I’m Const. 12 years in US manufacturing: ran a shop, then spent a decade selling software to shop owners. I’ve seen every pitch this industry makes. Someone’s always selling hopium. I find it.

American machine shops have spent forty years serving a short list of customers. Aerospace, defense, medical, and the big slow primes and OEMs that sit behind them. Everybody else, the small builder, the startup, the guy who needs eleven brackets, got a two week quote turnaround or no answer at all.

That was rational. It is also the reason there is no domestic supply base for anything else, and it is one of the holes China grew into. Not the only reason China won, of course. Wages, scale, state money, and Wall Street’s preference for outsourcing everything that did not move stock prices all did their part. But those we could not control from a shop floor. The quote desk we could.

A reader named Kev asked me to write about customer choice after I posted that picking the right customers is the highest-leverage decision a shop makes. So I put the question to operators. Many answered on the record, and the answer turned into a whole story.

The Short List

Look at which American shops are healthy. The ones on that short list. That is not an accident of taste. Those segments require AS9100, ITAR, ISO 13485, qualification cycles that run for years. A shop in Shenzhen cannot quote that work at any price. So the shops inside those segments can hold a margin, and everyone else competes with the whole world.

Caleb Chamberlain of OSH Cut wrote the mechanism in The Fabricator this spring, and put it in four lines on X in August:

It is a recipe for disaster. I call this the job shop doom loop.

1. Shops target large customers who do high volumes.

2. Large customers exercise leverage to squeeze margins and extend terms.

3. Job shops fill to capacity.

4. Job shops can’t grow because their cash is tied up in receivables and margins are slim.

Estimating, quoting, sales, AR and AP cost about the same whether the job is fifty dollars or fifty thousand. Spread that fixed cost and you need volume, volume means big repeat accounts, and big repeat accounts control your top line. Once they know it, the price goes down and the terms go out.

Now put the two together, because this is the part I do not think gets said. There was never a shortage of small customers. There was a shortage of small customers a shop could serve without losing money on the quote. So shops never saw that demand. The small buyer got no quote, gave up, or ordered from Shenzhen, and shop owners looked at their quiet inboxes and concluded these customers did not exist.

I spent twelve years attacking exactly this with DigiFabster, selling instant quoting to shops so the two week turnaround could become two minutes. Here is the honest lesson from those years: software alone does not fix it. A shop can install an instant quote widget and still run the same business underneath, same customer list, same terms, same fear of small orders. The quote got faster and the model did not change. The software only starts working when the shop changes around it: payment upfront, standardized work, an owner who actually wants the eleven-bracket order.

That full version is what SendCutSend and OSH Cut built. They went after the builder, the startup, the hobbyist, with instant pricing, payment upfront (OSH Cut runs about 80% card, 20% on terms) and parts in days. The demand was there the whole time. The tide is turning, and I want to be honest about how early it is: this is sheet metal, mostly, and most of what an American hardware builder needs at low volume still comes from Asia.

Why Sheet Metal Cracked First and CNC Did Not

OSH Cut’s framework is excellent and it comes from 2D. Flat stock, standard gauges, a bend table, a nest. The geometry is constrained by the process, which is exactly what lets software price it in a second and a machine run it unattended.

CNC does not hand you that. Neither does injection molding, and neither does an assembly with forty purchased components and a wire harness.

Protolabs is the cleanest evidence, because they publish the tradeoff. Their in-house CNC runs 3 days out of Minnesota and 4 out of New Hampshire, which is genuinely fast. Read the fine print and the New Hampshire envelope is 10 by 7 by 3.75 inches in soft metals and 10 by 7 by 1.75 in hard metals. Anything outside that box goes to their network, and the network runs 14 days standard.

You get the speed by constraining the geometry, not by wanting it. Sheet metal arrives pre-constrained. CNC has to be forced into a box before the same model works, and the box is small.

So when someone tells you the digital-first playbook fixes the industry, ask which process. OSH Cut now instant-quotes flat sheet, formed 3D sheet metal, tube, and as of recently bent tube. Every one of those is a process that constrains the geometry, which is what lets software price it. Simple 3-axis machining is partly cracked inside a size envelope. Complex five-axis, tight-tolerance, certified work is still quoted by a human, and that is where the short list lives.

One piece of the playbook travels everywhere though, and every shop should steal it: get paid up front where you can. Card, deposit, half of material and outsource cost before a chip is cut. It costs a customer conversation and it removes the entire problem the rest of this issue is about.

Buyers Still Price Like It’s 2010

I posted that most shops still run like the customer has nowhere else to go, and that customers do. Mike Payne, who owns shops and hosts Buy the Numbers, turned it around on me in the comments:

Fair statement. Reverse is true also. Lots of customers treat shops like they don’t have other options. They do.

