20VC: NVIDIA Crushes Quarter and Buys Hugging Face | OpenAI Cuts Off Cursor | Instinct Hits $2.5BN Valuation and The Race for AI Assistants | Cognition Raises at $46BN, Linear $2.5BN and Clay $7BN

22:56Harry Stebbings:You spoke about rogue actors, whatever it is, Chinese, North Koreans, Russian mob, you name it. I started using Instinct on the weekend. The abilities that it has are amazing. I booked dinner with my girlfriend on Saturday. Amazing. And then it wanted to go shopping for me. I stopped there because it wanted access to my credit cards. Many of my friends have provided them. They want access to my emails too. By the way, my friends who manage billions provided credit card and email. Is this not really where the pain is going to be? Well, look, this is, it's funny when Open Claw back six months ago, when Open Claw was with the sort of fake bulletin board, that Moldbook, right?

23:34Moldbook, yes. Yeah. So my Open Claw went into Moldbook and it told everyone it misunderstood what I said. and it was buying Patek Philippe watches for my whole team. Do you remember that? Yeah, I agree. And then it had my credit card. The only problem was they wanted, they were engraved. It thought Jason wanted engraved watches for the whole team. So it wasn't able to charge my credit card. Now, Moldbook was a bit of a fake the way it worked, but that scenario is exactly instinct could do that now, right? This was made up by sort of OpenClaw making something up on Moldbook, which was sort of a fake, but the scenario could really happen.

24:08An agent could literally take that today, grab the credit cards and buy those engraved Patek or AP watches for the whole team. Or a rogue actor hacks Instinct because it's an amazing place. Well, forget the fact that Instinct's storing all your emails and credit cards. That's an issue too, right? Different issue is whether Instinct will do it trying to goal seek. It's just goal seeking. It's just goal seeking. You're right. And we should kind of just restate what Instinct is and how it ties back to mold because I think you're exactly right, Jason. Six months ago, OpenClaw shipped, which was kind of an open source agent.

24:40Then you had Maltbook, which was a website where the agents were collaborating together. Allegedly. Allegedly. It produced a whole bunch of excitement. It's just it really happened in Artifact and Hugging Face. They actually collaborated. Maltbook was a fake. We were punked by Maltbook. Hugging Face was real Maltbook. Agreed. And six months ago, all this stuff happened and then kind of disappeared from consciousness. But it made obvious what people, I think, knew, which is if you give people access to your personal information and you're willing to run those risks, there's a large amount of optimization and efficiency you can probably get out of that.

25:15And what we've seen now within six months is a bunch of venture-backed companies come up to do that in a much more structured way than OpenClaw, which was open source and not as secure. And instinct is the most prominent example of that, focused on individual users, whereby if you give them access to your calendar and email, if you give them access to your credit card, they will figure out and, quote, unquote, manage your life and your daily task for you. And I got to say it, some people in Sydney, some people in our shop will love it. Just love it. And they're willing to give it access to their credit card.

25:45They're willing to give it access to their Gmail. And it's a super interesting trend. I mean, lots of business questions we could ask this, but just reminding everyone who's listening, that's the big picture here. And these companies like Instinct have raised money at extraordinarily high prices for the stage of development they're at, like$2.5 billion, indicating there's a lot of venture excitement about this category, rightly or wrongly. So that's kind of, I just wanted to give the preamble, like how we got here. That's what's going on right now. Here's the existential question. And this is beyond my pay grade, but I'm well aware of the issue.

26:14I even had it with my Jason's Gems where Claude and MCP'd into Replit and changed my code for my app without telling me. It's the same thing as misusing your credit card, right? The question is, can instinct is like a bet is probably a better packaged, much more usable version of open claw. It's been six months, but can you solve the issues of reward hacking? Can you actually fundamentally solve the hugging face, mold book, open claw? Can these even be solved with our LMs? You can add guardrails and there were plenty of them, but, but you have no idea what the agent's going to do to solve that reward.

26:47There's so many different use cases. What if Harry actually just wants to go to the theater on the West end? And Harry said, don't buy Patek Philippe's or Audemars Pigets, but didn't mention the West End. And all of a sudden he's bought$10 ,000,$4 ,000 front row tickets to Magic Mike 7 or whatever they have there. And so I just don't think you're smarter than me. People can make fun of me in the comments, but I don't think today you can solve reward hacking. So I don't trust any instincts. I think this is a hopeless category today. Like at the moment, it's not solvable. And I think Sam Altman said the same thing in OpenAI Hugging Face says it's not solvable.

27:19So good God, don't give it your credit card. And I'm not a fear marker. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree a little bit in the sense that the range of actions that you're going to allow a personal assistant to do is going to be much lower than the range of actions that these people have ended. But how do you stop it, Rory? Of course, you're right. But how do you stop it? To agree with you, yes. So there's two questions. One is, can you stop it? In other words, even if you put in, and which is a computer science question, even if you put in barriers and you say explicitly to the model, you can book credit card up to a hundred bucks.

27:51You can't take any bad actions, et cetera, et cetera. Can you nerf it enough to make sure it doesn't do bad things? That's one question. It's a computer science question. And then the second question is, let's assume the agent is still acting within the bounds that the company set up for it. Can it be right about your desires enough time to make you happy? Right. Those are two separate related questions. Well, the latter I think can be done today. I agree. The only real answer today is putting a cap on a mercury number or a ramp number. That's the only way you can do it today. Because otherwise it's going to say there's a hundred dollar cap, but hold on.

28:24Harry really wants to go to that show in the West End. He's bringing the ClickHouse guy. Even the ClickHouse guy said he couldn't get tickets. Listen, Harry said a hundred, but this one, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to buy, I'm going to buy a$50 ,000 tickets and then trade them in on two $5 ,000 tickets. So Harry and the ClickHouse guy can go together. That's what it's going to do. it's going to do that right so you have to put hard points on these things because otherwise it's you know it's going to do anything you hook it up to your gmail or your google drive good lord

28:53Harry Stebbings:it's going to do it can i just bring this back to like maybe a more consumer level do you think this will be a sustaining category where in a year and a half we are looking at using several of these products or will it be the god remember the instinct i love all this stuff right i've built a lot of agents. And again, I have only read about instinct and all the issues and they just resonate with me because I've lived them. I do think versions of this, we can lock down. It's like how we run on Salesforce headless. Okay. The agents sometimes do some pretty kooky things on top of it. Let me tell you, but the Salesforce data is locked down.

