Robotics & Startup Advisory

I'm Dino Ilievski. Making robots in the USA & backing founders with conviction.

Passionate about working on hard, outlier problems. Deeply experienced collaborating with engineers, sales, legal, and ops teams to transform bold ideas into operational reality.

01 / Hardware & Supply Chain

USA Robotics

On-shoring critical robotics manufacturing and sourcing components directly from US vendors.

02 / High-Conviction Backing

Charismatic Capital

Advising and investing in ambitious founders with conviction to conquer the world.

01 / USA Robotics

Rebuilding the American Robotics Supply Chain

Find all the parts you need to build next-generation humanoid and industrial robots from vendors manufacturing right here in the USA.

manifestrobots.com
USA Hardware Vendor Directory & Ecosystem
02 / Charismatic Capital

Advising & Investing in Outlier Founders

Advising and investing in founders with conviction to conquer the world and build a cult following. Industry agnostic. Flexible check size at the seed stage.

Seed Checks Industry Agnostic Cult Followings Founder Advisory
Seeking candid perspective on your startup?
Book a session for direct, unfiltered feedback.
Book Honest Feedback
03 / Principles & Views

Great Artist Essays

Essay 01 5 min read Principles & Views

Adult adoption: a Romantic solution

We need to return to the Roman practice of adult adoption. The practice of legally adopting a young adult into one’s family to inherit both last name, as well as wealth and prestige.

Too many people today are too content with keeping their wealth indexed to the general economy, returning a subtle 2% after inflation. They need to take bigger risks with their wealth. Both selfishly and societally, adopting adults will yield greater returns. Now is the time to return this practice.

The most similar practice today is a scholarship. Many wealthy people will underwrite a scholarship, give a few thousand to a young adult and then meet for a few dinner and photo ops. But why stop there? Why not go further?

Imagine they were to undertake a bigger financial stake with that young adult. It’s a bigger risk but the upside is massive. The young adult could tap into that patron's network and financial capital to create something wonderful and profit generating.

The closest analogy is a startup and angel investor relationship. The startup is typically created by young adults and funded by a single or a few angel investors. The startup gains funding it wouldn’t have received otherwise. The angel gets massive upside, out earning the economy and most investors. Moreover, society benefits the most by receiving the economic surplus from the startup. Win, win, win.

Yet this is too limited. The network capital isn’t transferred from angel to founder because both sides have weak attachments. The relationship suffers from each side viewing it as merely transactional.

It could be more though. Both sides could commit (scary word) to each other more. The founders could take less money. The angels could fund less founders. By doing so, they would be incentivized to help each other succeed much more.

This model could be used for many young people to be matched with wealthy patrons. The young receive financial and network capital when they need it most, in the inception of their careers. The wealthy receive upside in the youth’s human and charismatic capital.

Imagine the upside having invested in an early Steve Jobs. There are many Steve Jobs currently that are on the fence. They need a chance to shine. Adult adoption, of the form I’m prescribing, would give them just that chance.

Likewise, many wealthy people keep buying houses, yachts, planes and accumulating slow wealth. Imagine if they could finance the next Steve Jobs instead? Just to be advisor and patron to such a talent would be invigorating, let alone the money.

And imagine from society’s perspective, if Steve Jobs had left his Apple shares and title to someone like Sam Altman? Such financial capital at a young age with so much human capital. A tremendous amount of innovation would have happened a lot sooner.

The faster we enable intra generational capital transfer, the faster we grow as a society. The more we sit on the notion of adult adoption, the more we delay a greater future.

Essay 02 8 min read Robotics & Policy

The Robotics Issue Nobody Is Talking About

The Future Issue

Our future is going to be fantastic. Humanoid robots are going to make manual labor a thing of the past. All the factories will be automated using humanoid robots. We will have all our deliveries done by robots. Our children will be handled by humanoid robots. Our pets will be taken care of by humanoids. Humanoids robots, as tall as us, as physically capable as us, will be armed as our police force. They will do all of the heavy industry, all of the light industry, all retail jobs, all medical services. They will be present, optimizing our entire economy. This will create a difficult to imagine amount of economic surplus, forcing our monkey brains to work to conceive of such abundance.

We never had this ability before, to create perfect physical substitutes for us. These robots will have dexterous hands, being double or triple jointed, capable of pivoting one way or another. Much in the same manner, our future can go one way or another. Instead of optimizing our lives, how will we know that these robots won’t harm us?

