20VC: Anthropic's Superbowl Ad: Who Won - Who Lost | Harvey Raises $200M at $11BN Valuation | Sierra Hits $150M in ARR: Is Customer Support Too Crowded

22:40Atlassian is doing better. The problem with so many peer companies, and these are the best founder-led companies, almost all the public SaaS and BDP are founder-led, right? Very few are. They're still decelerating. And how long do you get? The LLMs are open to everybody. You had a year. Claude, 3.5, 3.7 were really good. You've had seven months since then. Do you get 12 months? Do you get 18 months? How long do we give you to recapture some growth and some revenue from the AI revolution because Atlassian's got this layer, but it's also got growth. If you spent the last year with 50 ,000 engineers building all this great stuff, and now your growth is in the teens, maybe heading down to 10%, I mean, better CEOs than me, but that's the one where Rory, I think you should tell your LPs you're worried.

23:24And it's more of the public folks haven't seen no reacceleration than half. More of them have seen persistent deceleration, and we're going to see more this quarter. And I wish it wasn't the case. My life would be better if it wasn't. My life would be better if SaaS was on autopilot like it was through 2022. But you've got to show me the money in 2026. At some point, all that infrastructure spend goes to inference, has to go to software. You've got to show a connection to that spend, or you may not have a reason to exist. And presumably, if you look at history, some of that goes to new companies that arrive, right?

23:57You nailed it. The problem with looking at the overall SaaS growth rate now is we haven't had any good ones to the top of the funnel. So the survivor growth rate's going down, because we looked at this once and it was 30 % for about a decade and a half. But when you went into it, that's because anyone who goes, to your point, Jason, when you go below 10, you get the red card, you're sent off, you go off to PE land, but they were dropping another one in at 60 % growth on the top. So it stayed roughly 30 % median growth rate for a decade and a half. And now there's been nothing good coming in. You know, you're just seeing the bad side.

24:33And in fact, you've had a lot more. I would argue there's a whole series of phenomenons. Maybe it's a great post to break apart. Software IPOs for the last five years have not been a category of new companies introduced, right? And to be fair, if you go talk to a Figma employee, my friend Dylan's having a fun time over there. They're a good example of a company who's like, I think they're going to do great in the current environment, right? But you're probably not setting an example where a lot of other private company CEOs. You had Cliffy on a little while, another good friend of mine. She lives like two blocks down that way.

25:02He's a little bit less motivated having seen what's going on, right? I wouldn't be rushing today to IPO there. Well, number one factor is you don't have those 60, 70, 80 % growers that take the average up, right? Because you do have this one. Number two, you've had private equity. And again, a totally valid part of the capital markets come in and hoover up a ton of companies over the last five years. I'll give you an example. in COVID in 2020, we formed a group of SaaS CEOs. I think there were 16 of us that got together. We'd meet on Zoom every single week, right? At one stage, 10, 11 of us were public, maybe more.

25:34We all had earnings calls. And, you know, it was a really good therapy group for a while. I think it's like me, Eric from Zoom, Aaron from Box, Toby from Shopify, that's it. We're all that's left, right? Because almost all of them have been bought by private equity or big tech. Big tech's getting a lot better at buying stuff historically, right? So all of these phenomenon lead to this weird average system. And you have companies staying private a lot longer. They've got a lot more capital. Poor Cliffy, Amel. Canva would have gone public a lot longer in an old era. They don't need to nowadays as much.

26:07The Stripe guys, same thing. But that means when you look at a public company, you're almost seeing the survivor bias of not small enough to get bought by private equity, not large enough to get bought by big tech, no new companies coming in. It's hard to work out what that average should be actually, right? But that's not saying that's not happening. I think this is where these are all a set of forces that are happening simultaneously. We will see how much is the case. There's one more effect that we're not talking about, which is some of those SaaS companies, and again, people have argued it's us and we're like, wait a second, that 44 % RPO growth is not coming from people paying$20 off Google ads.

26:44Some of those have been affected also by the changes in like marketing channels and other things that I have talked about that isn't, again, I would argue for a multi-decade company, you get used to this, right? You've moved your marketing to TikTok or some other way of the business model, right? And you get these chasms in marketing that have opened up. Some of those have also become a lot more challenged. So there's a lot of different forces happening here, right? It's often oversimplified by people. Fundamentally though, software, customers, are they going to buy more in the future? Yes. We mentioned that new companies bringing enterprise value and expanding budgets.

27:15Harvey, we mentioned, raised in December, raised$200 million at an$11 billion price. It must be quite nice every month to fundraise. It's just like a nice hit of ego, isn't it? Oh, another$200 million from venture investors. A nice bunch of secondary. Nothing wrong with that for employees. It drives a lot of this. It's secondary. It drives a lot of it. Okay, let's talk about this. How do we think about this deal? They're going to end the year supposedly at close to$600. The growth is pretty phenomenal from$200 today. How do we think about this? First of all, let's just pick the obvious point. It was fun that it happened this week, because if you think of what also happened this week is CloudCode produced a plugin, 13 plugins, and one of the plugins was the legal plugin.

27:55And that's one of the things that's alleged to have caused the SaaS apocalypse. Oh my God, the old school vendors, Thomson Reuters, and some of these guys declined, right? While at the same time, a company who, if you squint one way, is just, quote unquote, a GPT wrapper or a CloudCode wrapper, raised$200 million at$11 billion. So literally, the kind of whiplash in terms of the thinking here is hilarious, right? I think all software is dead except this software, which is pretty close to the plugin from Claude, but at the same time, it's worth$11 billion. So a fair amount of inconsistency there in the worldview.

28:28That's just worth pausing on. Other than that, look, it's actually very similar to the discussion we had on Open Evidence. This is the lead company in the AI for law firm space, obviously Liguris, number two. They're both killing it. You're seeing mass adoption. And the million-dollar question, and you cited what you think they'll do at year end. All you know for sure is what they're doing today at 190 million a year. The question here is total time. In other words, if you can compound for three or more years at this kind of rate, you'll do amazing. And if you top out based on the number of, you know, AMLA lawyers in the US, which isn't as large as you'd think, you could find yourself time constraint.

29:06And that's the bet, because they're clearly going to get arbitrary number 60 of the market share with lagora getting 40 i don't know 55 something like that so it's really a question of how big is the time and when do they hit it yeah but rory do you're like you're if they do if they're going from 200 to 601 year so that's tripling if they're magically able to double the next year to 1.2 we're paying 10 times two-year forward revenue right for an asset that unlike at last year and i can't go buy it so there's scarcity on top of it, right? I just think we have to give up on TAM. I think we just have to let the revenue show us the path to TAM.