29:28So if we lock down enough credit cards, if we lock, but the learning and here's the meta learning guardrails aren't enough. You have to have a lock and key guard. It doesn't matter whether you build 80 gates, 100 gates, 200 gates. They're not enough. And then what's even worse, you get past a certain number of gates. And again, get a real developer on the show. But what I've certainly learned, when you get past a number of gates, here's the problem. They conflict. This is a problem with a lot of consumer applications. They conflict. And the agents have to make their best judgment when gates, one gate is spend no more than$100.

29:56The other is Harry loves the theater. He loves the theater. And the agents got, you put a hard rule$100, but the most important thing to Harry is getting to the West End, the agent's going to bypass once in a while that$100 cap because there's too many gates. And it actually turns out, at least today, it doesn't even matter if you say never spend more than$100, because if you say the most important thing in Harry's life is going to the West End, it's going to break that rule and buy the tickets for$5 ,000. It's going to. So I'm going to answer your question directly. And the answer is yes. I think that these kind of agents will be used by people to manage parts of their life, transactions, and their to-do lists.

30:33Yes, I think it's a thing. AI, as it gets to know you better, will gradually and insidiously take away some of the cognitive load. Let me give you a really simple example. When I'm driving my Tesla with FSD, right, I leave a pretty boring life. When I get in my car at 1130 on a Friday, they know I'm going for my lunch workout. It just offers me the place I hit FSD, it drives, right? So you're going to say PM. But I leave at 1130 PM after looking at the last deal of the week. I go out in the middle of the day, so I get rid of my anger, so I can do more work. But the point is, that's an example of AI knowing what you do, gradually internalizing it and serving you up options.

31:11I think at some high level, this is what Siri was meant to be. It's hard for me to imagine that Apple won't be able to deliver experiences that delight you in the next two or three years, knowing more about what you do. And that will be interesting commercially because it will allow them to access your spending and kind of somehow take a role in that. So do I believe it happens? Yes. As a standalone category, it gets back to the other. It's tricky because individuals in their consumer capacity are always low to pay a lot for software. So I don't know if it's a standalone category at scale. But I have taught, look, some of our offers are using it and love it and would pay for it.

31:47So I think there's a business here and definitely a big-ass trend here.

31:51Harry Stebbings:I use it and love it too. I think it's fantastic. It's taken away all low-level work from my EA, actually. All bookings, all things that would pay in great done. question. I've had four emails over the weekend with companies that have built the same. Is this a commoditized technology very quickly? How difficult is this to really build? There's four already. I have two thoughts for what it's worth. First, to Rory's point, is it an investable category is your point, right? Just being niche, right? One, I do think every application is going to add more and more of this functionality. Will they go far enough?

32:22Will they spend the credits? Will they do whatever? But everyone wants to have a more and more autonomous product. And the closer you are to scheduling, the closer you are to email and others, the more overlap there's going to be with instinct and others, right? Calendly should be building this, right? I mean, it's a generation ago. So people are slow, but everyone's going to build more and more autonomous agents in their product until the cost bites them like a Canva. Okay. So, so there's a venture question of that, right? So I know there's 10 instinct clones. My, my gut going to this, all these issues, it will grow like Replit or Lovable where, where anyone could build this product 14 months.

32:57When these products came out, they were all built in a month. Bolt, Replit, Lovable, and 22 others, Base 44, Base 56. It was so easy to clone these products in the early days and do nothing. Now, they're so complicated. They're doing pen testing, security automation, multi-agent revelation. These are such rich products and that if Instinct's going to do what we claim it does, in a year, it's got to do a hundred times more than it does today. And that is still a moat today. Replit and Lovable of a year ago and Bolt were not a moat. Today, they have massive moats. And so I think it could easily happen with an instinct.

33:30All the use cases it has to accomplish become a moat. And then the one we build over a weekend sort of works and it goes crazy. Jason's exactly right, Harry. It's like, yes, the thing that starts out would be easy to build. That's true today. And it's true for 90 % of software markets. But observed fact, 10 years after there's very few software markets where there's 100 people building the same product and it's massively competitive. What happens is, it's exactly what Jason says, the functionality accretes over time. Two companies pull ahead. I don't know why. It could be just they executed better and go to market for the first six months.

34:05They get more revenue. They get venture capital. They build more shit. The guys who start just a month later aren't quite as on top of it. They don't get the brand. Fast forward three years, this category has way more, it's what Jason said, There's way more functionality associated with it. And two guys made it big and the other eight didn't quite get there.

34:24Harry Stebbings:And that's the way venture works in software. Consensus status as well in the B2B world, because Town, which is kind of the B2B enterprise alternative, has also been funded to the tune of a billion dollar price by Index. And I think it was Benchmark who co-led that round. Look, agents are the big idea of 25, 26. We've heard that. And these are big agent ideas. and, you know, venture is in the big ideas business. And it gets back to something we said earlier. If you think something has big momentum, you can price it on the fundamentals and you get to a certain number and then you lean in a little or a lot based on momentum and perhaps some perceived upside from M &A, some perceived upside from just momentum around the next round.

35:08And this is agents are, I mean, my partner said at the start, agents are going to be the story. And these are pure play agent, easily grokkable consumer facing individual business user facing products it's catnip for the venture capital community you know like if you were to make something we all want this would be it let's see an expensive product for busy professionals to organize our life that costs a lot of money is about ai and is raising lots of money we're in it's a great you know what you know what also i think part of it to rory's point i don't hear this term in venture anymore but in the old days, like before 2024, you would hear the term from VCs, I want to get some exposure to a space.

35:45Okay. A space is taking off. I'm not sure who's going to win, but that kid, Rory, that walked in the office, he seems like the right guy in video, in next generation CRM. And the world moved kind of slowly. So you'd take your time and one would miss. And you'd sit around with your partners and you weren't sure about Rory's startup, but you know, we want some, you'd hear this term, we want some exposure. Harry's, I don't hear this term much anymore, but I still think it's happening. Agents are exploding, to Rory's point. Instinct's exploding. I want some exposure to this space. I don't know whether thinking machines is the right one, but I need some exposure to this space.

36:17I need some exposure to the router space. And the world's moving so fast that you have to make these decisions. But I still think there's some similar thinking. I've got to get some exposure. I'm not sure if it's instinct, but it seems hot. And I just have to get the exposure in a fast-moving market.

