Oleve's AI-driven workflow and hiring system

The 1-Person Unicorn is Here Forget the 100-person startup. Sam Altman says it's now possible to build a billion-dollar company—solo. How? The new tech stack: 1. AI as your Co-Founder. Code, design, strategy, marketing. Your force multiplier. 2. The "CEO Prompt" is the new business plan. Your vision directs the machine. Execution is automated. 3. Distribution is the only moat. Anyone can build. Winners find their crowd. The barrier is no longer capital. It's clarity and audacity. The most valuable team might be a human and a keyboard. Are you building?

Templates are Killing Your Startup. "We're disrupting the industry with our innovative AI-powered solution that leverages synergies to unlock unprecedented value." I see this shit everywhere. And it's killing your startup. Not because it's boring (though it is). Not because it's generic (though it is). But because it trains you to think in templates instead of truths. Last week, a founder pitched me. Smart guy. Great product. But his entire deck was cookie-cutter-LinkedIn-clutter mutated into investor language using a very obvious template. Think "Uber for X" level shortcuts that definitely got us to the wrong place faster. That's a thing. I stopped him mid-pitch: "Tell me why YOU started this. Not why the market needs it. Why YOU." He froze. Then something beautiful happened. My wife showed up with a coffee for me, totally unprompted. That's love...but I digress. The other beautiful thing: he dropped the template, forgot about the deck and told me about watching his mom struggle with the exact problem his startup solves. Real pain. Real motivation. Real fucking story. That's when I got interested. Here's what founders don't understand: When you write in templates --> you think in templates When you think in templates --> you build in templates When you build in templates --> you die from obscurity What should you do? Write like you talk. Pitch like you're explaining something to a friend. Build what you ACTUALLY give a damn about. Templates are good at stamping out mass quantities of low value outputs. They do so by stamping out what differentiates you. Don't you dare. Not connected yet? Hit connect with your elevator pitch in the custom message. I’ll send back one blunt edit that will sharpen your pitch. If we're already connected, just DM me your elevator pitch and I'll do the same.

Your startup has a story that's worth millions in funding... if you can tell it right. I've worked with many startups, and each one had a valuable story. It's just usually buried under 47 slides, industry jargon, and white papers. A very common mistake is thinking that investors will take the time to wade through all that to understand why your solution is worth investing in. They won't. To make them understand, you have to speak in a language they understand. Here's what I mean: Startup language: "Our proprietary AI-driven platform leverages machine learning algorithms to optimize enterprise workflow efficiency through intelligent automation protocols." Investor language: "We save companies 40% on labor costs by automating the boring stuff their employees hate doing." Same solution. Completely different impact. The pattern I see over and over: ➡️ Founders know their tech inside and out ➡️ They assume investors need all the technical details ➡️ They bury the compelling story under complexity ➡️ Investors tune out before the "wow" moment The fix is simpler than you think: Start with the problem everyone feels. End with the outcome everyone wants. Frame the technical brilliance in a customer narrative. Your million-dollar story is in there. It's just waiting for someone to dig it out and tell it like the investors are human beings who want to get excited about something. Because that's exactly what they are. 🔥

𝗜𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗠𝗙 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀? Founder: "We've hit PMF!" Me: "What are the numbers saying?" Founder: "Numbers? We just... feel it." That's the problem. PMF isn't a vibe—it's measurable. I built a dashboard that turns "we think we have PMF" into "here's exactly where we stand." It tracks 14 (or so) metrics that actually matter:  • Are users coming back?  • Are they telling their friends?  • Are they paying and staying?  • Are they using your core features? Think of it as a health checkup for your startup. Instead of guessing, you'll know what's working and what needs fixing. Set targets. Track progress. Turn PMF from a hope into a milestone you can plan toward. What do you track to measure PMF? Let's compare notes in the comments.