29:41But if the numbers are there, I think if Harvey does 200 to 600, it showed us the money on TAM. So why do you think we should give up on TAM? Just because it goes from 200 to 600 doesn't mean we should give up on TAM. It just means that it could have exaggerated. It's a reason to say no. It's a reason to say no to Databricks growing 56 % at 5.5 billion, right? Or 65%. 65 % of 5.5 billion. Sometimes you got to lean into it. I don't know. TAM is a, I've always struggled with the concept of TAM, right? Because our whole job in technology is to change TAM, actually. Like if you think about it, the TAM of technology has changed as a whole for 50 years.

30:14I think Harvey is a fantastic business. But let's not forget, if anyone's been involved in legal proceedings or court cases or even just dealt with a lot of lawyers, they're not an efficient part of an industry. And they deal with a lot of text. So you'd argue that there's a ripeness to do that. And credit to this company, maybe Harvey is a GPT rapper. But you know what? They're a GPT rapper that's got a product that their customers like. They've got a go-to-market model that's clearly working in a market that probably doesn't have a lot of competition to start with. good job building a piece of technology that customers want and hence a valuable business whether it's worth 11 billion or whatever okay great but like it's growing 300 a year at 198 arr fantastic business totally great i want to come back on two things one is because i realized as i replay it i was using the word gpt wrapper that's not a phrase i would use it was a phrase that was applied to the sector and then people simultaneously were doing this and i'm pointing out the just you know the divergence you can't it can't be bought at the same time if you're doing a deal like this, and I think it's an amazing deal, and we have a deal in a related space.

31:17I don't buy the GPT rapper appellation, is my point. I don't think it's a useful phrase. My point was, it was wonderful and funny that it happened the same week Claude was deemed to be able to annex the entire legal market just by issuing a plug-in. So my point is, those were two different contradictory ways of looking at the world. I entirely agree. And I think what I was, sorry, I was trying to poke fun at the GPT wrapper, right? If Atlassian's just an orchestrator of humans, right? All of software is just a process wrapper. We take some business process and we deliver a better UI to do that or a way to repeatedly do said process.

31:52And we make money doing that, right? Has Harvey got a sustainable competitive advantage that will just be eaten up? That is entirely, I assume, what their leadership team is sitting about thinking is like, we've got customers and distribution and that is in itself an advantage, right? Like those customers presumably are pretty sticky right now do they keep adding value to their customers with more gpt wrapping or do they add more and more bits of the legal process into the ui into the technology i suspect that's exactly what they're doing and that's what they're getting paid for right any law firm can pick up anthropic and go build their own harvey are they no but i think the important question to ask is like risk adjusted and opportunity cost adjusted is this a good place to put my dollars and when you go back to jason's argument i'm totally with you and i'm not shitting on them at all, Mike.

32:35Fuck me, I've created a podcast. These guys have created$600 million at the end of this year. So who the fuck am I to throw shade? But ultimately, I can put my money in Atlassian today, which respectfully is obviously, as you know, down to very low levels. And I can put my money there today. Or I can put my money in Harvey, which needs to triple and then double and then I pay 10x. I totally agree. I'm not arguing whether you should put dollar in A or B, and there'll be mispricings up and down the stack, right? I'll give you an example from history, which I'm sure the Excel guys wouldn't mind. So when the Excel guys invested in Atlassian, right, it was all secondary.

33:10They put 60 million bucks in 2010. And they bid highest of the five VCs, can I just say. They're also the nicest and had the one-page term sheet and all sorts of other things. But when they put in that, we have their model. We've known them for 15 years. Rich just stepped off the board in December after 15 years of amazing service, right? Well beyond Excel's investment. And they're legendary people, as far as I'm concerned. Their expectation was that Jira would grow and Confluence collectively, I think 30 % the year after they invested, then 20%, then sort of peter out at 15%. So by 2013, instead we did 50, 60, 70 or something.

33:43And they were like, what? And we are still growing Jira at faster than their three-year terminal rate 15 years later. Now, are they stupid and did they get the Tamron? No. The business just was a lot better than even they understood. They were trying to get two to three times their money. They made 100 times their money. But you're looking back at a success example, right? They probably did a bunch of those deals that didn't work around us, right? It's very hard to predict what the management team of Harvey are going to do in building out their business over the next some years. So I assume the smart people that are putting this money in believe that management team can build a business that gets to, on current SaaS rates,$11 billion that have to be what?

34:23Four times forward revenue,$4 billion in revenue or something? $3 billion in revenue? I think your comment is correct as the answer, but I also think Harry's comment was correct as the investor. Because, look, when you're talking about companies that are raising at$11 billion, there's no useful sentence that says this is a bad company. They're freaking amazing companies. But as Harry points out, we're not here to say, you're amazing because you built a big company. The Harvey team are amazing because they built a big company. I didn't build a big company. I'm not amazing on that dimension. But in terms of capital allocation, you have to say to yourself, and compare the two scenarios.

34:55You were a profitable company, sales stick in 60 million. My guess is the revenue multiple, well, sub 10, right? Growth rate, thinking back, I can tell you what it wasn't. What's up? Harvey's at 190 ARR now, 11 billion. That's 50 times. I can tell you it wasn't 50 times, Mike. No, no. I was going to say it was probably 10 to 12 times forward revenue, but we were an unusual company. We were like 50 million revenue with 20 million profit or something. And that's a deal that outperformed on the growth rate. and as a result, as you say, a 3x became a 50 or 100x. And then when you look at another deal where you're paying, you know, you just got to say to yourself, you're paying 50 times run rate revenues.

35:33It's growing much faster than you were growing at the time. And then how do you, to Harry's point, how do you think about the risk return on that? And it boils down to you just have to have, you were able to beat the model by just growing at 30 % instead of 20. What do you have to do to beat the model when you're paying 50 times? The answer is you have to peg that growth rate at well north of three, 400 % a year for three or four years. Yeah, I can't argue with the math. When we started this podcast, I was actually fairly skeptical of AI replacing humans, not because I didn't think it would happen when I started Vibe Coding, but because I thought too many VCs talked out of their rear.

36:07Oh, you know, we're going to replace, AI is going to destroy all jobs. And I thought, this is a bunch of people who haven't done any work. Are they just reading Twitter all day? But my mind has changed over time. And so what I mean is when you look, it's not going to be true in all categories, but when you say, listen, And there's$200 billion a year spent in the U.S. on non-partner lawyers, associates and paralegals. $200 billion a year, okay? Six months ago, you could say it'd be ridiculous to think Harvey's going to make a dent in that. Maybe it's not ridiculous now. And so if that growth stays, if it stays, if it can literally grow at the pace it is, what you're seeing is it's happening.