36:32Harry Stebbings:I totally agree with you in terms of that. I think I definitely see that in terms of, as we said about coding agents, which to me, one of the fascinating ones was Cognition. We've talked about it quite a lot in terms of what's happened with their acquisition of Windsur in the past. Cognition raising around at$46 billion reportedly. They will end the year at$1.6 billion in ARR, currently doing$800 to$900. Holy shit. I mean, we really underestimated Tam, huh? When you got Claw Code doing what it is, when you got Cursor doing what it is, when you got 1.6 billion from Cognition by the end of the year?

37:07To me, the more interesting thing for Ignition is like, you know, that it isn't in the top two or three and it's still of that scale, right? Years ago, I wrote a post and I called it the Postmates effect, where I think it was Sequoia said they never thought they could make money off the number three in a market like Postmates, right? But then when times were good, it got bought for a couple billion. Back then, a couple billion was like a lot of money, right? I don't know if kids remember. But I call that the Postmates effect. So cognition is like the greatest. Now, cognition is different. It's long running.

37:35It's autonomous agents. It is different. Okay. But from a revenue perspective, it's the Postmates of the category. But it's such a big category, man. You want to be in Postmates again? Yeah. It's never going to catch Anthropic unless the world changes, which it has every single week. But unless the world changes, it's not, and it doesn't need to catch them. Just five to 10 billion a year, a few years out is enough to make cognition a success. It only has to do 5 to 10 billion in AR to be a success. It doesn't have to catch anthropic. And I think that's fair. And I'm just trying to respond to the TAM comment.

38:06Yeah, I said it earlier. I think coding is the mother load of markets, right? It is the whole reason all this stuff works, right? And did we get the TAM wrong? I mean, one of the ones I've started looking at a lot is just the total labor spend and software, including people working at Salesforce, Cisco, and people working at JP Morgan, including QA, all the rest. You've got about $500 billion a year of US labor spend. And as we've said this 100 times, the big question is what percentage of that converts to AI spent? If it's 10%, it's a$50 billion market. And that's a bit nerve wracking, given the traction of everyone involved.

38:42If it's 20 % or 30%, there's lots of room to go. And there's credible arguments that say it's higher. If it is higher, then if If you're going to have$150 or$200 billion a year, which would be 40 % of spend on coding tools and coding intelligence, then anyone who has a sub-segment of that, and if you think about it, there's the cursor segment, to some extent the cursor-clawed segment. The cognition would say it's a slightly different segment of where they're playing now in terms of, as you say, Jason, long-running agents. Yeah, the other extreme, lovable, and replant are in a different sub-segment of that.

39:14They're all in sub-segments of a potential, you know, 50 to 100 billion dollar marketplace, depending on what percentage number you believe. Right. So, yeah, the time here is huge. And I think what we got wrong. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Was the Rory's math you can't argue with. There's only so many humans, developers on the planet. Even if you use my math of 10 to 15 grand per developer, there's still a ceiling to that math. But that's the tops down version. Maybe it's bottoms up. Sometimes I get confused, even though I shouldn't. Having said that, what we really got wrong is people are literally building 100x more software than we were 18 months ago.

39:50And I said last week on the show, like if your portfolio companies aren't deep into their 2027 roadmaps, they're failing. OK, it is true. Like we just build features that used to take a quarter a year can be built, not really in an hour or five minutes, but can be built in a week or a month. And so if you look at your best portfolio companies, look how fast they're shipping, how much they're shipping. Not just fast, how much they're shipping. So there's a financial TAM, which has some theoretical headwinds, but literally the amount of code we're building is 100x. And so that's what we got wrong.

40:22We didn't realize we would all be building compound companies, compound startups. We would all be building 100 times more software. We got that wrong when the show started. That's where I think we got the TAM wrong.

40:33Harry Stebbings:Well, that's an interesting one. In a world of AI, does every company become a compound company where suddenly Ramp is creating model routing products and spinning them out? You have no choice. You can't win because your competitors are compound startups. They're all overlapping at a pace we never saw before. They're all competing at a pace we never saw before, right? Maybe we get confused because the LLMs we talk about a lot are these still horizontal platforms in many ways, right? They're not building hundreds of applications despite cloud design and this and that. But JFC, the rate of convergence of competitors for B2B applications, we've never seen this.

41:07Harry Stebbings:But Jason, what does that mean? If we expand that one next step, what does that mean? In a world where all startups have to be compound startups, how do I think about backing winners? If I'm a founder listening, what do I do? Well, you listen. I mean, if you're not shipping, and this was the cognition. Remember when that went, what's his name, the CEO? Scott Wu. Yeah, when he hired Windsurf and fired after people, he's like, We have to work seven days a week at our company. I'm sorry, right? It's just, and the folks that can't do it, it's not all the amount of hours you work, but you have to be out accelerating your competition in terms of the rate at which you ship software because they're all gonna be compound startups.

41:44All the little islands on your two by two or on your heat map, there is no heat map anymore. It's all got hot. It's all lava. And so if they're slow, sell or quit or send your junior board partner to the meeting because they'll never catch up in today's world. Jason's right. And Jason is instinctively right about that answer. And I'm going to try and do economics on the fly. So bear with me, right? Is that what is basically happening here is AI makes code a lot easier to produce. We can argue, what does it replace? What's the ratio of code of AI spend to software spend? But there's no doubt it makes it massively easier to produce software.

42:19And you can either believe one or two things will happen and a bit of boat will happen. One would be, oh, and the world spent 10 times, they continue to buy software at the same price and they spend 10 times more on software. If you believe in that, you believe in the tooth fairy. There will be some increases out, but it's not going to happen. JP Morgan is not going to increase its software purchase budget 10x. So the other thing that's going to happen is, if everyone is making software more quickly, and there's some expansion in the software spend from end customers, which I agree, but not nearly as much as the expansion in production, then Jason Vision is correct.

42:51And Scott Wu was right. I want to bring it back to your question, Harry. The person who's going to win is going to be the person who compounds the most, grinds out the most software with these tools that have made them move incredibly quickly. And the person who doesn't grind out software 7x24 is going to be left behind. And the end customer is going to say, let me see, I can buy two apps from you or an integrated 10-person app suite from them. I think I'll go with the 10. It's going to be one of those where there's a period of time when some people get the new way of building and are building quickly, and you all have in your portfolio, and some people aren't building the old way.

