institutions typically maintain stronger ties with their affiliated universities, whereby university technology transfer offices commonly source relevant projects and channel them directly to these investment firms.

However, for investment firms not affiliated with universities or corporate shareholders, the vast majority of deals still rely on investors to source opportunities independently. This hinges on the investors’ “networking capabilities”: reviewing the financing history of companies that have previously raised capital to see if connections can be established through inter-firm reciprocity; checking a company’s registered address to reach out via local government bodies or industrial park administrations; leveraging media coverage to facilitate introductions through journalistic channels; calling the company’s front desk; or even making unsolicited visits to the company’s premises. Wu Zhijie has tried all these approaches, but more often than not, his efforts yielded no response.

He opened his computer and showed Orange Fruit Bureau the invitation emails that had been “read but not replied to,” with a hint of resignation: “The process is arduous, but encountering a promising project is even more challenging.”

What Constitutes a Good Project?From an investor's perspective, a good project is one that canTrends, Value, Barriers, and Teamholds an advantage.

First, choosing a track is a bet on the future. Only by seizing hot tracks or those about to experience a surge can one reap the corresponding market dividends. Second, market size determines whether a project can enter the market, while technological barriers determine its competitive height within that market. Technological competition among innovative enterprises is particularly fierce; only startups that have established a “technological moat” can gain a firm foothold. Finally, investment ultimately comes down to investing in people. No matter how promising the track or how strong a company’s first-mover advantage, if the team’s capabilities fall short, the company’s future will inevitably be uncertain. This is precisely one of the key reasons why investors insist on engaging deeply with founding teams before making investment decisions.

Establishing contact with researchers is merely the opening salvo in an investor’s campaign; the subsequent communication phase is where the real challenge lies.

Wu Zhijie estimated a figure: “If we consider the total number of companies that initiated communication requests, and exclude those that ‘read but did not reply,’ those with no financing intentions, and those already collaborating with other investment institutions, among others, the remaining companies that actually proceed to the communication stage may account for only5%.” As he spoke, he took out the ballpoint pen he always carried in his pocket, jotted down the data in his notebook, and finally drew a large circle around “5%.”

At this stage, the investor’s role also shifts: from being “selected by projects” to “selecting projects.” Beyond scientific research capabilities, subjective factors such as the founder’s business acumen, team competence, and market insight will become key considerations for investors in deciding whether to collaborate.

Researchers have jokingly remarked, “Chatting with investors is like going through an interview; some conversations are so detailed that they feel like taking an MBTI personality test.” Wu Zhijie found this analogy quite apt: “Indeed. For a partnership to proceed smoothly, both parties must share the same values, market understanding, and goals. Only with mutual alignment can we achieve lasting success.”

Having passed the stage of "aligning on core values," we now arrive at the phase of negotiating contracts with clear, upfront pricing.

Faced with contracts, professors who have long been confined to laboratories may find themselves bewildered by industry jargon such as “valuation adjustment mechanisms (VAMs),” “market valuation,” and “equity structure.” Regarding the linguistic gap between the business and scientific communities, Wu Zhijie believes this is something professors must learn: “Professors are not hothouse flowers; if they choose to enter the market, they must learn its rules. In other words, only by having a thorough understanding of the market, either individually or as a team, can they withstand turbulence. In my view, there is no such thing as ‘professor entrepreneurs’—only entrepreneurs who once were professors.” His expression was somewhat serious, with his brows furrowed, perhaps because this sharp perspective is not widely accepted.

To validate his point, Wu Zhijie cited an example: During an interview a few years ago, a professor elaborated at length on the innovativeness and market potential of his research project, much like delivering a lecture, which left him deeply inspired. However, when the conversation turned to business models and commercialization pathways, the professor was taken aback, admitting, “I haven’t thought that far ahead.” Wu Zhijie realized that the professor was not yet ready for entrepreneurship and thus offered only preliminary advice: “The project is promising, but its commercialization strategy needs further refinement. I recommend clarifying your market direction and positioning before initiating fundraising.” Naturally, the collaboration did not proceed.