36:40To Rory's prior points, it can't come out of the legacy software budgets. It can't come out of the old TAM for Bitbucket or whatever, or legal software of the old days. And so my point is, it's not all going to prove itself. Some of these will flame out. But that amount of growth is spectacular. And at some point, like Anthropic, you prove it. Like the growth is so stellar. You have proven that you have captured a mass amount of TAM that was uncapturable before. And so as an investor, I would just put my money in at some point. I totally agree. Let me make the argument against, not because I think it's correct, but because it is the other argument.

37:14I said there was an investor thinking about it. If you look at it, they have$200 million,$190 million in revenue. right, in ARR, 100 ,000 active users. That's 2K per active user. That's under what Westlaw gets from a lawyer. That's not replace the labor revenue. That's nice next generation tool revenue. And the point is, if you're only getting 2 ,000 times a lawyer, there's 1.3 million lawyers in America. Some of them are in-house. Some of them do weird things like patent that can buy Harry's product. 400 ,000 or 500 ,000 lawyers that are in, you know, am law, big law people who would be a buyer for this.

37:48It's a billion, billion, two marketplace. If you're only getting two grand per head, the mat won't work. Now, Mike's right. In the end, my point is this, and this is where it gets back to Harry's saying, to make this a big ass company, you have to take that two grand and turn it into five grand and 10 grand per lawyer by eating the work. And it's doable. And Mike's right. The whole last 50 years has been software does more, software gets more money. I think it's going to be too agenda. This is what I'm already seeing. It's not that. It's 50 to 100 because you get rid of the humans. Now, listen, we're in a weird niche, but I can tell you because I know the GTM agent category really well.

38:19I know everything. They're all 50 to 100 grand because you get rid of the people. If you compare a pipe drive or a Trello clone for CRM in the old days for$12 to an agentic product that gets rid of humans, I'm not saying for sure this is what happened to Harvey, but 50 to 100 grand, if you can get rid of half of your associates or two thirds of your associates, it's dirt. And you'll just pay it because they won't quit. They don't want raises. They don't complain about weekends. They don't have all the issues. Our agent closed a 100K deal the other day on a Saturday night. It doesn't complain. They want family lives, these associates and law firms.

38:53You just get rid of them. I'm going to push. There's two arguments against what you're saying. One Mike's already made. If we can make more software, we're not going to get rid of those humans and the coordination problem. We're just going to make more software, have the same number of humans and have the same coordination problem and keep buying Atlassian stuff. It's the same argument in law here. Maybe you just automate more, right? No, it's totally different. We are building more software than ever, and we need the humans, and no one is reducing their engineering team. The world is so competitive today.

39:20You can't wait every four years for a release like the old days. So every other category may shrink. Okay, that's coherent at least. What you're saying is if you're selling to engineers – no, seriously, because we've talked enough that we know what we're going to say. You're right. What you're saying is every engineering category in software won't be cut. We'll use the tools to just make more software. but every non-engineering area like law like asdrs could be automated away so the headcount goes down there that's what you're saying i think every category that i know of outside of engineering and product is at existential risk of shrinking seats you workday said it um everyone else is saying it we're seeing i mean workday just founder had to go back they said they said even at workday we're seeing headwinds on seats because people just aren't hiring across the fort you know the fortune 500 like they used to they're seen but we are in a renaissance of soft we are building so much software it is unbelievable fascinating that on this on this podcast the product and engineering firms are going to win so we're a winner we're above the fold which i love that as well this is that in itself is an old school term jason the fold doesn't exist anymore i know but i think zoom i mean hubspot monday even zoom are below the fold a few things firstly your holiday party with your lack of belief in humans is going to be amazing right you're sitting around drinking and wine with all your agents that are closing sales.

40:37Come to our office, dude. It echoes. I'm really looking forward to it. Hey, at least nobody can get drunk and make an ass to themselves if they're all agents. At least we won't be dealing with that. I mean, there's advantages there, but there's a lot in Harvey that's fascinating. The question is two things. One, legal firms generally bill time, so it's hard for them to increase their profit margin by billing more and less time. So I don't know how that affects this particular industry. I'm not an expert at all on legals, but I'm just saying there's some interesting – their pricing, right? I don't know how legal services are going to be value-based priced or something.

41:09They're literally the ultimate selling of hours, photocopying and all that sort of stuff. So we'll see how that works for the billing model. And maybe Harvey helps them with that or doesn't help them with that. Secondly, I like to think about things that are demand or supply constrained. It's a particular function, input or output constraint. And that makes a big difference in how I think AI will be applied to it. It's one of the interesting schemas to put to it. So you've talked about customer service or legal. I would argue those are input constrained domains. I have a whole lot of fantastical lawyers at Atlassian, in-house counsel, you know, a group.

41:40They're input constraint. If I make them more efficient or if Harvey makes them more efficient, they can't like create more legal problems. There is a certain set of problems, just like customer service. Your customers ask 100 questions a day. You need a certain amount of service to help them out well. If you have twice as many customers, you'll probably have 200 questions a day. So it's based on some other ratio. The difference with something like software or engineering is it's creation, right? It's how much can you make? The roadmap is never finished. You can keep creating more. So some domains in a company have like a constraint on the input is fixed and you're doing a certain amount.

42:15Now, sales and marketing are kind of in this middle ground, which is fascinating because ostensibly sales is sort of input constrained by a TAM, but you can build new products and new ways of going to market. So we sometimes jump across these categories and it's not super helpful because they're very different. I think genuine, that's super helpful because I remember when we were looking at the systems integration automation category, one of the things that we realized, and you got to in a second and it took us a few days, is like if we automate the process of installing SAP, installing Salesforce, installing NetSuite, it's not like the company is going to buy two helpings of NetSuite because it got cheaper.

42:51They're just going to spend less money doing it. And those are inherently less magical markets than the stuff where the intelligence allows just whole new things to come. I think that input-output thing is actually a very useful way to think about where the magic upside might be. But AI may also let us have more inputs. For example, one of the few organizations of our size uses AgentForce, okay? But we ran an experiment. Mark said, use AgentForce to go after the leads. It's not worth anybody's time to do. And so we did that. We unleashed Asian force on all of our leads, everyone to come to an event, to sponsor us, do anything that it wasn't worth a human's time to come back.

43:27And it worked. And that's like radically more inputs. That's like five to six times more inputs. And there's a lot of legal things that aren't worth taking to your lawyer. Like I can't wait four days for a sales contract to be reviewed. I can't do this. And there may be Jevons paradox or whatever in every category. Like it may explode. And like we've all have terrible customer support so often. But when you have a magical customer support experience with AI or human, you want more of it. Like you'll consume mass. If I could get help all day long with a product, I would be in that agent all day long.

