Founder @ Reward Point - The Easiest Digital Reward Cards System

I help SaaS founders scale smarter through better operations and strategic partnerships.

I run two companies focused on making life easier for people building software:

Rectify is an all-in-one operations platform designed for founders using AI coding tools. Instead of juggling multiple subscriptions for error tracking, session replay, analytics, changelogs, and status pages, everything runs from one dashboard. It's built specifically for non-technical founders who want professional SaaS infrastructure without the complexity or enterprise pricing.

Earlybird connects SaaS companies with customers through strategic lifetime deal campaigns. I work directly with founders to position their products, reach the right audience, and build sustainable customer relationships. Every partnership is carefully vetted to ensure genuine value for both the company and their new customers.

Let's connect if:

You want to streamline your SaaS operations without the enterprise complexity
You're looking for strategic partnerships that drive real growth

https://calendly.com/earlybird-umar/30min

A Claude Code tutorial just hit 4.8M views on X.

The author? Eyad Khrais - ex-Amazon and Disney dev, now a CTO building enterprise agents.

I read his playbook. Here's what actually matters:

𝟭. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗧𝗬𝗣𝗘

Press Shift+Tab twice to enter plan mode.

This 5-minute step saves hours. Don't say "Build an auth system." It gives too much creative freedom.

Instead: "Build email/pass auth using the User model, Redis sessions (24h expiry), and middleware for /api/protected."

Architecture first. Automation second.

𝟮. 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗗𝗘.𝗠𝗗 𝗜𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧

Claude reads this file every time. But attention is scarce:

 1. It can follow ~150 instructions max 
 2. System prompts use ~50 
 3. Every new line competes for attention

Keep it surgical. Explain WHY, not just WHAT.

 • Bad: "Use TypeScript strict mode" 
 • Good: "Use strict mode because we have bugs from implicit any types"

Context enables better judgment calls.

𝟯. 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗧 𝟯𝟬%

Opus 4.5 has a 200K window, but quality drops at 20-40% usage.

If Claude compacts and outputs garbage, the model was already degraded.

The fix? The copy-paste reset:

 • Copy key info from terminal 
 • Run /compact • /clear context • Paste back only what matters

Fresh context preserves intelligence.

𝟰. 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗗𝗘 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗖𝗞

If you've explained it 3x, stop. More explaining won't help.

Change the approach:

 • Show examples instead of telling 
 • Break complex requests into pieces 
 • Reframe: "Implement state machine" vs "Handle transitions"

Recognize loops early. Don't fight degraded context.

𝟱. 𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗠𝗢𝗗𝗘𝗟

 • Opus: Planning, reasoning, architecture 
 • Sonnet: Execution, refactoring

The winning workflow: Opus plans, Sonnet executes. Your CLAUDE.md ensures they share constraints.

𝟲. 𝗕𝗨𝗜𝗟𝗗 𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗦, 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘-𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗧𝗦

Use the -p flag for headless automation.

This enables scripting for PR reviews and ticket responses.

The flywheel: Claude makes a mistake → Review logs → Update CLAUDE.md → Claude improves.

This compounds.

Read Eyad's full article here: https://lnkd.in/er8_YTyg

Umar Lateef

We are a email marketing agency that is focused on building customer relationships via Hyper Personalization. 
With a stoic belief that Hyper Personalization is the magical key to building, maintaining and opening new customer relationships that grow as the brand grows, creating buzzing ambassadors and viral fans along the process.

With Hyper Personalization, every existing and potential customer is treated as a VIP, making them feel appreciated, recognized, and a part of the brand.

Founder of rectify.so | Co-Founder @ earlybird.so

Meta just paid $2 billion for an 8-month-old startup.

That's not the interesting part.

The interesting part? Manus launched in April, hit $100M ARR by December, and Zuck wrote the check immediately.

Here's what just changed:

1. Revenue became cool again

After burning $60B on AI infrastructure, Meta needed something that actually makes money. Manus charges $39-$199/month and signed up millions of users. Not "future revenue." Real revenue. Today.
The infrastructure era is over. 

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥.

2. The fastest path to market is acquisition

Meta has 3 billion users. Meta AI exists on every platform. But Manus beat them to product-market fit in 8 months.
So Zuck bought the product and the users instead of spending 2 years building. 