Who would be the most upset if my product didnt exist? If you can answer this question, you have found your ICP. Inarly days of building a starttup/product you find many personas taking interest in what you are building and it happens more so in dev tools..I faced this first hand at devdynamics At devdynamics, we initially saw interest from various developer personas - from solo freelancers to enterprise teams. Each group seemed excited about our tool. But excitement doesn't always translate to urgent need or willingness to pay. 🤔 We had to dig deeper. We asked ourselves: "Who would struggle the most without our solution?" This led us to focus on mid-sized startups scaling rapidly. By honing in on this ideal customer profile (ICP), we could tailor our product and messaging more effectively. Remember, in the early stages, it's tempting to try pleasing everyone. But true product-market fit comes from solving a burning problem for a specific group. So, startup founders: Who would miss your product the most if it vanished tomorrow? That's your North Star for growth.

Every founder starts with this spark a new product idea, a market insight, a belief that something could be built better. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: a good idea isn’t enough. According to CB Insights, 38% of startups fail because they run out of cash, often from re-building what was poorly executed the first time. Others (around 20%) fail from the wrong tech fit or execution flaws Think of Quibi that shut down in October 2020, in less than a year after lauching Despite raising over $1.7 billion from major investors or Jawbone, that also failed due to a combination of factors including poor product reliability and many more that had brilliant concepts, huge funding, but poor execution of what users actually needed. It’s painful to see because these aren’t bad founders, they just didn’t have the right tech partner guiding the build. Goodnews is, I know a reliable partner, They don’t just build software. They'll help you execute right, validate your ideas, ensure that it has value and a potential to generate significant revenue for you, BEFORE they build If you’ve got a great idea but you’re unsure how to build it right, maybe it’s time we talk.

People think consistency is boring. But in startups, consistency is the only unfair advantage. You don’t get users overnight. You don’t validate an MVP in one shot. You don’t build a product that sticks by luck. It’s the consistent work, showing up every day, building, testing, learning, that compounds into results. That’s how I help founders: keeping them consistent on solving the right problem, validating, and launching faster.

Is wasting time just a phase every startup goes through? The pattern shows up again and again: - Go with the cheapest option first. - Watch deadlines slip and costs rise. - Only then start looking for a reliable, long-term solution. It’s not just a “freelancer problem.” It’s how most of us make decisions under pressure: - Limited budget - Need to deliver fast - Fear of overpaying And yet - when I talk to founders later, most say: “I’d rather have spent more upfront and launched on time.” 💬 If you could start over, what would you change about how you built your first version?

You know what keeps most startup founders awake at night? Not just funding. Not just a great idea  Not just the ever increasing competition Often it’s poor execution, finding the right tech partner who truly understands their product vision,  Who’s not just looking for another brand to make money from,  but will actually work them through ideation to market penetration This single headache has made 42% of startups fail because there’s no market need for their product according to @CBInsights While in many cases, products launch with major bugs or usability issues,  so early users abandon them or give bad reviews.  And when feedback isn’t gathered early, “fix later” becomes “fix never enough.” https://lnkd.in/dugdfYxT Some enthusiastic startups even try to scale too soon, they add features, users, markets  before the core product works at a small scale.  Of course it damages the brand trust and burns money. https://lnkd.in/dyMYieqD These kinds of mistakes don’t just hurt, they can sink what was otherwise a promising product. At Petrong Software Solutions, we’ve seen these things, and we’ve built our approach around avoiding them: 1. We insist on deep product-discovery up front, talking to real potential users before a single screen or database table gets built. 2. We build in quality assurance & iteration cycles early, so that when it's time to launch, the core product is solid. 3. We help founders avoid premature scaling, and make sure features are deeply valuable, not just “nice to have.” If you’ve ever thought, “I have this idea but I don’t know who can build it well without wasting time or resources,” maybe that’s a conversation we need to have.

It's time to kill the myth that startups are inherently riskier than big companies. Can there be risk? Sure. Here's what a startup is ACTUALLY risky: - Hasn't found product market fit yet - Has less than a year of runway remaining - One customer provides the bulk of revenue - Frequent exec turnover - High customer churn This is all stuff that can be easily vetted out through a little LinkedIn sleuthing and Google/Perplexity (hint, past - not current company filter does wonders to see ex-employees). But to paint all startups as risky with a broad brush while big tech continues to lay off 10,000 people because of "organizational efficiency"? That's lazy thinking. The "safe" Big Tech job can disappear overnight based on a spreadsheet you'll never see. Startups give you transparency and agency. Big Tech gives you the illusion of stability until the day it doesn't. Choose accordingly.