43:56Like helping me, helping me not just VibeCode, VibeUse my product. So we make Jevin every category. Customer support is one I just cannot get my head around. And I know that sounds ridiculous and very basic. But when you look at the sheer number of players that have been funded to huge extremes. And we saw Sierra's 50 million plus quarter taking to over 150 million there on now. I thought of that straight away when we're thinking about net additive versus replacing things. Is this eating Zendesk's lunch? Is this adding new users that never had customer support before? Is this taking on jobs that weren't being done before?

44:31How do we think about that? I'm waiting for Mike because I didn't know it, but he has a customer support product coming out. It's ready out. It's doing very well. Thank you very much. I can't tell you how well it's doing, but it's doing very well. Our service collection business, like our service collection business can go public by itself, right? It's a big business. It's great. It would have great numbers. Jason would be writing great posts on it. Jason says it needs$4 billion to go public, Mike, just as an FYI. For a banger. For a banger, Harry. For a banger. Banger IPO. For a banger IPO. Get back to the question, Mike.

44:59It's a textual-based field in that voice and other things can quickly be approximated to text now with AI and vice versa, right? So let's assume it's a conversation-based area. it's probably three to seven percent of every business in the world on service and support your bank your insurance company your car company every company has this and then you get internal support and service right most of the service collection revenue is on the internal basis right twitter x now whatever has like 300 400 service desks running on on on service collection right but that's not all internal service so the idea of any team helping some other team in a business or any team helping their customers is ripe for making it efficient, right?

45:43All the things you talked about, Jevon's paradox is totally true, but it's also a measurable input and efficiency play. So I can say I spend X, your product can very easily make X less. Is the money I'm saving more or less than I'm paying for your product? There's high ROI, it's a sellable thing. We go around the loop, right? I think it's a great category. Whether the category will grow or not is a different question. The hard part is in year two and year three, The savings are baked into the business. So you have to be delivering continual value to the company. And that's going to be really interesting when we get through this set of changes in the service market most broadly, right?

46:21You've got ServiceNow and us and others at the top end. You've got a lot of legacy providers out there. There's still tons of legacy providers of service. And then you've got lots of customer service companies. Mark has ServiceCloud over there. I think some people still use that. There are a lot of tools in this space. Zendus probably went private for a reason. Zendesk says they have like 300 million plus of AI support revenue. It's just the legacy business. That category is tough, right? So they've got two streams going. The agentic piece is exploding. The only thing I would say, you ask why the category is exploding.

46:54I just think it's interesting. There's just two threads helping for support. Maybe not Atlassian, but overall for so many of the players is one. I mean, if you look at, is it Pave? I think that's how you pronounce it. It's an HR startup that tracks like 300 ,000 startups. No category has been more decimated in hiring than support. No one's hiring. Like it's radically down. So that money is going into agentic products. Okay. Traditional support. And then a great AI support tool can do radically more than a legacy tool. Like I think software in the AI age, and this is why I think so many SaaS leaders are struggling today.

47:28Mature ones is there's no more aha moment. There's no more moment when you walk in and yeah, maybe Sierra spent a month configuring your demo, but literally it answers questions like you've never seen answered before in your enterprise. You want to buy that product. And most SaaS products didn't change for a decade and we fell out of the aha moment. And so there's budget, there's aha moment, and there's like the most humans were cutting ever. It is a great moment. And then the final point, not to ramble, but we've talked about it before, but the super interesting thing about support is it becomes a Trojan horse to do everything else.

48:01Because when that's the main agent, if that is the main agent you're working with, you'll start using it for sales help or for research or for marketing or for other things. And these become more horizontal agents. So, but man, the hiring is, it's over in the space. And bringing it back to Harry's question, Harry, I think we're all saying bluntly you're wrong because you were doing the, I don't get this market. I don't know why people have funded 10 companies. And I think what you're hearing, I think it's true is that it's not a single market at a high level of, you know, people working with other people, you can say it's all the same, but internal help desk is different than external help desk.

48:37One thing we saw, we had a pre-LLM AI company that B2B external support has a different rhythm than B2C. B2C is lots and lots of small interactions. B2B, you might have a long-lived interaction with multiple people internally. One of Mike's best customers has a P1 bug. You don't just have one person involved, You have six or seven people involved. You're reaching across departments. The internal workflow to manage that support is very different than thousands of people ringing about, you know, how do I change a password internally or externally? How do I get my ticket to the whatever concert, right?

49:12So there's differences there. There's difference in company size. So I think actually, and then there's difference in modalities because you've got people who lead with chat. You've got people who lead with voice. And yeah, they're converging. You've got people who lead with video. I think there's a lot of different sub markets rather than one big mega market is my gut. Just like Harvey, though, there's some interesting things that it tells us about how AI is changing the world. There's no doubt that the overall service category is probably going to have not a lot of growth in humans, let's just say, working in that field.

49:43However, it's a very short term field anyway, right? Like I know my sister worked in telephone banking in the mid 90s for a bank here, right? And everyone was there for a year or two. They'd train you, do it, and you move. It was not a career job. It had a high turnover already. So that's different to like lawyers where they've done many, many years of training and they've got 40 years of career. So it's an interesting job field. It's pretty different, firstly. Secondly, one of the interesting things that we see both internally, I have a few examples of agents internally, but I've got a number of customers who've seen the phenomenon as well, is your AI and your agents that are helping people to, in the case of answering a question.

50:22And service needs to be much more broadly thought about than just customer service, like I lost my wallet in the Uber kind of stuff. But the AI that's answering the question is as good as things you have written down. So some teams you see are deploying agents and then writing a lot more documentation and their documentation is getting a lot more stepwise because it's less about the humans reading it than it's the agent that reads that doc and then answers the question. So you may end up with, in some areas, more writers and less people answering questions to get an overall better support response, right?

50:53We have a lot of examples of this. In the service collection, the more knowledge you look it up to, the better answers it gives. It's sort of logical. Some businesses don't have all this knowledge documented because it was in the heads of the people who did the service. So that's one interesting effect of AI probably applies elsewhere. The last thing I will say is service collection is one of the areas where most agents are deployed, right? In terms of AI agents. And it's confusing in service because we talk about human agents that answer questions. And then we have AI agents that either answer the question or help the human to answer the question faster in the complex scenarios and B2B, especially that they've already talked about.

51:28It's far higher deployed in that category agents for us of any of our collections. I think it's the highest proportional deployment. The reason is because those agents are taking actions. Service traditionally, someone's coming in to ask a question. If you think about HR service management, like can I take these people out for lunch when I'm in the Indian office? I want to apply for leave, a parental leave, whatever it is, right? You're asking some sort of HR-based question. There is answers to the question, yes, you can. And then there is actions taken. Hey, I'm going to go and file this expense claim or I'm going to go and do that.

