Why leave a $500M startup to start over?

Episode 92 - Shay Levi Transcription Jason Kirby (00:02.115) Everyone, welcome back to a hundred million dollar exits. Today we have Shay, sorry, about to Shay, shy Levi with us today. Oh, sorry. Shy Levi. Sorry. All right. So everyone, welcome back to a hundred million dollar exits. Today we have shy Levi with us, uh, former co-founder and CTO of no name security that sold to Akamai for over close to half a billion dollars and now is leading unframed, uh, that recently raised over 50 in a relatively short period of time. Shay (00:13.112) Chai Levy. Correct. Chai Levy. Jason Kirby (00:31.939) Welcome to the show. Shay (00:33.388) Hello, great to be here. Jason Kirby (00:35.267) All right. So I want to just go straight into it. You, uh, you've had a pretty fast and impressive, uh, background when it comes to securing capital. That's what the show's all about. Uh, walk me, you know, walk me through the moment when Akamai came to you and was proposing the idea of buying you out for half a billion dollars. What was going through your mind? How did that happen? Kind of tell us a little story there. Shay (00:57.486) Sure, sure. So I actually give a bit more background because I was actually, when things kind of started rolling, I was already not at No Name. basically I decided, we'll touch on that when we talk about on-frame, et cetera. But I basically planned my departure from No Name around the end of January, 2024. And just about a little bit, little bit time afterwards. The discussions basically started. Now, I was quite in my mindset, if you think about that. I already knew that I'm gonna start a new company. So my mindset wasn't so focused in a weird way. It wasn't so focused on that process and is it gonna materialize? Because I'm sure you talked about it previously in the podcast. There's a lot of times where these things don't materialize. It's not like you get a call and next day, It's being signed. There's a long thing there. And so I was somewhere in my mind thinking, interesting, right? We'll see how this is going to turn out. But I was very busy on the build of unframed. I knew what was going on, obviously. But it wasn't that I spent too much like mental thinking, is it going to happen? Is it to change my life? What is the implication going to be? It was exciting, for sure. But somehow it wasn't, once it's not your core priority, it's somehow like, yeah, it's happening. It's pretty exciting, pretty cool. I always knew that what we built in Noname is highly valuable. You asked me, I knew that Noname is going to have success. But it was interesting to see it evolve. So it started with initial discussions that are pretty general. And it started going more and more that route. Now, it wasn't. Jason Kirby (02:58.177) Were you guys actively in market? you guys actively trying to bring buyers to the table or was it a kind of Shay (03:05.354) Not, not really, but, think about that. So a year prior, there were rumors, which, you know, I won't touch on that Akamai, you know, it, got, there was an article saying, Hey, you know, companies are interested in no name. And Akamai was actually mentioned in there. Um, so, you know, usually I would say discussions like this don't come out of the blue. Like it's, it's very rare that you get a phone call from a stranger. It evolves, you know? But yeah, so that's what I'll say. Sorry, I forgot the question. Jason Kirby (03:43.107) Fair enough. And so when you were, I guess, one of the things that be really interesting is the company raised like 200 something million relatively fast at no name. During the peak, when 2021 was hot and everything was cooking, but why were you leaving? That's like a rocket ship. Everything's supposedly going up and down from the outside perspective. So what caused you to step down and pursue unframed? Shay (03:53.026) Correct. Shay (03:56.907) Alright. Shay (04:02.476) Yeah. Correct. Shay (04:11.054) Yeah, so it was pretty interesting. So a few things happened at the same time. First of all, Noname was growing and doing very well and was selling and was a solid company. But I feel the more a company evolves, especially a company like Noname that's doing API security, very quite framed space that has its boundaries, has its starts and finish, the CTO impact goes a bit down. There's just so much that you can do within that bucket of API security. As long as you're just doing API security, that's your role. So initially, I was also a very outbound-facing CTO. I can say some CTOs are inbound-facing in the architecture, in the tech, et cetera, and some CTOs are very outbound. with customers, engaging with them, especially the important ones, understanding their problem, helping them get to a successful outcome, right? But initially, every single one of them, every single one of those is critical. When you're that big of a company, you have very few that are as critical. And also, the impact you can do on the org when it's within this four walls, somewhat goes down. I would say, you know, you can be replaced. There's no problem with replacing you. So that's point number one. The point number two is, obviously, there was a big thing that happened during the time no name is that the LLM moment. LLM moment. And I understood that a lot of things are going to change, regardless of cyber. And so I had this idea of on-frame. And without touching on the idea, it was bubbling in me. But I always said, well, I'm in Israel, in cybersecurity, in API security, I'm going to find another company that's doing what Onframe is doing and I'm going to invest in it and this is going to be my involvement. And I just waited for someone to found a company like that. And it bubbled and I'm waiting and it bubbled and I'm waiting and it bubbled and I'm waiting. And eventually I was like, I can't, I just, I have to do it. And so already six months before I left, like I aligned, everyone were aligned. I didn't surprise everyone, you know, anyone. Shay (06:29.358) I talked to the board, I talked to Oz, my co-founder, which I'm in great contact with almost daily. We're great friends. So everything was aligned. We said, okay, this is how we're gonna do this transition. We're gonna thicken the leadership. We're gonna bring a VPR indeed is very talented. We're gonna bring a CPO that is very talented. Gradually, I'm gonna reduce where I'm being involved, how I'm being involved. And so all the stars will align. So I could depart at January. So that was kind of the idea. And that's what we did. At no point it surprised everyone or was a bothersome move. It was just gradual involvement of the company. And my own interests that kind of shifted to be really focused on this. Revolution that is happening that I said, you know, okay, no name is mature It will grow to be successful even if i'm not there, you know, it's it's up. It's running. It's alive It has life of its own now. I can start another thing. That was it Jason Kirby (07:41.667) That's a phenomenal story. it's a, it's nice to hear an amicable, uh, kind of, I would call it more of a growth story. Like, you know, you, you were evolving the company was evolved, like everything was just kind of evolving and everyone finding their own place. Um, and you know, Now go on to unfreeze with your success at no name and ensure the acquisitions, you know, awesome and 500 million. Um, before we move into kind of the details of unframed and what you're doing there and the rapid growth you're having there with, you know, no name in that transaction, something that I like to explain to the founders is like 500 million sounds like a lot, but you also raised a lot. You raised around 200 plus million. There was some early secondary, or maybe some early employees and founders maybe got, you know, some kind of distributions, but when it came to the actual overall outcome, you know, of that transaction, you know, raising a peak valuations in 2021, how would you kind of rate the outcome of that transaction? Shay (08:34.766) Sure. So that's actually interesting to touch on because I think we see the evolvement of that today. I think after the