Kirk Phelps, who hosts MachineShopGrowth, put a date on it in the same thread:

I think there’s a lot of buyers out there thinking they have the same weight to push around as they did in 2010, like people should be thankful just to have work, let alone make money. The supplier has more leverage right now than any other time through the last ~20 years I’ve been in this.

Worth noticing that “the customer” is two different people, and Caleb of OSH Cut staged the split as a dialogue:

Engineer: OSH Cut can put custom metal parts on my desk tomorrow.

Purchasing: Yes, but we need them to fill out a twenty page onboarding form, sign a custom NDA, and agree to our terms of service. Oh, and we want to hand-copy this quote into a PO, and pay them in 90 days.

Twelve years of watching quotes go in and out, I have almost never seen those two want the same thing. Purchasing still negotiates like it is 2010. Engineers do not. Fire a logo and you can lose an engineer who would have paid in fifteen days.

So what flipped the leverage at all? George Bain, who owns Bain Machine and Ronal Machine and bought both, answered it in that same comment thread:

The reality is Boomers are closing shops at record rate. I get no less than 5 Shops a month asking if I would like to buy them. If your a company who needs a great Shop to support your growth then there is less choice now.

George’s five a month is one inbox, not a survey. The published version is McKinsey’s: under current patterns, 92% of exiting owners simply close the business. I used that number in Who Owns Your Clock five weeks ago, and Mike Payne threw it back on X from the buyer’s side:

“That number should make every owner sick... buy the shop, install my people, my processes, my systems, and grow the value that was always sitting there.”

I have written about this wave a dozen times from the data side. This is the first time I have had an operator counting it from his own email. And notice George says closing, not selling. When a shop closes, the machines get auctioned and live on somewhere else, but the AS9100 approval, the customer qualifications and the trained crew have nowhere to go. They just end.

Net 90 Means the Shop Pays the Interest

I posted that net 90 is not payment terms, it is who owns your clock. Phil Timpson, a CNC applications engineer, replied:

net 90 is bullshit. I’m not a lending firm, here to give you an interest free loan.

Jonathan Sessa, who runs Fabworks, put the manners on it:

“Asking a small business for net 120 terms is the same as asking your local sandwhich shop for a discount. How do you not feel like a horrible person?”

It is worse than interest free, because the shop is usually the one paying the interest. The gap between shipping and getting paid comes off a line of credit, so the shop pays real money to let the customer hold cash for nothing. Average receivable balance times your LOC rate is the annual cost of being somebody’s bank. Run it before your next negotiation.

Caleb Chamberlain lived the other ending of the same story and posted it:

Made a concession and offered Net60 to a F100 company. We don’t usually do that, because it’s weird to finance the balance sheet of a company with billions of liquid cash on-hand. But they insisted, so what the hell.

Now 30+ days late on Net60 and emails to them disappear into the void.

Never again.

One shop refused the loan. One made the concession, to a customer with billions on hand, and still got paid late. “Get bigger customers and the terms get professional” does not survive either story.

Here is the war story. I asked Kirk Phelps whether he had ever actually fired an account negotiating like it was 2010:

100%. I walked from a ~$500k deal because of this exact thing. Cash flow is great, but when you’re talking about <10% margin on NET90 terms, you’re essentially paying your customer to make their parts.

Margin and terms compound. Thin margin on fast payment is a business. The same margin on ninety days means you financed the job yourself.

Notice what is actually happening in that story. The customer set the terms. The customer usually also sets the packaging, the labeling, the inspection paperwork, the portal you have to log into, and how often you may invoice. The buyer is not just buying parts, he is writing your operating model. Shops accept it because the alternative is an empty machine, and forty years later a lot of good operators are still running someone else’s business plan on their own balance sheet.

Ask them if it worked. I have been running an informal survey on X asking owners whether starting the shop was their best decision. The yes answers cite freedom. The no answers cite money. Not one has said the shop made them rich. Mike Bongiovanni, who was fired when the owner’s kids sold the company, started his own, bought that same shop back eighteen years later from the corporation that could not run it, and is twenty-six years in, ended his answer to me with

“Proud of what I’ve built but would I do it again??”

If you are about to buy or start a shop, that question is your #1 job. The grind does not fix a bad model. Pick the model first.

Say No, or Fund It

Say no means screening and it means having somewhere else to put the hours. Kirk Phelps screens and he is explicit that the screen is not price alone. He still takes thin work from customers who pay in thirty days or less, sometimes fifteen for the discount. The real filter is margin times terms times whether they actually pay. And the precondition: operating at 100% capacity is anathema to healthy growth, because the price you can charge and the lead time you can promise are not separate from how full the floor is. A full shop cannot fire anyone. Walking from $500k is a strategy only if you kept slack on purpose.