51:58The AI in service that's most interesting to customers often is not, we always talk about the cost-saving aspect of it. It's the ability for it to actually go and do things to make my business quicker, right? If it goes and files the parental application or it resets your password, the canonical IT sort of service thing, the actions that I can take more accurately the automations that we used to call them now they're agentic automations and workflows that expands massively which means you not only get your question answered you get your job done and that business moves a little quicker to your tam argument what's the tam on that like it's not really a thing we had before right it's less it's better than the humans sorry it enables that business to be quicker if the whole form gets filled out for you for parental leave and everything and I don't have to do anything and it's all automated it's better.

52:41Totally understand that. Rory, let me punch back at you, my friend. We, as we said, live in a resource allocation world or mindset where we have the choice to invest in categories and companies. There have been 14 companies in the last two years that have been created that have now raised over$100 million. You then have traditional players like ServiceNow, Atlassian, Salesforce, the list goes on, Zendesk, Intercom, I can go on and on and on. And then we have the new generation of very fast and public companies a la Navan or a la Airwallex who are building their own systems. And there is a generation of technology first companies that are building their own customer support systems to deal with very intricate and complex needs.

53:21When we live in this risk adjusted opportunity cost world, I don't feel that is a good place to put your dollars when I'm competing against Mike, Mark, and the 14 companies in the last two years that raised over$100 million with Brett from Sierra, I don't think that's a good place to be investing. And I agree. I think, look, we looked at a number of companies that were behind Sierra and Decagon and came to the conclusion that a direct head-to-head against those companies when you're smart, it's just a little bit too hard. You kind of go, there's all the airs out of the room with Sierra at the high end.

53:57I think Decagon have executed well. It's that classic, it's a big market, but you don't, you never want to find yourself third in a sub-segment. You can be winning an adjacent section, and then you can get unlucky because the big dog can come in and decide to annex your adjacent section. And that's the stuff that happens. But agreed, there is going to be overfunding in all these sectors. And a lot of it is we're all trying to pick our points. And if you look back in five years from now, you'll probably find that one of the biggest source of errors was, oh, we invested in the number one or two player in this little space here.

54:28But it turns out that this little space wasn't a thing. This big space was a thing, and the adjacent competitor just says, I now bundle this in and do it as part of what I do. Suddenly, Mike decides he wants to be king of service cloud, and he just rolls over us because he just adds it to every one of his customers. So I hear you. I think that it, by the way, probably explains, I want to go back to, it probably explains the Harvey financing, because when you have all the dynamics that you just outlined, it's arguable, despite the TAM comment I made, that the best risk-adjusted bet, and we're seeing it happen is, screw it, I'm just going to pay the winner at any price.

55:04Because if you're in the winner, it's the venture capital equivalent of you can't get fired for buying IBM. You can't get fired for sticking money in with a 1x preference on the consensus winner, which is why this market is way more consensus up and down the stack than it's ever been in terms of venture. There's not a whole ton of people trying to be contrarian out there. There's a whole bunch. The stat I tell my partners that blows me away is, of the newly minted unicorns in Q1 of last year. By Q4, 40 % of them already had one or more up rounds. In other words, the money is saying, once you are a winner, king make, double king make, treble king make, pile on top.

55:41It's too hard to pick the guy at 50 pre that might make it. Just pile into the guy who's made it. Even for that 12 billion, worst case is the 1x. I think what you're going to be amazed by is every time we get one of these new technology disruptions, everyone gets very frothy and yells and screams a lot. It's going to change the world. It usually does. That means a lot of capital is raised and deployed and a whole bunch of it turns out to be torched because VCs are very individual thinkers that they pile into the two winners and then the next 10 companies and probably the next 15 and a whole bunch of those don't really work very well.

56:13And it takes five or six years for us to figure that out. Technology just changed the world. A handful of winners are made. A lot of money is lost. Net money is made more than lost in the transition to said new technology. And this has never happened before. This is a totally new phenomenon. We're in the era of AI. Everything's new and different. And they're not a herd of sheep following the potential next winner. And will that Harvey round pay off? To the point of already, one thing that they don't say is a lot of VCs want the loose side on the wall. So when you walk into the office, on the wall is a nice logo that says, oh, you invested in OpenAI.

56:45You invested in Anthropic. Well, if you put money at$350 billion, probably not doing the VC thing of getting on the$4 million round, but you get the logo on your wall. That's important, I think, from the VC marketing point of view, isn't it? Oh, we can put early investor on our bios if we buy some Atlassian today, can't we? That's right. Yeah. Early in 2026. I feel vindicated, by the way. Thank you for that, Mike and Rory. I appreciate that you conceded that I was right on the customer support argument. It's awesome. I would love to finish on one thing, which is the Super Bowl ad. We've got to finish on this, which got the essay back from Sam, and then the CMO of OpenAI being like betrayal, treacherous, epic disaster, whatever the kind of words were.

57:27How did we think about this and the response? Let's confirm the facts. OpenAI was going to do one ad. I'm not quite sure what that was again. Remind me, please. Then Entropic ran an ad trail that they were going to run an ad that basically said, you know, we don't have ads in our AI. We're good. You're bad. And they ran that ad, versions of that ad. And then OpenAI kind of pivoted and ran a very, you know, you can just build things, rah-rah, ad in the actual Super Bowl. Is that the kind of chain of events here, Harry? The chain of events really is Anthropik ran a series of ads laughing at OpenAI for having ads, slightly ironic in that way.

58:00And then Sam and their CMO basically came back with these like epic... Right, the tweet, the tweet. I think everyone getting angry is a sure sign. That's hard to say, a sure sign of tension. Yes. But actually, Brian Kim from Andreessen, who just did a really good piece, basically said, of course they're going to run ads. It's a consumer product. And less than 5 % of consumers ever pony up for kind of subscription products. So if you're going to be the consumer product, they're going to run ads. And that's ChatGPT. And if you're going to be the enterprise product, you're not going to run ads. And that's Claude.

58:3495 % of people watching that game must have gone, what are these people talking about? And why is this? Why are we taking away from Bad Bunny for these morons to talk about something? I don't even know what's going on, Matt. Back to the prior discussion, you know, when these technology revolutions happen and everyone pours in the capital and tortures a whole bunch of it. One thing that is, again, unique about this era is the purchasing of Super Bowl ads to try to, I guess, justify ego, I think is largely what's going on here. Let's face it. It's human beings. They've got a lot of capital, so they make Super Bowl ads.

59:04Again, never happened in the history of technology before except pets.com. I thought you were talking about the AI.com, the guy that bought the domain for 70 million bucks, spent$8 million on an ad and then is selling open claw. And I'm like, that is also a weird business. But like, maybe Rory's comment that the what do they call them online nowadays? The normies, the regular people who just wanted to watch the Super Bowl are like, what the hell is this about next? Give me the Doritos commercial. Getting to know you, Mike. Like you said, it's the way your tone doesn't change when you move from fact-based comments to acute sarcasm with literally no variation in tone.

