标签：#startup

Key takeaways Summarizing conversation history can reduce costs by up to 60%. Implementing an effective summarization algorithm is key to efficiency. Balancing detail and brevity in summaries is crucial for context. Optimized context windows lead to faster response times and lower latency. The problem Startups leveraging large language models (LLMs) often face significant costs associated with managing context windows during conversations. Each token processed incurs a cost, and as conversations grow, replaying entire histories can lead to runaway expenses. Founders and engineers encounter this issue particularly during customer support interactions or chatbots, where lengthy dialogues require constant context retention, drastically inflating operational costs. What we found Our research indicates that instead of replaying the entire conversation history, summarizing the dialogue can maintain context while drastically reducing token usage. By distilling key points and intents into a concise summary, we can effectively minimize the number of tokens processed, leading to major cost savings without sacrificing the quality of interaction. This non-obvious insight repositions how we approach conversation management in LLMs. How to implement it Start by selecting a summarization algorithm suitable for your use case. Techniques like extractive summarization (e.g., using TextRank) can identify and retain essential sentences from conversations, while abstractive methods (e.g., fine-tuning a transformer model) rephrase the content. Next, integrate this summarization step into your workflow: after each interaction, generate a summary that captures the main points. Ensure that the summary is stored and utilized as context for subsequent interactions, replacing the need for the entire conversation history. Monitor token usage before and after implementation to quantify cost savings. How this makes life easier By summarizing conversation history, startups can see a reduction in c

A few months ago, if someone had asked me to build a mobile app, I would've had absolutely no idea where to start. Today, an app I built is on the Google Play Store. It's called Stulo, and it's currently in closed testing. The funny part? I'm not a software engineer. I'm just a college student who got tired of missing opportunities. Internships were on LinkedIn, hackathons were buried somewhere on Instagram, college events lived inside WhatsApp groups, and competitions were scattered across random websites. If the algorithm didn't like you that day, you simply never found them. That felt... ridiculous. So I asked myself, "Why isn't there one place where students can find everything?" That simple question eventually became Stulo. Today, students can discover internships, hackathons, competitions, campus events, connect with other students, and share updates through a campus feed—all in one app. The biggest lie I believed was that building the app would be the hard part. It wasn't. Understanding why it wasn't working was. I built the first version using Emergent because, honestly, I didn't know enough to start from scratch. It got me surprisingly far. As the project became more serious, I moved development to Google AI Studio (Antigravity). That's when I learned something every AI-generated YouTube thumbnail forgets to mention: AI doesn't build products. It generates code. There's a huge difference. AI happily writes hundreds of lines of code, but it doesn't explain why your images randomly stop rendering after ten minutes, why scrolling suddenly feels like you're using a phone from 2013, or why fixing one bug somehow creates three completely unrelated bugs. Most days followed the exact same routine: generate code, run the app, watch something break, Google the error, ask AI, read Stack Overflow, realize the problem was my own code, and repeat. Some bugs took ten minutes to fix, while others stole an entire weekend. Looking back, one of the biggest things I learned wa

When I started thinking about real-time alerts for my SaaS, my first instinct was Slack. Familiar,...

New models are launching in Asia that promise Mythos-like capabilities without fear of an export ban. U.S. AI labs may never recover this enormous market.

Originally published on the Keylight blog . A short founder note on why Keylight exists. Every product starts as somebody's unsolved problem; this is mine, and if you are shipping a paid app you have probably run into the same one. The problem I kept hitting I wanted to sell a desktop app directly. Not through the App Store — directly, to customers I could actually talk to. The payment side was easy: Stripe is excellent and the decision took an afternoon. Then I got to licensing, and everything slowed down. Stripe takes the money. It does not give you a license key. It does not sign anything your app can verify. It does not know what a device activation is. The moment a customer has paid, you are on your own: you need to mint a key, sign it so it cannot be forged, deliver it, let the app check it, track devices, and revoke it on a refund. None of that is payment processing, so none of it is in Stripe. So I looked at the platforms that do bundle licensing. Why the merchant-of-record platforms did not fit Paddle, Gumroad, and Lemon Squeezy all advertise license keys. I looked hard at each, and the same three problems came up. The fee. As merchants of record they charge around 5%, against Stripe's ~2.9%. On every sale, forever. Reasonable if it solved my problem well — but it did not. Offline validation. This was the dealbreaker. Their licensing is built around an online validation API: to check a key, the app calls the platform's server. My app is a desktop app, and desktop apps run on planes, behind firewalls, and offline. An online-only check leaves no good option. Fail closed — refuse to run without a server response — and a paying customer who is simply offline cannot use what they bought. Fail open — keep running when the server is unreachable — and the check is trivially bypassed: block the app's network access and it can never re-check the license or learn it was revoked. The app never actually verifies anything itself; it only knows what the server last told i

