If you toss a coin or ask an academic writer at Harvard Business Review, does a first mover take it all or does it fail? The answer is the same. In half of the time, first movers win. But tossing a coin is faster. The whole argument of founders in this environment, which I call vacuum (a new market), is this:  We have no competitors, and we are the obvious answer and the only answer. The argument on the investor side turns it around. You might or you won't. I don't want to find out the hard way. So is being the first mover, an advantage or a disadvantage? 

TLDR. It's called venture capital for a reason. The word "venture" points to the first movers because the first mover ventures. The latecomers explore. 

The Crux

How you fill the vacuum decides if the first mover advantage is enough to win the investor's check. And if it's not enough, I will tell you the extras you need to show investors to convince them to write the check. There are different categories that I will lay out here. 

Procedural Vacuum - Outcome Vacuum  

In Earth exploration you can try many procedures to reach the same outcome, there are different technologies for example to: 

Finds the deposits 

Map subsea surfaces

Monitor the environment

Being the first one to utilize a technology or a mechanism doesn't make it your competitive advantage, because a better, faster, chapter or more accurate technology, method, or procedure bypasses your dominance. Is it enough on its own, no. 

When is it enough in this market? 

If the data you capture exists only once. In Earth exploration, like in mining, what KoBold did to raise the seed round was showing investors how they take the data from the market and seal it inside the company.

Or you have offtake contracts with long-term customer lock-in. You are the first one with the  entire market locked into your contracts. Two out of these three is enough to prove that you have a moat.

Protocols Vacuum 

Bitcoin is the clearest example of this. It is not the fastest transaction, and it was never designed to be. But that is the point. It won because it became the outcome itself, and it created consensus around that outcome early enough that nobody could displace it. You are selling the destination. And if you got there first and people agreed, that is the end of the conversation.

If you are the first one inside a market and the outcome you are selling is the protocol itself, the first mover takes it all. Not the process to get somewhere.

So the first mover in this category almost always wins, and you do not even have to be the best. Good enough plus early consensus is the formula.

In Earth exploration, I have not found a case where this applies. At least not one I can point to. If you know of one, let me know.

The contrast with the procedural category is worth naming. Procedural moats are built around a method. Protocol moats are built around an outcome. That is a different investment case entirely.

Physical constraints - Vacuum of Technology 

This is one of the best cases you can make to win the investment case with investors, because the first mover monopolizes the only physical source. Like the company TMC, or ASML. This is a strong moat because you hold the resources, and you are the first one. So you can take everything you want. 

Is the moat enough on its own? It's not. Your speed of survey, your speed of exploration, and your speed of exploitation is the second thing you need to show. The moat is multilayered. It's not one thing.

On ASML (deep-tech), you can read it here. That's how they built their moat . They have enormous interdependencies. They have customer lock-in upstream and downstream, with more than five thousand suppliers, each of which is a monopoly. These are the monopolies of monopolies. 

Vacuum of Networks

This is where you are the first one to create a network. It's almost non-applicable in Earth exploration or deep-tech, at least not to the extent that I know. But you can read about it at NFX. They are the first ones who discovered the network effect and heavily invested in it. 

Regulatory Vacuum  

If you are the first one moving into a market and you are shaping the laws that don’t exist yet, you set the precedent and everyone else follows. It’s the opposite of the moat.  you are basically making it easier for the competitors and latecomers to improve on your product. They have fewer legal hurdles because there is a precedent they can follow. The new entrants have a playbook. It doesn't translate into a moat unless the time it takes for new entrants to enter this market is so long, because of the legal hurdles, and your exploitation phase is fast.With other worlds by the time they get their permits, the earth is scorched. Can you show it to investors? If yes, you have a moat.  

Data Vacuum

Which I write about extensively here. TL;DR there is some data that exists only once. You take the data, and then nobody else has it. You don't even have to be the best, but since nobody else can actually get their hands on the data, you're the only one in this category. You own the category.

Do you have an advantage? 

Being first rarely is an advantage in deep-tech and the Earth exploration. Because deep-tech requires R&D without a guaranteed outcome. Being the first could be a very expensive way to find out.

Being first in the Earth exploration invites competitors who can learn from your failures, they follow your bootpack. 

Unless you capture data that cannot be captured twice, you need a multilayered moat. 

References

Chung, J. (2010, November). How Facebook won the battle of the social networks. Innosight.

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global critical minerals outlook 2025. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2025

Szabó, L. (2025). Deep-sea mining and the sustainability paradox: Pathways to balance critical material demands and ocean conservation. Sustainability, 17(14), Article 6580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146580

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. (2024, January 24). U.S. v. Microsoft: Proposed findings of fact. Justice.gov.