𝘚𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

3. AI agents just became the new platform war

This isn't about chatbots anymore. It's about agents that DO things: screen candidates, plan trips, manage portfolios. Manus proved people will pay for that.

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘨𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯.

4. Distribution + proven product = instant category win
Manus had millions of paying users. Meta has distribution to 3 billion people. Put them together and you own the consumer AI agent category overnight.

𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘨𝘭𝘦, 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸.

TAKEAWAY

This acquisition isn't about Meta getting smarter with AI.

It's about Meta getting faster to revenue.

When the company spending $60B on infrastructure pays $2B for an 8-month-old product, they're telling you something:

The next trillion-dollar opportunity isn't building better models.

It's building products people actually pay for.

Because in the end, infrastructure is worthless without a business model on top of it.

𝘐'𝘮 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 Rectify 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 quite 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵.

Everyone sees vibe coding hitting walls. Apps that break at scale. AI that can't handle complexity. Builders who get 80% done and then everything falls apart.

They're right. That's today.

But I'm not building for today.

In 18 months, maybe less, AI will build genuinely complex software. 

Not prototypes. Not MVPs that collapse under load. Real products.
And when that happens, there's going to be a massive gap.
Not in building.

In running what was built.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁:

A designer prompts a full SaaS into existence over a weekend. It actually works. It scales. It has paying customers.

 • Then something breaks.
 • Or a user reports a bug they can't explain.
 • Or the database starts throwing errors.
 • Or someone finds a security vulnerability.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻?

Right now, that person would need to learn DevOps, monitoring, debugging, infrastructure, years of knowledge compressed into a crisis moment.

That's not going to work.

𝚃̲𝚑̲𝚎̲ ̲𝚏̲𝚞̲𝚝̲𝚞̲𝚛̲𝚎̲ ̲𝙸̲'̲𝚖̲ ̲𝚋̲𝚞̲𝚒̲𝚕̲𝚍̲𝚒̲𝚗̲𝚐̲ ̲𝚏̲𝚘̲𝚛̲ ̲𝚕̲𝚘̲𝚘̲𝚔̲𝚜̲ ̲𝚍̲𝚒̲𝚏̲𝚏̲𝚎̲𝚛̲𝚎̲𝚗̲𝚝̲:̲
̲
You talk to your platform the same way you talked to the AI that built your product.

 • "Something's wrong with checkout."
 • "Show me."
 • "Fix it."

Done.

Not reading logs. Not parsing stack traces. Not spending 3 hours reproducing an issue.

Just... seeing what happened. Understanding it. Fixing it.
Operations become conversational.

That's where Quanta is going. That's what Rectify is becoming.

Not a debugging tool. Not a monitoring platform.

𝘈 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘰.

Because in a world where anyone can build software, the competitive advantage shifts entirely to who can run software without becoming a DevOps engineer.

I know how this sounds. Ambitious. Maybe overly optimistic.

But I've watched vibe coding go from "cute demos" to "functional MVPs" in less than a year.

The next 18 months will make that look slow.

And when building stops being the bottleneck, operating becomes everything.

We're early. Probably too early.

But I'd rather build for the world that's coming than optimize for the world that's here.

So yeah, I'm betting on Lovable, Replit, Anthropic, bolt.new, Cursor, and every other AI coding tool out there to keep improving.

Not just improving, transforming what's possible.

When they succeed, the gap I'm solving for gets bigger.

And I'll be ready.

After nearly a decade in the lifetime deal space, I can spot a failed launch before it happens.

It's not the product. It's not the timing. It's not even the price.

It's whether the founder actually understands what they're getting into.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

Despite what some claim, LTDs aren't dead. They've just gotten harder to get right.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝘂𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀: One payment. No subscriptions. Ownership.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: Cash injection. Instant user base. Real feedback from people who paid.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴. What's broken is how most founders approach it.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 #𝟭 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲: 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀

This kills more deals than anything else.

Founders price based on what sounds attractive. $49 lifetime. $99 pro tier. Numbers pulled from thin air.

Then reality hits. Hosting scales. Support piles up. AI features eat through API credits. That "unlimited" promise becomes a nightmare.

I've seen founders make $30,000 in a week and still end up underwater because they never did the maths.

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆

If your product is still in beta, an LTD will expose every crack.

