The venture capital benchmark for elite growth has shifted for AI companies. The old "T2D3" (Triple, Triple, Double, Double, Double) heuristic for SaaS is no longer the gold standard. Investors now consider achieving $100M ARR in under three years as the strongest signal of exceptional product-market fit in AI.

The operating model for SaaS has inverted post-2021. Previously, growth came at the cost of declining efficiency ('200% headcount to grow 100%'). The new benchmark is to achieve hyper-efficiency at the margin, demanding teams grow revenue at double the rate of their headcount expansion.

Notion's funding history reveals its valuation significantly outpaced revenue, reaching $10B on just $31M ARR in 2021. However, the company subsequently grew revenue almost 20x to $600M while its valuation only increased 10%, demonstrating how outlier companies can eventually grow into seemingly inflated valuations.

The current fundraising environment is the most binary in recent memory. Startups with the "right" narrative—AI-native, elite incubator pedigree, explosive growth—get funded easily. Companies with solid but non-hype metrics, like classic SaaS growers, are finding it nearly impossible to raise capital. The middle market has vanished.

The slow growth of public SaaS isn't just an execution failure; it's a structural problem. We created so many VC-backed companies that markets became saturated, blocking adjacent expansion opportunities and creating a 'Total Addressable Market (TAM) trap'.

The narrative of "0 to $100M in a year" often reflects a startup's dependence on a larger, fast-growing customer (like an AI foundation model company) rather than intrinsic product superiority. This growth is a market anomaly, similar to COVID testing labs, and can vanish as quickly as it appeared when competition normalizes prices and demand shifts.

The burn multiple, a classic SaaS efficiency metric, is losing its reliability. Its underlying assumptions (stable margins, low churn, no CapEx) don't hold for today's fast-growing AI companies, which have variable token costs and massive capital expenditures, potentially hiding major business risks.

While impressive, hypergrowth from zero to $100M+ ARR can be a red flag. The mechanics enabling such speed, like low-friction monthly subscriptions, often correlate with low switching costs, weak product depth, and poor long-term retention, resembling consumer apps more than enterprise SaaS.

The conventional wisdom for SaaS companies to find their 'second act' after reaching $100M in revenue is now obsolete. The extreme rate of change in the AI space forces companies to constantly reinvent themselves and refind product-market fit on a quarterly basis to survive.