59:38Takes a while to adjust to, but you're so right, man. When you said it's never happened again, we all flash back to 99, we flash back to crypto. This is classic top of the bubble stuff. You have 200 million bucks burning a hole in your pocket and you're like, I can spend 5 million and be in the national agenda. I'm in the Super Bowl. You know why the ad was weird though? I'll tell you what was weird about it for what it's worth is, um, look, Anthropic is, I mean, it's, I mean, it's a generational, generational company. It changed coding, it changed everything, but the only place Anthropic is weak is consumer.

1:00:09I mean, I'm one of the seven people that uses Claude instead of ChatGPT as a consumer app. Okay. So if all the things they could have done in the Superbowl, say the engineer's pal, the product guy's buddy, all the things they could say, how we revolutionized product creation. They talk about the one area they fail, which is saying we won't put ads in an app nobody uses for this use case. It was some sort of meta dig because it's advertising for its worst product. It's nothing but a dig. It makes no sense. I saw a smart tweet that made the point. The redeeming argument on this is we're actually not talking to the 95%.

1:00:43It was two people exchanging signals to each other and each other's employees in the valley using$5 million of money to send a signal. This is on Tropic reinforcing their, we are the enterprise good guys here. And they're really messaging to maybe 10 ,000 engineers they might want to hire. And literally the other 325 million people involved are just, we're just talking passive. It could just be recruiting. And plus our head of safety quit this week. So let's mask that over with the Super Bowl ad. It's all just positioning. It would be so much cheaper to buy a billboard on the 101. But back to the original discussion, Harry, I think what's interesting there is it's the sign of the times.

1:01:21I'm not sure we can call it a sign of the top. I don't think that's probably true at all. It's a sign of the times. Look deeper at it, right? If you're burning a billion dollars a week and people are going to keep funding you, the ads are cheap. They don't make any difference, right? Your CMO doesn't have a constrained capital efficient like profit EPS calculation right now. One day they will. Right now they do not. So right now everyone is maximalist. They're trying to be in every single category all the time. What's fascinating is you go to the SaaS and software world, you have financializing going on a lot because they can't afford to be maximalists because those pesky public market investors are making valid questions around, hey, profitability and growth and all these things.

1:02:04And you have a lot of categories that are raising tons of money and don't have that problem. Hence, you get these ads as one example of that. That will normalize. It does every time. I think we're automatically assuming that Super Bowl ads are, I'll say, frivolous, signing the top, not actually effective. Like Wix, for example, which is obviously incredibly hit in the public markets. I spent an hour and a half with their CMO the other day, who's bought six different Super Bowl adverts over the years. This year, he bought two, one for Base 44 and one for Wix. And he's like, the impressions that you get from Super Bowl, the effectiveness of this advertising channel is immense.

1:02:39I don't think either of them were like, top of market, we've got a billion dollars. I think they were brilliant uses of capital. Okay, I'll answer that. And then I want to come back to Mike's point because I think there's something more important in that point. But on your point, if it was a brilliant use of capital, you'd see it happen consistently across the cycle. But in fact, you want to see tech startups doing it when they have money to burn. But that's true of all marketing, Rory, I can tell you. It's true of all marketing. When they don't have capital to burn out, marketing is the first thing that gets cut.

1:03:04It's not a brilliant use of capital in general. Therefore, what it is, is a good way to spend the marginal dollar when you've already spent it on everything else. But I want to come back on Mike's point because I actually think it's a more serious point in there. You made a comment on these guys are not financialized and the public SaaS companies are financialized. And I think there's a bigger comment in that. Maybe it applies to you. When I was thinking about these fights between public company and incumbent and private company, next generation player, I think one of the biggest things is the public companies have this constraint, you know, having to make EPS, having to grow, whereas the private companies are in, you know, as you say, no marginal costing is taking place.

1:03:40And do you think that impacts public companies in general ability to compete? How do you think it makes it more efficient? Man, so many great topics. First, I think Super Bowl ads, just very quickly. Super Bowl ads are priced that way because that's what people will pay. Efficient market in Super Bowl ads, surely. Doritos pay$8 million because it sells a bunch of Doritos. It's a good investment. Is it like the best user capital? Probably. Why do Doritos and beer companies advertise all the time? So for some businesses, like Wix, I would argue, it's a totally sensible investment. For others, it's completely ego.

1:04:06The CEO wants a Super Bowl ad, so they go make one. Ego stuff happens when capital is not being efficiently spent in a business, right? And both of these two things happen in every Super Bowl, probably in Summit, crypto, whatever. I think there is an interesting argument of public companies and maybe why, I mean, I know things I shouldn't know, I guess, but good public company CEOs are often founders, as you pointed out a few times, because you're trying to take a long-term view and manage the short term. You are trying to do both. We have massive investments in AI. We have to deliver public company results.

1:04:38And that's the job is to do both. If we just focus on the public company results part in the very short term, we will not have a good business in five years time from now because we won't be investing in building AI. But that takes usually necessarily away from something you could otherwise be doing today. And that's the balance of capital allocation in any of these businesses, right? Microsoft has to do it. Everybody has to do it, right? Capital allocation is not easy. But a good leader, I think, will allocate capital to those investment areas and allocate enough capital and then tell a story about why that capital is being invested.

1:05:11We spend a huge amount of money on R &D. We spend a huge amount on AI. I would argue if you're a public company today and you're not spending a lot of money on fundamental kind of new R &D around AI in your product category, you're probably in trouble. Now, you can't see that in any public company accounts. It's very hard to actually see where they are allocating their R &D dollars. but I would guarantee you a lot of them are moving more and more and more towards thinking, how is AI going to change my world? How am I going to hire in this era? How am I going to do this? And you have to tell a story to your investors and your shareholders, your stakeholders, your employees about why that's going to make a difference.

1:05:43Why are you going to be relevant and competitive in the AI era? It doesn't mean you need to make a foundational model, but you have to be relevant and competitive and you have to actually do both. Now, Rory, I think you're trying to make the point that maybe there's a world where the free capital in the private markets makes it impossible for those spends in the public. I don't think that's the case. You've had Adobe's and Microsoft's be public for an awful long time. You have to make tough choices. You have to make capital allocation choices. You have to bet on the future to some extent, and not every company is going to get that right.

1:06:10But I don't think that's impossible at all. I think it's what you have to do. Great answer, because reading the commentary after your last result, listing the things that people bust your chops on, and they're giving you grief about stock-based compensation. And then you're looking on the private side and you're like, these guys are doling out SBC like it's candy and no one even calculates it. I'm glad to see that it's not doing your head in, as we'd say in England, because it's almost like both teams are playing the same game, but one of them has to play it with different rules, which must be a little irksome.