Fund it is the other half and the industry treats it as a dirty word. If your best segment pays in 90 days and drifts to 140, that is a working capital requirement, not a moral failure. It gets financed like any other: a bigger line of credit, an AR facility, a term loan, or outside capital. Price the carry into the quote, which is exactly what Payne does. He prices in terms, has lost jobs for it, and is fine with that, because “slow hurts more without question.” His bigger point, six acquisitions in:

Nobody goes broke buying machines. They grow broke funding the customer carrying material, labor, and regulation/compliance before anyone pays you a dime... A fortress balance sheet will be a key competitive advantage.

Phil Timpson gave the cheapest defense of the three when I asked what he runs instead:

net 30 is my go to, generally speaking. Signed quote with laid out terms, purchase order issued for records, signed service report, invoice.

Four documents before the invoice, each one closing a door a late payer could hide behind. It costs nothing but discipline.

Then there is the tax on all of it. Yasser Khan named it when writing about where small manufacturers could add capacity: they need help with certifications, paperwork and long payment cycles, because “a machine shop can’t hire ten people just to fill out forms”. Michael Kornuta put a number on the same thing last week, saying he meets job shop owners spending 20k a month or more on compliance and 1k or more on quoting software, and that half of them are drowning in work while the other half sit with open capacity. Caleb’s explanation of how you get to 20k was two or three hires, and he added that in a previous life doing government contracting the accounting department alone was a massive cost center just to hold DCAA compliance.

Enforcing terms is admin work. So is chasing money. A shop that cannot afford a front office takes whatever terms arrive in the PO, which is how the wrong customer walks in.

Prepaid is the escape hatch and it is not free either. Card upfront trades the customer’s float for the bank’s dispute desk: OSH Cut gets one or two chargebacks a year, the customer admits the error in writing, and they still lose the dispute. A smaller tax than net 90. Not zero.

Someone Is Living Inside the Spread

OSH Cut’s Caleb posted a comparison on Aug 29:

Those are his numbers on his own product, so read them as a vendor comparison.

Then someone in the replies asked how many people arbitrage the two. The answer was the part I cannot stop thinking about: Xometry names files a particular way, so he can see them arriving, and he knows a small company earning six figures of annual profit taking Xometry jobs and filling them with OSH Cut.

Somebody is making a living on the gap between what a channel charges and what a shop charges, and the only thing he adds is the click. That gap is quoting overhead, sales cost and payment terms, packaged and resold. It is the clearest price on the problem I have seen.

Jonathan of Fabworks has watched the same shift from inside his own order queue: a lot of these small jobs would either not have been ordered at all or gone offshore to China on longer lead times at similar cost. His frame is that the technology forces adaptation every decade or so, turret punches, then CO2 lasers, then fiber, and “software enabled high mix is likely the next.”

MakingChips clipped John Greeley of Navu saying quote response time is now the number one reason shops win or lose a job, because buyers go with whoever answers first. Slow quoting selects for the buyer willing to wait two weeks for a number, and that is usually the same buyer who sends net 90.

Kornuta asked the right question underneath it. Half his shops are overwhelmed and half are empty, inside the same forward-thinking group, so what is the differentiator? SEO, narrative, trade shows? Caleb’s answer was four words and a correction:

Customer mix, markets served. Manufacturing is technology, not a market.

Builder Read

If you buy parts, the 2010 posture is now expensive, and the certified segments you thought were captive are the ones with the shortest replacement bench. The shops with capacity, certifications and a working front office have the fewest reasons to take your terms. And early payment is the cheapest supplier discount on the market: I wrote up the collections data two weeks ago, where half of B2B invoices turn into cash in 25 days but getting to 90% takes 74, and the slowest tenth of $250k+ invoices takes 119. One shop owner offers 1% for net 10 and gets no takers, and asks for half the material and outsourcing costs upfront on big jobs because he cannot float anyone past 30 days. 1% for net 10 is roughly 18% annualized, and his customers walk away from it, because they want the float more than the discount.

If you run a shop, cut the quoting cost first. Every hour out of quoting widens the set of customers you can serve at a profit, and that is the only thing that makes saying no survivable. Keep slack on purpose. Get paid up front wherever the work allows it. And look at your top ten accounts as a receivables book, because that is what a buyer will value.

If you buy shops, George Bain of Bain Machine is describing your deal flow, and every shop that closes instead of selling is capacity nobody will ever buy. The terms on the top ten accounts will set the price long before the machines do.

I’m Watching This

1. George’s five shops a month. I am asking other shop buyers what their inbox looks like. If their rate matches his, shops are disappearing faster than any published number shows, and McKinsey's 92% projection is already out of date.

