When investors say ‘no technical moat’, what they’re really saying
Over the past year, I’ve had the same conversation with more investors than I can count. They lean back, nod politely, and say something like: “Interesting… but where’s the technical defensibility?”
I understand the question. I’ve built businesses long enough to know why it gets asked. But I’ve also come to realise that it’s often a shorthand for a concern that no longer maps cleanly to how software businesses actually get built, or win, today.
In reality, our approach was set well before the investor conversations began.
When we started building Curaley, we didn’t begin with a product. We didn’t have a platform or a codebase, we just had a conceptual landing page. What we did have was a very clear problem we’d seen repeatedly inside complex enterprise buying environments, and a strong point of view on why existing tools weren’t solving it.
So we went and found an early adopter before we built anything. That early adopter was a global enterprise.
They didn’t just agree to “kick the tyres”. We ran a paid pilot, and they moved to a full-price commercial order before we even had a public website or a brand. At that point, there was still no polished positioning, no feature list to browse, and nothing you’d recognise as traditional SaaS marketing.
What that did give us was credibility.
It was proof that the problem was real, that the thinking resonated, and that an enterprise buyer was prepared to back it commercially. From there, other enterprise conversations became materially easier. The pipeline didn’t grow because the product suddenly looked impressive, it grew because buyers could see that someone like them had already committed.
All the while, in the background, the tech team were busily taking us from MVP to V1 of the technology.
From a traditional defensibility lens, this approach makes very little sense. No IP. No proprietary system. No “secret sauce”. In a crowded and noisy corner of the MarTech stack, it also raised another familiar question: “Why won’t the big players just do this?”
That question usually comes from a good place, but it assumes that opportunity is evenly distributed and that incumbents are uniquely motivated to disrupt themselves. In practice, large platforms are constrained by existing positioning, customer promises, internal incentives, and architectural baggage. What looks obvious from the outside is rarely obvious, or attractive, from the inside.
More importantly, it misunderstands where defensibility increasingly lives.
AI has dramatically compressed the cost and time of building software. Features that once took months can now be prototyped in days. Interfaces can be recreated. Workflows can be copied. Even fairly sophisticated systems can be rebuilt faster than many founders are comfortable admitting. So when someone says “this could be rebuilt”, they’re probably right. But being rebuildable is not the same as being replaceable.
Features have become table stakes. They still matter, bad software is still bad, but the half-life of a feature advantage is shrinking fast. What’s far harder to replicate is momentum. Customers choosing you early, buyers trusting you before the product is perfect, teams embedding your solution into how they actually work, decision-makers willing to take a bet internally.
Those things don’t clone cleanly. They’re slow, messy, and earned.
In enterprise especially, buyers don’t just buy software, they buy confidence. Confidence that the problem is understood. That the product will evolve in the right direction. That the team will listen, adapt, and deliver. That kind of trust is built through conversations, pilots, and follow-through, not prompts.
This doesn’t mean technology doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. Poor execution still kills businesses. But the idea that defensibility starts with code rather than context feels increasingly backwards.
In noisy markets, clarity becomes the moat. Clear positioning. Clear problem definition. Clear alignment with how buyers actually make decisions. That clarity attracts the right early adopters, and those adopters, in turn, create the commercial traction that makes a business harder to dislodge than any clever architecture ever could.
So when founders are told their startup isn’t technically defensible, I’d encourage them not to hear it as a dead end. Often, it’s a prompt to ask a better question: If someone rebuilt this tomorrow, would customers still choose us?
If the answer is yes, because of trust, relevance, and momentum, you may already be building a far stronger moat than you realise.
For more startup news, check out the other articles on the website, and subscribe to the magazine for free. Listen to The Cereal Entrepreneur podcast for more interviews with entrepreneurs and big-hitters in the startup ecosystem.