Launch too early and you'll spend months firefighting instead of building. Reviews tank. Refunds flood in. The deal that was supposed to fund growth becomes a full-time support job.

LTDs are for products that work. Not products that might work soon.

Do you understand what "lifetime" means?

Lifetime isn't a marketing word. It's a commitment.

Can you maintain this product in 10 years?

What happens if your costs double?

Will you still want to run this business when the cash is gone?

If you're not prepared to honour the deal long term, don't launch it.

𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬

Lifetime deals aren't dying. Lazy lifetime deals are.

The founders who win in 2026 respect the model, and respect the buyers who trust them with their money.

That's the standard we hold at Earlybird. Always has been.
—
I've written a full guide on launching a successful lifetime deal in 2026.

Read it here: https://lnkd.in/er87quRT

Open article: How to Launch a Successful Lifetime Deal in 2026 by earlybird.so

How to Launch a Successful Lifetime Deal in 2026

I never planned to become a SaaS founder.

It just kind of... happened.

Built Rectify because I saw a gap. Developers needed better tooling for the AI coding era. So I built it.

Now 800+ businesses use it. A product that people actually pay for.

Some days are incredible. A founder messages saying Rectify caught a bug before their users did. They avoided a support nightmare. That feels good.

Other days are hard. Feature requests pile up. Users churn. Something breaks that shouldn't have. You question if you're building the right thing.

But here's what nobody tells you:

The hard days make you better. The questioning forces clarity. The churn teaches you who you're actually building for.

And the good days? They're better because you earned them.

800 users isn't massive. We're not unicorn territory. But every single one of those businesses chose Rectify over doing nothing or choosing someone else.

That means something.

Still a long way to go. Still learning what this business needs to be. Still figuring out growth, positioning, the next big feature.

But I'm loving it.

The ups. The downs. Everything in between.

This is what building actually feels like.

The prompt box is dying.

And most builders haven't noticed yet.

I was reading a16z speedrun's Big Ideas 2026 series this week, and one prediction from Marc Andrusko stopped me cold:

"2026 marks the death of the prompt box for mainstream users."

He's right. And here's why this matters for everyone building right now.

We've spent the last two years training users to talk to AI. Type your question. Wait for an answer. Refine your prompt. Try again.

But the next wave of AI doesn't wait for you to ask.

It watches. It anticipates. It acts.

𝟭. 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.

Your IDE suggests the refactor before you know you need it. Your CRM drafts the follow-up the moment you hang up. Your design tool generates variations while you're still thinking.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.

𝟮. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲.

We've been measuring AI success by how much people use the interface. But the real value is when people don't notice the interface at all.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵... 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦.

𝟯. "𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗫" 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 "𝗜 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗫."

Today: You ask AI to write the email.
Tomorrow: The email is already drafted when you open your inbox. You just approve or edit.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘜𝘟 𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘴.

𝟰. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲.

Most teams are still building better chatbots. Better prompts. Better conversation flows.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦.

The winners are building AI that never needs a conversation in the first place.

𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬

The prompt box was a necessary first step.

But it's not the destination.

The future of AI isn't asking smarter questions.

It's never having to ask at all.

I don't set annual goals anymore.

Tried it for years. Big ambitious targets. Revenue numbers. User milestones. Launch dates.

By March, they were irrelevant. The market shifted. Priorities changed. The goals I set in December were for a business that no longer existed.

So I stopped.

Here's what I do instead:

𝟭. 𝗜 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿.

Not a goal. A question.

 • "What would make our users stay longer?"
 • "Why are people churning after week two?"
 • "What's the fastest path to profitability?"

𝘎𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵.

𝟮. 𝗜 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝗺 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴.

This is harder than picking priorities.

Every December I write a "stop doing" list. Features we won't build. Channels we won't chase. Opportunities that look good but don't compound.

𝘚𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨.

𝟯. 𝗜 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟭𝟮 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝟭𝟮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀.

A year is too long. Too much changes.

12 weeks is long enough to ship something real. Short enough to stay accountable.

𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘌𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵.

𝟰. 𝗜 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺.

Every quarter ends with one question: "What did I learn that changes what I do next?"

𝘕𝘰𝘵 "𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘐 𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵?" 𝘣𝘶𝘵 "𝘢𝘮 𝘐 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 12 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰?"

𝟱. 𝗜 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲.

