Two weeks ago, Bain Capital Ventures closed its eleventh fund at $1.6 billion. Fund announcements usually get skimmed. This one is worth reading properly, because the words the partners used to describe what they're funding are the loudest signal any major VC has sent this year about which kind of company is now uninvestable.

Matt Harris, a partner at Bain, said it in one line:

He wasn't being provocative. He was describing his own portfolio.

Fund IX was 80% software companies.

Fund X was 20% software, 80% AI-native.

Fund XI is going further in the same direction, and the AI-native companies he's referring to don't sell software.

They sell the work itself.

If you have been building a SaaS company on the old model - identify a workflow, wrap it in a tool, sell seats to the professionals who do that workflow - Bain has just told you, in public, that they will not be funding your next round. And they are not the only ones thinking this way.

See below to continue…

The world’s largest event for SMEs and startups is back at Excel London on the 11th & 12th November, and you’re invited! Network with 25,000 fellow entrepreneurs, listen to advice from experts representing global brands including Google and Microsoft, and discover innovative business solutions from 500+ quality exhibitors in key sectors like HR, accounting, AI and more. 

Tickets to this must-attend event are completely FREE! Click here to sign up.

Continue…

In March, Sequoia published an essay called Services: The New Software. The argument was straightforward.

For every dollar spent on software, six are spent on services.

The trillion-dollar company of the next decade will not sell shovels to the professionals doing the digging. It will do the digging itself, at software margins, and quietly eat the labour budget of every industry it enters.

Sequoia called them autopilots. A copilot sells a tool to a professional. An autopilot sells the outcome directly to the buyer.

Harvey sells to law firms. That's a copilot. The lawyer is still the customer, still responsible for the work, still charging by the hour. Crosby and Norm AI, both in Bain's portfolio, sell legal work directly to the buyer. That's an autopilot. No lawyer in the middle. The company is the law firm.

Legora - also Bain - is a copilot. Reserv is not. Reserv is an AI-native third-party claims administrator for insurance. It doesn't sell claims software to insurers. It is the claims department. Insurers write cheques to Reserv the way they used to write cheques to internal teams. In its second full year of operation, Reserv hit $100 million in revenue. In May it raised a $125 million Series C led by KKR, at a scale that would have taken a classic SaaS company five years longer to reach.

Sequoia wrote the essay. Bain wrote the cheque.

The shift is not subtle in the data. Bain's Fund IX was 80% software. Two funds later, it is somewhere close to zero. That is a venture firm openly retiring an entire category of company in the space of six years.

The market Bain is now underwriting has properties venture capital has never seen before. Reserv's total addressable market is not the insurance software budget. It is the insurance claims payroll. That is a change of scale most founders have not internalised. Software eats a slice of what companies spend on tools. Services eats what they spend on people. Those are different orders of magnitude.

The professional services market globally is somewhere north of $6 trillion. If AI-native services companies capture even a small percentage of that at software margins, the exit multiples reset. Nobody yet knows what a $10 billion AI services company should trade at, because there isn't a public one to compare it to. Bain's answer, when Harris was asked how these businesses should be valued, was that the multiples take care of themselves if you build a great company. That is a polite way of saying nobody knows, and they don't care, because the market is big enough that being early beats being certain.

Read this from the founder side, not the investor side.

If you walked into a partner meeting six months ago with a deck that said "we sell a tool that makes X professionals more productive," most funds would still take that meeting. Some would still write cheques. Bain, publicly, will not. Harris used the word uninteresting to describe companies where AI is one feature among many, and specifically said the most ambitious founders won't build them either.

Whether or not you agree with Bain's thesis - and there are serious people who think Sequoia is wrong about services being the new software - the signal to your future round matters. If the loudest AI-native VCs are openly saying "not this, not anymore," your Series A is going to be harder next year than it was last year, unless the story you tell has changed.

The founders raising cleanly in this environment are the ones who can describe their company the way Reserv does. Not "software for insurance claims." The claims department itself. Not "AI tools for legal work." The law firm itself. Not "productivity software for procurement." The procurement function itself.

The pitch is different. The pricing is different. The comparison set is different. And critically, so is the buyer. When you sell an autopilot, you are not talking to the VP of Engineering who owns the software budget. You are talking to the COO who owns the payroll line. That is a bigger meeting, a bigger cheque, and a longer sales cycle - but the ceiling is nowhere close to what SaaS ever offered.

There is a version of this story that is uncomfortable, and it's worth naming.

If Bain is right - if the next generation of great companies sell work rather than tools - then a very large number of things happen at the same time. Existing SaaS incumbents get squeezed. Consulting firms get squeezed harder. Junior professionals in law, insurance, finance, and customer support see their entry-level jobs disappear into the delivery layer of these new companies. The revenue that used to be a paycheque becomes a line item on somebody else's income statement.

This is the specific thing Bill Gates warned about in his essay last month - jobs disappearing faster than institutions can respond - and it is now the specific thing that a $1.6 billion fund is being deployed to accelerate.

The founders who build these companies over the next four years will make a great deal of money. They will also be building the exact thing that policymakers, unions, and displaced workers will spend the second half of the decade arguing about. That is not a reason not to build them. It is a reason to build them thoughtfully, to price them fairly, and to think early about what your company looks like on the front page of a newspaper when the labour conversation catches up with the technology conversation.

Nobody at Bain is talking about this side of it. They don't have to. Their job is to fund the wave, not to manage it. Yours, if you are the founder they are backing, is to notice which wave you are on.

If you take one thing from Bain's fund close, take this. The single biggest brand in AI-native venture just retired the category most European founders are still building in. They did it publicly, on the record, with $1.6 billion behind the statement. They named the companies they think are the future, and none of them sell software.

Sequoia wrote the essay six months ago. Bain wrote the cheque this month. The rest of the market will follow within the year.

Whether you agree with the thesis or not, the pitch you were going to send in Q1 is now the wrong pitch. The company you were going to build is now the wrong company. Or at least, it is the wrong version of the right company - and the difference between selling tools and selling work is the difference between raising your next round and quietly running out of runway.

Most founders will read the Bain announcement, nod, and keep building what they were building. A smaller number will read it, pause, and change what their deck says by next week.

The second group is the one worth watching.

✅ Know a founder still pitching "AI tools for [profession]" without noticing the market just moved? Forward this their way. The window between the essay and the cheque is where the last honest reprice happens.

(👉 Vote now - we’ll share the results in next week’s issue. All votes are anonymous.)

(Last week’s poll results)

Access here and please share it with others.