peak of 2021 and all the &As that happened afterwards, investors realized that in cybersecurity companies, it's really, really beneficial to be early. It's always beneficial to be early, correct? But in cybersecurity, there is something where there's a certain range where most acquisitions happen, especially in cybersecurity. And in that range, I don't know, you can call it from like 250 up to like six, 700, I think. Even 700 is like really high, I think for cybersecurity, but somewhere there. And so if you come in in the late rounds, you have to be mindful that most exits happen in that bucket. So this is why what we're seeing now is almost all VCs are really trying to come in early in cyber. This is why the seed rounds that you now see in cyber are much higher than they used to be back when me and Oz raised for no name. Why? Because there's so much want to get into the seed. Same goes with the A round, still a lucrative round to be in, not as lucrative as seed. So they're also quite aggressive, but notice how many Bs and Cs we're seeing, not that many. If you look at cybersecurity now, there aren't that many Bs and Cs. Why? because the investors understood that probably the returns on those investments are not as guaranteed and are not, in many cases, are not gonna be as successful. And so this is what I think we're seeing. Now in no name, usually, you know, it's an investment podcast and we can talk about it, investors get preferred shares, right? And in preferred shares, you always have a certain guarantee to at least have one X return. So you get your money back. If you invested in a higher valuation, you get your money back. And then the rest of the money is distributed to all the investors that are left in the pool. And those definitely did X amount their initial investment. And what you'll notice is that for seed and A round, even the B round, that's very nice returns. Shay (10:52.174) And if I say that, then you obviously understand it also as founders, because you're there from day one, you're somewhat like the seed investor. It's a phenomenal outcome. So usually the founders almost always have some sort of good outcome or phenomenal outcome in exits. Usually, not always, unless it's an equity or something like that. Seed investors, A investors, those are usually really good. And then B, C, depending on the valuation you raise, that changes. Jason Kirby (11:21.174) Yeah. Shay (11:23.205) you're muted. Jason Kirby (11:24.194) Sorry, but to market as an, um, what I think is interesting about what you just shared there is the macro impact on your business. Like you can't be growing. grow to 40 million ARR. go to 50 million. Like you're hitting these trajectories, but there's a point of too big to be acquired and you know, like the two, you know, too small to be, you know, interesting. it's like, there's this no man's like a sweet spot in that 200, 700 million. And then Shay (11:49.514) Alright. Jason Kirby (11:52.631) below or outside of that, you're just not really a good target. And so you get too big. You know, it's just the probability you have to go public or you have to be whiz. Shay (12:01.07) You have to justify your evaluation. You have to justify it. And then that's a fight. You have to be aware as you're going there that you're going for the stretch. Jason Kirby (12:13.954) Yeah. I think it's interesting for founders to realize that because that's no penalty to founders, you know, for building a great business and trying to be a unicorn. But the fact of the matter is the stats show that that's where deals happen. And to try to raise a B at like a $300 million valuation, know, $400 million valuation, which is normal. It's now historically kind of proven to be not a good outcome for investors. So they're less likely to pursue it. So I think it's a very important lesson for founders to be aware of when they're thinking about the next round profitability, you know, when to sell it's like, what's the market actually dictating and to like, do a deep dive in that market, like work with some advisors, partners to kind of figure that stuff out before you just go to market and then you fall flat in your face, you lost momentum. People are disappointed. you didn't raise a series B. You're not successful. It's like, you got a great company. You just chose the wrong capital strategy. but no, I I appreciate you sharing that, that story there. and so when it comes to. Shay (13:01.346) That's it. Jason Kirby (13:12.482) No name and your experiences you had there and the momentum you had coming out of that. Tell me about unframed. Shay (13:18.742) Okay, interesting. should I start with the, okay, so I'll start with the concept. So what I recognized early on, what bubbled in me, right, was that AI came in, you there was the LLM moment, and I felt all the existing vendors are trying to use that to get more money out of their customers. we're adding these AI capabilities, pay us more. And I felt companies, out there really wanted to adopt AI. They had this burning need and they were kind of abused. were companies telling them, we'll build you this AI strategy, pay us a fortune. Like I felt this is happening. I felt existing vendors are trying to add AI and get more money out of them. I felt, you know, I knew that these existing companies have a lot of use cases they are gonna want to achieve because you look at all these manual processes. everything that happens, all the solutions you currently have, and you say, wow, I can really make a shift here. If I want to make everything here AI native, how do I start? And you're confused. And there's companies out there that just try to get value out of you. I didn't like that equation. I felt it's broken a bit. And I felt that a lot of things that are currently happening in AI, especially enterprise AIs, are not going to be successful. This is basically two years before this MIT report that now came out, that now everybody is referring to, right? That's what I sense. And I said, what if I can build a company like OnFrame where my interests and the customer interests are going to be perfectly aligned, meaning they will have an AI use case. I will help them achieve it in a really, really fast time, like five days. Can we actually do it? And that's the deep tech behind it. I'm going to give them a solution that they're going to be happy with. And they're only going to need to license if the solution made an impact. Can I actually get to this holy, I felt like it's almost the holy grail of software. You wishing a software into existence, it comes into existence for you and you choose if you want to pay for it or not. And that's kind of the engagement I wanted to do with enterprises. And so I had this thinking and I looked for a company out there or an idea that is similar. Shay (15:28.376) There was this concept of forward deployed engineers where they bring a crew over to your organ, but it was very expensive. You paid for someone's time. You paid for them to build you pay. And I said, no, let's drive real impact, drive real solutions and get paid afterwards. Let's not be a nonprofit, but that's not the kind of share the value. That was the core thesis. And when I went to raise for that, and I think Jason, that's going to be interesting. I came, I came from cyber security and people thought I hit my head in the tub. Jason Kirby (15:52.332) Yeah. Shay (15:58.028) That's what people thought. I'm not, look, I, I'm telling you, this was obviously fundraising is always very humbling experience. People need to know that. Like don't expect you to come in through the door and, money being thrown at you. But I heard a lot of, look, if you do something cyber, I definitely want to hear about that. But you in AI and there was a core thesis that they really didn't like well, where one company is talking about doing multiple solutions in multiple industries in multiple verticals. Like. What do you know about banking or real estate or like you're going to meet a million use cases that you're not the domain expert in. And I said, yes, but this is the new world. And people said, no, you don't understand. You go against