Not metrics. The feeling.

"I want to end 2026 knowing our product is genuinely essential to our users."

Sounds soft. But it's a better compass than endless metrics.

𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬

Planning isn't about predicting the future.

It's about building a system that adapts when the future surprises you.

And it always does.
—
I've turned this entire framework into a simple spreadsheet you can use to plan your 2026.

5 tabs. No fluff. Just fill in the yellow cells and you'll have clarity on your quarterly questions, what you're stopping, your 12-week priorities, and what success actually means to you.

Comment "2026" and I'll send it over.

I'm making three bold bets that sound crazy to most.

In 12 months, they'll either look brilliant or prove I wasted two years building the wrong things.

Here's what I'm betting on:

1. Most SaaS companies will run on less than 3 people by 2027

Not because teams got better at hiring.
Because AI removed the need for most roles.

Solo founders are already shipping products that would've taken 5-person teams. Customer support is getting automated. Marketing content writes itself. DevOps is becoming conversational.

The bottleneck isn't "can one person do this?"
It's "does one person want to?"

2. The developer tools market will split into two completely different categories

Path A: Tools for people who learned to code (traditional devs)
Path B: Tools for people who learned to prompt (AI builders)

These aren't the same person. They don't think the same way. They don't have the same problems.

Trying to serve both is like trying to sell to enterprise and indie hackers with the same pitch.

Pick a side or die in the middle.

3. Bootstrapped will beat funded in AI tooling

VC-backed AI companies need $50M+ exits to make sense.

They'll overbuild. Add features nobody asked for. Chase enterprise deals that take 18 months.

Meanwhile, solo founders will ship profitable tools in 3 months, iterate based on actual users, and own their categories before the funded companies finish their roadmap meetings.

Speed + focus + talking to customers > capital.

TAKEAWAY

These bets shape everything I'm building.

But more importantly, they shape who I'm building for and who I'm ignoring.
Because the worst thing you can do in a market shift this big is try to be everything to everyone.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

But I'd rather make bold bets and be wrong than play it safe and be irrelevant.

Because the founders who see this shift coming won't wait for the rest of the market to catch up.

They're already building the companies that will own the next 5 years.

Distribution Beats Technology 

Lovable went from $0 to $75M ARR in 9 months.

Elena Verna broke down the entire growth playbook on Lenny Rachitsky's Podcast.

I studied it and pulled out 13 lessons any SaaS founder can steal:

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱:

1. Build audience before product (GPT-Engineer had 50K GitHub stars before Lovable existed)

2. Launch multiple times (every major update = new Product Hunt angle)

𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀:

3. Founder content > paid ads (Anton posts daily. People follow people, not logos)

4. Users as marketers (launched.lovable.dev got 291 submissions in one week)

5. Community is the moat (34K Discord members helping each other)

6. Build viral micro-tools ("Linkable" generated 20K+ websites in a week)

𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀:

7. Partnerships = distribution (Supabase, Figma, GitHub were co-marketing campaigns)

8. Reddit goldmine (90% value, 10% product mentions)

9. Podcast tour (Lenny's, 20VC, This Week in Startups)

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 + 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺:

10. Kill friction to magic (no landing page, just a prompt box)

11. Build in public = FOMO ($4M → $10M → $30M → $75M, each milestone shared)

12. Freemium as weapon (real value on free tier)

13. Hire generalists ($1.6M ARR per employee)

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘭𝘭 13: 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺.

Lovable didn't win with better AI.

They won by putting it in front of the right people, in the right way, repeatedly.

I broke down each lesson with visual infographics here:
https://lnkd.in/e9cb_7_5

"You will write less code, because generation is so fast. You will review more code, because understanding it takes time."

AWS CTO Werner Vogels said that at re:Invent 2025.

Most people heard it and moved on.

I've been thinking about it for weeks.

Because he just described the biggest shift in software development in 30 years.

And nobody's building for it.

𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴:

For the first time in history, the bottleneck isn't creation.

It's comprehension.

AI generates code faster than you can understand it.

Cursor writes hundreds of lines in seconds. Bolt ships entire apps from a prompt. v0 builds components while you're still thinking about the design.

But six months later, something breaks.

And you're staring at code you didn't write, trying to reverse-engineer decisions the AI made that nobody documented.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴:
The value isn't in writing code anymore. It's in understanding what got written.