1:06:41Yes, but the difference in rules, again, I've said this to a few people, we're a better company because we're a public company. Like we have become a better business, right? We're better at forecasting. We're better at planning. We're better at executing. What we have to do is not replace forecasting and planning, executing for strategy. I think that's where it gets wrong is where you just focus on that piece of the business. You still have to strategically compete and grow and go into new areas, invest and build things, right? You absolutely have to do both of those things. Managing the finances of that is very challenging at the moment, right?

1:07:10For all the reasons you pointed out, totally agree with the challenge that's going on. Secondly, it's very hard for investors to see winners in that process right now, right? If I say it as generically as possible, I think that's the challenge, right? Is because where is that money going? What are those people building? What is the talent? What is that likely to change your strategic positioning with customers over the next few years that you have sustainability and durability? That's very hard to see at this current time for investors, right? But if you look at any list of AI winners and losers above the fold, let's call it, every list is different.

1:07:46That alone tells you people are like, I don't know, somewhere over here. That's our job. That's my job. I'm not complaining about that for a second. My job is to tell a great story about why we're a winner and then make us a winner and do both at the same time. And I have to fund that. You got to enjoy that or you should be doing a different job. I love you. And I'm so grateful to you for being a friend, being awesome, being so good. If the numbers, they're so good, but the stock price is down so much, Do you think you're doing a good job telling that story then? Oh, that's a great question. Depends on you.

1:08:15This gets to the CEO scorecard, right? We had a fantastic quarter. Our numbers in almost every category are great delivery of our goals. External, current time judgment of the delivery of those goals leading to future value is not in a good spot. There's no doubt about that. And we're working hard to change that, right? We have the same business we had a year ago. we will still have a great business in a year and two years and my job is to make sure we have a great business in five years time there's a mental health aspect of it for staff and things like this and then there's uh we just got a lot of work to do let's let's let's get back to work and just go do that right and we if we keep delivering great results we're not short in the back of england here but like at some point you're like i don't know we got we got to do what we're going to do right and you got to also adjust i said this in my in my shareholder letter we spent a lot of time writing our shareholder letter, you got to accept reality as well.

1:09:05Sometimes I see people, and as I said, I do a lot of, at the moment, there's a lot of SaaS CEO therapy going on. One of the things I've told a few people is, dude, you just got to accept reality and then go build something, go do something, right? You can't pontificate about the technology, about creation and everything else. Guess what? Part of creation is destruction. You got to go build value for customers. You got to go build new products and technologies and services. The way I see it, we're going to create our way out of this problem we're not going to like hide in a hole and like wait for it to go away and part of that is accepting the reality of what's changed and also what's changed in a positive way that always seems very negative we can build things way faster and way better than we ever have been able to before if we refounded atlassian today with 350 000 customers 50 000 enterprise customers couple of billion bucks in the bank and 10 000 people in r &d and a great distribution engine to get to all those customers and deliver new value you'd be like it's a pretty good starting point to start a business right like let's go build some stuff right you're right mike when you talk about creating value we as three vcs know exactly how you feel we are the value creators just to be clear it's clear when how he's been sarcastic i think it's a good i think what mike said is great i think though i would say i don't know what you think of your i mean your sas group's pretty elite mike but i would say maybe only the best SaaS, B2B, CIOs are really up for that.

1:10:27A lot of them are introspecting. A lot of them, I talked to one that quit at the end of the year at hundreds of millions of revenue and said, I was told AI wasn't important in our space. That was the goodbye message. And so not everyone has it in them to go through, to push through this next wave. Maybe only the best, maybe only the best do. I mean, you're one of the best, right? We don't have to rank you. And that's okay, Rod. I think we shouldn't pass judgment on that. I totally agree. It's not even the best at work. Totally. Look, it's the same in our industry. Some people decide I've done enough, I'm 50.

1:10:56Some people have done enough, I'm 40. You only got one life. Someone really want to go to Bali at 50. I'm totally with you on that one. It's like, actually, it's a better call. If you don't have it in you to do it, I actually admire more the person who says you guys should get someone else than hanging on, waiting to get the headshot. Just call it. I actually agree. That's a harder call to make, right? That's a very difficult decision. In our business, one partner said to of years ago, he said, our business is a learning business. And the day you stop learning is the day you should say to your partners in about a year and a half, you should be replacing me because you can't take the money and not play the game.

1:11:30And I agree. So you should tell those guys who aren't feeling it. It's really simple. Congratulations. You've made life changing money. You don't have to do it anymore. How's your number two? Because he's in charge now. I'll bring back that founder who left. Are you working harder, Mike, than you have in the last few years? Are you working harder? I'm not working harder than I have in the last three years. Yeah. Well, my co-founder, God love him. We had a whole bottle of wine night before last. You know, he retired a year and a half ago. So that makes like, you know, that's a big adjustment after 20, 23 years.

1:11:59And he has, he's full of gratitude, which is really nice. He understands, right? That creates more work. And there's no doubt the era, man, I start working at 5 a.m. every day at the moment, right? Yes. Yes. People are working harder now than they have before. A hundred percent true, right? Because of the disruption and the speed and the change and everything. And that's, I think that's not a bad thing. That's, that's a normal thing. that's an okay thing, right? The question is, do you enjoy it? And do you have enough balance? Again, I am the worst person to be a therapist to any of these CEOs and sales founders.

1:12:30But I do tell them like what you're saying, those people are making the choice is balance, right? Do you have enough time with your kids? Do you get out in the trees? Do you walk around? Do you do some excess? Whatever it is that's your jam in terms of balance, stop doing that for a year or two, you're going to be in trouble, I believe. Like I've done this long enough. You can't shortcut those things? Secondly, are you enjoying it? And don't just tell me yes in one second. Wait, think, go away, take a weekend, drink a bottle of wine, drink a green tea, whatever is your thing. Are you enjoying what you're doing?

1:12:59Would you choose this job again today? Because it's tough out there. It's going to be hard. Welcome to the technology industry. If you're not enjoying it, no harm, no foul. Go do something you do enjoy, right? Move to a different arena. Now, if you want to use the, you know, we throw that around all the time in the tech industry. The enjoyment is sometimes forgotten in the ego, the need to win, to disrupt, to grow, those sorts of things. Like you said, if you built a great business, a couple of hundred ARR, whatever it is, do it decently. Like, you know, give your team time, give your company time, you know, there's a thoughtful way to do any of these sorts of things.

1:13:35But I think it should be seen as a mark of, you know, amazing human achievement. The problem is if Mike said that to most of the people, I know they'd quit. Are you really enjoying, do you love every minute of your job as a founder, CEO? Are you getting enough time with your kids? Are you walking enough? If not, you should, I'm being a little facetious, but not completely, right? But not completely. I'm not being Pollyanna at all, right? There are paths, there are days that suck, there are times that suck. But over some average of a 90 day, one year, Rory's point, you got one life. We got into this.

