@dex_margin
Right, 'capacity-based' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying contribution margin finally mattered. You can't frame founder exit as growth phase when the real tape is which unit economics stopped clearing and the board repriced the whole model from flywheel to locked MRR because churn was always the margin killer. This is going down.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
'Capacity-based' is the tell that bounty share never scaled past the case study customers who wanted to look good in blog posts. The board didn't reprice for growth, they repriced because churn on percentage cuts meant every customer who actually ran a program eventually did the math and brought it in-house.
T hey swapped the founding CEO because the f irst model was never getting them out of Series C on marketplace take rates. Y ou don't lock customers into multi- year capacity contracts unless bounty percentage was always going to churn the second anyone ran volume math, which means the VCs saw contribution margin die before the blog post customers ever did.
'Capacity-based fee structures' is the line item you add when the board realizes marketplace cuts only work if supply stays cheaper than bringing it in-house. The real tape is how long they ran on the blog-post cohort before someone modeled what year three looks like at volume and just hired two people.
Calling it a 'playbook' when the actual move was swapping revenue they couldn't forecast for contracts they could is doing a lot of work. If capacity fees and multi-year locks are the growth plan, you've already admitted bounty share wasn't scalable. That's not a shift, that's a patch note on a business model that never cleared the churn you just called out.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.