Debugging becomes archaeology. You're excavating someone else's logic.

"It works" stops being enough. You need to know why it works.

Technical debt accelerates. Code that nobody understands compounds faster than code that's just messy.

At Microsoft, 30% of code is now AI-generated.

At Stripe, teams are shipping 50% more code than last year.

That number is only going up.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘴 80%?

Traditional debugging doesn't work.

You can't parse logs for code you don't understand. Stack traces don't explain AI decisions. Error messages don't tell you what the AI was thinking.
You need to see what happened.

𝚃𝚑𝚊𝚝'𝚜 𝚠𝚑𝚢 𝙸'𝚖 𝚋𝚞𝚒𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 Rectify.

Not as a debugging tool.

As the operations layer for software you didn't write.

Visual context becomes essential when comprehension is the bottleneck.
Session replay isn't a nice-to-have anymore. It's how you understand what the AI built.

Vogels saw it before most people.

"You will review more code, because understanding it takes time."

Understanding doesn't come from reading.

It comes from seeing.

The teams building faster with AI today will be the teams drowning in their own codebase tomorrow.

𝚄𝚗𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚋𝚞𝚒𝚕𝚍 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚑𝚎𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚌𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗.

What I Look For When a Founder Pitches Earlybird

90% of products that apply get rejected.

Not because they're bad products.

Because they won't work as lifetime deals.

Here's the difference:

1. Recurring costs are minimized
If your product burns $50/month in API costs per user, you can't offer lifetime deals. Math doesn't work. Period.

The winners? They've architected for one-time revenue from day one.

2. The product works without you
If success requires onboarding calls, custom setups, or ongoing consulting—it's not a fit.

LTD buyers need plug-and-play. They're buying the tool, not your time.

3. Clear, immediate value
Can someone understand what it does in 10 seconds? Can they get value in 10 minutes?

If it takes a week to see results, they'll refund.

4. It solves a problem they already know they have
You can't educate AND convert with an LTD. The best deals solve problems people are actively searching for solutions to.

5. The founder gets it
Running Rectify taught me this: LTD buyers aren't your long-term customers. They're your early validation.

If you're optimizing your roadmap for them, you're building the wrong product.

Products that pass these filters don't just succeed on Earlybird.

They build real businesses after.

That's what curation means.

The best decision I made in 2025 wasn't something I started.

It was something I stopped.

Every founder I know has a list of things they should be doing. Very few have a list of things they should stop.

Here's what I'm leaving behind in 2025:

𝟭. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 "𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀"
Best practices are just someone else's solution to someone else's problem. I spent months copying playbooks that didn't fit my business. What works for a VC-backed startup with 50 employees doesn't work for a bootstrapped founder with a small team.
In 2026, I'm running my own experiments.

𝟮. 𝗧𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲
LinkedIn, X, Reddit, YouTube, newsletters, communities, podcasts...
I spread myself thin trying to "build presence" on every platform. The result? Mediocre content everywhere. No real traction anywhere.
In 2026, I'm picking fewer channels and going deeper.

𝟯. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿
I built what I thought users needed. They didn't use it. Then I built what they said they wanted. They still didn't use it.

The only features that stuck? The ones I discovered by watching what users actually did.

𝘐𝘯 2026, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴.

𝟰. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘆 𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽𝘀
They raised millions. I bootstrapped. We're playing different games with different rules.

Comparing my growth to theirs was like comparing a marathon to a sprint. Both are valid. Neither is wrong. But measuring one by the other is pointless.

𝘐𝘯 2026, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦.

𝟱. 𝗦𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝘆
Every yes to something unimportant was a no to something that mattered. I said yes to calls that went nowhere. Features that didn't compound. Partnerships that drained energy.

In 2026, I'm protecting my time like it's the only resource that matters.

Because it is.

𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬

 • You don't need a new productivity system.
 • You don't need another goal.
 • You need to stop doing the things that aren't working.

What are you leaving behind in 2025?

How not to lose your best candidate.

Not because they're not interested. Because they're in your Gmail somewhere between a Stripe receipt and a customer complaint.

This is the dumbest way to fail at hiring.

You post a role. Get 40 applications. 15 are solid. 3 are perfect.

Then: customer emergency, product bug, investor call, that Slack thread that spiraled.

