Comment by svnt
This is interesting, but it seems to be at odds with SaaS models where the idea can be you get high margins because you get low usage generally.
I can see why people buying/using software would want this, but why would any software startup want to use it? What are the markets (other than non-profit), where pay vs success (and not attention/friction) is the limiting factor? The idea is you’re unlocking new markets or models, right?
And when/how is success measured? Otherwise it’s just like API billing, right?
Thanks! Definitely see where you’re coming from. Software startups with really good products are generating massive amounts of business value for their customers right now. Subscriptions and usage models really constrain them in how much they can capture of that. Incentives are also constantly misaligned, especially with usage as buyers will always try to minimize usage as much as possible. Charging on outcomes changes that.
The entire AI customer support industry has pretty much already converged into this model. Tickets closed without being escalated to humans are usually what’s defined as an outcome. We think this model makes the most sense for any vertical AI company where agents are actually completing tasks end to end.
Success is defined by the buyer and seller before they use us. We just facilitate the parameters they agreed upon, so it’s pretty variable. A successful outcome can be anything from sourcing a real estate property that ends up closing to finding $X in cost savings for a dental clinic, using research agents. The biggest difference is you’re not just charging for tokens, but assigning a dollar figure to what a job well done looks like, no matter how many tokens it takes to get there.