
I write poetry and essays on tech | have eyes and words everywhere with @brandjetai
Paris, France
Joined April 2018
- Tweets23.9K
- Following1.3K
- Followers7.2K
- Likes17.8K
Picking up math again is honestly one of the most fulfilling things one can do. I can't explain how or why outside of the obvious, but it really is fulfilling.
Spiritually enlightening in some ways, even
Wonder how long before we switch to pure ballot voting and completely away from ant electronic traces
Everything I know about those two love is blind contestants is something I've learned against my will, god help us all
Taylor is an industry veteran, I respect his work but I don't respect bad faith economics that work backwards from a number to make whatever it is you want to sell look like an ideal alternative.
His own numbers (the sheet he's attached) have one full setup at under 3 cents an email.
The 10 cent infra number is just that times 4, so the sheet has you paying for 20k inboxes and 10k domains to send 1M emails. That's every inbox sending like 50 emails a month. Okay.
Nobody rotates like that, you keep some spares and swap domains when they die, and they're $15 each.
Then it's 5 cents of data on every email including follow ups, like each one is going to a new person. On a 3 step sequence 1M emails is around 330k people so it's ~17k not 55k. Which is funny because in June you were pushing MoltSets at $500/mo for unlimited data.
Also your Halo post on LinkedIn says the normal setup is 3-5 inboxes per domain and the sheet uses 2. I actually recommend 2 at this scale so I'm not arguing that part, just interesting that you went with whichever one makes doing it yourself look more expensive.
Keep every one of your assumptions, just drop the 4x and stop buying a new lead for every follow up and you're at ~54k.
Run it the way most people actually run it at that scale and you'd be at a number much lower than that.
Charge 10 cents if you want, that's your business. Just don't make up a 179k number so 100k looks like a deal ;)
Every week I talk to people who think it's cheaper to run cold email themselves. It's not, and here's what I end up showing them.
I pull up a stupid simple spreadsheet.
Because people look at 10 cents per email and go, “Wait, why would I pay that? I can buy some inboxes and use Instantly + Apollo.”
Sure. You can.
But if you actually want to run cold email properly, the math doesn’t math pretty fast.
First you need sending infrastructure.
You need Gmail inboxes. Outlook inboxes. SMTP providers. Domains.
I can't even put a price on the fact that nobody besides us has access to Halo, our own infrastructure that lets us send images, links, and track opens + clicks.
Not to mention you can’t buy one batch of domains, set it up once, and pretend that’s your permanent infrastructure.
Your domains burn.
So you have to rotate them and if you want something that will last longer than a month, then you need 4 sets.
Get them directly from Instantly, and you're at 10 cents per email account.
Next, your lead data is probably around 5 cents per lead, especially if you are waterfall enriching it via 13+ providers like we do.
Depends how you're waterfalling it, how much enrichment you're doing, how clean you need it, etc.
That gets us to roughly 15.3 cents per email sent.
And that still doesn't include labor.
So now you need somebody internally managing the data, the sending, the inboxes, the infrastructure, campaign setup, copy, fixing problems when something breaks, all of it.
Put somebody on that for $11k/month (avg GTM salary) and you're around 16.3 cents per email.
So if you're sending 1 million emails a month, you're probably looking at something like $179K/month before you even get into the fact that you might not know what message works yet.
Then factor in your time as a founder trying to figure all of this out, learning from rock bottom, and put a number on that.
Most people want to go straight to scale before proving message market fit.
It's totally backwards
If you want to contact your whole market, cool. But you should first spend a smaller amount testing different offers, audiences, hooks, CTAs, and copy until you actually know what works.
Then you scale it.
Same way you would with ads.
You don't wake up and spend $70k on ads before you've figured out whether the ad converts.
All to say, we're having a big pricing change:
we're moving to 10 cents per email. Minimum to start is 60k emails per month -> $6k per month
That includes us building the lists, the sending infrastructure, the copy, the testing, and the team who has already broken this stuff and proved it among hundreds of clients.
I don't think DIY cold email is cheaper.
I think people are usually comparing our full cost to the price of a few inboxes, then forgetting literally everything else.
When everyone can make stuff you have a responsibility to make slightly cooler stuff
Opus 5.5 killed motion design launch videos.
Anyone can now make a professional-looking video for under $10. Even with a bad prompt.