Abandoning a highly promising project is regrettable for any investor, but projects that fail to conduct thorough market research in advance are destined to fall short. While original innovation projects hold infinite possibilities for the future, failing to plan their business models and approximate product pipelines ahead of time may cause them to lose their initial first-mover advantage as they hesitate along the industrial development path.

Understanding the market not only enables professors to better manage their enterprises but also serves as a crucial skill for self-protection. Professors must truly “understand” contractual terms regarding equity ownership and whether personal funds are counted as startup capital, in order to make the choices best suited to their interests. Merely being “led by the nose” can easily result in disastrous outcomes, with numerous cases of entrepreneurs losing their entire fortunes.

As an investor, what has most heartened Wu Zhijie in recent years is his observation that a growing number of professors have developed an awareness of the market, and that many universities, hospitals, and research institutes have established dedicated departments for technology transfer to assist professors in commercializing their achievements. “Perhaps this is also one of the reasons why investors have been fiercely competing to partner with professors in recent years.” This seems to be"Invest Early, Invest Small"As signs of alleviation emerged, his furrowed brow finally relaxed.

After assessing project feasibility and confirming alignment on “the three views,” investors need only do one thing: wait.

Time can ferment rice into mellow wine, and it can also temper a professor’s entrepreneurial spirit. From initial engagement with the project to the final “harvest,” it typically takes2-3 YearsTime. Of course, this timeline is not absolute—investors may make quicker decisions for projects riding the current wave in order to seize market share, while the evaluation period for early-stage startups may be longer. During this extended period, researchers who embarked on entrepreneurship merely to chase trends can reassess and realign their goals, whereas those firmly committed to their entrepreneurial vision can engage with more investors before making final decisions.

Meanwhile, the cycle from concept to market is exceptionally long. Some projects that were initially at the forefront of industry trends may become obsolete by the time they are fully implemented. Therefore, “waiting” has become a buffer period for investors to observe the market. During this time, investors also track project progress and assess its growth rate. Taking drug development as an example, it takes nearly ten years from drug design through various scales of pilot trials to regulatory approval stages. Over a decade, anything can happen, so investors must conduct extensive monitoring and exercise patience before making final judgments.

After a prolonged period of adjustment, some companies and investors finally reached a cooperation agreement. Wu Zhijie moved his cup aside, leaned forward slightly, and spoke in a somewhat mysterious tone:“To sum it up, founders who ultimately make it this far tend to be somewhat ‘counter-human nature.’”

What he refers to as “anti-human nature” mainly indicates that,Many successful founders not only remain unruffled by criticism but actually welcome it.Entrepreneurs with a research background are prone to “living in their own world,” believing that their R&D efforts are inherently the most valuable. However, some clinical needs identified by clinicians are insufficient to sustain a company or a business model. The significant disconnect between the innovation chain and the industrial chain has led to the emergence of many “pseudo-needs” in clinical practice.

After signing the investment agreement, investors and entrepreneurs become closely aligned, with investors providing post-investment services to the portfolio company. Typically, investment firms tailor their support—covering legal, financial, human resources, and strategic consulting services—to the specific needs of the invested company. This assistance aims to help the company overcome challenges, enhance its value, and ultimately achieve stronger market performance, thereby generating higher financial returns for the investor. During this phase, the relationship between the enterprise and the investment firm is particularly close, and the quality of post-investment services is increasingly becoming a core competitive advantage for investment institutions. Such services continue until the company initiates its next round of financing, at which point both parties will decide whether to maintain their partnership.

Overall, companies today no longer focus solely on the amount of capital when selecting investment firms; during the investment processFundraising, Investment, Management, ExitEach stage constitutes a criterion for enterprises to assess the strength of investment institutions.

If we consider the total number of companies that have initiated communication requests, perhaps only 1% ultimately proceed to collaboration. “To achieve a successful partnership, investors must rely not only on their insight and capabilities but also, at times, on a bit of luck.”

With that, he finished his coffee. As the scheduled meeting with the enterprise approached, Wu Zhijie picked up his bag, stood up, and set out on the next leg of his journey to identify the “one in a hundred.”