Currently, nearly all robots, and all humanoid robots, are made in China. This seems strange given how restrictive the American government has been of other Chinese-made technology. The United States has restricted China from selling its surveillance equipment here due to trust issues. Similarly, it prevented China from selling electric vehicles here due to unfair trade practices. How then can we trust China to manufacture humanoid robots, capable of being among us, with us, and between us, at all times ready to overpower us? Will we really trust or even want to have the hundreds of millions of omni-present, omni-potent humanoid robots being manufactured in China? While the answer is obviously no, our current trajectory has us sleep-walking into that outcome.

There are a few nightmare scenarios for having our robots manufactured in China. First, the parts made with chips, such as the actuators and the sensors, can be programmed to conduct espionage. The robots could record activities in commercial spaces, violating trade secrets, state secrets, and in the home, violating personal privacy. We solved this issue with phones manufactured in China - we can potentially solve it for robots too. The difference here is that humanoids can affect the physical world whereas phones were solely communication devices. Which leads to the second fear, the fear of autonomous physical agents negatively interacting with our economy. They could steal resources, destroy property, or even harm people.

Given these possible outcomes, it is reasonable to expect American startups to be focused on the issue of on-shoring the humanoid robotics supply chain. Yet, it is the opposite. Of all the companies developing humanoids, only Tesla has dedicated itself to vertically integrating the manufacturing of robots in the United States. The other companies are developing their software while relying exclusively on Chinese-made robots. Why? First, humanoid robotics are still considered an emerging technology that will need a few more years to be finished. The startups building the brain for these robots are only focused on solving the software issue, believing the hardware to be already solved. Second, these companies assume that it’s fine to manufacture the robots in China if the control software, the brain, is created by American companies. The firmware cannot harm the operator of the robot. Third, it is a matter of convenience and speed. Sourcing parts is a nightmare, especially in the opaque supply chain world. Chinese companies ship both parts and complete humanoids ready for usage by the robotics companies.

The Potential Solutions

Based on where each part of the stack of the humanoid robot is created, we can create a useful categorization of different availability and safety profiles for these robots to be used in the United States.

First, humanoid robots with all parts created in the United States. This means that software and hardware stack is entirely within the United States. This outcome would be the most expensive as it would require creating an entire robotics supply chain within the United States. The company taking this approach is Tesla, which has had success with vertically integrating electric vehicle production in the United States. It would mean the production of chips, which has the most complicated supply chain. This route is possible but very unlikely unless Tesla succeeds or the United States government heavily subsidizes it like it does the United States military supply chain. Even if it does happen, this route will be the most expensive until the robots begin to automate the supply chain.

Second, humanoid robots with all parts created outside the United States. This outcome would mean effectively no control over safety of these robots, both from foreign-control and from autonomous AI issues. There is absolutely zero chance that such robots will be permitted by the United States government. Thus, the United States would have no humanoid robots. This seems like the most unlikely route unless the American companies completely abandon software for robotics.

Third, humanoid robots with software created in the United States and hardware created in China. This seems like the most likely outcome as it is the current effective strategy of most robotic companies in the United States. This gives limited safety control. The brain would be programmed by the American companies but the firmware would still remain a source of safety concern. Foreign control of the robots could not be ruled out. Currently the government seems content to permit these robots but their effectiveness and number are quite insignificant. When that changes, the government will ban these humanoid robots to prevent any chance of Chinese control over millions of humanoids within the United States.

Fourth, humanoids with both software and firm-ware parts created in the United States. This outcome would require that the firm-ware parts are manufactured in the United States with enough scale that they are affordable. Such an outcome is possible, and certainly feasible given that it requires the manufacturing of only a few select parts. However, such an approach gives the highest level of safety control while avoiding some costs associated with manufacturing all the hardware.

All these outcomes are contingent on the choices of the United States government and the robotic companies. Many were not aware of the state of the field, ready to sleep-walk into the most likely outcome. We believe in a prosperous future. To achieve it, we believe that the economy will require humanoid robots. To have them, we will need all companies to begin to actively shift as much of their supply chain to the United States as possible as early as possible. This technology is too potent to be excluded from the United States. And make no mistake, unless the critical firmware-parts are manufactured in the United States, there will be no humanoid robots. There will be no prosperous future.