Brent Wood

Reading Metronome’s Monetization Operating Model, I kept coming back to one idea: pricing has become product. Software now delivers outcomes, not access. Yet most companies still charge as if they’re selling seats or licenses. That disconnect creates friction: for customers, unpredictability; for companies, stalled growth. The paper’s argument is simple but sharp—monetization isn’t a late-stage decision. It’s strategic infrastructure. Pricing needs the same ownership and iteration as any feature. Treat it like a surface that customers touch, not a spreadsheet buried in finance. If value is continuous and dynamic, pricing must be as well. That means product, GTM, finance, and engineering working from one system of truth. How many of us still treat pricing as an afterthought—when it should be a growth engine? https://lnkd.in/gnH7WzYf #Monetization #ProductStrategy #AI

8

Today, Ridges (Bittensor subnet 62) launched its product. It competes with Claude / Cursor. It costs $29/mo for 100 PRs. That's $0.29/PR -- while scoring 73-88% SWE-bench Verified and 96.3% Polyglot (using open source models(!)). Ridges is 5-7x cheaper than Claude Code and Codex at with comparable quality on standardized benchmarks. Built on Bittensor for ~$10m in $TAO emissions while Cursor raised from VC at a $29B valuation. So: Ridges is better. And it costs significantly less. And it was BUILT for significantly less investment. That's Bittensor. Try it here: https://ridges.ai

11

Dashboards don’t create accountability. They create meetings. Charts get shared. Everyone nods. Action items get “noted”. Same problems. Next quarter. Accountability doesn’t come from visibility. It comes from systems — where ownership is clear and decisions can’t be ignored. I wrote a short note on why dashboards feel productive but rarely change behaviour — and what actually does. If your org has great dashboards but the same issues every review… this will sound familiar. Dashboards Don’t Create Accountability — Systems Do: https://lnkd.in/gCGpm-VU

7

1 Comment

More proof assets do not equal credibility. When proof is thin, don't make loud claims. Use a repeatable way to prove what you’re saying. The failure mode is simple. Startups makes claims without evidence and buyers can see the guess work As a PMM fix it with stacked proof One layer per core claim and standardizes it- claim → proof → measurement. Level 1: Mechanism proof Share screen flow, workflow diagram, demo steps that customers can relate to Level 2: Workflow proof Show steps removed, steps added, handoffs changed in the customer's process Level 3: Early signal proof Activation, time-to-first-value, usage frequency, retention trend, pilot completion. Level 4: Outcome proof Show potential win rate, conversion, cycle time, costs saved, revenue impact. Only if you can attribute it. Operating rule: Do not publish a claim above your highest proof level. If you don’t have outcomes, you still have options. Run a pilot to validate what is sticking and that can be the proof point Define the pilot user and workflow. Define one success metric tied to the workflow. Define one adoption metric tied to usage. Define the time window. Show what “good” looks like. At Awvent when we had no customer we applied this process with countless potential customer..refined it with every feedback...eventually landing our first customer ( always a sweet feeling) As early stages startup this is one way you stay credible while the product is still earning outcomes.

7

1 Comment

The Headline family is experiencing incredible momentum, and today our portfolio company DeepIP is announcing a $25M Series B, bringing total funding to $40M.  This is the kind of company that doesn’t just add AI to a workflow, but it sets the standard for an entire category. The momentum speaks for itself: 1️⃣ 10x ARR growth in < 18 months 2️⃣ Trusted by 400+ law firms and leading corporate IP teams globally 3️⃣ 2M+ chats on the DeepIP platform We’ve had the chance to back FX (Francois-Xavier) L. and Edouard D., leading their Seed round with Headline. Watching them take on a problem as complex and high-stakes as patent work has been genuinely impressive. And working with them has been an absolute pleasure: these 2 are coupling very high ambition and humility. Tech built in Europe, but opening the US office very early and FX starting a life in NYC with his family with 0 hesitation in order to build a global category leader in the IP industry. What convinced me early is still what stands out today: patent teams don’t need another standalone AI tool. They need something that fits the way the work actually happens: documents, long-running matters, multiple stakeholders, and zero room for sloppy context handoffs. Big congrats to the whole DeepIP team + Korelya Capital, Balderton & Serena Proud that we’re doubling down at Headline and continuing the support for what’s next!

124

10 Comments

My two cents on the Claude Squeeze Application layer AI companies being built right now will not survive if they incorporate human in the loop as a core part of how work gets done. If your agent requires a human to approve the output, you’re building a better UI for Claude. If your agent helps an accountant do more accounting or a lawyer do more lawyer-ing, you might have a business, but companies won’t pay a lot for it. It’s not that Claude is going to steal your customers. It’s that the delta between what you’re offering and what someone gets from just using Claude directly is getting smaller every month. The complexity you’re solving for, better UX, smarter prompts, cleaner folder structures, is real, but it’s not worth a big check. And buyers are figuring that out. I’m already seeing it. A real estate brokerage looking at AI underwriting tools realized they can dump a rent roll straight into Claude and get 80% of the output for free. They’ll pay a little more for a better interface, but not a lot more. If you’re not doing the job end-to-end, your value is the productivity layer. And Claude is coming for the productivity layer. Hot take: I don’t think Harvey would get funded in 2026. They were funded when they were because the models weren’t advanced enough to reveal how thoroughly they’d eat the application layer. Harvey may survive, they’ve built real brand and enterprise relationships. But with that exact pitch today I think you’d struggle. Here’s what I think survives: Agents that own the outcome. They have to clear every one of these bars: 1. Fully autonomous. No human in the loop. The agent does the job, not assists with it. 2. Accountable for outcomes. Not activity. Results, and the agent is measured on that basis. 3. Mission-critical metrics. The outcomes it owns show up in the Monday morning operating review. The numbers the CEO reports. Going back to Harvey, if they said we’ll just do your legal work for you, end-to-end, accountable to outcomes, that’d be a defensible business in 2026. But notice what it is: outsourced labor with AI as the delivery mechanism. Not a productivity tool. A law firm that doesn’t charge law firm rates. Most AI companies won’t make that leap because it means owning outcomes. It’s hard. That’s what we’re building at Uniti. If you can autonomously run the entire leasing funnel for a property manager and own their rentals-per-month and conversion rate, you’re not a software vendor. Then do the same for all their workflows. You’re outsourced labor. Completely different moat. The mistake is selling the tool when they should be doing the job. If there’s a human in the loop, the customer is paying for the human’s time and your software. As models get better, the human becomes the cost center and your product becomes the overhead. The comparison isn’t your tool vs. Claude. It’s your agent vs. a full-time hire. That’s a different conversation, and a new category.

62

25 Comments

Super VC David Hornik shares insights from his 25 years of investing from dawn of Internet Era to the current AI wave. Lots of unique takes - from his $50M+ exits Splunk, GitLab BILL.com, David shares why venture capital success isn't about the money - it's about finding the right partnership. A few takeaways for founders: - Trust and alignment matter more than just growth metrics - Your company culture determines long-term success - The best VCs become mentors, not just money providers - Staying true to your mission while adapting is crucial for survival Legendary stuff: Thanks to August Capital Lobby Capital Compass Strategic Advisors https://lnkd.in/gYeNXg7n Newman Media Studios The Look Back Podcast The GTM Firm Liftoff with Keith

17

2 Comments