Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST) header
Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST) profile picture

Building Agentic GTM⚡️ https://teapaw.org/t.co/ZmSm8EUeSO, Future of work https://teapaw.org/t.co/zmYzG0uhs0 and founder of Macrodeep frontier foundation lab https://teapaw.org/t.co/V3jjZUGnja

Miami
Joined May 2008
Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)Photo by Jesper Qvist (@JQVIST)
Go-to-market has worked the same way for a decade. Buy a data vendor. Buy a sequencer. Buy an enrichment tool. Buy an orchestrator. Wire them together with spreadsheets and hope nothing drifts. We think GTM should work like shipping software, just like people use Claude to ship software! You describe the motion. The system plans it, writes it, runs it, and shows you every step before anything sends. The artifact is typed code — versioned, testable, repeatable. Not a workflow diagram nobody can debug. That's Nico. Underneath it is Nico 2.5, a foundation model we built for go-to-market. Not a general model with a GTM system prompt, pre-trained on the actual work: enrichment, qualification, TAM construction, routing, orchestration, composition. We own the model. We own the inference. That's why Nico starts free and Pro is $20 a month instead of $2,000, we're not reselling anyone else's tokens. 👉 Try now on nico.build
494
Parker is spoton and easy for a Soc2 the most useless waste paper companies need to pay for no technology she can have opinions, @parkerconrad is right
With respect, this is terrible advice. You need to prove -- to yourself more so than to investors -- that intelligence is more valuable inside your product, than on top. If tokens *aren't* worth 4X inside your product, what are you even doing? You're just reselling the labs. 1/
1
1
44
Jesper Qvist retweeted
With respect, this is terrible advice. You need to prove -- to yourself more so than to investors -- that intelligence is more valuable inside your product, than on top. If tokens *aren't* worth 4X inside your product, what are you even doing? You're just reselling the labs. 1/
Christina Cacioppo on why Vanta is eating its token costs: "If you try to charge people based on tokens, they are very quick to say, 'Oh, you've just marked up a Claude token 4X. Are you 4X as good as Claude?' You actually put yourselves in a competitive position against the models that probably no application really wants to do. We're eating the token cost right now. We're taking lower margin. This is a usage phase and a deployment phase of this technology, and just go nail that, and you can figure out commercialization after."
68
47
28
1,048
289,426
2:40 am wake-up. Miami → San Francisco. ✈️ It's Tech Week, and tomorrow I'm speaking on a GTM panel. The topic I'll push on: most "AI for sales" is still just faster spam. More emails, more sequences, same bad targeting. The real shift is intelligence before outreach. Knowing who to talk to, why now, and what they actually care about before anyone hits send. We've been building toward that at Salestools since our first AI sales agent in 2018, and it's what our enterprise customers keep coming back for. If you're in SF this week, come say hi or DM me, I'd love to grab a coffee. ☕ #SFTechWeek #GTM #AI #SalesIntelligence
1
4
65
Jesper Qvist retweeted
ahahaha what the fuck
We are terminating Chris Degnan for unethical conduct involving Cognition. The last few months have seen incredible progress in AI capabilities. San Francisco has flourished as new companies that solve new, more ambitious problems are finding great success. Generally, it is a wonderful time to be building. We at @FactoryAI have seen overwhelming interest in our model-agnostic coding agents and our software factory product. Our team has 10x’d in size, while our revenue has 100x’d year over year. This momentum has been unprecedented. A much larger competitor, Cognition (makers of Devin) has fallen behind us on the capabilities that matter most to customers: cost, quality, and security. Instead of competing in the market, Cognition engineers feigned interviews with us to pry information about our product. Not finding what they were looking for, Cognition has decided to throw their weight and money at people with direct knowledge of our most confidential plans. It feels as though ethics is being thrown out of the window in the AI era. People are willing to do anything, including exploiting privileged information and violating ethical boundaries. I think this is unique to our time, and I don’t think it’s right. Integrity still matters. Yesterday, I made the decision to immediately terminate Christopher Degnan’s roles as a Board Observer and Advisor to Factory, after over a year of service. Prior to this decision, Chris told me he had a casual conversation with an executive at Cognition AI. When I questioned his intentions, he reassured me that ethics aside, he had “made too much money” and was “too lazy to go work for Cognition,” which I trusted and believed. On Monday, Chris spent time advising the Factory team on a handful of confidential board-level matters. That evening, he called me to say that the conversation that was initially described as casual and one-off was actually formal and recurring. For weeks, while he sat in our board meetings and advised our leadership team, he was also confiding with executives of our largest competitor. Chris was subject to confidentiality obligations in connection with his work with Factory. We do not know the extent of the information he shared, but it puts his timely questions about our product roadmap and what the parity gap involves into a new light. It is sad to sever a relationship with someone who has been a trusted advisor - and even a close friend - for over a year. But Chris’s conduct is unacceptable to me. Trust in Board Membership is one of the sacred bonds in the Silicon Valley, one that helps the startup ecosystem thrive. With it comes an enormous responsibility. That trust was violated. Competition is good. I respect and in many cases admire our competitors. San Francisco is a beautiful, singular place where the bold and ambitious go to defy the norms and precedents of the past. But certain principles that must remain. Violating ethics to seek advantage turns what should be positive-sum into zero-sum. We all love technology. And we all love to compete. But we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. The future of software engineering comes with abundance that will impact every person on Earth. Building that future comes with immense responsibility. We must build and compete with integrity.
