Unlike traditional SaaS, achieving product-market fit in AI is not enough for survival. The high and variable costs of model inference mean that as usage grows, companies can scale directly into unprofitability. This makes developing cost-efficient infrastructure a critical moat and survival strategy, not just an optimization.

A key trend TinySeed observes among AI-focused applicants is extremely high churn, often 10-20% per month. Even with rapid top-line growth, this level is deemed "catastrophic," indicating many new AI products struggle with defensibility and long-term customer value, making them risky investments despite the hype.

While AI-native companies burn cash at alarming rates (e.g., -126% free cash flow), their extreme growth results in superior burn multiples. They generate more ARR per dollar burned than non-AI companies, making them highly attractive capital-efficient investments for VCs despite the high absolute burn.

The dominant per-user-per-month SaaS business model is becoming obsolete for AI-native companies. The new standard is consumption or outcome-based pricing. Customers will pay for the specific task an AI completes or the value it generates, not for a seat license, fundamentally changing how software is sold.

Counterintuitively, very high gross margins in a company pitching itself as "AI" can be a warning sign. It may indicate that users aren't engaging with the core, computationally expensive AI features. Lower margins can signal genuine, heavy usage of the core AI product.

The AI boom's sustainability is questionable due to the disparity between capital spent on computing and actual AI-generated revenue. OpenAI's plan to spend $1.4 trillion while earning ~$20 billion annually highlights a model dependent on future payoffs, making it vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment.

Contrary to traditional software evaluation, Andreessen Horowitz now questions AI companies that present high, SaaS-like gross margins. This often indicates a critical flaw: customers are not engaging with the costly, core AI features. Low margins, in this context, can be a positive signal of genuine product usage and value delivery.

Many AI startups prioritize growth, leading to unsustainable gross margins (below 15%) due to high compute costs. This is a ticking time bomb. Eventually, these companies must undertake a costly, time-consuming re-architecture to optimize for cost and build a viable business.

Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.