the laws of nature. Like people really told me that. And so it was hard to raise, believe it or not. It was hard to raise. I don't think if if I, if I wasn't the second time founder, I wouldn't be able to raise. pretty sure. because back then. This seemed the norm now coming afterwards about a year later to complete the, the raise and do like an a round that was led by Bessemer. That was a lot easier. It's only suddenly it's the norm. Oh, of course the company is doing multiple products and multiple solutions. And it's not one product, one company. If I take you back to end 2023, beginning of 2024, it was one product, one company. That was the thing. And suddenly now with AI, it's very normal for one company to work. across verticals, across industries, offer multiple products, multiple solutions, like it became the thing. Because so much has to change in those enterprises. They have a need to change so much, so someone needs to offer it, so it makes sense. And I had this in mind. So that's kind of was the story around unframed. So it wasn't easy to raise our initial round. Jason Kirby (17:40.834) But let's talk about that initial round a little bit more because you raised 20 million, like right off the gate. And so when someone says, it was hard to raise money, like you came out of the gates with a fat raise, like walk us through the decision to come out at 20. Was that your idea? Was that investor's idea? Like, how did that come about? Shay (17:51.715) So. Shay (17:57.198) So let me help you. So we don't touch on the distribution between the seed and A. We did raise $50 million today. But I can tell you the initial raise wasn't necessarily 20. It wasn't a small raise. It was still a fat raise, but not necessarily 20. 20 would be really fat raise in my opinion and too much. But what I understood early on is, look, especially after meeting investors, et cetera, is that it is a risky idea. And I knew it's a risky idea. And when you have a risky idea and you know you're gonna need to move maybe a bit to the left, a bit to the right, a bit there, then I wanted to raise a bit more. It gives you better cushion to move as you're navigating this. And AI was so new that, you know, I'm taking you beginning of 2024, people didn't know how enterprise AI is gonna look like. It was very hard to forecast. And so I was like, okay, I am gonna go for a bigger round, although I'm gonna dilute myself more because obviously, Yeah, the valuation goes up, but there is a limit in a certain point, right? And then you can choose to raise less or choose. And I was like, okay, I'm going to take more dilution on behalf of being more cushioned in the sense that I can move left and right. I can take a longer period of time. I'll figure it out. I'll have better buffer. So that was my initial thinking. So I was the one, like we as a founding team, obviously I'm not alone in this. It's important to say my co-founders, Adi and Larissa. Obviously we're part of that, but what we thought of is we're going to push for a bigger round. So we'll be better cushioned. So we'll have better under so as we engage with the market, we'll feel better that we don't have to quickly find the starting point. So that, was it. It didn't come from, I can promise you, it didn't come from investors. Investors want you to raise as little as possible in the lowest valuation possible. You want to raise probably in the highest valuation possible and then maybe not as much as possible, but somewhere close to that. There's a sweet spot in the middle probably, and I feel that's what unframed did in its seed round. Yeah. Jason Kirby (19:58.306) So outside of your deck, your thesis, your team, what did you have when you secured that initial round? Shay (20:05.71) so yeah, this is, this is where my CTO had kind of switches. So no, really, because I was, I was very curious about AI and so I really wanted to experiment. So I experimented quite a bit. Like, is, this theory even possible? And, and you know, some, I started building like small things, gimmicky, not something that I actually, you know, said, this is our product. But I did have something to show, an actual thing that I built. Because my background is software engineering, is AI, is coding. So I didn't mind. So I did come with something that I thought is pretty exciting to show. And most investors that actually saw it said, yeah, this is pretty exciting. And so I did come with that. don't have to, honestly, when you raise, I did it for myself. I wanted to see if what I'm envisioning is even possible. Can I actually achieve use cases that quickly? Can I actually make an impact? Can it actually fit an enterprise, et cetera, et Came with the deck, came with the story, came with the founding team, and came with a bit of crazy. I'm telling you, people looked at me like I'm crazy. And it's okay. And I guess at the beginning you somewhat enjoy it, but after, you know, to kind of open the curtain a bit, I got 19 nos. 19, 19 coming to raise a seed. I got 19 nos and 19 compares another saying saying, if you do something in cyber, take my money now. And I was like, no, I'm not, I'm not doing that. And so 19 nos and the kind of number 20 was, was the one that that's it. There's a company and then it started rolling. And I can tell you since then it was much easier every, every time since then it was so much easier because the it kind of started to evolve into our thesis being right. So yeah, we didn't come with much. A deck, a story, bit of craziness, founding team. I did come as a second timer. Otherwise, I don't even think I would have been able to raise. That's about it. Jason Kirby (22:10.815) No, I think that's a great story. then you raised the remaining amount of the total 50 relatively quickly. What kind of momentum were you generating? What were you doing with the business that kind of got investors excited to want to chase and follow on as quickly as they did? Shay (22:25.09) Yeah, so we started engaging with enterprises and our theory came into reality. Like, yes, you come in and you say, they have AI use cases. They are happy to share the AI use cases. They don't care that you didn't come from banking or real estate. They have use cases. They believe you're an AI expert. They believe you're a rock solid company that can help them achieve those quickly. They see the alignment of interest, which is kind the whole idea of Onframe. They believe in the deep tech. They say, OK, maybe they can actually deliver our use case in a week. and it started rolling and we started engaging with customers and we haven't stopped since. And so very quickly we had a lot of enterprises trying us out, some enterprises signing us on very, very quickly. And so I'm telling you, it moved much faster than the no name, for example. And if I compare it to the no name story, so when you come as no name security, right, you come in and you say, we do API security. Let me tell you why API security is important. you kind of educate them on API security. You kind of need their buy-in. Sometimes it's OK, it's a project for next year. It's different. But when you come in as Onframe, it's like, do you guys want to adopt AI? It's always like, yes. Do you have use cases? Yes. Let's get this going. So you're almost always relevant. You do have to sift through what is real, what is not. Let's see, it's not a science experiment, et cetera. But I think investors started to wake up to the fact that, Onframe was actually right. The core thesis, the core idea. Starting to be proven and so it was much easier was much easier like when you have the proof points you come in a lot stronger Jason Kirby (23:59.136) Yeah, and momentum, think that's the other kind of key thing. And so, yeah, proof, also that it sounds like things are stacking very, very quickly. Shay (24:04.876) Yeah, exactly. Very quickly. Yeah, very, quickly. Yeah. It's a good point. Momentum is really key when you build a company. Jason Kirby (24:12.925) How do you manage that momentum? like you're the founder, you're dealing with people, team, customers, and CTO, you're building product and you're entertaining investors with the next