The problem: I kept missing big moves on Polymarket because I had no way to see what the biggest traders were betting on in real time. So I built WhaleTrack — a free, no-signup tool that shows you exactly what top Polymarket whales are buying and selling. What it does Live whale activity feed — see the last 40 trades from top wallets, updated on refresh Whale leaderboard — P&L, win rate, trade count for the biggest accounts No login, no ads, no fluff — just the data How it works The whole thing is vanilla HTML/CSS/JS deployed on Vercel with two serverless functions: /api/whales.js — hits the Polymarket leaderboard API, fetches position stats for each whale, calculates win rates from closed positions /api/activity.js — pulls recent trades for each whale wallet in parallel, filters out internal combo transactions (no title / zero price), and returns the 40 most recent trades The serverless layer solves CORS — Polymarket's data API doesn't allow browser requests, so everything goes server-side. Tech stack Frontend: Vanilla HTML/CSS/JS (zero dependencies) Backend: Vercel serverless functions Data: Polymarket public data API Deploy: Vercel (free tier) Biggest lesson Filtering bad data is half the work. The raw API returns combo trades and internal transactions that show up as "Unknown Market @ 0¢" — useless noise. Had to figure out which fields to check (title, price > 0) to strip them. Also: win rate calculation is tricky when most whales have unrealized profits. Showing "—" instead of 0% is more honest. Try it WhaleTrack → Also launched on Product Hunt today if you want to show some love: Product Hunt Built this in a weekend. Happy to answer questions about the Polymarket API or Vercel serverless setup.

Corgi became embroiled in controversy when Papermark accused it of stealing its software. Corgi says it did not, raising new questions about vibe coding.

The hire marks OpenAI's latest push into India, expanding offices, partnerships and hiring.

Save up to $190 on your pass to TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026. Early Bird pricing ends today, at 11:59 p.m. PT, after which rates increase. Register now.

Why adaptability beats perfection in startup software development The Startup Trap: Building for a Future That Doesn't Exist Yet Many startup founders make the same mistake. They spend months building the "perfect" product architecture. The code is clean. The design patterns are flawless. The test coverage is near 100%. The infrastructure can scale to millions of users. There's just one problem: They don't have any users. In the startup world, survival depends on learning faster than competitors, not on creating the most elegant codebase. Product-market fit is uncertain. Customer needs change weekly. Business models evolve. Features that seemed critical last month become irrelevant the next. In that environment, the biggest advantage isn't perfect code. It's malleable code . Code that can bend, adapt, and evolve as the business learns. What Is Malleable Code? Malleable code is software that is easy to change. It isn't necessarily perfect. It isn't over-engineered. It isn't designed to solve every future problem. Instead, it's designed to support continuous experimentation. Malleable code allows teams to: Launch MVPs quickly Test assumptions rapidly Respond to customer feedback Pivot when necessary Add new features without major rewrites Remove failed features with minimal effort Think of it this way: Perfect code optimizes for certainty. Malleable code optimizes for uncertainty. And startups operate almost entirely in uncertainty. When you're still searching for product-market fit, the ability to adapt is often more valuable than technical elegance. Why "Perfect" Code Often Hurts Startups Software engineers love solving technical problems. It's natural. Building a scalable architecture feels productive. Refactoring code feels productive. Designing the perfect system feels productive. But startup success isn't measured by code quality. It's measured by business outcomes. Questions such as: Are customers using the product? Are they paying for it? Are they returning? A

Cross-posted from noflattery.com/decide — where I ran this exact question through a council of four different frontier models and let them argue it out. You're a solo founder at ~$8K MRR. You have runway for exactly one full-time hire. Which role unlocks the most growth? (A) a second engineer to ship features faster (B) a marketer to build a real acquisition channel (C) a customer-success / support hire to cut churn and free your time (D) a salesperson to chase larger deals The intuitive answer for most technical founders is A — more shipping velocity. The case below is for C , and it's stronger than it looks. (With one caveat that can flip the whole thing — stick around for it.) TL;DR: At ~$8K MRR solo, hire customer success first if churn is real or support is eating your week . If voluntary churn is under ~3% and support is light, hire a marketer instead. Engineer and sales come later. The case for customer success first 1. Churn quietly eats growth before features can add it. At $8K MRR, 5% monthly churn is ~$400/month bleeding out before you grow an inch. Across bootstrapped SaaS in the $5–15K MRR band, the strongest predictor of reaching $50K isn't feature velocity or channel — it's net revenue retention above 90% . That's a customer-success function, not an engineering one. 2. You are the bottleneck, and support is eating you. As a solo founder you're doing product, sales, billing, and support. If support takes ~15 hours a week, that's nearly 40% of your capacity — and it's the cheapest thing to hand off. A CS hire costs less than a senior engineer or an experienced salesperson, and it buys back the hours (and the headspace) you need to think strategically again. 3. It's a research department in disguise. A CS hire generates the highest volume of qualitative signal: why people leave, what they actually use, what they'd pay more for. An engineer builds what you think users want. CS tells you what they actually need — which means the engineer you hire next buil

