Pinned Tweet
Three thoughts @ 44 as a year ends:
1. Contentment is easier if you reflect on how far you've come.
2. Meaning visits us when we repeat the good deeds of our parents with our own kids.
3. The inevitability of grief is a reminder to be present.
1. Contentment is easier if you reflect on how far you've come.
2. Meaning visits us when we repeat the good deeds of our parents with our own kids.
3. The inevitability of grief is a reminder to be present.
3
1
55
18,196
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
At the end of our company all hands a few hundred people watched a puppy playing. It was really special and heartwarming.
LFG 🚀
LFG 🚀
2
2
15
642
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
The takeaway is: yes, we can handle your scale.
By migrating our petabyte-scale MySQL fleet to Google Cloud Hyperdisk, we doubled peak disk throughput while cutting block storage costs in half.
Eliminating doublewrite not only has improved our peak disk throughput, we observed improvements in our foreground flush latency as ticle to learn how: customer.io/learn/how-we-w…
1
4
15
955
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
@kaijdaveytion. My rough framing is that AI has given engineering a 100x boost, product 10x, and design 5x. That imbalance creates real strain: engineers can merge lots of individual changes while the overall UX gets less coherent, and designers burn out trying to keep up.
Design is a deep craft. It takes thought and a view of the whole experience. We haven’t given designers tooling that matches how quickly we can now produce code.
That’s why we’re building Inspect for designers. The ambition is to give them the 200x boost. Then engineers can be the ones trying to keep up :)
Design is a deep craft. It takes thought and a view of the whole experience. We haven’t given designers tooling that matches how quickly we can now produce code.
That’s why we’re building Inspect for designers. The ambition is to give them the 200x boost. Then engineers can be the ones trying to keep up :)
23
47
700
64,204
We now have proof that demand for the existence of software is greater than the demand for software of a certain quality.
This is the mass production era.
This is the mass production era.
1
0
11
594
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
I think I've gotten to the bottom of the issue with the "network effects" discourse. The problem is the shape of a moat is often conflated with the mechanism. And there is remarkably little consensus on what a network effect is, or a flywheel.
Here's a very simple, very rough vocabulary that I think works with current working definitions. Seriously, learn these few rules so your boardroom conversation about defensibility isn't a waste of time:
Shape of Moat: This is what happens to the advantage as the company scales
Static : Doesn't change
Sublinear : Advantage compounds but at a diminishing rate as the company scales (this is not a long term durable moat against challengers)
Linear: advantage is fixed relative to a competitor as company scales
Superlinear : Advantage compounds at an increasing rate as the company scale (this is the white wale everyone pretends they have, but almost no one does)
Mechanism of Moat: The property, business process that produces the advantage.
Network : more users creates more interaction between users. Hopefully superlinear.
Scale : greater volume produces better unit economics. normally sublinear
Data-driven : new users means more data for new users (or to get new users). normally sublinear
Platform : growth on one side increases value to the other. sublinear to superlinear depending on size
Distribution : scale improves reach or channel economics. normally sublinear
... etc.
Flywheels: Flywheels are also conflated with the above. The most useful working definition of a flywheel is the aggregate advantage when multiple mechanisms are self reinforcing, something in a chain (A->B->C). Imagine multiple forces pushing a flywheel to make it go faster. The hope is this complex interaction produces a superlinear advantage. They are incredibly hard to reason about. And most discussion around them are based on vibes.
Here's a very simple, very rough vocabulary that I think works with current working definitions. Seriously, learn these few rules so your boardroom conversation about defensibility isn't a waste of time:
Shape of Moat: This is what happens to the advantage as the company scales
Static : Doesn't change
Sublinear : Advantage compounds but at a diminishing rate as the company scales (this is not a long term durable moat against challengers)
Linear: advantage is fixed relative to a competitor as company scales
Superlinear : Advantage compounds at an increasing rate as the company scale (this is the white wale everyone pretends they have, but almost no one does)
Mechanism of Moat: The property, business process that produces the advantage.
Network : more users creates more interaction between users. Hopefully superlinear.
Scale : greater volume produces better unit economics. normally sublinear
Data-driven : new users means more data for new users (or to get new users). normally sublinear
Platform : growth on one side increases value to the other. sublinear to superlinear depending on size
Distribution : scale improves reach or channel economics. normally sublinear
... etc.
Flywheels: Flywheels are also conflated with the above. The most useful working definition of a flywheel is the aggregate advantage when multiple mechanisms are self reinforcing, something in a chain (A->B->C). Imagine multiple forces pushing a flywheel to make it go faster. The hope is this complex interaction produces a superlinear advantage. They are incredibly hard to reason about. And most discussion around them are based on vibes.