15
13
1
1,284
265,008
😆✈️✈️😂😂😂
Best way to sandbox an AI is to put it on a Delta flight – it will have no chance of accessing the Internet!
65
I have been saying this for a while OpenAI and Anthrophic will slowly lower the limits on coding plans and here we go...
Hi, Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscriptions to new subscribers, but together with it we are also changing how we calculate the usage for it. In effect, if you do the math, it will net out at half the dollar in API spend compared to the old Pro $200 plan. Now that it's said, let me explain why this is happening and why you will still get more work done than if you were on the Pro $200 subscription one month ago. (a) We didn't want to compromise in other ways and are committing to not reintroducing the 5h limit, so that you can fully use the weekly usage when you want. (b) On the subscription, we guarantee that over time you always get more work done and with an increasing level of quality. This means that you will continue to get more value per dollar spent as a result of models getting more efficient and us passing down the improvements in the form of API price reductions. (c) We don't want to put an incentive on ourselves to artificially inflate the API list prices to make it look like you are getting a lot (and workaround it through discounts, etc). Instead we want to continue to both rapidly reduce prices and increase capabilities of models on the API. This week we introduced GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna at 50% of their previous price. Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent. (d) Tomorrow, we are adding more things to the subscription that won't draw on the usage, I won't reveal what that is yet. I wanted to be transparent before all the big announcements tomorrow. Lots of new exciting things are coming to the subscriptions that will make it super compelling, but I wanted to make sure to share this change ahead of time so you can all understand it before we shower you with good news. Codexingly, Tibo
86
Claude Opus 5.5 felt different at launch. Now a lot of people are saying Anthropic has already nerfed it. Good thing we kept every Grain result since day one. Retest coming. Same benchmark. Same setup. New scores. If something changed, we’ll know. Have you felt it too?
1
1
83
Spoton
The number of programmers worldwide who can beat a collaborating pair of frontier models rounds to zero.
71
😂😂😂
🚨 BREAKING: According to leaks and my extremely well-placed sources, Gemini 4 Pro might be better than GPT-4. In some tests, it could even come close to GPT-4o At this rate, Gemini 7 Pro might actually be good-ish
1
94
Why not use all coding models in one setup? grain.sh
13
Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna all in a day world going back to their limits :) damn
43
Opus 5.5 is here just upgrade claude cli
41
Salestools runs three agents on one data engine: Olivia → outbound SDR Mark → inbound SDR, replies in minutes Joe → research agent, reads every account first Everything they do lands in My Day for your reps to approve.
1
1
1
31
I've been building sales automation since 2014. Started with LinkedIn automation. In 2018 we shipped one of the first AI sales agents, years before "AI SDR" was a category. Salestools has been through every wave. This one is different. And we just got started!
1
3
45
Your code. Your machine. Your keys. Grain runs coding agents locally with bring-your-own API keys. No middleman you didn't choose sitting between you and your repo. grain.sh
1
13
An AI SDR is only as good as the data under it. Ours: 400M+ contacts. 350M+ verified emails. 70M direct dials. Firmographics, technographics, funding, leadership. We don't rent the data layer. We own it.
3
1
56
One choice: unlimited Codex or unlimited Claude Code?
51
Every Grain task runs in three phases: → Plan → Implement → Verify Each phase can route to a different vendor. Plan with one model, build with another, have a third check the work. No model grading its own homework.
15
The SDR role isn't dying. It's getting promoted. Agents take the list-building, the research and the 3am replies. Humans take the conversations. See it on your own market — 14-day trial, no credit card: salestools.io
14
The agent that proves its own work. Grain's shipping executor runs cross-vendor verification: the model that wrote the code isn't the one that signs off on it. Fewer "looks good to me" merges. More mechanical proof.
16