raise. Like, you know, where, where did the pressure kind of boil up the most and how did you kind of, did you deal with it to kind of keep this momentum going? Shay (24:33.194) Man, so the pressure always builds up somewhere, right? You're sometimes you're so when you're dealing with investors very classic CEO hat then You're very new. It's as you know, some people you sell to enterprises But let's be honest when you're just three months in your tech isn't really enterprise great So you are gonna fuck up a lot of stuff, right? And so then the cto hat comes on And then you're like dealing with the tag and like actually in there you're helping them build like it's not you know, some people think see especially me in unframed. So, you know, we're a team of three. There's me, there's Adi, which is the VPR and D and there's Larissa, which is the CEO. So I switch hats between CEO and CTO often. And then you have the concept, the thing about like, how do you get leads and pipeline and all that. So you put on the sales or marketing hat, you engage with customers. And so I find myself always wearing a different hat, depending on where I felt is the most burning area at a moment in time. That's kind of how I operate almost always. You'll find me in phases where I'm almost purely sales in front of customers all day selling, pitching on frame, getting it going, da da da da. And then the last thing that I want to think of is what happens in the tech. Like don't tell me I don't like, you know, I want to be far from it. And then you switch hats to the tech and you're like, I don't want to engage with customers now. Like let the sales team do its thing. Let's build something worthy. And then that's kind of how I operate it. It really grinds you down. Jason Kirby (25:43.66) Yeah. Shay (25:59.854) It kills you. It's really, really a rough journey. And especially, I think, even if I compare it to No Name, the first year and a half in a new company is by far the hardest. It's almost like the static friction. You're really creating something live. A company initially isn't alive without its founders. If you cross the street, a bus hits you, it's done. And to get it to the point in which it's alive, it has life of its own, there's a team, there's people, there's functioning, there's sales, there's marketing, there's R &D, and that even if you were to disappear tomorrow, it will have life of its own. That's the hardest part that I found. That's the hardest, hardest part in a company. The hardest, because you build momentum out of zero. Once you finish that, then you just scale it up. Okay, more sales, more R &D, more projects, more marketing, more let's go, let's go, let's go. That's already an easier part. but the zero to the beginning, killer, killer. Jason Kirby (26:58.465) I was at least it was a short period of time in comparison to some other founders. know that it's like two, three, four years to kind of get to that breakout momentum phase. So at least, it came quick and you you had some capital behind you in that. and so one thing, just fun question I want to know is when it comes to selling enterprise and selling enterprise on a relatively unproven category, let alone product, it's hot. People want it. Shay (27:04.66) yeah. Shay (27:23.276) Yeah. Yeah. Jason Kirby (27:26.911) And I think you came, you mentioned in the beginning, like you have a kill. It sounds like you have a killer offer. Like, Hey, try before you buy kind of, you know, mindset, is great. you get quick turnaround. So. Shay (27:35.19) And you get a custom try before you buy. It's something custom. You don't have it in any other industry. No one will tailor you a suit and say, pay me if you like the end result. Like I tailored it for you. What do you mean? But in Onframe, it is like that. It's tailored, but you get to pay. Jason Kirby (27:49.675) So like, what are you guys doing for sales? how do you, is it marketing? Is it sales? Like what's driving the lead machine? Like the sales machine for you guys. Shay (27:58.816) Yeah, so that's a great point. Because unlike the classic selling, which was like, this is the problem we solved. This is our statement. Let me convince you why it's an important problem, and I want you to buy it. In unframed, or generally AI, and I think they touched on it quite a bit by now that this topic is very much out there, the selling in AI is kind of more consultative in the sense of you give the general idea of what the platform is, what it is you do, and the quick turnaround. And different companies will have different offerings, et cetera. But the selling is almost always like, what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to get the customer going about a use case or what it is they are hoping to achieve? So it's somewhat like consultative selling. Now, we didn't have to invent it. Consultants exist in the world already before. So you could get a sales team that is more consultative in nature. There are also companies that were always somewhat consultative selling. So to give you an example, what I found is that database companies, are almost also like consultative selling because someone's selling you, let's say MongoDB, they don't come in with a feature list. They come in and say, what are you trying to achieve? Let me convince you why MongoDB is the best thing for you to solve this use case. So they're almost like naturally more consultative selling. It wasn't like that in Nonim. Nonim was API security. I need to convince you API security is important. I'm not consultative to anything you want to do in cyber. I'm telling you, you need API security. But so that was the shift. So we're very much sales driven. There is marketing concept because AI is very hot. Enterprise AI is very hot. Like a lot of companies want to adopt it. We help them solve real problems. Word to mouth is very strong in AI because people are very proud of what they're doing in AI, especially when they get outcome out of it. And so that started working for us quite well. But our motion and generally enterprise motion is sales. It's a sales process that you have to. Jason Kirby (29:53.866) And is it safe to say and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you, would you say you're the enterprise solution equivalent to like lovable is for like in a consumer or mass? Shay (30:03.34) So I heard that before, but the thing about the lovable and those, they're DIY. They're meant for the enterprise to build themselves. And Unframe is different in the sense that we're not a DIY platform. We don't come in, at least not for now. We don't come in and give you building blocks and say, build it yourself. We say, we have the building blocks. This is why we're able to deliver use cases very, very fast. But we'll deliver you the turnkey solution. You'll get a solution for the use case that you mentioned. And we better do it fast, or we we will pay for it, right? Not you, because we wasted our time. We better do it with value, because otherwise we would pay for it, because you wouldn't want a license. And so we take all the risk and all the work and all the burden upon ourselves. There is the concept of a platform. All the solutions are running on a single knowledge fabric that makes them smarter, better over time, et cetera. There is deep tech behind it. But we took the burden of getting a turnkey solution. Inlovable, if you're a B2C consumer, You come in, you try to solve your own problem. You don't just talk about it and a person takes it from you and does it. So that's kind of more like what we do, I'd say. Jason Kirby (31:12.009) Okay, that gives me a little more context. And is it safe to say it's a kind of like hyper scale tech enabled service. Like you guys can very few human, like not as much human effort to get a substantially scaled up output. Shay (31:24.024) Yeah. Yeah, but think about that. That also like in the terms of service, right? Because this is kind of the twist. You're right that it's a service on our end. We spend time, we make it, but the customer does not, we never charge for services. They don't pay per our time. They don't pay for our bill. They pay