2. The $20k a month compliance bill. Two or three salaries of pure paperwork before a single chip is cut. If that is typical, reshoring is capped by the front office, not the floor, and new capacity will come online slower than the announcements say.

3. The Xometry arbitrage. Somebody clears six figures a year standing between a marketplace and the shop doing the work. Spreads like that do not survive: either the marketplaces reprice or the shops go take those customers directly.

4. CNC’s size envelope. Protolabs sells 3 day machining inside a 10 by 7 inch box and 14 days outside it. The whole instant-quote model is waiting on that box to grow. Whoever moves it takes the playbook from sheet metal into 3D.

Const

I'm Const. 12 years in US manufacturing: ran a shop, then spent a decade selling software to shop owners. I've seen every pitch this industry makes. Someone's always selling hopium. I find it.

For two months in this newsletter, I argued that America’s industrial middle is missing. This one is about who is actually filling it, who is pretending to, and what stays empty after all of them. I also asked the builders directly this week, in public, and their answers rearranged my map. And this newsletter is delivered to you today from 35,000 feet above the ground, so enjoy.

A Marketplace With No Machines Is Closing In on $900 Million

Xometry posted $229 million in Q2 revenue, up 41%, and raised its full-year outlook to 33 to 34% growth. Marketplace revenue grew 45%. Active buyers: 89,557. Xometry owns almost no machines. It is a routing layer between a CAD upload and thousands of shops, and buyers pay it close to a billion dollars a year mostly for one thing: not having to think about who makes the part (!).

And notice what that billion covers: mostly commodity processes, machining, sheet metal, molding, printing. The harder work, engineered components, assemblies, integrated builds, is not on the menu anywhere. A billion dollars for the "easy" slice (nothing in manufacturing is truly easy btw) tells you what the hard slices are worth.

Read that number the way an operator reads it. Xometry took years to build this, and it still grows 41% at this scale. Custom parts buying is nowhere near solved. The demand is real and the interface is the product.

The shops that actually make things keep proving the same point with machines on the floor. OSH Cut quotes around 12,000 parts a week with zero estimators, and cut lead time from 5 days to 2 in late 2024. The cut cost them 75% of rush-fee revenue. Growth roughly doubled anyway, and 2025 margin was an all-time high. OSH Cut's Caleb Chamberlain pegs the online-first fab market at $5 to 10 billion. And operators on X now argue the instant-quote model does not just take share from old shops, it creates orders that never existed before, work too small or too slow to quote the old way. So the pie grows.

Jim Belosic of SendCutSend says he is now building

“the largest, fastest, vertically integrated manufacturing company in North America... full-scale contract manufacturing that is accessible to EVERYONE”.

I love the energy. But everything that made this tier work so far came from doing less, not more.

So execution is getting solved. Upload a file, get a price, get the part. That was my decade (after exiting my shop, I spent twelve years selling quoting software to shop owners), and watching it become normal is strange and satisfying at once.

Also, feels like the execution was never the whole problem.

The Moonshots Keep Publishing the Shopping List

Look at what the ambitious American hardware companies build in-house. Hadrian raised $1.37 billion at a reported $8 billion valuation to industrialize precision machining inside its own walls. Musk’s Terafab is a reported $16.8 billion first phase to make chips the way SpaceX builds rockets, everything under one roof. Tesla designs Optimus actuators itself. Same with every part Anduril pulls in-house.

Each of those budgets is money the founder would rather have paid to a supplier. But the supplier does not exist. So the budgets became the shopping list.

The bull case for this model has a name. Packy McCormick’s Vertical Integrators series argues the winners of the techno-industrial era will own their whole stack:

“Aggregators won by owning demand; Vertical Integrators win by owning supply.”

His thesis in one line: there will be a SpaceX and an Anduril in every big category, and they will be bigger than the incumbents they replace. For any single company, he is right. When your supplier ships you a faulty thruster, you build the thruster. Integration is the rational answer to a base that cannot supply you.

Now let’s zoom out one level. Shenzhen solves the same problem with a catalog. A founder there designs from parts that already exist: the reducer, the encoder, the gripper module, each with a datasheet, a price and this week’s lead time. COTS from a catalog, custom from the shops nearby, and you assemble a product like industrial legos. America has the COTS half (shout out to beloved McMaster-Carr) and is building the custom-execution half (the Xometry and OSH Cut tier). While the middle of the set is empty: precision electromechanical components, reducers, precision motors, encoders, the parts whose moat is process knowledge rather than patents. In the visible funding data, the megarounds are all machines and brains, almost never the parts inside them.