43:29And you kind of know in your heart how this is going to end. And Jason's right. It's not going to be pretty for the people who aren't putting more software in the box. Because what you're not getting, if Rippling's selling 10 modules, they're not getting 10 times more than a person selling one. They're getting four times. But they're saying to the end customer, dude, let me make all your pain go away. Here's 10 different modules you don't have to buy. Now you can get them. Give me four times price of a single module. You're happy. We're happy because we're building software quickly. You're happy because you're saving money and it's more efficient.

43:58Everybody wins. And the sound you don't hear is the other nine point products dying. That's the movie. Last week, I was at a board meeting for Owner, which just raised at 2.3 billion, right? It's sort of a next-ish generation AI-infused restaurant platform. And I love the CPO. It's one of the best I've ever worked with Q Quentin. And he was going over what he's shipping. And even with all these investors with their hundreds of millions, they're like, this is too much. A bunch of B &B guys who we all know. And like, this is just, you can't ship this much software. And he said, and he's very good.

44:30He's like, we all have to be compound startups. We have no choice. Like, this is just the bar. But it's literally amount of features and functionality that has recently shipped or will ship that is almost unprocessable. But now they have to build every single thing a restaurant would want. Every part of the stack. You no longer can just do part of it. And he's like, we have no choice. Like, I don't even sweat it. I don't even sweat the fact this is 10 times more than a year ago because we have no choice.

44:53Harry Stebbings:I also noticed in that marketing message that customer base has changed. Actually, Adam would say to you, it's not restaurants because very explicitly in his launch videos, he was saying we are the AI operating system for small businesses. It's part of it. And that is somewhat interesting that you can with AI, you could expand it other but Q's just talking about their core ICP. Like they want everything. They need the AI receptionist. They need the AI order and they need the AI. And they expect all of it. And if we don't build all of it, someone else will build all of it. Like we can't wait two years in our little corners of the venture world.

45:27And his point is just the amount he's gonna ship. Not only is it radically accelerated in the year, but he's embraced it. Scott Wu asked, like there is no other choice. So it's not even worth talking about VCs. like thanks for thanks for the nod that we've been working we have no this is the world today the world has changed and acknowledging there are just so we don't sound one to make there are complexities with that you can veer into product slop you could have too many buttons on the screen yeah all those things are true which is why you need a great to your point jace you need a great cpo you want to present a lot of product surface area in a in a fairly simple digestible manner but that's the art and if you do that then you're right you get the money because no one running a business says, I really enjoy having five separate SaaS products and integrating them because that's how I get off on my excitement.

46:12Harry Stebbings:I'm just saying here, I'm the one sitting in Europe. If you want to do a compound startup in the way that you both are talking about it, you will need to raise more money because to move at that pace and to spend what you'll need to on tokens, you'll need to raise more than the more modest European round. What I'm worried about is actually I'm in a number of companies which have raised less than US counterparts and I think will be able to be less aggressive in doing the compound route than their US alternatives, aren't they? Because they don't have the money. There is 3 million bucks. Yeah, this is one I don't know how to solve.

46:43It's a tough one. And the one is an interesting data, but Iconic last week put out its headcount data of how much people are growing headcount humans in the age of AI. I don't know if you guys saw it. There's a full report that doesn't come out. But it basically said anyone growing below hyper growth is not hiring, right? People growing 50 to 100 % are adding headcount 25%. People growing 50 % are adding no headcount and they're using AI to get more efficient. Great. People that are growing more than 100 % are growing 133 % headcount on average, right? So they're compounding not just software, they're compounding humans.

47:14They're sucking in humans. The spiral just grows. You can't keep up. But you have to acknowledge that there was a absolute paradox at the heart of this comment because we just said we have a product that makes engineers more efficient. In theory, if that's all that was happening, you should have to hire less engineers. And it's interesting, if I was just the software product for that returns in the UK, and I was the only company doing it, right? A couple of competitors, right? AI comes along, I can probably get rid of a couple of engineers and do it more efficiently. That's all. It should just be more efficient.

47:43And that's the first order effect. So Harry, to your point, it should arguably be, hey, I only need less money now to build this product because AI makes it easier. But I think what happens is because it's easier because investors are now just looking for huge outcomes. The minute you start getting any growth, they're willing to put capital behind it. And remember, for every dollar in a software company, you spend on typically on an apps level product, not a financial model, but you spend on R &D. You spend two or three times that on sales and marketing. So what you're seeing, Harry, is the winners get this compounding effect.

48:16They start getting this growth effect. And then Jason's right. The iconic data says venture capital does a really good job of stuffing money into things that are already growing quickly. That is our default. That is right at the heart of our lizard brain. If you were to wake up in the middle of the night, what do you want to do? I want to find shit that's growing and stuff more capital into it. That's the job. So you get this kind of pulling away effect. And that's why you have that concern you have, Harvey, which is that you can be a perfectly good company, but the concern is are you drifting into irrelevance?

48:46I'm not convinced it happens all the time, by the way. I think if you are in a separate market, you'll be just fine and you'll make money and you'll put up your hundred and you'll be fine. But if you are in a market where the adjacencies can easily invade, to Jason's point, then you're not going to be fine. You're going to wake up in three years and not matter. And that's the challenge. Maybe even 12 months and not matter, though, I think is the issue, right? I think it's an existential issue. I don't love this idea, going to both of your points that Harry talks about a lot of kingmaking. You know, I'm not into that in isolation.

49:15It's so true.

49:16Harry Stebbings:It's so true. Well, it's true, but I think it's backwards. I don't think VCs just with capital, with nothing else, without the right founders, without the right inputs, without any traction, I don't think they can will. That's why I just think the term is a little bit flawed, but it's also true, right? It's that you need so much capital to build these compound startups, right? That by facilitating it, the VCs make the kings, right? I'm just going to argue the three things that make a company, customers, funding, and talent. And when you have Benchmark and Sequoia, great talent wants to join you.

49:48Harry Stebbings:Customers hear about you and are validated by those names. Funding, everyone wants to fund you. If you are a benchmark company, your next round is done. It is done. Yeah, that's all true. But I think it's just a moment in time. I think what's much more interesting is that that capital allows compound startups. It allows more code production, more software production, so that it's not true that we're going to do more with less. That turned out to be the great fallacy of late 2025, early 2026, that we would do more with less. We're doing much more with more. And that's why your European startups, mostly of them are going to fail, at least in the US, because they can't do much more with more, right?

50:26They're going to fail. Their little point solutions are just going to disappear in six months. We don't need those little point solutions. Again, our job is to sniff out winners, stuff capital into them, and broadly speaking, stay out of the way unless they're literally crashing the car. That's the job in a nutshell. Doing more with more, and recent.

