There’s a cliché investors love because it’s true: time kills deals.

But here’s what nobody tells you about runway: you live under two clocks now.

The first clock is the one you know: burn rate, payroll, infrastructure, runway. The second clock is newer and faster: the outside world changing so fast your “plan” degrades like fruit on the counter.

In the stable world we’re exiting, the burn clock dominated. If you had 18 months of runway, you had 18 months of time. Your plan might be wrong, but it wouldn’t become wrong because the laws of the universe changed in month four.

In this world we’re entering, you can have 18 months of runway and 6 weeks of relevance.

This is what disequilibrium feels like. Not “behind,” not “failing”—but stuck in the half-light where everything feels slippery.

The wrong response is to grip harder. The right response is to recognize what’s actually happening: disequilibrium isn’t stress to manage. It’s leverage to use.

# AI Amplifies Everything, Including Your Bottlenecks

Most people talk about AI like it’s a better hammer. A better hammer makes you hit nails faster.

But that’s not what’s happening. AI is turning effort into a multiplier. Not in a vague “leverage” sense—in the concrete sense that you can now run more experiments per week, explore more branches of a decision tree, and ship more variants of a thing.

And when you multiply, you don’t just get “more good.” You get more bad (faster mistakes), more noise (more output that feels like progress), more fragility (more surface area), more variance (wildly different outcomes from similar inputs).

AI doesn’t just make work faster—it amplifies hidden constraints.

You can feel it in every domain:

• In engineering, code generation is cheaper, so the bottleneck shifts to requirements and integration.
• In marketing, content is cheaper, so the bottleneck shifts to trust and distribution.
• In product, features are cheaper, so the bottleneck shifts to taste and outcome reliability.
• In startups, MVPs are cheaper, so the bottleneck shifts to finding something worth building and proving it quickly.

What AI is really doing is turning the world into a system where constraints reveal themselves faster. That’s the opportunity. And that’s why most people feel overwhelmed: they’re still trying to solve the old constraint.

# Why Speed Without Structure Is Fragility

Most teams are still running “assistant era” processes with “orchestration era” tools.

In the assistant era, you’re still doing the work. AI is a power tool—one human, one agent, one linear process. In the orchestration era, you’re designing the system that does the work. AI is labor.

That’s a psychological shift as much as a technical one. And it explains why so many companies feel “stressed” around AI. They’re trying to bolt on assistants while still running assistant-era processes: human-sized sprints, human-sized reviews, human-sized planning. Meanwhile, the work is trying to become parallel.

When code is “cheap” in the new sense—when you can get a working feature stub in a day, not a month—something else happens. The team doesn’t ship 10× faster. They ship maybe 2× faster. Or they ship 10× more stuff but only 1× more impact.

Why? Because the bottleneck moved.

The cost of producing output drops, so the cost of producing coherent output dominates. The founder is no longer the person who pushes work through the pipe. The founder is the person who keeps the pipe from exploding.

This is also why you see a new bottleneck emerge: observability (as I’ve written about before). When you have multiple agents, parallel tasks, and stochastic planning, you need to answer: what was planned vs executed? Which agent made which decision? What verified correctness? Where did it fail, and why?

AI makes “doing” cheaper, but it makes “knowing what happened” more expensive. The winners will solve that paradox.

# The Translators Win

We live inside translation gaps:

• Developer ↔ executive: value vs ROI
• Human intent ↔ agent execution: vibe vs spec
• Speed ↔ safety: ship vs assurance
• Output ↔ outcome: code vs behavior
• Adoption ↔ trust: hype vs proof

In older eras, you could be bad at translation and still survive because the environment changed slowly. Misunderstandings had time to heal. In disequilibrium, misunderstandings compound.

The core niche—if you strip away the metaphors—is simple: build translators that let you move at the new speed without becoming fragile.

That’s a market niche. It’s also a strategy. And it’s why “anti-playbooks” are emerging: because playbooks are basically translation layers for stable markets, and stable markets are not what we have.

When AI is involved, the gap between users and approvers widens. Usage is easier (so more people try), but the downside is scarier (because the system can act, not just suggest). So the most important GTM move isn’t a funnel—it’s trust design.

Trust design is measurable value quickly, clear boundaries, visible failure modes, reliable curves. In the agent era, your competitor is not “another tool.” Your competitor is the default: “we don’t need this, and it might leak our code.”

# Building Reliable Curves

In equilibrium, you optimize. In disequilibrium, you re-find the bottleneck, then flip it.

If you’re a funded founder at T-minus-18 months—burn ticking, investors wanting graphs—your job is to produce reliable curves. Not vibes. Not demos. Curves.

Here’s what to do on Monday:

Pick one bottleneck to kill this month. Market, product, or message—don’t pick all three. If you can’t name your bottleneck in one sentence, your bottleneck is “decision-making.” Start there.

Build one loop that runs without you. Onboarding → activation → retention. Spec → build → test → deploy. Content → distribution → feedback. If you are still the loop, you are the bottleneck. (The loop is where the magic is.)

Make your system legible to agents. Add contracts. Add schemas. Add structured outputs. Add machine-readable docs. (This is what an “agent-friendly stack” looks like.) If an agent can’t reliably operate your system, your future workforce can’t either.

Instrument outcomes, not activity. Outcome metrics should answer: did the system behave as intended? Not: did we ship something?

# The Moment We’re In

Acceleration is terrifying because it compresses mistakes into the present. Acceleration is exhilarating because it compresses learning into the present too.

Many companies built in stable times struggle because their processes assume stability: quarterly roadmaps, single-lane execution, static teams, slow feedback. But we’re not in that world anymore.

In stable worlds, incumbents win. In disequilibrium, speed wins—because disequilibrium makes the world plastic.

Plastic worlds reward speed, translation, loops, trust, assurance. The winners won’t be the ones with the best models. They’ll be the ones who enable speed without becoming fragile.

If you feel overwhelmed, it doesn’t mean you’re failing.

It means you’re awake.

And if you read this far, you’re exactly the kind of founder who should talk to Disequi.