48
22
303
23,037
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
i've been talking to a lot of normal ppl outside of tech about personal agents & the convos have been incredibly fascinating, particularly w.r.t. to retention.
most consumer products typically have one of two types of retention, one is desire driven which is just pure dopamine (like insta, tiktok, games). they often don't even need notifications because you know there is a reward for your desire always waiting. the second is dependency driven, like emails, calendars, even credit cards & banking. most ppl have to do this, it's not something they necessarily desire (unless they are a sociopath).
the challenge with personal ai agents right now is that they occupy a weird third space where they aren't emotionally rewarding most of the time to become entertainment like the first category, & they're not reliable / indispensable enough to become pure infra. i.e. they fail, & there is a lot of friction. outside of pure research driven tasks, even one failure is often enough to not come back for the utility value prop.
which is why i think vertical agents that focus on making your life more interesting & entertaining are worth deep exploration still. & even very focused vertically integrated utility agents that work reliably will still be in demand. tons of ppl still think in jobs to be done when reaching for anything & with general purpose agents that's just not as crisp yet on what those critical jobs are.
most consumer products typically have one of two types of retention, one is desire driven which is just pure dopamine (like insta, tiktok, games). they often don't even need notifications because you know there is a reward for your desire always waiting. the second is dependency driven, like emails, calendars, even credit cards & banking. most ppl have to do this, it's not something they necessarily desire (unless they are a sociopath).
the challenge with personal ai agents right now is that they occupy a weird third space where they aren't emotionally rewarding most of the time to become entertainment like the first category, & they're not reliable / indispensable enough to become pure infra. i.e. they fail, & there is a lot of friction. outside of pure research driven tasks, even one failure is often enough to not come back for the utility value prop.
which is why i think vertical agents that focus on making your life more interesting & entertaining are worth deep exploration still. & even very focused vertically integrated utility agents that work reliably will still be in demand. tons of ppl still think in jobs to be done when reaching for anything & with general purpose agents that's just not as crisp yet on what those critical jobs are.
101
42
1,015
72,318
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
Rant that no one asked for:
My general take about consumer AI is that 99% of the things we've seen so far are super far-removed from reality
Most people feel like they don't have money to spend right now, so the use-cases around agents booking flights or trips or booking reservations or shopping just don't appeal to the average American consumer
I would argue that things that consumers purchase or "do" frequently enough (like ordering on Amazon, or calling Ubers, etc.) were obvious/annoying enough/frequent enough use-cases where we built amazing software UI/UX over the last decade that's been optimized to near ultimate efficiency that adding AI or agents on top would actually be making it *less* efficient. Like really *worth-it* use cases are generally "one-clickable" by great consumer products/platforms already
There's a lot of magical moments/wow factors/sci-fi things with agents that come from super annoying workflows (like booking flights or wrangling personal errand stuff in gmail or etc.) but are just not frequent enough for the average person. They're actually the long-tail. For example, 20% of the world's population has flown on an airplane at least once in their lifetime, meaning 80% of people globally have never set foot on a plane. Only 11%-15% of the global population flies in any given year!
This is not me saying that consumer AI is dumb, I'm actually extremely excited and optimistic, but it kind of goes back to things we've always known about consumer, which is:
1. Save/make consumers money
2. Make consumers entertained or famous
(And, of course, vices)
Even like, regardless of your views on prediction markets/sports betting, I think you have to understand that comes from a place of the average person feeling like they 1) don't have enough so 2) they want to do what they can to jump the socioeconomic rungs
Anyway, there's an extremely *wide* space of opportunity and I'm very excited to see the absolutely insane new AI/innovative stuff that builders come up with, but also I really want to see things that aren't just dressed up versions of 2010s prosumer/productivity software (and the problems that came with it)
P.S. The 90/10/1 rule still applies to consumer: most consumers want to *consume* (and lurk) rather than create!
My general take about consumer AI is that 99% of the things we've seen so far are super far-removed from reality
Most people feel like they don't have money to spend right now, so the use-cases around agents booking flights or trips or booking reservations or shopping just don't appeal to the average American consumer
I would argue that things that consumers purchase or "do" frequently enough (like ordering on Amazon, or calling Ubers, etc.) were obvious/annoying enough/frequent enough use-cases where we built amazing software UI/UX over the last decade that's been optimized to near ultimate efficiency that adding AI or agents on top would actually be making it *less* efficient. Like really *worth-it* use cases are generally "one-clickable" by great consumer products/platforms already
There's a lot of magical moments/wow factors/sci-fi things with agents that come from super annoying workflows (like booking flights or wrangling personal errand stuff in gmail or etc.) but are just not frequent enough for the average person. They're actually the long-tail. For example, 20% of the world's population has flown on an airplane at least once in their lifetime, meaning 80% of people globally have never set foot on a plane. Only 11%-15% of the global population flies in any given year!