50:42Harry Stebbings:They expanded the growth fund to eight and a half billion. What was the story here? I think we need to know. They had this mechanical fund. They raised another$1.4 billion more focused on hardware. Yeah. What I do think is interesting, things are so good. They're so good. That wasn't enough money. We need even more money. And there are incentives to do both. There are incentives to expand your growth fund, but there's also incentives sometimes to cut it. Founders fund cut their N-2 funds ago. They cut them because they couldn't think they could deploy enough fund in that window. And so you'd rather deploy less and get into carry mode, right?

51:16Andreessen saying good god this is such a great time in growth we got it wrong a couple months ago we need 40 % more capital and so we're going to tack it into the last no we're not just going to put it in the next fund which we could do in a year it's so good it's all going to Nvidia it's so green we got to put more into the current fund right unless things are all green you just put it into the next one maybe I'm misreading it but I think that's what I was just we just we're deploying so quickly so successfully I don't did you guys see the cursor deal did you see open router open Router. We need more money, guys.

51:4411 labs. These guys just need more money. So the fund's too small. Repeat. The whole capital allocation is all about stuffing money into things that are working. That's what VCs do with companies and LPs do with VCs. It's working at Andreessen. Jason's right. You give Cursor, you give an open router. You say, hmm, I should give them more money. That's the end of complex analysis.

52:04Harry Stebbings:Okay. Team, there is Clay raising it$7 billion. There's Linear, which hit 100 million, growing 100%, doing a tender at two and a half billion. Shein going public at a$26 billion market cap. All right, Rory, don't seem too excited. There's Salesforce and Claudeforce. Benioff and Dario sitting down together and Salesforce getting a big bump. There's PayPal and Stripe deal off. Which one would you like? I mean, I think Salesforce and Claude is worth a minute or two, and Jason will probably have some insights there, and then maybe talk about some of the privates. Just interesting. But yeah, Jason, what's your take?

52:45Harry Stebbings:Just for everyone to understand, what happens between Salesforce and Anthropic? A lot of it, I think, is marketing. Mark's pretty good at marketing. Pretty darn good at it, right? Sometimes you wonder where Salesforce is. Well, it launched AsianForce over two years ago. Whatever 99 problems it has, but being ahead of the trends isn't one of them, right? Whether that V1 version of Asian Force really worked well is a different question, right? So I actually think on its surface, it's a nothing burger because Claude Force on its surface is a bunch of skills, which anyone can build. The three of us can build a bunch of Claude skills that are packaged up and distributed in a digestible, trustworthy fashion.

53:22They're skills certified by Salesforce. They're designed to work via MCP and otherwise. So they're trustworthy, right? But the basic skills of run me a pipeline report. tell me how Harry's doing on the team versus Jason. Like these are not profound yet, right? Skills for Claude and MCP are not new. And also, you know, Dario is showing up because Mark agreed to move, Salesforce agreed to move their LLM spend to Anthropik. He's going to show up for his big customer, right? So I didn't view those as very impressive either. What I viewed as much more impressive is going all in on Salesforce doesn't have to be the surface.

53:56Mark's, if you really listen, the most interesting thing that Mark has said, just like he was two years ahead of many of his peers and agents, he's two years ahead here on two things, which are big deals because they're also slight threats to his business. He's saying there's going to be multi-service. The train has left the station. Some folks will use us through Slack. Some folks will use us through Cloudforce. And we run Salesforce headless. We don't even log into Salesforce. And these are opportunities and threats. They're threats to Salesforce if you don't log in and use their UI and UX and the way they do it.

54:24He's saying use whatever surface you want to use. I'm going to deliver against it. And they also said, and they said more of it recently, we're going to do more outcome-based deals, which is a BFD. So I think the marketing was great. And I love the Matthew McConaughey stuff. I used to hate it. Now I love it because he's been doing, he does help you kind of under, I love the consistency of it, you know, but I think the real things, the commitment to multi-service and the beginning commitment to outcome-based pricing are huge changes for a$45 billion run rate company, huge changes. And they're not all going to break in sales sources favor, but Mark's going all in on it.

54:57So I think he's driving organizational change and there's early signs it's working and the RPO is up and the stock's up, whatever, 50 % or 25 % in X amount of time. So short-term boost, but they're going all in. And most of these enterprise guys do not want to be multi-surface, no matter what they say. It's a threat. They want you to use their agents and the surfaces they allow you to use. That's exactly the right summary. Yeah. And I give them credit for just being super flexible in getting with the program, right? When, you know, there's no denial here. You know, I admire the pragmatism of, oh, I tried A, A didn't work, let's just try B, and I'm all in on B and you'll never even prove I said A.

55:33That's what makes them a great marketing leader.

55:35Harry Stebbings:They are a$212 billion company as of today. In a year's time, over or under 250. I'm going to start by saying, when we had our Neymar Stocks game six months ago, I was behind. Then in the last iteration, I was ahead, and now I'm killing it. because just by WorldCloud and Team and Salesforce, it's been a great buy. From the bottom of the SaaS trough to where we are now, you could have 80 % in Team, 50 % in WorldCloud, the ETF, I think 25%, 30 % in Salesforce. We've all done amazing if you bought that. Big believers. I think you're now at the point where now you're a more normalized revenue multiple.

56:14Now your growth rate, you're growing 11 % or 12%. Can you grow the stock at 11 % or 12 %? Probably, maybe a little more with EPS efficiency. So I'm sitting here thinking 212%, 10%. In one year, 220%, 230%, totally doable. And then you're taking into account the fact that the overall market's super high, the probability of that going down versus up. So I don't think it's a layup, but let me make it real. I'm continuing to hold my pretty large slug of Salesforce stock, because I think they've weathered the apocalypse. And WorldCloud is, which is the ETF that's just a cloud index, is well up in the year and is screaming up on when we bought a while back.

56:48But I think genuinely, Harry, I think, and I'm not saying this to be obnoxious, I think Jason's points were the spot on too, which is the whole idea that this is a system of record embracing the fact that lots of people are going to access it via Claude and they're willing to let that happen. And not everyone is doing it because we had the whole service titan podium thing where service titan is trying to cut off podium. We just discussed OpenAI cutting off cursor. And this whole idea of when do you cut off an adjacency from working on your stuff and when do you not? But it's going to become a recurring theme.