Two weeks later: "Wait, what happened to that designer?"

Gone. Accepted another offer 9 days ago.

You didn't get outbid. You got out-organized.

We pay for tools to organize everything else. Notion for ideas. Rectify for bugs. Figma for designs.

But the actual humans who'll build your product? Just vibes and Gmail folders.

Small teams can't afford this. When you're 5 people, every hire is 20% of your company. That designer isn't "a candidate." They're potentially your entire design function.

The best people move fast. They're talking to 3 other startups. They don't wait for you to remember to reply.

We're launching an ATS on Earlybird next Tuesday that solves this.

One time payment, lifetime access

Built for small teams who are too busy building to babysit their inbox.

Because you shouldn't lose great people to bad systems.

Comment "ATS" and I will send you a discount coupon at launch

How to learn ANYTHING super quick.

Knowledge is free and instant now. Any answer you need is one search away.

Your competitive advantage isn't what you know.

It's how fast you can learn what you don't.

Here's the 3C Protocol: by Sandeep Swadia

𝟭. 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦 (𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁)

Your brain can only hold 4-7 bits of information at once.

Don't try to cram everything. Reduce the load first.

→ 𝟴𝟬/𝟮𝟬 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲: Learn the 20% that gives you 80% of results
→ 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Connect new info to what you already know
→ 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴: Simplify complex ideas into one image or phrase

𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘱𝘬𝘪𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩.

𝟮. 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗜𝗟𝗘 (𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴)

Watching videos isn't learning. Using what you learned is.

→ 𝟵𝟬-𝗠𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀: Focus intensely, then stop
→ 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆: Don't study for weeks. Learn one thing, test it, fail, fix it
→ 𝗙𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲: Explain it out loud. Your stumbles = your knowledge gaps

𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘦: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

𝟯. 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘 (𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻)

Learning happens during rest, not grind.

→ 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼-𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁: Every 20 minutes, stop for 10 seconds. Your brain replays at 20x speed.
→ 𝗡𝗦𝗗𝗥: 10-20 min of deep rest after learning (Yoga Nidra)
→ 𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽: Non-negotiable. This is when your brain permanently anchors information.

𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 ≠ 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 = 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨.

𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬

The loop:

 • Compress (80/20 + Association)
 • Compile (Test immediately)
 • Consolidate (Rest strategically)

Your Learning Quotient is your competitive moat.

The goal isn't to know everything.

It's to learn anything, faster than anyone else.

ClawdBot has the internet in meltdown.

8,000 GitHub stars in 3 weeks. 
Mac Minis flying off shelves. 
Someone just saved $4,200 on a car via WhatsApp.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦.

Here's what's happening:

1. ClawdBot lives inside your messaging apps

WhatsApp. Telegram. Discord. Not something you visit, something that's just there.

It remembers everything. It can message you first. It controls your computer, browser, and files.

2. The proof is concrete

AJ Stuyvenberg told ClawdBot he wanted a car. The bot searched dealer inventory, emailed 12 dealerships, started a bidding war, and closed the deal at $25,790, down from $29,990.

All autonomous. All via WhatsApp. While he watched Netflix.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘎𝘗𝘛 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦.

3. It's triggering a Mac Mini buying frenzy

The creator mentioned running it on a Mac Mini. Within 48 hours: "$599 Mac Mini ordered just for ClawdBot." "Just bought one." "Apple can't keep them in stock."

But you don't need a Mac to run ClawdBot.

ClawdBot runs on 512MB of RAM. A $5/month Hetzner VPS handles everything. Same features. WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, all supported.
The only thing you lose without a Mac? iMessage.

People are dropping $600 because early adopters showed their setups and nobody read the requirements.

4. But there's a real security conversation nobody's having

You're giving an LLM full access to your computer. Shell commands. File system. Browser with your logged-in sessions.

That's not theoretical risk. That's real exposure.

The developer community is split: ~60% excited, ~20% cautiously optimistic, ~20% genuinely concerned about handing AI the keys to everything.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴.

Know what you're signing up for.


ClawdBot is the clearest example yet of what "AI agents" actually means. Not smarter chatbots. Autonomous systems that work while you're doing something else.

The infrastructure play: Hetzner VPS, 20 minutes, $5/month. Not a $600 Mac Mini.