My test for whether this tier exists is simple. Can a three-person team order the component today, CAD file behind a download button, no MOQ, no NDA, shipping this week. Today the honest answer is usually Alibaba. American robotics startups fly components home from China in suitcases, and some buy Unitree humanoids just to strip them for parts (a claim Alvin Graylin repeated, as rumor, on the Moonshots pod last week: chips get smuggled east, actuators get smuggled west).

I Asked the Builders What Is Missing. No Two Answers Matched.

This weekend I posted one question on X: what is the one missing piece of the US ecosystem that stops you from building end products locally?

The first answer came from Resolved Motion, a young company making NDAA-compliant robotic actuators in upstate New York, which is exactly the tier from the section above. Their answer, in full: “Capital.” I asked what kind, VC money, a bank loan, or customers paying upfront. Their reply:

“None of the described asset classes are good for that pre-revenue. VC has forgotten what they do, banks need collateral, customers need inventory to buy. We need new asset classes.”

That answer corrects something I was about to write. On Aug 20 the SBA proposed calling a machine shop small at up to 1,900 employees, up from 500, which hands the 500-to-1,900 tier set-aside access and SBA 7(a)/504 debt at the same moment. I read it as the first financial instrument shaped for the component tier, maybe by accident. Resolved Motion’s point stands anyway: being eligible for a loan and getting one underwritten pre-revenue are two different problems. The machines come before the revenue. The asset class for that does not exist yet.

The other answers, each from a different direction. My good friend Matthew Chang:

“World class automation/manufacturing engineers.”

The people who can design this tier are at Moog, at Nidec, or retired.

Anthony Sardain:

“Factories that answer their emails.”

Five words that explain most of Xometry’s revenue.

LightGage:

“Would be beneficial to have a highly predictable tort system.”

I pushed on this one and the answer got darker:

“It’s an asymmetric bet across all liabilities (e.g. product, IP, labor, regulation, taxing authorities, etc) that you make essentially unknowingly that can lead to complete bust/ruin... Insurance companies use exclusions to avoid risks with unknown or unmeasurable probabilities.”

An unmeasurable risk does not get priced by insurers, it gets excluded, so the owner carries it themselves. Their sharpest point: the damage is the businesses never started, because nobody can compute the depth of the downside.

One more reader added tools to the list (robots cheap enough that a small maker competes with a factory).

Where This Is Actually Heading

Put the pieces on one table. America now has demand routers (Xometry), disciplined productized makers (OSH Cut, SendCutSend, Fabworks), venture fortresses (Hadrian, Anduril, Terafab), operator roll-ups quietly buying retiring shops to build (or ruin?) mid-size players (a path I will cover separately), and the first merchant component makers, which are born into a capital vacuum. And five different missing layers underneath all of them.

Destin Sandlin’s new SmarterEveryDay episode adds the missing mechanism from the other end: he tried to source a simple all-American product and found the gap is not engineering, it is decades of margin optimization hollowing out suppliers one purchasing decision at a time (his word for the end state of that optimization is “encrappification”). The same math that hollowed the middle will not rebuild it. Rebuilding needs actors playing long-term economics: automation, volume over margin-per-unit, catalogs over quotes. The digital-first shops already run exactly that playbook. They are the proof it works at American labor costs.

So here is my honest picture of the end state, and it is neither Shenzhen nor the fortress. It is groups of narrow, productized, software-front specialists that plug into each other: parts companies feeding assembly companies, catalogs a founder can design from, manufacturability checked by software at upload before a bad design ever reaches a machine. AI design tools are already racing toward that last layer (Autodesk ships AI DFM reports in Fusion, startups are putting manufacturability inside CAD), and whoever encodes real manufacturability decides what AI is allowed to design.

Industrial legos as an ecosystem of specialists and not one company that ate them. The missing pieces are the five the builders named: an asset class for pre-revenue machines, the engineers, a computable liability system, interfaces that answer, and cheap enough automation.

One thing my issue does not argue: that imports are the enemy. America needs to be able to do much more at home, and keep cooperating with the world at the same time. I strongly believe normal trade with China will continue in any future I can imagine. The gap that matters is narrower: whole categories of components where no domestic option exists at any price, at any lead time, from anyone. The goal is having the option, not making everything ourselves.

I’m watching this.

• China displaced Germany as the world’s largest machine-tool exporter in 2025, EUR 8.6 billion vs EUR 7 billion, first time ever. The stuff that makes the stuff now ships from China.

• Shanghai’s STAR market listed Unitree at a $9 billion pricing (closed up 460%) days after LandSpace landed an orbital-class booster, punching the ticket on an IPO lane that requires a landing, not revenue.

• The new National Security S&T Strategy names “strategic capital investment structures” for commercial technology in national security. Fourteen priority technologies, zero dollars attached so far.

