Sarah Cone runs a personal "Fund 0" using only her own money to prove she could find overlooked impact startups and generate top-tier returns before raising institutional capital, then used that four-year track record to launch Social Impact Capital's larger fund. She uses a distinctive "evil acquirer" test when evaluating companies, asking whether the most evil company in the world could strip out the impact mission without destroying the business—if yes, she often passes because the impact isn't truly core to how the company makes money.

• Deep interest in health optimization and longevity science, specifically looking for innovations that target the root causes of aging rather than just treating diseases. Tweets frequently explore specific metrics like biomarkers and the use of technology to outperform traditional human doctors in diagnostics.
• A strong thesis on alternative education and high-competence learning models, favoring systems that avoid grade inflation and utilize technology to accelerate student progress significantly faster than standard schools. This includes an admiration for educational approaches that aim to replicate the output of highly effective industry leaders.
• Preference for deep technology and hard science investments over purely digital plays, noting that while deep tech requires more upfront R&D, it often secures a more durable competitive moat compared to digital startups that eventually succumb to high marketing costs.
• Active exploration of practical AI applications that act as superpowers for humans, particularly autonomous agents that can handle logistical tasks or specialized AI tutors that can upskill professionals more efficiently than classroom settings.
• Focus on ambitious institution building and civic infrastructure, drawing comparisons to historical philanthropists who built lasting public systems. This includes an interest in how capital is allocated to create or improve societal foundations like universities, museums, and efficient manufacturing.
• Appreciation for rigorous thinking frameworks and clear communication in engineering, referencing standards used by organizations like DARPA to evaluate the viability and objectives of complex technical programs without using jargon.