Great for making videos. Less great for getting attention.
When everyone can produce the same thing, nobody stops scrolling. And getting people to stop and share was the whole point.
My bet on what goes viral next:
→ Founder-led videos with actual personality
→ Ambitious AI videos with a real story and creative direction
I’ve already paid an agency for two upcoming videos. I was clear with them:
“If you deliver generic motion design, we won’t even post it. Claude can do that in 5 minutes.”
Polished execution is no longer enough. Give people a reason to watch.
I give discounts to customers who DO trial our competitors because I know when they benchmark the experience and the outreach infra we will be better on most counts and I want them to know that
Just raised $33m to create a sandbox for a sandbox for a sandbox. Agents will stop trying after the first attempt because they think they're free.
The particularly adventurous ones might try again, except there's another sandbox.
Everyone's welcome.
Mars retweeted
These are Skills not Agents.
Same mistake HubSpot made.
GTM folks deserve full consumer-grade agents on the level of Instinct, Grok Bot, Muse, Dots, OpenClaw and Hermes.
With guard railed sandbox environments, full data privacy and complete RevOps control.
> "tourists insult LOCAL students for peacefully protesting"
> ?
Des touristes venus visiter le musée du Louvre insultent et font des doigts d'honneur aux étudiants qui bloquent le musée depuis ce matin.
#Louvre #Paris #17octobre #24octobre
There's a lot to unpack here and this tweet is a perfect example of reactionary activism and why nobody needs to take anarchists seriously.
If insurance justified harm and violence then everyone and everything is fair game. But that's not the kind of world we want to live in, right?
Does a random optician have a say over the cost of living?
I haven't said "everyone stop protesting and fighting for your cause". I care for the cause exponentially more than you do because I wouldn't let it be bastardised with anarchist bullshit.
The very premise of your argument is wrong, and morally bankrupt
1. "If they don't put comprehensive insurance then they choose to reap the consequences" - these are real people you are talking about, hard working men and women who do not deserve to be victims, this isn't a debate about whether or not every business in France should be on insurance policies (they are, that is not the point)
2. Insurance and insurance policies do not exist in a vacuum, when riots attack businesses and SMBs the insurers companies...pull out. Let's not tweet half truths about how insurance works, riot risk can just not be a clause or something SMBs are insured for. And let's not talk about what happens when the insurance premiums go up, you're not the one paying for it.
3. Uninsured losses, you know the people you think deserve it, can claim it from the state. The state takes it from the taxes. In very simple terms it is a waste of taxpayer money. And this might seem like a random number to you but there is a real human cost associated with it.
4. To what end is looting okay? Let's assume they're all insured, everyone. Why does that make robbing these places okay? How does that advance the cause? How does that make France better, safer? Why should we be okay with degenerates robbing electronics and watches? What logical chain of thought justifies this?
But you want to have a bad faith conversation about "margins".
Fuck the margins, this is about the simple principle that there is absolutely no need for random people to be victims. If you want to argue that specific business are responsible for what's going on and have a non insignificant role to play, we can have that conversation.
You want to be entertained. You want to give purpose to the anarchy, when it doesn't exist.
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
> protect the Louvre
> Presumably other important places too
> "Launch airstrikes on Paris"
> ?
IMO, the U.S. should intervene if it becomes clear that Louvre is about to fall to rioters. Launch airstrikes on Paris, call up and threaten Macron, I don't really care. But Louvre shouldn't fall to rioters in any case. That is not just French history in there. That's Western history. If the French fail to protect it, somebody needs to intervene.
It's an uphill struggle to explain to this person why looting and vandalizing stores is a bad thing and how it harms the cause and how so many smaller businesses were harmed in the process, but this is all just entertainment to most of you
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
Mars retweeted
Anthropic's proposed AI safety bill sets "killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people" as the risk threshold for blocking the release of an AI model
In contrast, when a single patient (Jesse Gelsinger) died in a gene therapy clinical trial in 1999:
- The institute that ran the trial was dissolved
- The senior scientist running the trial was banned from clinical work for 5 years
- Gene therapy saw deep cuts in funding and research activity for a decade
Tech and biotech have just profoundly different cultures of risk. As AI companies increasingly engage with biomedical research, a culture clash is inevitable
politico.com/news/2026/10/16…