If you operate in any of these five layers, hit reply or DM me. I read everything, and the best answers already changed this issue once.

Const

Jim Cantrell was employee number four at SpaceX. Now he builds rockets at Phantom Space, and last week on the Powers podcast the host asked him a simple question: why build your own rockets at all?

His answer:

“There’s not a great supply chain out there. These tanks sitting behind you here, we could find somebody to build them, but is that their priority in life? No.”

And then he added:

“There’s a layer at which the supply network is adequate, and then there’s a layer at which it’s not. And that’s why you wanna vertically integrate, is where that supply chain is not adequate.”

These days vertical integration is the most celebrated feature of the American buildout. But in Cantrell's version it is a workaround. You integrate where the suppliers don't exist. In Shenzhen a company integrates by choice, sitting inside the densest supply base on earth. Here, in the US, a company integrates because there is literally nobody to call.

This is the missing middle I keep writing about: companies that own their component design (a reducer, an actuator, a valve), keep it in stock, publish a catalog, and make the part better with every customer. US robotics startups raised $18.8 billion so far this year. Every round above $200M is a robot, a vehicle, or a foundation model. Component makers got exactly one round worth mentioning: PaXini, tactile sensors, $145M. PaXini is in Shenzhen. America's counterplay, Westmag, raised $11 million and said it themselves:

“Right now America’s share of that muscle is essentially zero.”

Too Much Money Kills Companies

Cantrell spent three decades watching rocket companies die, and he keeps the score simple:

“If you look at the history of rocket companies, the ones that have done it have actually done it for a hundred to two hundred to three hundred million dollars max. Firefly, SpaceX, Rocket Lab, they’ve all been super cheap. The ones that did it for billions, Richard Branson, he’s gone out of business. Too expensive. ABL, they raised almost a billion dollars. They failed. Astra raised several billion dollars. On and on and on. Everybody that’s raised that kind of money had people expecting them to spend it.”

“Had people expecting them to spend it” — a very striking way to say it loudly.

His failure numbers are from memory, so treat them as his numbers, but the pattern is real. And he thinks the money itself was part of the problem:

"You end up raising a lot of money, but it's the wrong kind of money."

Also, Phantom doesn’t announce funding rounds anymore. I strongly believe this is a good reason why not to do that.

“The army of looters that show up at my doorstep take months to sort out. So what good is it announcing a funding round? We make the filings, and people eventually figure it out.”

The mega-round announcement is the main marketing instrument of this entire wave. Defense, drones, humanoids, all raising billions on reindustrialization slogans. I think Cantrell's rule holds here too, which means most of that money buys burn rate, not capability, and this wave produces the same body count the rocket wave did. The survivors will look like survivors always look: lean, grinding for a decade, profitable before famous, raising later on their own terms. This is not a doom take (the rockets got built, space got cheap). But the money and the capability are different things, and this money is buying final-product logos while the tier underneath stays empty.

Integration Is a Symptom, Not a Cure

Justin Lopas ran production at SpaceX and Anduril and now co-founds Base Power. On Powers a week earlier he gave the make-versus-buy logic: build in-house where you add value a supplier can't, where you won't outsource quality, and where you need what he calls security of supply. Base leans "more towards the Tesla side" because vertical integration "reduces cost meaningfully, and cost is the major driver of our economics."

All of this makes sense for his current business. But notice what happens: no new suppliers appear. A vertically integrated plant answers its owner's questions and nobody else's. Terafab, the $16.8B building in Grimes County that people calls America's Shenzhen, is one owner under one roof by design. Actual Shenzhen is the opposite: Seeed Studio's Eric Pan calls it "a jungle with enough biodiversities", a base dense enough that a four-person team walks into a factory and starts from what it already builds. His method:

“It’s not ‘design for manufacturer’, it’s ‘design from manufacturer’.”

You cannot design from a supplier who does not design. A megafab does not create a thousand suppliers, it makes them unnecessary.

And before someone brings up BYD (batteries, chips, even the seats): BYD integrated from inside the densest component base on earth. That is how its Hungarian plant hits full output this quarter, about 18 months after ground broke. Our integrators are assembling their verticals from imported machines and PDF catalogs. Integration is downstream of density, not a substitute for it.

Busy Shops, Empty Middle

Every shop owner reading this is about to object: we're busy. I know, I hear the same from every operator I talk to, and the data agrees. Core capital goods orders were up 12.5% year over year in June, the highest since November 2021. AMT economist Christopher Chidzik, on the Quality podcast in June:

“When the USMTO orders go up, that’s when people want to make things. When the workholding and tooling are going up, that’s when people are making things.”

Both are up right now.