This is not me saying that consumer AI is dumb, I'm actually extremely excited and optimistic, but it kind of goes back to things we've always known about consumer, which is:
1. Save/make consumers money
2. Make consumers entertained or famous
(And, of course, vices)
Even like, regardless of your views on prediction markets/sports betting, I think you have to understand that comes from a place of the average person feeling like they 1) don't have enough so 2) they want to do what they can to jump the socioeconomic rungs
Anyway, there's an extremely *wide* space of opportunity and I'm very excited to see the absolutely insane new AI/innovative stuff that builders come up with, but also I really want to see things that aren't just dressed up versions of 2010s prosumer/productivity software (and the problems that came with it)
P.S. The 90/10/1 rule still applies to consumer: most consumers want to *consume* (and lurk) rather than create!
69
22
366
30,326
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
Equivocating ambition w/ massive funding rounds is the cancer of an entire generation of founders and a magnet for scam artists.
Invest in founders with a level of ambition that makes you uncomfortable.
I’ve sat at the table with a number of entrepreneurs who are raising seemingly back-to-back mega rounds every 3 months in the last year.
I’m an extraordinarily aggressive risk-taker, but in all these meetings I’ve felt physically uncomfortable.
To the point when I noticed I was gripping the chair in a meeting with a founder.
This is what it takes to win big and be truly venture-backable today.
9
5
134
10,000
I know I blinked but dear god, founders are choosing to raise $15M seed rounds at $75M-100M post?
Insert “I could have raised less money!?” Silicon Valley bar scene.
Insert “I could have raised less money!?” Silicon Valley bar scene.
I've watched a few really good founders raise big seed rounds this year, then struggle to raise their A, even as the business kept making progress. The seed valuation had set a bar they weren't ready to clear yet. And with everyone excited about the term sheet, it was easy to put off what they'd need to show at the next round.
One of them had about as strong a resume as you'll see in AI, and a team to match. Sub-$1M ARR would have been a fine A story at a normal seed price. At theirs it wasn't.
(For what it's worth, I write both seed and A checks, so I sit on both sides of this.)
The top of the seed market is a bit wild right now. Carta's 95th percentile seed valuation was about $72M in Q2 last year. This Q2 it was $200M. Meanwhile the share of seed companies that get to a Series A within two years has roughly halved since 2018.
During a raise almost all the attention goes to how much and at what valuation. The question I wish more founders asked is whether the company is actually set up to hit the growth the next round will expect.
If you're planning on a 2-3x step-up at the A, here's what that means. A $25M post means pitching a $50-75M A, which a company with real traction can get to. A $100M post means $200-300M, and at that price the A partner is comparing you to the handful of companies growing faster than almost anyone.
The bar right now is brutal. In the A conversations I'm in, a $15M seed (usually a $75-100M post today) means $2M+ ARR, growing 5-6x over the last year, with a believable path to another 5x.
None of this means raise less. Before you sign, work backward: what will we need to show at the A, and does this money and ~24 months get us there? If it does and the terms are good, take it.
If the honest answer is "only if everything goes right", that's worth knowing now rather than in month 20.
A big seed buys you runway and a higher bar. Most founders only count the runway.
6
3
190
24,321
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
In 1983, a BBC interviewer asked Richard Feynman why two magnets push each other apart — and he refused to answer it.
What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed.
Bookmark & watch today, no matter what.
What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed.
Bookmark & watch today, no matter what.
603
2,521
17,754
962,719
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
Honestly?
I’ve only met one fanbase that truly wants to know why they got beat when they got beat.
Alabama. Everyone else just watches the wins. Apart from the everyday sickos.
They watch everything we do. But Bama fans? Our No. 1 watched film study of all time is 2024 Vandy.
I’ve only met one fanbase that truly wants to know why they got beat when they got beat.
Alabama. Everyone else just watches the wins. Apart from the everyday sickos.
They watch everything we do. But Bama fans? Our No. 1 watched film study of all time is 2024 Vandy.
@BrooksAustinBA @MizzouFootball @FloridaGators Sorry brooks, but I cannot watch this back. I watch all your UF vidz, but this game was some shit.
241
176
3,013
407,049
The best seed-stage stories don’t start with “I’m building,”
They start with “I noticed…”
They start with “I noticed…”
Most founders describe their idea the same way: “I’m building…”
A few months later:
“I’ve built an app and now I don’t know how to get users…”
“I wasted 18 months building a product no one wanted.”
“I launched a perfect SaaS and got zero users.”
That’s the Build-First Trap.
3
2
11
1,270
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
The biggest product wins usually come from making some aspect the product less dumb, rather than introducing some new clever thing
7
4
75
5,797
Matt Wensing 🐙 retweeted
That was the most fun, least enjoyable game I’ve ever watched. #GoCanes
0
1
4
248
