One thing I'd add from working with AI-native founders: the calculus here has shifted because the reason you used to raise (headcount to build/ship) doesn't hold the same weight anymore. I'm seeing solo founders and 2-3 person teams hit $50-100k MRR using AI tooling for eng, support, even sales ops. That doesn't mean don't raise, it means the 'we need capital to hire' argument deserves way more scrutiny than it did in 2015.
What a great read. It makes sense that back when capital was the primary bottleneck, the prudent move was to raise as much as possible. But with AI reducing the cost of building, the downsides of VC funding are still real but the upsides are less concrete. With these new economics, I wonder if profitability will become a bigger status signal (whereas in the past, it was how much you raised).
One thing I'd add from working with AI-native founders: the calculus here has shifted because the reason you used to raise (headcount to build/ship) doesn't hold the same weight anymore. I'm seeing solo founders and 2-3 person teams hit $50-100k MRR using AI tooling for eng, support, even sales ops. That doesn't mean don't raise, it means the 'we need capital to hire' argument deserves way more scrutiny than it did in 2015.
I am that billion $ company <- JobLots 😉
Excellent metaphor.
My TAMS is 30-40 million. But I don’t want to blow up my Ducati just yet. lol
What a great read. It makes sense that back when capital was the primary bottleneck, the prudent move was to raise as much as possible. But with AI reducing the cost of building, the downsides of VC funding are still real but the upsides are less concrete. With these new economics, I wonder if profitability will become a bigger status signal (whereas in the past, it was how much you raised).