I’ve been looking into how AI agents and “vibe coding” are changing the way we think about digital identity. The problem is shifting from verifying who someone is to understanding who actually performs an action, especially when both humans and AI share access.
Two trends stand out:
1. Identity systems are starting to use behavioral and contextual signals instead of just passwords or keys.
2. Our current trust models break when adaptive AI systems act independently.
As AI agents become more autonomous, is it time to design identity systems that verify intent, not just identity?
I’ve spent years selling and evaluating cybersecurity solutions from both sides of the table. This post dissects why traditional outbound tactics almost never land with CISOs and what actually drives buying behavior.
Two key observations: trust is built through peer networks and practitioner validation, not polished outreach; and most CISO buying decisions emerge from internal problem framing long before vendors contact them. Interestingly, data shows over 80% of deals start from an internal referral or known tech stack gap.
Question to the readers: ow have your enterprise sales or procurement experiences aligned—or conflicted—with this behavior pattern?
I’ve been exploring how identity systems need to evolve as enterprises become increasingly autonomous — with AI agents and APIs making decisions without human intermediaries. The article argues that static credentials like passwords and API keys can’t scale in these environments. Instead, identity must be dynamic, context-aware, and cryptographically verifiable.
Three key areas stood out: decentralized identity standards, just-in-time credential issuance, and autonomous trust negotiation between agents.
I’m curious — how are others approaching machine identity lifecycle management when both issuance and trust decisions must happen autonomously in real time?
This piece explores why users perceive secure authentication as friction rather than protection. Three key insights stood out:
1. loss aversion drives users to avoid perceived effort
2. mental models of “security” lag behind actual threat models
3. familiarity bias favors weak but habitual patterns
Empirically, usability testing shows rejection rates rise sharply when authentication adds more than two new steps.
I’d love to hear from others—what design trade-offs have you found most effective in aligning user convenience with real security gains?
There is a certain point where the infrastructure of access control eclipses the problem space of the thing to be done. No one wants to have to learn LDAP++applied cryptography to set up their jig to do their thing.
Now, access control may very well be the jig that makes accountancy and modern business tractable, but it is still nevertheless, a massive problem surface orthogonal to most tasks.
I’ve been exploring how AI is reshaping top-of-funnel growth for B2B SaaS. A few patterns stand out:
1. AI is driving hyper-personalization at scale, especially in outbound messaging where dynamic content adapts in real time to prospect behavior.
2. Predictive intent models are proving more reliable than traditional firmographic filters, helping teams prioritize accounts with higher conversion likelihood.
3. Multi-channel orchestration is shifting from manual sequencing to algorithmic optimization—AI selects touchpoints and cadence based on historical engagement data.
The challenge isn’t lack of tools but integrating these systems without fragmenting data flows. How are you managing the integration between AI-led demand gen systems and legacy CRMs?
I wrote this piece to explore how tech debt accumulates and why it often undermines scaling efforts if left unresolved.
Two points stood out during my analysis: first, that debt isn’t inherently bad—it’s a trade-off that enables speed, but compounding interest appears when teams skip foundational fixes. Second, systemic failures emerge when architectural shortcuts stack, making later feature work exponentially harder.
In practice, addressing debt early often means pausing new development to refactor core data models, testing harnesses, or CI/CD pipelines.
For those here who’ve scaled fast-growing systems, how do you balance debt repayment against product velocity?
I’ve been thinking about the paradox where technically strong products succeed early but later stagnate under non-technical leadership. A specific challenge I’ve seen is when executives optimize for speed-to-market while ignoring long-term maintainability, creating technical debt that compounds later.
For those building or leading technical companies, how do you balance short-term execution with leadership that truly understands technical depth?
This article highlights a critical, often-overlooked security gap in how organizations manage AI agents: applying human identity frameworks to digital workers that operate continuously and at a high volume.
The author stresses the need for purpose-built AI agent identity systems featuring automated credential rotation, real-time policy evaluation, and behavioral analytics.
For those working on AI workforce security, what techniques have you found effective for dynamic authorization and auditability?
reply