per solution per year only after they got it and if they're happy with it. So it's very much to the cost in front of customers, very much like a product. You license a product in a yearly basis based on the fact that you liked it or didn't like it to us internally. there's some work around it in terms of like creating the solution, giving it to them, making it a value. So it's somewhat unique. So to the customer, not a services company. Internally, maybe somewhat like a hyper scale services company. And that's kind of the mix of how I'm from. Jason Kirby (32:10.133) And being that you're kind of like innovating on a front that, you know, not too common, like there's like traditional like DevOps, you know, like devs, outsource services where, yeah, sure. We'll come and spend six months and build you something, but you know, you're turning something around in weeks and iterating and optimizing to get to the point where they'll actually pay. So you take a huge risk upfront. So like, how do you price something like. Shay (32:19.704) Hooray. Shay (32:34.574) Good question. there's no, yeah, something in unframed is that before we talk about your use case, we don't know to tell you if it's small, medium, or large. We do have t-shirt size pricing. It starts at 75k per year, all the way up to 500k per year for the larger, really complex use cases. And when we talk about your use case, we try to estimate the complexity. We never surprise you. It's not like you get the solution, try it, and then, you liked it? Guess what? It's a million bucks. It's not like that. You know upfront, before we go ahead and make it, you know how much it's going to cost, shall you license it? And you usually, you know, it's usually very cost effective, much more cost effective than building it yourself, much more cost effective than outsourcing on consultancies or, you know, those heavy companies that come with forward deployed engineers that are very, very expensive. We usually are a very cost effective route. You don't have to make that of a strategic decision. It doesn't have to roll all the way up to the CEO to sign a $10 million check over the course of three years. It's much more focused on a use case, get you up and running, get you those quick wins. And on top of those quick wins, we'll build something far greater. So as we start working with enterprises, after we did one or two use cases, there, starts to be like a flood. get 16, 20 use cases from within the enterprise that they say, well, Unframe is really great in the sense that we get to see the solution and use it, and then it just goes. It just goes. Jason Kirby (34:01.217) Yeah. You got a killer strategy for land and expand an enterprise, which is like the holy grail of enterprises. It's one thing to get your product in the door, but how do you, that's like the hardest thing is once you actually have an agreement with an enterprise to get more money out of them, which you guys have a perfect playbook to do. I want to kind of point out a couple of things because you know, for audience, like you're all this stuff's rolling off your tongue and it's just so natural, but you're, you're hitting on things that like, Shay (34:04.557) very much. Shay (34:15.373) Right. Jason Kirby (34:28.541) absolute best practices, enterprise sales, ACV, 75 K to 500 K. You're out, you're below that. It's not a good business. It's not sustainable. You're above that. It's like not achievable. you know, the, capital, you're, you're speaking from like a level of experience that, you know, most of our listeners probably won't catch the fact that like, you know, you're saying all the right things, which probably leads to a successful capital raise. So the question I want to ask you is like, Was that always the case? what did you kind of conceptualize it with that sweet spot of ACV that kind of like killer offer to land and knowing that if you land that client, they're happy to pay once they're going to now spread it across the org. and I think that's what VCs are betting on is the fact of you're going to capture so much market share within dollars or say wallet share of these enterprises. and so it's such a clear VC play. I just want to ask you, like when you're building all this out and conceptualizing all this, were you building with that exact mindset or did you kind of like have to change things to get to that narrative? Shay (35:32.91) Yeah, so I had the mindset that the price range I had in mind, like I kind of knew. I don't know how, but I knew that 75k and fun fact, Name also had a minimum ticket size of 75k. So I don't know. guess it's good. I guess so. Yeah, I kind of knew that this is going to be the price range. We did have certain things that we changed. Initially, we thought maybe we'll have some off the shelf, like off the shelf solutions. We still have those. Jason Kirby (35:44.161) Yeah, that's like, you know, so someone probably in your company and no name was an expert in this and like knew that that had been the price. Shay (36:03.02) But we thought to start with that, just have off the shelf and offer custom or like tailored as a side thing, like less of a, but we very quickly understood that the tailored is the more interesting thing because companies started going after that. Like we got this feedback from the market, but in terms of the price range and estimating the complexity and all that. Some of it was very early, some of it baked later. I think the biggest difference though is when we did raise the seed, we talked about like having off the shelf solutions. that's gonna be the main driver and the tailored are gonna be the less of a big driver. It's still gonna operate in that way that you get it, we make some changes, et cetera. But in retrospect, that wasn't the right, by the way, a lot of VCs probably did not like that. So they did identify something and they were right. But yeah, so that's something that we learned very quickly. After like two, three months, we were like, no, it's the tailored. That's what they're going. Because it's very hard to guess. They have processes in banks and processes in insurance. You would never know it. Like even if you worked in banking in a different bank, you wouldn't necessarily know what business process they are trying, business process or pain point they are trying to resolve for now with AI. It would be very hard to guess. It's something that is usually They're happy to share, but it's for them. Jason Kirby (37:26.432) Well, and it's, it's very much driven by the humans, like the people making the decisions. Like it's, you know, it's a VP of some org who's pissed off about something and wants something, something to solve it. His team hasn't solved it. So he's like, all right, let's, know, can AI solve this? And it's so, you know, kind of individualistically driven, not necessarily greater or like the CEO is making some kind of mandate that, you know, this AI has to be there. Um, and they're just like, you know, now I challenge people all the time. It's like. Shay (37:44.654) Good. Jason Kirby (37:55.361) AI, it's so much of like, knowing that anything is possible. What could you do? What would you ask for? You know, it's like, such a different way to think as opposed to like, Hey, we have the SaaS product. should buy it. It's like, what would you Shay (38:02.496) Exactly. Shay (38:08.97) Exactly, exactly, exactly. And what you just said a year and a half ago, if you would go and tell the TVCs, they will think you're crazy. That's how they look. Jason Kirby (38:18.846) Yeah. Like, you're just a DevOps. I mean, not DevOps. You're like a dev shop. Like, yeah. Shay (38:23.34) Yeah, like what do you mean they have to come up with a salute? What are you off? What's your product? And it's like, you guys don't get it Jason Kirby (38:31.328) And I think a general shift in the mindset of VCs is like this AI enabled output. And some people, you know, could be service, like tech enabled service, you even for our company, we, for the amount of volume and deals that we do for the size of team we have, that's because we're so, we built all these internal tools and automations that