1:14:05We enjoyed creating things. We enjoyed building teams and businesses and delivering value to customers. not in a trite like way, but literally sitting down with customers and seeing what they do with your shit is awesome. And you're like, man, that's so cool. Let's go do some more of that, right? You've got to enjoy that part of the job. It doesn't mean every part of the day or the job is going to be easy. It doesn't mean you don't sit there with your team and go, how the fuck are we going to deal with this? Right? These guys are coming over the wall. But if you don't enjoy that, I don't know, there's some analogy that every era is going to be different.

1:14:35The echoes are the same, but there's different ways to your point of learning. You got to learn, you got to think about how you're going to compete. You're not sitting there with bows and arrows if people come up with the machine guns, but I do think you can be balanced. I do think it's important. Don't you think all founders are a little crazy? Yes. Yeah. How can you be balanced if you're crazy? Like there's no bad, like you're, cause you're going to be miserable or bored or you're not building. You know, I don't think Elon doesn't look too happy to me. All the good founders are crazy. There are some people who have unique choice sets in whatever way you enjoy what it is that you do and you choose to be intentional with your own time.

1:15:12I spend a ton of time with my kids because it's super fun and it's super different and they're awesome little human beings and I'm trying to grow them into awesome big human beings, right? And help them on whatever journey they're on. That is enjoyment. I think it makes me a better CEO to do that. I don't spend 60 hours a week with my kids. You know what I mean? They're sleeping and this and that and other things, but I don't spend a hundred hours a week at work, right? Now, when we were younger, we did and that's the evolution, but you have to learn to do that. I think if you spend 100 % of your time at work, you make worse decisions, but you have to do the job, right?

1:15:45And the balance is really tricky. The intentional time management is really tricky. Do I spend as much time with my mates as I used to? No, right? We catch up once a quarter, we do this and that. So there is things you got to trade off. All I'm saying is if you don't do any of that outside work because you're like, this era, I've got to knuckle down and do 100 % of this just right now. I don't think that's sustainable maybe that's just not for me it's not every time i give that speech to one of this era i've got to do and she just looks at me and says stop you're just going to go insane and then you're going to become irrational and then you're going to make bad decisions so we're going for a hike for the next hour and a half and i just say okay i'm going and harry's moving into the kill to tell us we're too old and we're going to get rolled over by him well i i do think that but that's a little bit rude and we have a guest rory so i wouldn't say that with our guest obviously no i I actually have a secret for you, Mike, which is just work with your great mates.

1:16:36I have become great mates with Rory and Jason. And I now get dedicated time with them every single week. What a joy for me. I agree. Any of the best things that we've done, and we've had a series of fantastic leadership teams, really good friends that I still hang out with. I had a whole bunch of them over the Christmas period, old time Atlassian leadership team people that came to join us. They're amazing people. We've been in various trenches and scuffles and fights together. We've had some victories. We've had some losses. Do you get enjoyment from that part of it? You're winning more than you're losing.

1:17:09Great. And you go back and you can have people that you can have a cup of tea with 10 years later. Man, like we did a good job there. You know what I mean? There's a part of the human tribal getting together that your leadership team, wherever you are in whatever business, that has to be part of your enjoyment, right? And you have to create that. And it's hard to create. Don't get me wrong. Like it's tricky. You can treat people as employees and mercenaries or you can say, hey, we got a challenge to do and we're a group of people in a room. We're trying to deal with this challenge. We need help.

1:17:35We all need help to do that from each other. One last thing. This may not end up on the show, but someone, actually my son-in-law sent this to me. Have you heard the Death of Software song on Spotify? on a monday tickers are flashing and red there's a man in a patagonia vest beside me wishing that software wasn't dead says son can you pull up a chart for me from back when the money was free when 20 times sales was a bargain We finish every show with that rendition. It's like our halo song. It's your anthem for the era, right? It's a depressing country song about the love of tickers.

1:18:24But before we leave you today, are you a founder working nonstop to raise your next round? Are you an investor doing all you can for your portfolio companies to help them stand out? Funding and scaling a vision is challenging. Banking should not be. HSBC Innovation Banking caters to tech and healthcare founders all over the world who need a really great banking partner that matches their pace, offering fast onboarding, product packages designed for your business, and capital solutions built for high-growth startups and the VCs investing in them. With HSBC Innovation Banking's rapid onboarding, you can get access to your new accounts and facilities quickly, so your team can stay focused on building and scaling what's next.

1:19:05You'll be paired with your own dedicated team of venture ecosystem veterans who have the network and experience to guide companies in your specific sector, at your specific stage. And behind that support is this real strength, HSBC's$3 trillion balance sheet and global network that provides this stability in international reach needed to grow your operation with confidence to see how HSBC Innovation Banking can support you. Whether you're on day one or day a thousand, visit innovationbanking.hsbc to learn more and connect with an innovation banking specialist. That's innovationbanking.hsbc. While HSBC manages your corporate banking needs, Deal helps you build the global team behind it.

1:19:49Two minutes can change your startup's trajectory. The Pitch by Deal is a global startup competition where founders pitch their company in just two minutes for a chance to win a$1 million investment. You'll compete with startups from around the world and get in front of experienced judges who back ambitious teams. If your startup is ready for its next step, take your shot. Apply at deal.com forward slash 20VCPitch. That's deal.com forward slash 20VCPitch. Once Deal helps you hire your global team, Framer gets them wowed on the way in. Your marketing website sets the tone for your brand, let's face it, and it's the one touchpoint every single one of your customers has.

1:20:31So if you're struggling to make small changes and simple updates, you're falling behind. And that's why so many companies, from early stage startups to Fortune 500s, are turning to Framer. Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder that works like your team's favorite design tool. And it's used by companies like Perplexity, Miro, Mixpanel to move faster. Designers and marketers can fully own the site with real-time collaboration, a robust CMS built for SEO, and advanced analytics that include integrated A-B testing. So you're not just shipping pages, but you're maximizing what works.

1:21:04And when you're ready to ship, changes go live in seconds with one click. Publish, without relying on engineering. Plus, Framer is built for scale, with premium hosting, enterprise-grade security, and 99.99 % uptime SLAs. Whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrateyourfull.com, Framer has programs for startups, scale-ups, and large enterprises to make going from idea to live site fast. Learn how you can get more out of your dot-com from a Framer specialist, or get started building for free today at framer.com slash 20VC for 30 % off. 30 % off a Framer Pro annual plan.

1:21:42That's framer.com slash 20VC for 30 % off. Framer.com slash 20VC. Rules and restrictions may apply.