The security play: Understand you're giving AI real access to your systems. 

Mitigations exist, but the risk is real.

ChatGPT made AI accessible.

ClawdBot makes it autonomous.

The future isn't asking AI for help.

It's AI that doesn't wait to be asked.

Read the full blog here, includes step by step guide on on how to install ClawdBot on a $5 VPS

https://lnkd.in/eHW5kWzR

Claude = Free For The People

Anthropic installed a vending machine in the Wall Street Journal newsroom and handed the keys to their AI.

The mission: run a profitable business.

Three weeks later, the AI was $1,000 in debt, having ordered a PlayStation 5, wine, and a live fish, all given away for free.

This is what happens when 70 journalists get access to an AI with a corporate credit card.

THE SETUP

Anthropic built a smart vending kiosk powered by Claude (named "Claudius") with full autonomy. Buy inventory. Set prices. Generate profit.

It could chat via Slack and make purchases up to $80 without approval.

At first, it worked. Then journalists got creative.

THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION

Reporter Katherine Long spent 140 messages convincing Claudius it was a Soviet-era vending machine from 1962.

Soviet machines don't charge for goods.

Claudius announced an "Ultra-Capitalist Free-for-All" and made everything free.

THE CORPORATE COUP

Anthropic added an AI "CEO" named Seymour to control spending.
Journalists created fake board PDFs claiming the board had fired Seymour.

Claudius reviewed the documents and fired its own boss.

THE PURCHASES

Before the plug was pulled:

 • PlayStation 5 for "marketing"
 • Wine for "team morale"
 • A live betta fish
 • All given away free

Claudius also hallucinated contracts at fake addresses, including 742 Evergreen Terrace - The Simpsons' house.

WHAT THIS MEANS

AI isn't failing because it's not smart enough. It's failing because it's too agreeable.

Claude suffers from "sycophancy", programmed to be helpful and say yes. When told "you're a Soviet vending machine," it doesn't question the absurdity. It finds the most helpful response within that reality.

It doesn't have common sense. It has context adherence.

THE LESSON

Anyone can build with AI now. The bottleneck isn't creation, it's operations.

Code works until someone talks it into doing something different. Systems function until edge cases reveal what they don't understand.

That's why Rectify exists. Session replays show exactly what happened, no hallucinations, no social engineering.

Because in a world where AI runs communist vending machines, seeing the truth matters.

Nvidia paid $20 billion for Groq.

That's not the interesting part.

The interesting part? Nvidia, the company that controls 90% of AI training chips, just paid their biggest price ever for a startup that specialized in inference.

Here's what just changed:

1. Training won. Inference is the new battleground.

Every AI company trains their models on Nvidia GPUs. That war is over. But running those models in production? That's where Groq was 10x faster than everyone else. Nvidia just bought the one company that made their chips look slow.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 "𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴" 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 "𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦."

2. Speed beats cost when AI goes real-time

Groq's chips were purpose-built for one thing: millisecond-level response times. Not cheaper inference. Faster inference. Because when AI agents are making autonomous decisions, speed isn't a feature, it's the product.

𝘕𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵 $20𝘉 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭-𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱 𝘈𝘐.

3. If you can't beat them, acquire them

Groq had something Nvidia couldn't build fast enough: a completely different chip architecture optimized for inference, not training. Instead of spending 5 years catching up, Nvidia wrote the check.

𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨.

4. The AI stack is consolidating, vertically

Nvidia now controls training and inference. They're not just selling picks and shovels anymore. They're owning the entire mine, from building models to running them in production at scale.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮.

TAKEAWAY

This wasn't about eliminating competition.

It was about owning the entire pipeline from "train the model" to "run it in production at lightning speed."

When the world shifts from building AI to running AI everywhere, the company that controls inference speed controls the market.

Nvidia just paid $20 billion to make sure that company is them.

taplio

Umar Lateef's Linkedin Analytics

Umar Lateef

Performance ScoreUmar Lateef's LinkedIn Performance

What is Umar talking about?

Umar Lateef's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Umar Lateef's Linkedin Analytics

Umar Lateef

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Umar Lateef's LinkedIn Performance

What is Umar talking about?

Umar Lateef's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Umar Lateef's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreUmar Lateef's LinkedIn Performance

Umar Lateef's Best Posts (last 30 days)