I run brand and product work for crypto and fintech companies, and this year the same request keeps landing on my desk, worded slightly differently each time: we don't want to look like crypto anymore. It comes from payment companies, exchanges, stablecoin startups — the ones that spent years looking like "the future" and now want to look like a bank. Or rather, a neobank. The first thing they ask to kill is the gradient. This isn't taste finally maturing. It's regulation. Under MiCA you can't operate in European crypto without a license, and a licensed company that still looks like a 2021 DeFi protocol has a problem its lawyers can't fix. So the whole industry is quietly repainting itself toward "trustworthy." Here's the trap I keep watching people walk into. The gradient everyone's fleeing is already being replaced by a new monoculture — the same off-white, the same restrained type, the same calm. Swapping a gradient for clean sans-serif feels like progress because it looks like the companies that already won (Stripe, Coinbase). But you're not them, and wearing the surface of a trusted brand doesn't make you inherit the trust. It's just a different uniform. The escape route became a traffic jam. The deeper issue: the audience flipped. For 15 years crypto brands were built for insiders who chose crypto because it wasn't a bank. The dark dashboard and the "to the moon" energy were tribe signals. But a licensed company now answers to regulators, banks, institutions, and normal people moving their salary — none of whom read a glowing gradient as "innovative." They read it as "unregulated." Same brand, overnight liability. And the part most people skip: trust isn't a color. It's spread across every surface you own, all the way down to the transaction detail nobody thinks about. A clean homepage in front of a 2021 dashboard isn't progress — it's a tell. The repackaging that works goes all the way down: the same restraint and clarity from the cold email to the onboarding

An innovative Moroccan platform for finding, renting, and selling real estate, offering a simple and seamless experience tailored to the local market. Challenge Launch Sarout.ma, an innovative Moroccan platform dedicated to searching, renting and selling real estate, on an ultra-competitive market dominated by a few historical players often criticized for dated ergonomics and uneven listing quality. The challenge: build an intuitive, modern real estate marketplace able to connect individual owners, agencies and tenants across all of Morocco — Casablanca, Rabat, Marrakech, Tangier, Agadir — with clear navigation and smart search. It also required enriched, geolocated listings updated in real time, and a journey differentiated by user profile (searcher, owner, professional agency). Solution Development of a site with a clean, fully responsive interface, designed mobile-first since most real estate searches in Morocco happen on smartphones. Integration of advanced dynamic filters (city, neighborhood, price, surface, number of rooms, property type, furnished/unfurnished) with instant result refresh. Listing management via a complete owner dashboard: creation, editing, view statistics, photo management with multi-upload and automatic compression, scheduling of paid promotions. Each property page has an SEO-optimized URL, rich descriptive content, precise geolocation on an interactive map, and the option to directly request a viewing. SEO architecture focused on local ranking: category pages per city and neighborhood, Schema.org RealEstateListing markup, dynamic sitemap. Email alert system for saved searches, listing moderation, and a professional agency dashboard for premium accounts. Results A high-performing, accessible real estate portal that significantly simplifies property search for individuals and strengthens listing visibility across Morocco. The interface fluidity stands out in a market where competition remains rough around the edges. Steady growth in publishe

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

Base Power is skipping the PJM's troubled interconnection queue by placing its batteries at people's homes, offering backup services in exchange.

General Intuition has raised $320 million to scale AI trained on millions of hours of gameplay, betting action data can help AI develop something closer to human intuition.

General Intuition has raised $320 million to scale AI trained on millions of hours of gameplay, betting action data can help AI develop something closer to human intuition.

2 days left to lock in your spot at TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 and save up to $190 before Early Bird rates expire on June 26 at 11:59 p.m. PT. Register here.

Backed by Mayfield and Aramco Ventures, Vishal Sikka’s new venture brings together veterans from SAP, Infosys, and VianAI.