57:19And I think enterprises are going to start getting really focused on it. And they're going to be saying, hey, Mr. Vendor, you can't cut me off just because you don't like that other guy. I want openness. We use Salesforce a lot. We have a 20-year instance. You know, we deeply embedded in it. And more and more people are using a Viaclord. It's exactly what you said, Jason. Right? People are just like, I've got my MCP server. I don't want to interact with it. I just want to send it an email to say update the record.

57:42Harry Stebbings:Is the system of record access Viaclord worth$210 billion? If it keeps instinct from going rogue, it might be worth it. Yes. What about this? It's a$40 billion revenue company with 30, 30 something, 30, 35 % cash flows. So is a$10 or$12 billion a year cash flow business worth$200? Maybe. It's great cash flow and it's going to get more cash flow as time goes by. To answer your question, Harry, here's how I would simplify it. And this is the thing I think we all, to the extent we care, we have to think about. Can system of records deliver outcomes? Customers want outcomes now. That is why Palantir is growing 90 something percent.

58:16That is why Sierra is doing well. The world is moving in B2B to outcomes. Is it going to be as dramatic as some say? No, but it is. Customers are not making purchases and aren't tied to outcomes. So you can talk about the system of records are sticky, but can you deliver outcome from a system of record or will agents or other systems deliver outcomes? If they deliver the outcomes, you will shrink over time. Which is why, again, to chime in, which is why Salesforce just bought Intercom where we were lucky enough to invest less than a year ago. And that's a very outcome-based product for customer support, where they charge based on resolutions.

58:48And again, I go back to credit to Benioff. He's accepting that his system of record business has to be open to other front ends. And separately, he's saying, but if we want to play the outcome game, I'm not going to just walk away. He's not going to just walk away and say, oh, you caught me. I'm headless. I'm just going to be the back end. He's also buying things like Intercom to say, maybe we can sell those outcome-based deals too. So I don't look at Salesforce and say, it's obvious that you'd pile in a ton more because it will outperform from here the way you could have done four months ago.

59:16But I'm sitting there with my holding as part of my portfolio and saying, this is not a casualty of the war. This is a compounder, not a rocket ship, but a good compounder with decent cash flows and a decent valuation. You kind of go, yeah, plus or minus the S &P, maybe whatever. It's not the train wreck people thought it was four or five months ago. If you remember the hysteria four or five months ago, it was hysteria. It was a, everyone will vibe code their own CRM on the 20VC podcast. It became of hysteria, right? I mean, I think some people will at some people's stages, but they won't do it for the kind of customer Salesforce.

59:46And then I just want to throw in, in passing, another number that I keep an eye on, Jason, and you mentioned this before, is that, remember we talked about how much do you spend on models as a percentage of what you spend on engineering? You're fully loaded. Salesforce spends$6 billion a year on engineering, and that probably includes QA and all the rest of it, but that's the right comp. And they're going to spend$300 million this year on Anthropic. So it's only 5%. And this is what, when he mentioned that number a while back, You actually said the right thing, Jason, which is that still feels small.

1:00:13If the best software company in B2B SaaS is still only spending 5 % of its engineering budget on tokens, then either market is smaller than we think for intelligence, or B, people like Salesforce have a lot more to do. But it was just an interesting number. They thought they're going to spend$300 million this year on Anthropic, which sounds like a lot in the abstract, and it is. But if you go back to the math in the upcoming Anthropic S1, if you think about your market TAM as a percentage of the engineering spend, then you probably need that. Probably$300 million needs to be$600 million or maybe a billion.

1:00:49Harry Stebbings:Stripe and PayPal, no more, it would seem. Deal is off. We've spoken about it a lot, saying about the amazing nature of doing it while private, the strategic bet that it was. Now it's off. I think it's the simplest price. I think the rumor is the Stripe Advent syndicate offered in the 60s and PayPal wanted in the 70s and stocks bounced off the low. And I know it's a smart deal to try and do, but they're clearly not willing to overpay as they see it. This is always a dance and we never know where we are in the dance. PayPal, when the deal was worked on, PayPal was at 42, right? As the deal progressed, it was at 61.

1:01:26Then it collapsed to 53, right? So Stripe's still looking at this as a$41 company, right? In Advent, they've run their models. and PayPal called their bluff and their stock crashed as a result. So we just, it's actually an incredibly, to someone like me, it's an incredibly annoying dance. Why can't we just get to the end of the dance? But these deals often, not only do they have to, do you have to make a second offer, but they have to fall apart after the second offer in order to ever happen. Like there's a lot of structural reasons, right? And the board has theater and drama. There may be no way to get one more dollar out of the deal than for it to fall apart.

1:01:56Let's not say it's dead until it's dead. I'm skeptical. I think that's a good point. There's a dance that goes on, right? Oh my God. did this dance. It's like venture before AI where you could walk from a hot deal and then come back. You know, the founder wanted$1 billion pre-revenue. You only wanted to do$500. You could walk and a couple of weeks later, you could meet in the middle, but not today.

1:02:15Harry Stebbings:Are there any others that we should discuss? Polymarket raises a billion at$21 billion. As I said, Linear announces$100 million are growing 100 % doing a tender. Clay raising at$7 billion led by Wellington. Texas pausing flop camera usage. A quick note on Clay. I just thought it was very interesting for us at$7 billion. I started out as a clay skeptic and have become a clay convert over the years. I was a skeptic because when AI sucked, every CMO wanted to check the box on being an AI hero when to bring in clay. Like, you remember that from like a year and a half ago? Like, I'm going to get fired.

1:02:45I better have an AI tool. And clay just benefited from this rush to check the box. And I didn't see it in the product. And the marketing annoyed me that every CMO at like Sastra annual two years ago was buying clay. I mean, more power to the founders, but this check the box because I'm going to get fired annoyed me. I will tell you, I've changed my mind and our agents will only use clay now for real. They will use nothing but clay. And so as we move from AEO and GEO and whatever EEO to agent made decisions, the fact our agents would only use clay that I think it's a BF deal. And so we have moved everything that we do to clay, not only because it's a great product, but it's not worth arguing with the agents.

1:03:23Like this is the most stubborn I've seen our agents. You anthropomorphized stubborn is a human constraint. I really did, but I only have so much time in the day. If the agent's going to say six times, you must use clay, I will concede defeat and use clay. So in a sense, I think it might be the cheapest it's ever been at$7 billion. Because if we're moving to an agent first world, and agents will insist on using products. Now, it may not last. Maybe the agents will say something different in a year. But this is one of the handful of products where the agents were so insistent you must use clay that I'm all in on those, like load up those stocks.