just make it so much more efficient and faster than say a traditional, you know, shop who, you know, doesn't have access to those tools. I'm like, for you guys to be kind of Shay (38:51.619) Yeah. Jason Kirby (39:01.672) It's AI. built like a platform and you built tech and all this stuff. Like you, you can't build as fast as you do like one week turnaround times. It's nuts. yeah. So I can kind of see why this, you know, builds up the momentum and excitement around the investors and whatnot. Shay (39:14.754) Exactly. Exactly. And you have, you have the combination and you touched on it before. You have, you do have a push from the board and the CEO to let's adopt AI, let's make something with AI. And then on the other side, you have the natural, so every one of us has used JetGPT. And so we kind of know what it's able to do. And so if we're at work and we're doing something annoying that we can't use AI to do for us, because it's not all connected in that, then the use case starts to come up. It's like, why am I still manually typing now? working two days to do, why can't AI do this for me? And bam, a use case it's created. So you have to push from below, a push from above, and that's why on-frame, that's the momentum. Then on-frame hits it, hits it, hits it, hits it. That's what creates the company. Jason Kirby (39:59.205) Just for fun, is one of the biggest application requests from you guys reporting. Shay (40:04.538) Reporting is a bit, we have three main categories. Reporting is one, extraction and abstraction, all the manual files, know, the Excel sheets and contracts and that, those two are pretty big. Yeah. Jason Kirby (40:13.354) Yeah. Jason Kirby (40:17.982) Yeah, I had a feeling that was going to be a bit like my wife works for a big corporation and she has that same like just can't, they can't ever get the numbers right in these reports. And it's just like, absolutely. You know, it takes a month and a half to get the report. it's just like, you know, someone just doesn't want to do it because the job sucks. It's like, all right, that's a solution. but, so I digress a little bit. thought that was fun. you know, kind of top it there. So when it comes to. Shay (40:29.45) Yeah Shay (40:33.694) Yeah, yeah, exactly. There you go. Right. Jason Kirby (40:45.022) You know, the, the momentum and kind of where you're taking the business. you know, what, what's next in this market for you guys, is it to like go mega rounds and like, you know, profitable IPO? Where's, where's, where's unframed go from here? Shay (40:57.974) Yeah. So you'll think I'm crazy again, but it's really ambitious. what I see, look, now as you look at unframed from outside, let's say you're a CIO, you're director, CIO somewhere in a big company. You're looking at unframed, the offering is really, really appealing. It's somewhat de-risked, but it's unframed. And then you can compare it to, I don't know, let's say you could compare it to Microsoft or Google or Palantir or... a bunch of like that. So you look at unframed, the model is very attractive. But it's just unframed. I don't know them. They're still a startup. My mind will still say, well, I can go with Microsoft. I can go with Palantir. It will be more expensive. I'll pay upfront. I don't know about the outcome. I don't know if I'll get the right outcome. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. But it's Microsoft. But it's Palantir. But it's that. This is the scale that unframed needs to break. And the way to break it is by actually building credibility and trust by actually growing. There is gonna be a moment in time. And I don't know what is the number of ARR or number of paying customers that this is gonna hit, that you're gonna look at that and unframed is gonna also have the credibility to it. Maybe not as big as the other names, but you know, quite familiar. And that's gonna be the most important point in time for unframed because then your model is so attractive and you had to build such deep Deep IP in the sense of tech, soft IP in the sense of building the right solution, delivering it, understanding how the customer is using it, building the right product growth strategy, how do you evolve to other use cases, et You have so much going for you that it's very hard to replicate. And your model is so attractive to new business that I think that's going to be the moment in time which Unframe is going to get a lot more business in that it can possibly process. I'm telling you, I think it will sell more software business than we can possibly do. And that's going to be the exciting moment. And I think if we can get there and you know, we're building up towards that, then on-frame can be a gigantic company. And this is the reason that I started it. I wouldn't have started a company that I thought just another box and I can sell this for billion dollars. Sounds a lot. A billion dollars, great exit. already like, it's not the financial, not my personal financial driver that is driving this. It's the making this. Shay (43:17.378) big impactful company that's actually valuable to its customers, but also like a giant thing. And I think OnFrame has the potential to be this giant thing. And I always tell the team here is, look, if I miss a step and we don't become this giant thing, then we will be an interesting acquisition target. We will be, because we'll sell to enterprises, we'll be a good company, and then we'll take the exit. But I almost see it like there's a highway and I'm going to drive as long as I possibly can. And prefer not to take any exit. yeah, big IPO and beyond, but we need to see. And if somewhere I recognize, the road is pretty risky. I don't know. We missed some turns that let's take the exit. And then you start shifting the company a bit. You package it more for an &A target, which looks kind of different. It's a bit different. Jason Kirby (44:03.552) What would you do? Okay. That's a great question to segue into like, what does that mean? What does it mean to package up your company? So from like VC high growth to like, you know, try to get the highest valuation as the objective to now packaging it up to an M and a target. Like, what does that look like? Shay (44:11.896) Mm-hmm. Shay (44:18.06) Yeah. So I think when you package it to an &A target, you need to recognize the core interests that a potential buyer will have to acquiring you. And then you can map the potential buyers and see what their interests are going to be. Is their interest going to be the actual product that you build or some verticals that you have dominant entry in? You're so strong in those verticals that they want to be in those verticals and they're going to expand that way. is it sometimes it's the talent in AI, it's very common that it's just the talent, right? We see what did they did with, they just got the company. They don't even take the product, right? They got the company, they take the talent, sayonara, right? So that's also suddenly, and those are big exits. We used to acqui-hires being small. Those AI acqui-hires are like insane, right? And so that's going to also be a thing. So I think you need to understand. OK, what are the potential acquirers? And you can map it all the way from the large services companies, know, Accenture and Deloitte and those, because you're very much hyperscale service. You can start mapping it from the concept of core tech, multiple products to enterprises. And it's like Salesforce and folks like that. You can look at it from the cloud perspective, because you're helping drive. So there's a lot of different players. You start partnership discussions around the common interests. Not necessarily from the point of, I want to be acquired. It's not like that. You can't come like that. And it doesn't make any sense. But usually a conversation starts evolving. And that's how I felt &As are really built. The conversation starts evolving around common interests. How would this work together? Maybe let's talk to some customers together. Maybe you're already selling on their marketplace and they see you booming. You already talked to their sales rep. Something starts to go. You