Colin Lernell

How do you win in the AI era? Speed? That seems to be what YC, VCs, and everyone else are preaching: launch faster, iterate faster, use the latest tools, move faster than everyone around you. Speed is supposed to be the only moat left. That might be true if you were only racing against other humans. But now you are racing against machines too — and against giant companies with massive distribution, capital, and model access. So maybe “speed as a moat” does not really mean you are building something durable. Maybe it just means you are buying yourself a small window of time — enough time to get traction, raise money, or land an exit before the wave catches up. That is what a lot of AI startups feel like today: not companies being built to last, but companies being built to be acquired. Run fast enough to make some money. Miss the window, and die on the road. So the real question is: can we still build something that lasts in the AI era? Or was that always a fairy tale from a different time? The same shift is happening with talent. Loyalty is fading. Everything feels more transactional, more short-term, more optimized for immediate upside. Get rich faster. Capture value now. Silicon Valley feels less like Silicon Valley and more like Wall Street with better branding. What has not changed is human nature. - Greed. Vanity. Status. The tools changed. The incentives did not.

2

1 Comment

Startups love designing for “aspirational users.” You know the type: perfect morning routine, zero inbox anxiety, color-coded calendar, life fully under control. The problem? They aren't real. Most people are juggling too much, context-switching constantly, and doing their best on a Tuesday with 14 tabs open and no mental bandwidth left. The companies that win won’t be the ones building for the person they wish users were. They’ll be the ones building for the chaotic, distracted, overwhelmed humans we actually are. Design for reality or you'll lose to someone who does. #ProductDesign #Startups #BuildingInPublic #HumanCenteredDesign #TechCulture

6

1 Comment

There’s one quantitative metric I particularly love when it comes to measuring the health of a startup’s PMF, and I look at it during every leadership meeting. Sean Ellis gives us a qualitative signal to measure PMF — how disappointed would users be if we shut down? The retention-to-activation ratio gives us the quantitative equivalent. Here's how it works: we take the number of users who keep coming back to the product and divide it by the number of users who activated. This ratio tells us whether the product is actually required in their workflow or just sitting there on auto-renew. Why this matters more than revenue: 1. Revenue can mask problems. For example, people can forget they're paying for products, especially with auto-renewals. We might be making money, but if users aren't coming back, we're vulnerable. When economic conditions tighten, those unused subscriptions are the first to get cut. 2. Retention shows us real usage. If activated users keep coming back, the product is solving something they need. So, what’s a good retention to activation ratio? There's no universal benchmark. The ratio that signals health varies based on market size and pricing. Dropbox has 700 million registered users and 15 million paying — roughly a 2% retention-to-activation ratio. That works because the market is massive and pricing is low. Palantir sells to maybe 100 companies globally at $10M+ per contract. A 2% retention ratio there would be catastrophic. With a small market and high pricing, retention needs to be significantly higher. I see an inverse relationship: as pricing increases, the base of activatable customers shrinks, so we need higher retention to stay viable. As pricing decreases and market size expands, we can work with lower retention rates. This isn't about hitting a magic number. It's about understanding whether the retention we're seeing makes sense given the market we're playing in. The retention-to-activation ratio, calibrated to our specific market, might be the most honest answer to "have we hit PMF?” Product builders, what are your thoughts on the retention to activation ratio?

23

"We have a clear roadmap, but delivery keeps slipping." That’s how most founders describe the month leading up to a launch. You assume it’s a delivery problem. But usually? Your delivery is fine. Your alignment is broken. I’m breaking down why refusing to choose is the most expensive mistake you can make in my next article this week.

2

Matthew Burris provides an unambiguous and practical map for navigating venture studio deals. This framework is the essential operating system for success in the Bounded-We Economy. In this economy, the goal is optimal resource allocation. The eight drivers—from investor expectations to regional norms—are the variables in a complex optimization equation. The studio is one entity, the founder is another, and the deal structure is the contract that aligns their incentives for a defined outcome. It's a masterclass in transactional design, minimizing friction and maximizing the probability of a successful exit. But the most groundbreaking ventures of the next decade will be built in the Unbounded-Us Economy. In this model, the goal isn't just to structure a deal between separate parties, but to architect a protocol for co-creation where the distinction between "studio" and "founder" blurs. The value isn't just in the capital and services provided, but in the emergent, shared intelligence that arises from a deeply integrated partnership. The eight drivers are still critical, but they become the foundation, not the ceiling. The next-level questions for studio leaders are: How do we design a deal structure that rewards not just milestone execution, but the capacity for shared, adaptive learning? What does "equity" look like when the most valuable asset isn't the initial IP, but the metaphysical physics of the collaboration itself? How do we move from a model of resource allocation to one of capability multiplication? Matthew's worksheet is the perfect tool for mastering the "We" – for building a solid, defensible venture. The strategic imperative is to use that foundation, then to explore the "Us" – the collaborative alchemy that creates categories, not just companies. This is the shift from financing ventures to engineering ecosystems of innovation. #VentureCapital #Innovation #UnboundedUs #Startups #DealStructure

4

2 Comments