Mercor CEO on Why Application Layer Companies Have No Defensibility & Token Spend Exceeds Salaries
Brendan Foody (co-founder/CEO, Mercor — **valued >$10B, >$1B revenue over two years**) with Harry Stebbings. The throughline is a self-interested but sharp short thesis on the AI stack: **'the next 12 months will be dramatically better for infrastructure companies upstream of Anthropic and OpenAI than for application-layer companies downstream of them'** — because *'building defensibility in the software layer on top of the models is going to be incredibly difficult.'* Foody's mechanism is brutal and specific: **'2025 was the year of how do you get a model to make a PR in a code base, and 2026 is the year of how do you get the model to clone Slack end to end'** — a savvy customer paying *'a million dollars a year on the SaaS product'* realises they *'could just tell Claude to copy it.'* Mercor sells the opposite of the doomed layer: a vertically-integrated data/RL-environments business **paying out 'over $3 million a day in the fastest job category ever created in history'** off a **5-million-person talent network**, at **30-40% gross margin**, **profitable, with >$500M cash**, having **added $300M net new ARR in the last 60 days** after a security incident. The most load-bearing number in the cohort lands here: **'right now we're spending more on tokens for our internal agents than we are on employee headcount'** — Foody confirms token spend > salaries, *'and I would bet that in five years the average enterprise spends more on compute than headcount.'* The cross-current that complicates the bull case: he expects the **model API layer to commoditise** — *'the switching costs are zero… there's a new frontier model every two months'* — with the **majority of inference in five years on open-source/distilled models, not frontier ones**, even as he calls OpenAI and Anthropic *'incredible investments'* and could *'definitely see one of them being a $10 trillion company.'* On Nvidia he plants the same multi-chip caveat as the rest of the cohort: even at *'30 or 40% market share… that is the world's most valuable company.'* The labour-market tell for Jack: AI researchers now cost *'in the tens of millions of stock per year,'* and one hire had a *'$20 million in cash per year'* offer from Meta's superintelligence group.
Key points
- **The headline short: infrastructure beats application layer, because the software moat is a mirage.** *'The next 12 months will be dramatically better for infrastructure companies upstream of Anthropic and OpenAI than for application layer companies downstream of them… building defensibility in the software layer on top of the models is going to be incredibly difficult.'* This is the load-bearing claim of the episode and the cleanest articulation yet of the commoditisation worry that ran through [last issue's All-In model-convergence thread](/issues/2026-05-31) — now stated as an investable directional bet by someone selling picks-and-shovels to the labs.
- **The mechanism: SaaS gets cloned end-to-end inside 12 months.** *'2025 was the year of how do you get a model to make a PR in a code base and 2026 is the year of how do you get the model to clone Slack end to end, and those capabilities are going to exist in the models in the next 12 months.'* The kill-shot for application vendors is a buyer doing the maths: a customer *'spending a million dollars a year on the SaaS product… realise they could just tell Claude to copy it and they'll get the same exact thing.'* Directly threatens the Legora/Harvey vertical-AI cohort Stebbings is invested in — Foody's rebuttal to 'the defensibility is there' is that **network effects, not workflow depth, are the only durable moat** ('the litmus test that determines whether this company is going to become worthless').
- **Token spend now exceeds salaries — the title claim, confirmed live.** *'Right now we're spending more on tokens for our internal agents than we are on employee headcount.'* Stebbings presses: 'so your token spend on agents is more than salaries' — Foody: *'That's correct. It's pretty incredible.'* He generalises it: *'I would bet that in five years the average enterprise spends more on compute than headcount.'* This is the single most quantitatively striking datapoint in the cohort and the bull case for the [token-flow / data-infra trade from Issue 07](/issues/2026-05-31) — but note the asymmetry: Stebbings counters that Benioff's $300M Anthropic bill is only *'3.8% of developer salaries'*, so Mercor's ratio is the bleeding edge, not the enterprise norm yet.
- **$3M/day paid out, $300M net new ARR in 60 days, profitable with >$500M cash.** *'Now we're paying out over $3 million a day in the fastest job category ever created in history'* (Foody projects 9M/day, maybe quadruple, in 12 months). Post-incident: *'we've expanded our relationships with all of the Frontier labs and added 300 million in net new ARR in the last 60 days.'* The business *'never really burnt cash'* beyond a *'half a million dollars after our seed round'* and holds *'over 500 million in cash.'* **A genuinely profitable AI company is the rare specimen this cohort keeps not finding** — and the cash pile is positioned explicitly as consolidation ammunition for *'when there is a market correction.'*
- **Why it's revenue, not GMV: vertical integration at 30-40% gross margin.** Answering the 'is the revenue real' myth: *'the revenue is between a 30 and 40% gross margin… the experts are actually only one part of the broader value chain.'* Customers buy outcomes — *'they'll pay $1,000 for this task that delivers model improvement'* — and Mercor runs hiring, platform, AI project management and QC end-to-end, *'powered by a talent network in the same way that Uber is powered by a driver network. But that's not the end product.'* The Sequoia 'services are the new software' frame is the spine: *'these software moats are whittling away and it's the ability to layer services on top of software… that is creating stronger defensibility.'* For a CRE lawyer: the explicit example is *'a lawyer that is redundantly doing dozens of similar red lines on commercial contracts'* being trained away into an agent.
- **But the model layer commoditises — the bear note inside his own bull case.** *'I think the API layer will get commoditized… because the switching costs are zero. When the switching costs are zero, and there's a new frontier model every two months, that means we very quickly are going to swap them out… which is almost the definition of a commodity.'* He expects *'the majority of inference in five years is going to be using an open-source or custom fine-tuned or distilled model, not using a frontier model.'* **This is the tension to hold against [last week's $44B-ARR Anthropic bull case](/issues/2026-05-31)**: the frontier labs win the *value* (as teacher models) but lose the *volume* to cheaper distillates — and Mercor's eval business is the toll-booth selling enterprises the means to commoditise their own model spend.