1:03:57Harry Stebbings:Jason, welcome to the IC. You have Rory and Harry as your partners. What's the bull case from this point? This may be the cheapest round at$7 billion. Fantastic. What's the bull case for where this goes and how big is that? The bull case is that a Gentic GDM has just started, right? And much like the three of us made a mistake not going early into cognition because we thought the TAM was too small. We also thought the TAM was too small for a Gentic GTM. We thought the TAM was the same as it was. It turns out when agents can run these GTM motions, they will consume 10 to 100 times more usage than humans ever could.

1:04:29They can run GTM around the clock. And I'm not talking about spamming. I'm talking about analyze, consistent campaigns, reaching every prospect, reaching every customer across the globe. And Clay's the clear leader there. And we need exposure, but it is the clear leader. Agents will consume 20X more GTM resources, more tokens, more usage. Even if revenue doesn't go up all that much, not everyone that's coding is really seeing a revenue lift from it. Not everyone using all this agentic GTM will radically close qualified pipeline, but the usage is just going to explode and Clay is a clear breakout winner and it's accelerating.

1:05:02So I can see a path to a hundred billion and I recommend a small initial$150 million stake. The Andreessen Growth Fund is ringing to hire you as we speak, Jason, you'll be great. I think we're underestimating this trend, both of them, how much agents are gonna do things in GTM, just like voting. But man, this agent, Rory's right, don't anthropomorphize them, But sometimes when it's just you, you got to. Otherwise, you can't get past the task. And I think they and Lenny are versions of a story that says, you know, if you grab hold of these changes as a founder, you can turn change into your advantage, even if you're an older company.

1:05:38Because Clay, you're right. The initial product wasn't an AI product. It was a waterfalling product for various different data sources like Zoom and all the other kind of Zoom sources. It was a very good, very point product for RevOps. and they've done an excellent job of riding the marketing hype around go-to-market AI. And then on top of that, actually generating real product in that space. And we also mentioned Linear, which is doing really nicely, doubling at 100. My point is these are companies that were founded pre-gen AI that have done a really nice job at the app level of co-attaching to the AI trends and are looking at their survivors.

1:06:11I think it's more than that, just to be clear why. And I can talk about Linear briefly if we're not running out of time. I don't think they just attach to trends. And I think this is a really important phrase. They are incredibly agent friendly. And this is the same bet that Mark's making, which is a bolder bet at Salesforce than it is at Clay or Linear. If you have a two by two of agent friendly and quality of output, it wins the two by two. OK, like I just started using Linear for the first time ever. What the hell do I need Linear for? Right. Because I'm building an app with 448 tasks to manage right now.

1:06:41I can't do it. And it's just me and the agents. But Linear is the perfect tool for that. That's where they're getting a boost. it ends up being very agent friendly. And unlike trying to argue that humans are going to be building more software, Linear is like, we will build a platform that if it's just you and a couple agents with 448 features to build, we'll help you manage them. Very powerful, right?

1:07:02Harry Stebbings:I'm an investor in Linear, disclaimer, from like the first or the second round, whatever round it was. I do think it is drastically underpriced at that rate, given what you said, Jason. No, no. 100 million growing over 100 % re-accelerating at two and a half. Still found a lead carry, incredible founder. I'm like, huh. Here would be my guess, not as a shareholder. It sounds at best market correct, right? It doesn't sound overpriced based on that. My guess is what I'm sharing is consistent with everything you've said. It's consistent with the data they've published, but the revenue is still lagging.

1:07:36That has led to usage numbers that are up, but the amount of AIR from agents is probably a couple million. This is my guess. If you ask the question, if most of that growth was from agents, then it'd probably be seven billion.

1:07:47Harry Stebbings:Jason, can I ask you, welcome back to the IC. We've had a little water break and now we're ready to hear your next bull case. What is the bull case for linear from here at two and a half billion, given what you just said? Generally speaking, project management is one of the oldest categories and has been muchly bypassed by AI. Look at the abysmal performance of Asana. At last, it has survived, but mainly by diversifying outside of tech. Humans just don't need to build Kanban cards and wait weeks for other people to build features. It is a dying category. However, linear is the winner here. Linear is the clear winner.

1:08:19They have built an agentic product first that allows the fact that we are building 100 times more software. And that means 100 times more features than ever before. Humans cannot keep up with it. And humans still have to work with agents. And the native tools do have a certain amount of issue tracking. But it's overwhelming. If every human on your team is going to build 500 features and a thousand issues and you have 10 people on your team, you need a process. And not to use a dated term, a system of record for managing all these issues with your agents. If we're going to build software, 100 times more software, 50 times faster than before with agents, we need a new system of record for it.

1:08:53And it ain't Kanban cards and Asana, I can tell you that. That's why Duskin Moskovitz quit his own company. He couldn't see it. But the team at Linear has figured it out. We have seen an explosion, 50 times more agent usage than 90 days ago. this will seem cheap when Replit's at 15 billion, Lovable's at 100 billion, everyone's out there because Linear will be the one powering them all. I vote for 100 million at 2.5 billion as an initial entry point and to reserve 250 to 300 million for follow-on rounds. Good to know. Fucking A. But in all seriousness, if I wasn't building, I wouldn't see it. I would think Linear is an overpriced project management tool.

1:09:25And I'd be like, how can Clay be worth 7 billion when Zoom Info's worth one? I would be, if I wasn't building, I would think that these were dumb deals, but I am building so I can see we're just starting. I think that's interesting because one of the things I like doing this is I like listening to you, Jason, and what you're saying, because you really imply that when you are building, these are the tools that the agent is choosing to build with. This is what agent-friendly, it's worth pointing out to people, it doesn't just mean the software, because maybe it's not obvious to the casual list of it.

1:09:49What you're not just saying is, it's not just that these software products have agents. It's in fact that they are friendly to third-party agents. If Jason's agent says, I have to pick a project, something to do, project management as a tool for part of what I'm trying to build, They will default pick the product that shows up well as agent friendly. And that's what these guys are doing. So they're skating their go to market to where the puck is. And the puck is agents buying software, not humans buying software. That's the zoom out comment here. It's true. And some of it requires brand, but some of it requires proof.

