[carschno]

> It's especially sensitive for a VC-backed startup that is measured thoroughly by GitHub activity, but we have to pull the trigger:

This sentence also illustrates the absurdity of this investment model. It imposes a trade-off between building good software, and complying with the investor's metrics. They probably call such metrics evidence-based, but this example shows that they arbitrarily capture some numbers to obscure the lack of meaningful measurements.

[andrelaszlo]

I also found it a bit ironic that it comes from an "AI company" (whatever that means) with a GitHub agent as part of their product.

[bloppe]

It's called a signaling game. Of course it's dumb, but how else do you measure traction besides revenue? Building good software is a small part of running a business.

[carschno]

I don't know, and I think there is no easy answer. The point is: the investors don't know how to measure traction either, so they just measure GitHub activity instead, even at the very moment in which it becomes obvious that it does not capture actual traction. The absurdity lies in the statement that the developers still need to gain actual traction while putting additional effort into gaming that metric to satisfy their investors.