Jim Belosic of SendCutSend explained where the demand comes from, on the Relentless podcast in May:

“People are a little scared of offshore now. Are they gonna cut off my supply chain without any warning?... The US is actually a viable option now. We’re in our early days for accessibility and price and speed and everything, but we’re getting there. People are testing the waters.”

But capacity, in my view, was never the problem. The US has plenty of machining capacity for its own demand, and reshoring just adds more work on top. None of that work changes what the shop is. A shop booked solid cutting someone else's prints is a busy print-taker (my corner of the industry, and I say this with love). Cantrell again, in the same answer about tanks:

“Do we machine these valves? No, I don’t wanna be in the machine shop business.”

The shop gets the valve order, and the design stays inside the vertical company. Busy and dense are two different measurements.

So what happens to the machine shop? It survives. The comfortable version of it (wait for prints, quote, cut, ship) gets squeezed from both sides, integrators pulling strategic parts in-house and automated shops compressing the commodity work. The way out is to go vertical in the small: own one part. A gearbox, a spindle, a fixture line, bought from a retiring competitor or grown out of your own niche. And one honest warning before anyone runs with this: nobody here will beat a Chinese catalog component on price in the open market, so the part you own has to live where the Chinese version can't follow you. Defense and other critical industries that need a domestic source and pay real money for it, or customers who pay for a one-week lead time instead of a six-week boat.

This lane is narrow, and owning a part takes much more than machining capacity (the design, the testing, the inventory, the catalog, the support). But that's a densifier at shop scale, and that's the version of vertical integration that adds to the supply base instead of eating it. And I know some brave ones who are building towards this direction (kudos!).

The Ten-Year Question

So how does this look in ten years? I see three endings for the component tier.

One: everyone builds in-house forever. Innovation happens behind each company’s wall, priced for one user, and dies with the program. The defense supply chain already works this way. It works, for customers who can bill a government.

Two: we keep buying the middle from China and feel fine about it. Froman laid out the problem in Foreign Affairs last week: Chinese producer prices negative for 38 straight months, roughly 30% of industrial firms operating at a loss, and the state keeps them building. Solar cells: exports up 73% in the first half of 2025, unit price down about 25%. A supplier whose prices fall every month feels like a gift. Then come the export controls, or the breaking point Froman predicts. Either way, the decision gets made in Beijing or Washington, not by any of us.

Three: the middle actually forms here in the US. Components re-engineered (reverse IP acquisition) from Chinese and Japanese origins into American catalogs, funded the way Cantrell describes (order books and debt, not billion-dollar equity), behind whatever tariff umbrella survives this decade. Slow and boring. Also the only version where a small team in Ohio can build a robot from parts it can actually buy.

How fast we get to any of these depends on China… Either it grinds on, imported components get cheaper every year, and American component makers survive only where tariffs protect them. Or it breaks, and the crisis takes everyone’s capex down with it, because nobody funds new component factories in a crash. Neither ending hands us the middle. The middle gets built on purpose, or it doesn’t exist.

Builder Read

If Cantrell's rule works for this wave too, the best bet is not the $2B humanoid round. It's the $10-30M company with real orders, its own catalog part, and no investor pushing it to spend faster.

Watch what the integrators decide to buy versus build: every part that Base Power or Anduril buys from outside means a component market just opened, and every part they pull in-house means one just closed. The concentrators are already expensive (some trade at 44x an estimated revenue). The densifiers have no price yet because nobody funds them. Same story as last week: do the humanoid companies buy actuators or build them? And if you run a shop, the answer is not more capacity. Find one part you can own.

I’m Watching This

1. SpaceX rideshare. Reporting says it stopped taking Transporter and Bandwagon bookings past late 2028, sourced to satellite operators, with no SpaceX statement. Cantrell said the same on Powers. If it holds, every smallsat builder loses its bus ride, and the launch middle reopens overnight.

2. The AMT pairing. Machinery orders just had their strongest half since 1998 ($3.44B in H1). If they flatten from here while tooling keeps climbing, shops chose sweating existing machines over buying new ones, and the capex wave stalls at the equipment tier.

3. The G-20 in Miami this December. Bessent already said the world "cannot take a China with a trillion-dollar trade surplus." If China's surplus makes the official agenda, the pressure on Beijing becomes real policy, and just keep buying from China stops being a stable plan.

Const

Somewhere this week an engineer from one of the OEMs needed five flat parts bent and coated, and another one needed a shop that holds two tenths on titanium. Even ten years ago that search started with a buddy he knew for some time or a trade show booth, or a bookmarked directory in the browser. Now it starts with a question typed into an LLM. The engineer reads one composed answer, checks two links, emails (or uploads a part for instant quote if he is lucky enough) three shops. If the LLM has never scraped anything about you from the Internet, you were not one of the three.