- **Frontier labs as investments: 'incredible,' a possible $10T company — with the multi-chip Nvidia caveat.** *'I think OpenAI and Anthropic are incredible investments… I could definitely see one of them being a $10 trillion company, maybe even significantly higher.'* On Nvidia he echoes the cohort consensus exactly — [Loeb's and Feldman's Nvidia/Trainium/TPU split from Issue 07](/issues/2026-05-31): *'we're starting to move towards a multi-chip future… I would guess that in five years Nvidia doesn't have quite the same monopoly. But even if they only have 30 or 40% market share in the largest market in the world, that is the world's most valuable company.'* Net: still long the frontier and long Nvidia, but neither as a monopoly bet.
- **The labour-market signal: AI researchers cost 'tens of millions of stock per year.'** *'Oftentimes it would be in the tens of millions of stock per year for the really good people.'* The market is *'10 times more demand than there is supply'* for researchers; one candidate had a *'$20 million in cash per year'* offer from Meta's superintelligence group ('TBD'). **This is the comp-inflation backdrop to the whole IPO/ARR race** — the same talent-aggregation network effect Foody says keeps Europe permanently behind ('Mistral might make an entry at 72… like the Eurovision Song Contest at the bottom').
- **The capex-concentration worry, conceded but waved through.** On *'84% of the year-to-date rally driven by the top 10 names'*: *'I definitely worry about how do we smooth out the benefits to society… but it's probably good from a capital allocation and efficiency standpoint, so long as we are able to manage the societal implications of increasing inequality.'* He'd rather *'give the compute to an Anthropic where they have the marginal demand'* than a laggard — the efficiency case for concentration, which is the bull's answer to [the '100x sales' valuation anxiety from Issue 07](/issues/2026-05-31).
- **Jevons paradox is the framework for the entire thesis.** *'It's a fascinating case study in Jevons paradox… when we make models improve by 10x year over year, that has just been causing the total consumption of the models to go up and up and up as the cost per performance go down.'* The same logic underwrites his labour optimism — *'over the last 250 years we've increased productivity by 25x, equivalent to automating about 96% of someone's job,'* yet *'there's more jobs than ever before.'* **The one place he concedes ground to Stebbings is speed**: 'what I don't buy is the speed of transition' — Foody agrees displacement will be *'very significant'* but bets the economy re-allocates labour into agent-training faster than prior revolutions.
- **IPO intent: yes, but not 2026/2027.** *'All legendary companies eventually go public… but it's not something we're rushing to do this year or next year, in part because we dropped out of college less than three years ago.'* He turned down acquisition interest where he *'could walk away with billions of dollars in cash.'* Adds another name to the [Anthropic/OpenAI/SpaceX IPO-supply pipeline tracked all cohort](/issues/2026-05-31), but on a longer fuse — and as the rare profitable one that doesn't *need* the capital.
Notable quotes
The next 12 months will be dramatically better for infrastructure companies upstream of Anthropic and OpenAI than for application layer companies downstream of them.
And so I feel like building defensibility in the software layer on top of the models is going to be incredibly difficult. Whereas on the other side of things, in the infrastructure side, it feels like there are meaningful moats that are getting built.
Now we're building out an eval set that measures how effectively agents can build end to end SaaS applications. Where 2025 was the year of how do you get a model to make a PR in a code base and 2026 is the year of how do you get the model to clone slack end to end and those capabilities are going to exist in the models in the next 12 months.
Right now we're spending more on tokens for our internal agents than we are on employee headcount.
I would bet that in five years the average enterprise spends more on compute than headcount. And the reason for that is that the models are just becoming so capable that it seems like there is just enormous ROI to being able to have models do something for 100k a year that is going to continue compounding at an exponential rate in a way that human intelligence is not going to.
Because the switching costs are zero. When the switching costs are zero, that means that and there's a new frontier model every two months that means that we very quickly are going to swap them out. And ultimately the decisions that we make boil down to the score on the eval corresponding to that workflow. And so it's very easy to compare model to model one for one in a perfectly hot swappable way, which is almost the definition of a commodity.
Ultimately I think OpenAI and Anthropic are incredible investments and it seems like there's starting to be consensus around that in a way that there wasn't just a couple of years ago. But at the same time I think that majority of inference in five years is going to be using a open source or custom fine tuned or distilled model, not using a frontier model.
I could definitely see one of them being a $10 trillion company, maybe even significantly higher. It feels like the opportunity associated with being the frontier model is so large that it will just eat up so much of the other demand within the economy.
Like a great example is what we do in that now we're paying out over $3 million a day in the fastest job category ever created in history. And I expect that's going to continue growing exponentially from here.
Oftentimes it would be in the tens of millions of stock per year for the really good people.
Themes
- Application-layer defensibility collapse
- Token spend exceeding headcount
- Model-layer commoditisation
- AI-labour economics (data / RL environments)
- Frontier-lab valuations & IPO pipeline
Mentioned
People
Companies
Ideas
- infrastructure upstream beats application-layer downstream
- no software-layer defensibility / clone-Slack-end-to-end
- token spend exceeds salaries / compute > headcount
- Jevons paradox on token consumption
- model API layer commoditises (zero switching costs)
- majority of inference on open-source/distilled models
- network effects as the only durable moat
- services are the new software (vertical integration)
- data / RL-environments moat
- AI Productivity Index (Apex)
- multi-chip future / Nvidia loses monopoly not crown
- $10T frontier-lab outcome
- AI researcher comp (tens of millions of stock)
- value-concentration in top-10 names