正文 Markdown
Geoffrey Moore says startups die in the chasm because pragmatist buyers demand a "whole product." These folks won't tolerate gaps. They need references. They need the complete solution. The chasm is lethal because because the buyers won't buy without perfection. But Moore's model assumes there's an EXISTING solution the buyer is comparing you to. The whole framework assumes the buyer has a status quo they're comfortable with. When the *bar is zero*, when the alternative is literally "we die" or "we do this entirely by hand with 2,000 people" (Block's compliance team) or "we just don't have this capability at all"? The chasm doesn't exist for those. Buyers start acting like visionaries instead of skeptics, because they have to buy. The alternative doesn't exist. They'll tolerate a 60% solution, missing features, no references, because 60% of something beats 100% of nothing. The companies I get most excited about aren't disrupting incumbents. They're filling voids. 9 Mothers in the YC Spring 2026 batch is a counter-drone defense co for whom bar is zero, there is no viable close quarters defense otherwise! There's no chasm to cross for that. The practical implication for founders: if you're in a market where the bar is zero, stop worrying about whole product, stop worrying about crossing the chasm, stop worrying about pragmatist references. Ship the 60% solution. They're begging for it. If you're NOT in a bar-is-zero market (if there's an incumbent, a status quo, a "good enough") then Moore applies in full and you need the whole playbook (beachhead, bowling alley, whole product, the works). The question every founder should ask: is my customer's current alternative literally nothing? If yes, you're in a different game than the textbooks describe. Ship it in whatever form you have. You'll know. And it's a great place to be.