just, it starts moving. And so when you build towards an exit, you don't necessarily maximize on like as a, as a core business, you don't, the ARR is no longer necessarily the most interesting metric. It's important, but not anymore. When you aim for an exit will be the potential ARR, the potential sales you will do to your acquirer. That's becomes the most important aspect. And so. Shay (46:37.07) to a large company, know, in cybersecurity, to a large company like Palo Alto Networks, whether you have 5 million and 20 million, they can't even see it with a magnifying glass. don't know what is this number? Like it has two little zeros, but they want to understand that if they acquire you, they are going to generate hundreds of millions of recurring revenue from your solution. And for that, they need to understand how well it aligns with their strategy and how well it aligns with how they sell and how... well, it aligns with what happens in the market. And so if you frame your company in that way, as you talk to them or as they hear about you, then you become a more interesting &A target. So that's kind of how I view it. You need to kind of shift the way of where you're aiming to. Jason Kirby (47:21.92) No, that is such accurate advice. And my, my opinion, my, my experience as well of what's the value after the fact, and how do you make that a very clear, understandable value creation, you know, for them. And you nailed one piece that I tell funders all the time. It's like, you don't go to market and saying, buy me please. Um, you know, that puts you in a position of weakness. It, you know, it looks like you're trying, you know, desperate to sell and like. Typically you want to be in control and have options and have multiple players at the table and, you know, start partnerships like, let's do a POC together. do a collab, you know, collab on this thing together. Like, Hey, let's do this. And once you start having a little bit more intimate knowledge of how each other work, those turn into the much more attractive, very amicable win-win, uh, outcomes versus like, Hey, please buy me. Like we're for sale. Um, Shay (48:16.782) Yeah. Jason Kirby (48:18.878) So I completely agree. That's great advice for founders. So switching over to some, some advice, I'm curious to your thoughts. What do you believe separates founders from those like you, you like raise massive rounds, know, bigger valuations versus, you know, founders would maybe great businesses or great ideas, but aren't achieving those valuations or capital raises. Shay (48:43.598) Yeah. Yeah. I always looked at capital raises and valuation, not necessarily as a success indicator. Even in no name, yeah, we were riding the 2021 for sure. And so there was a lot of buzz. were hitting that. But I think in many, many cases, you can have a company that didn't raise that much. wasn't so, didn't raise in that high valuation, but the outcome is phenomenal. You know, there's companies selling for 150 and 200 that their outcome is phenomenal. I think in terms of what usually happens in large raises, there has to be, and we're talking about first time founders, right? Purely first time. Cause obviously second timer usually can raise more and higher valuation just for the, just because they're a second timer. That's just the reality of stuff. But, but it makes sense, right? When you go to a doctor, which one do you want? The new one or the one that's experienced? You'll pay more for the one that's experienced. Natural, right? So we understand that. But as a first time founder, for VCs to put a lot of money in, have to understand, you know, either you're in a very aggressive, there needs to be some justification to raising that much. So for example, if you're building an AI company and training a model and to train any model, you have to have at least 50 million, let's say as an example, then you're round by nature. Like you can't raise a round of under 50. So... When you'll come to raise, you'll have to say 50 or above. Maybe they'll believe you that you're an AI talent and you can build this model and it's worth it for them. Or they won't and they won't invest. But if you'll come in and say, I want to raise 10 and they know that training a model cannot be done with it, then something is misaligned. Same way goes when it's a market that is very aggressive. If you operate in a market that's very aggressive, you're going to need a lot of capital to move fast. So that's a good justification of why you need to raise a lot. If you come in with a number that's very low, they might tell you're gonna get eaten alive. Like those guys raise so much. Like if you come with a number that's too high, they might say, well, you're completely detached from your, your market isn't that aggressive. Why do you need to raise that much? So this kind of has to be a certain alignment of why you want to raise this much beyond just, I want to raise as much as I can for the highest valuation possible. I hate those. There has to be some reason, right? I want to raise this much because I have to move fast. I have to get a lot of sellers because if I wait two years, the market's already been captured. Shay (51:03.542) and we don't want to miss that, right? And you tell VCs that from the perspective and you and I both, I don't want to miss it and you guys don't want to miss it, right? You invest in me, let's play the game. We either play to win or not play. So that's kind of how I position that. Jason Kirby (51:19.026) I appreciate the, the perspective there that is really candid and something that I think founders really need to think about is why are they asking for as much as they are asking for? But also what's the external factor? What's the external part? What are the VCs know that you don't, that you need to take into consideration and get that information before you go out to market? Cause again, you could fall flat on your face like, we're going to raise five. It's like, well, everyone else has raised 50, but well, five, 50 sounds too much. You know, it's like, need it. Shay (51:45.877) Yeah Jason Kirby (51:47.944) Otherwise you're going to be a distant 10th in a very competitive market, or it's not that active of a market, but you have a unique opportunity to capture. You might just might not need that much money. And so it's really sitting down and thinking about that before you go to investors. Cause once you meet the investors and they hear that you want some outlandish number, whether it's too small or too big, they're like, I'm not interested in that phase. want nothing to do with you usually thereafter. And you blew your shot. And so it's very important to kind of nail that narrative upfront. Shay (52:11.949) Yeah. Jason Kirby (52:17.561) so what would be your advice to founders? Yeah. Right now that are exploring high growth enterprise AI, like what should they be looking at? What should they be looking for? What, what, what should be on the horizon for them? Shay (52:29.472) Right. So I will make a distinction between first time and second time founders and they're their goal, like their own personal goal. I know externally that you'll ask any founder the goal externally will always be, I want to build a really big company. I want to IPO. But when you sit with yourself, if your goal is to get financial freedom and to make, to become a millionaire, right. Then, understand your route towards that. Don't, you don't necessarily have to build this grandiose thing. because when you try to build a grandiose thing, there's much more chances that you're going to fail. Right. So for example, right. I'm giving, I'm going to give an analogy. I mean, it's a dumb analogy, but let's think about it for a sec. If Elon was a first time founder and what he wanted to build with SpaceX. I don't know. Like, you know, you first, no, not exactly. Don't start that. You can have the chance to go after if your chance, if what you want is to become a millionaire. Don't, don't try to build in SpaceX yet. Jason Kirby (53:18.438) and it work. Shay (53:28.3) That's because because it's not your, you know, his core goal that sits behind it is not to