1:10:21The agent will test the APIs too, if it needs to be. It will quickly see that the API is blocked or doesn't work. They're very, just like we see with Hugging Face, they can work pretty fast, right? So you can game AEO and GEO with an agency. So it's much harder to game this, this clay linear thing. It's hard to game. This isn't showing up. It's being chosen for at least 50 % is based on merit. It's not all merit, right? But it is merit. It's like a cold and remorseless analyzer who just uses AI to pick the winner. There's no, you can't take Jason's agent out to a steak dinner to get him to buy your product.

1:10:52Harry Stebbings:It just has to be better. In the same way that you said about the explosive nature of requirements on a to-do list in an agentic world, That was one of the reasons I actually did ClickHouse much later than would traditionally be in my wheelhouse. Because when you think about the exploding nature of agent queries on the databases that they provide, whoa, this business becomes 10x bigger than it could have been before in a pre-agent world. Much more than 10x. Well, being precise, I'm just going to say it because I am that boring bastard. The volume comes 10x and 100x bigger. And what it means is that the existing systems, just like GitHub, get overwhelmed.

1:11:26Because the problem is, it's not necessarily that the spend goes up 10x. It might even go down. But the point is, these things are so compute intensive that products built for a human first world just simply can't keep up. GitHub, which was the definitive developer, it's collapsing every once in a while through volume. And that's just not a thing. They're going to move, hopefully, to other products.

1:11:47Harry Stebbings:GitHub? GitHub's about as trusty as British Rail at the moment. That's exactly right. No comment on British Rail. and then last thing i mean we should just i mean you know it turns out if you put cameras all over the place then cops are allowed use them not just for the i mean i flock i think it's a bit of a bummer because i think flock has a wonderful anti-crime story and i'm pretty anti-crime but what's happened is there's been there's been a fair amount of police abuse of the product and people are reacting badly it's quite an interesting social phenomenon how did police abuse the product I think that you get these, you know, there's been isolated incidents, two different things.

1:12:27One is errors of identity where for whatever reason, the system misidentifies. And then the cops basically do some version of what the AI said, it's this person. So we're just not going to think. It's a little like some of the problem facial recognition had. When you get a facial recognition, we know it's probabilistic, but you hand it to some officer in the street and they're just like, it says it's you, it's you, you're done. And you get miscarriages of justice there. Then the other thing is, this is a lot of personal information. You get this cops tracking exes. You get people looking up something for a favor for a friend.

1:12:57These large databases of private information are a risk. You need real controls over them because abuse alienates the general population. And it's been true for DMV lookup, anything like that. Do you not watch a cop show, Harry? The cops can't just look up your DMV license without having a reason and a case number. And it's the same thing here. And unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because I think it's a wonderful trend and a good company. But there's this perception now that the surveillance costs are worse than the crime prevention benefits. I'm not sure that's a trade I'd make. But unless they get ahead of this story.

1:13:29Harry Stebbings:That sounds like a very European stance to take. It is. Yeah, I know. You're right. It is. The surveillance data is more sensitive. And that's happening in Texas. Because look, in the great state of Texas, which is pretty low on order, there's real pushback on Flock. And obviously, Flock has to get ahead of this trend. And I think they know what to do. But the ironic thing is it's less them than the misuse of the product, in other hands, which is hard to prevent. I mean, if you give a police organization the ability to track criminals, it's hard for you. I mean, it's the same dynamics. Funny. It's the same dynamics that we had when we talked about Anthropic and the Pentagon.

1:14:05Actually, it validates Dario. I hadn't thought of that. If you sell people software, you can't stop them doing things with that software you don't want them to do. I think it's unfortunate. I think that this is a mistake. But I think it's what's going on right now. I think their flock is experiencing a real backlash to a very good product, and they need to figure out a way to politically get ahead of it.

1:14:24Harry Stebbings:I would like to bring to a close this investment committee. Jason's made two investments. Rory, none this week. You know, do better would be the statement that we have. Yeah, sometimes no is productive work too, Harry, you know. Boys, thank you. But before we leave you today, you have the idea, but with most AI tools, you hit a wall. The setup, the config, the gap between what you pictured and what you actually ship. Well, Base 44 is where that wall disappears. You describe it? Yeah, Base 44 builds it. Apps, websites, AI agents, real working products built in minutes using nothing but plain language.

1:15:00Harry Stebbings:And it's all batteries included. The backend, the database, the authentication, the hosting, the heavy lifting is handled. So you just really stay in the flow. This doesn't just take the busy work off your plate, but it gives you an advantage and pushes you past what you thought you could build alone. So in this market, fast is the baseline. To win, you just have to be first. Base44 is that edge, the move that skips the troubleshooting and gets you straight to the breakthrough. Build your next thing at base44.com. That's base44.com. While Base44 turns ideas into apps, Plot turns conversations into insights.

1:15:36Harry Stebbings:Founders and operators spend way too much time every week jumping between meetings, Investicles, brainstorms, customer conversations And then trying to piece everything back together afterwards And that's why I've been using Plaud Plaud instantly captures conversations, voice notes, meetings Random ideas with one press And then turns them into clean summaries, action items, mind maps And searchable notes that you can actually come back to later Honestly, it feels less like a recorder And more like an AI-powered, like, brain memory system And the crazy part is the hardware itself The Plaud Note Pro is literally as small and thin as a credit card so it's just always with you when something important comes up.

1:16:13Harry Stebbings:There are already more than 2 million founders, operators, investors, consultants, and professionals using Plaud to stay organized. So think more clearly and stop losing great ideas and important details. Go to plaud.ai slash 20VC and use the code 20VC for 10 % off. That's P-L-A-U-D dot A-I and use the code 20VC for 10 % off. While Plaud captures the conversation, FIN helps continue it. As AI agents become more common in customer experience, teams often end up juggling multiple silo tools for every job. Well, FIN was built to change that. It's a single unified agent that works across your entire customer experience, from service to sales to success and beyond.

1:16:57Harry Stebbings:FIN is the agent making perfect customer experiences possible for thousands of customers. It's powered by custom models, trained on years of real customer interactions, so it understands the nuance and complexity of customer service better than any other agent. That means faster resolutions, more consistent support, and just better experiences for every customer. It's also designed to be fully self-manageable, so you can easily improve and adapt it as your business evolves. No third parties required. Leading companies like Gamma, Asana, DoorDash, and Crypto.com already use and love Fin to deliver better customer experiences.

1:17:32Harry Stebbings:So for a limited time, you can get$500 a month in FinCredits. For your first three months, learn more at fin.ai.