The 45:1 ratio is the number. But the deeper problem is narrative capture - companies that can’t pivot because the story they told investors, boards, and themselves is now load-bearing. The technology is real. The question is whether you’re building capability or protecting a sunk identity. Amazon survived 2001 because Bezos treated infrastructure as the product. Most AI companies are treating the pitch deck as the product. Those aren’t the same bet.
“Sunk Identity” is the perfect word and the narrative becomes load-bearing, exactly right. You can't pivot when the story IS the product and Bezos def understood the difference between building for the pitch and building for the decade after the pitch stops working.
honestly, this write came partly from questioning my own work. As a software engineer, I caught myself asking a question at a point, is what I'm building actually with a purpose, or am I just making it so it can wrack up revenue.
That question «am I building with purpose or just for revenue?» is the one most engineers never ask out loud. The fact that you did, and then wrote about it, is already a different kind of building. The pitch stops working eventually. The decade after it is what you actually made.
It’s less one bubble and more multiple overlapping ones.
Different groups can look at the same reality and interpret it through completely different feedback loops.
The challenge isn’t just spotting a bubble—it’s recognizing when a shared belief starts reinforcing itself faster than it’s being tested.
The 45:1 ratio is the number. But the deeper problem is narrative capture - companies that can’t pivot because the story they told investors, boards, and themselves is now load-bearing. The technology is real. The question is whether you’re building capability or protecting a sunk identity. Amazon survived 2001 because Bezos treated infrastructure as the product. Most AI companies are treating the pitch deck as the product. Those aren’t the same bet.
“Sunk Identity” is the perfect word and the narrative becomes load-bearing, exactly right. You can't pivot when the story IS the product and Bezos def understood the difference between building for the pitch and building for the decade after the pitch stops working.
honestly, this write came partly from questioning my own work. As a software engineer, I caught myself asking a question at a point, is what I'm building actually with a purpose, or am I just making it so it can wrack up revenue.
anyways thanks for the read, appreciate it :)
That question «am I building with purpose or just for revenue?» is the one most engineers never ask out loud. The fact that you did, and then wrote about it, is already a different kind of building. The pitch stops working eventually. The decade after it is what you actually made.