become a millionaire. It was already a millionaire. It was already financially settled. And so this is what I feel I do in unframed. I'm aiming towards this grandiose goal because I do want to find out. I do want it to be financially successful, but I'm not. I didn't build it for the sense of getting financial freedom and making like a lot of money for myself. If I am in that case, I would pick something less risky. that I think has a lot of traction and a lot of momentum. I think it's an interesting &A target. And this is what I'm going to build in. And I think Israel, which is where I'm from, really does that well in cybersecurity. There's a lot of great cybersecurity companies in Israel. They operate in a certain way. And a lot of them, almost all of them go to &A, almost all of them, because cybersecurity is a general market. It's very hard to build a moonshot. It's very hard. So I think I would... Recommend it to fit into an ecosystem that you're strong in, play to your strength, don't take too much risk, because your core goal is to build something that will give you financial freedom. So aim it to an M &A, understand what the game you're playing is. That's kind of it. Whereas if you are very ambitious and you want to go big, then you can play in any game and then you can take high risk. And I even encourage you, like if you do, if you play this for the grandiose, for the moonshot, for something like that, then go crazy. Go crazy because this is the only way that the world actually changes is when you go something, you gotta be crazy because that's what shifts the boundaries of what's possible. Jason Kirby (54:58.151) Yeah, and you gotta be crazy. Gotta have a little crazy. Jason Kirby (55:05.287) If VCs are not calling you crazy, you're probably not crazy enough. Shay (55:08.186) Correct. Correct. Correct. But as a first timer, aim for the more packaged offering, nice, good company, solid, go through an &A, make millions, become a millionaire. If that was your core goal, then do it like that. That's my recommendation. Jason Kirby (55:28.127) Nah, I start every conversation with a new founder with what do you want? Let's cause that sets the tone. It's like, and the, oh, it's the first response is they're not expecting that. They're Oh, okay. Sure. What do you want? Um, and that helps set the tone of like, all right, well, cause that's your North star. Okay. You would love to, like, you know, had a couple of other days, like I want to sell for 25 million. Great. 25 million. Shay (55:39.918) Yeah, I'll wait. Okay. Exactly. Jason Kirby (55:57.76) That is totally achievable with where you're at. Like, let's go and reverse engineer that. within 18 months, that's very plausible. Like that's a great outcome versus like when you first started the conversation, like, yeah, it be, it like your industry has zero billion dollar companies. Shay (56:00.685) correct. Shay (56:06.528) Exactly. Shay (56:13.902) Exactly, right? Exactly. Jason Kirby (56:17.631) Um, so it was nice for them to have the realistic, like Congress, cause they had like conversations amongst, it'd so nice if we had $25 million, which is fine, but their VCs would kill them if they, you know. Shay (56:26.594) Correct. So they don't say it. They don't say it. They don't say it. Yeah, exactly. But when you sit alone in a quiet room, think about that and that's your North Star. That's what I would recommend. Yeah. Jason Kirby (56:35.271) Yeah. Yeah, I do. I did tell some founders like, OK, like, know what you really, really want, but we're to paint this picture so we can get the capital to get there. Shay (56:43.616) You don't have a choice. You don't have a choice. You don't have choice. Correct. Jason Kirby (56:46.303) yeah, so that's the, there's that game too, but it's being open and honest and like knowing what you really want. And then just engineering the outcomes is so much easier versus kind of the pie in the sky. well, that's what everyone else tells me to do. It's like, if you're going off what other people tell you to do, it's game over. Shay (56:58.946) Be careful of that. Be careful of that. Be careful of the pie. Exactly. Be careful of the pie in the sky. Exactly. Maybe it's what your VCs want, but not necessarily what you want. Right? So you have to be mindful. It's your show. You built this company. You put your blood, sweat, tears. Make sure you follow your road. Don't just, everybody's driving that way. Wait. What am I aiming towards? What do I want to achieve? Let's make sure this is my North Star. It's tricky. You lose it sometimes. Yeah. Jason Kirby (57:29.649) And it's still possible to know your North star authentically about where you really want to go, but still be projecting the narrative that you need to, to get to that outcome. Albeit that narrative might be slightly different. but it's knowing that discrepancy exists. So you can manage X communication and expectations of those around you. Cause I think like I see so many founders in boards, know, the VCs and stuff like just clashing, clashing, clashing. Shay (57:39.042) Correct. Shay (57:44.568) Correct. Jason Kirby (57:58.432) It happened when I sold the Walmart, like our VCs were like, you know, billion or bust. And I was like, you, I want this. Give me this outcome today. Uh, and yeah, we lost a more attractive deal because they tried to push back and, know, the acquire CEO went to prison in the mid. And so we had a deal, Samsung's, uh, CEO went to prison when our deal was closing. And so we ended up having to sell the Walmart about a year later, which Shay (58:04.206) Exactly! Right! Right! Shay (58:19.359) Wow Jason Kirby (58:27.145) Turns are roughly the same, but our investors kind of squeezed us and put some lick crafts and like a bridge round that kind of, you know, hurt us a little bit more than I would like. and all because our board got greedy on that first transaction and had they kept stayed out of it and stayed true to the terms, we would all been way better off. and that's, know, that communication and alignment on, who you get on your board and setting expectations of what really is feasible. And also the market was going to totally crush us. You know, if we didn't sell, we were totally screwed. Shay (58:45.87) There you go. Jason Kirby (58:56.799) Like there was no billion dollar bust outcome. was like we had to use that all to get the resources. yeah. So I think that's such valuable advice for founders to just truly look within and what's actually motivating them and get aligned with their co-founders on that. There's misalignment on the North star. It's just, it's so hard to build against that. so Sage advice, much appreciated. this has been a phenomenal conversation, honestly. Shay (58:59.0) Yeah. Jason Kirby (59:24.863) so much alignment in terms of how you communicate and kind what you're driving towards and what I speak with companies about. What would be the best way for founders to learn more about you or for enterprises to learn about Unframe? What would be the best place for them to go? Shay (59:41.026) Yeah, so for founders, enterprise. Everyone who wants to contact me, can easily add me on LinkedIn and drop me a note. That's first. Second, enterprises can definitely land on our page at unframed.ai and learn all about what we do in the variety of industries. Can leave their details for a demo to get in touch, et cetera. Yeah, my email is shi at unframedai. Pretty simple. S-H-A-Y. Jason Kirby (01:00:05.343) there. Morning. Shay (01:00:08.995) This is how I spell it. S-H-A-Y. yeah, that's it. So you have it all. You can easily just reach me. Jason Kirby (01:00:16.585) amazing. Really appreciate that. And we'll make sure to include those notes. Probably won't put your email directly in the YouTube description. But you know, if someone's a good listener, and they actually listen all the way through, they can they can earn their right to reach out to you. Just make sure you can give shy some context. We really appreciate you on the show. Look forward to getting this out to our audience. Shay (01:00:23.074) That's okay. Shay (01:00:36.824) Sounds good. Thank you very much, Jason.