Manufacturers walked into this one. The industry skipped the SEO era (and arguably the whole Internet thingy) almost completely. Thirty years of word of mouth, trade shows, and a website somebody’s son made once. David Petrich of Machinable Innovations described his whole marketing stack with total honesty on Machine Tool Maniacs in June:

Word of mouth, a decent website, google reviews so an unfamiliar buyer thinks “this place is legit,” and social media, “terrible at it.”

— his words.

I sold software to shops for twelve years. That description covers much of my old customer base. And it worked, because the buyer was a human who lived nearby and asked other humans.

The modern buyer is not that anymore.

The Long Tail Never Touched Manufacturers

Randy Altschuler, Xometry’s Founder (Xometry owns Thomasnet), said the quiet part on Machine Shop Mastery last month:

The way people search is changing with LLMs, and “that long tail of the internet had really not touched manufacturers.”

The internet found restaurants, retail, your next vacation spot. It never really found the 50-person shop, because the shop never wrote anything down in public. His advice: digitize what you offer, put it on the site, keep the parts catalog alive.

Notice what a live catalog is. It is the thing a model can cite. A capability written in plain language is a fact a model can repeat. A brochure PDF from 2014 is neither.

The mechanics are unforgiving and worth understanding. An LLM does not rank ten blue links and let you fight for position three. It composes one answer from a handful of sources it considers credible, cross-checks claims between them, and hands the buyer a conclusion. No clicks, so your analytics show nothing. Nothing shows up as a lost quote, because the RFQ never reached you.

The discipline of fixing this has a name now, AEO (Answer Engine Optimization): showing up in the answer instead of the rankings. Matthew Bernard wrote the sharpest thing I have read on it this week in Industrial Base Alpha, and this issue leans on his framing throughout (thanks much for inspiration, Matt!).

The Founder Is the Marketing Department Now

Here is the part our industry likely will resist the most. The strongest signal a model finds is a named human explaining the work in public, repeatedly. Not a brand account posting spec sheets. But a person.

Look at who already runs this play. Chris Power narrates Hadrian on every podcast that will have him, and the transcripts of those podcasts are now training data. Palmer Luckey’s interviews get written up by five outlets each, and every writeup is a citation. In our corner of the industry, Jim Belosic turned SendCutSend’s shop floor into daily content years ago, and OSHCut’s Caleb Chamberlain writes like an engineer talking to engineers. When a model composes an answer about laser cutting or defense machining, these are the voices it has read. That is not an accident of charisma (but there is a component of that ofc). It is volume of public text.

The capital side already treats this as infrastructure and not a vanity. Harry Stebbings is telling founders that not posting daily is “a massive mistake”.

Chamath just published 108 pages arguing creators are the new demand generation for “trillions of dollars of goods and services.” And Pieter Levels reports spotting people worth $500M and up buying X followers, half a million a month, engagement flat, completely fake.

Audience became a currency the rich buy directly. But you cannot buy your way into the answer, because a model never sees the follower count, only the writing under it.

Defense is just the extreme case, and it is where Matt’s piece goes deepest. His observation is that

“The smartest people in Washington are turning to Large Language Models to bring themselves up to speed,”

and the reason is arithmetic: the Golden Dome IDIQ approved 2,440 vendors out of 2,463 applicants. Nobody tracks 2,440 companies by relationship, so the staffer shortlisting five names asks a chatbot, and Congress already spends 88% of its AI tool dollars on ChatGPT (CNBC, via Bernard). His finding is that Anduril shows up in those answers more than Lockheed, because the founder talks in public and the model reads. His warning to the primes:

“If your entire government affairs budget is going toward people and not toward media, you are playing catch-up. You are letting an algorithm tell your story before you even enter the room.”

But read his piece from a job shop’s POV and it gets more interesting, because you never had lobbyists. For the rest of manufacturing this was never about influence. You had no lobbyists to replace. It is about being findable, and the numbers are lopsided: a good conversation at a booth reaches one buyer, while a capability page written once gets read by the thing every buyer now consults before calling anybody.

The Answer Engines Do Not Read the Same Internet As You

One more layer, and it changes the plan. The models are not reading one shared web anymore.

• X locked its data years ago, blocks the crawlers from OpenAI and Anthropic, and feeds everything to its own model; since the xAI merger, Grok is the only model that reads X in full.

• Reddit licenses its archive to Google and OpenAI instead of giving it away.

• LinkedIn sits inside Microsoft, which decides who else gets to read it (why there is so much AI slop in it now).

Live example from this week: the best defense market commentary I read was a 15-tweet state-of-the-market thread from Nathan Mintz, 21 years in old and new defense. It lives on X. Exactly one model will ever learn from it.

For a manufacturer planning a public presence, that has a practical meaning. Post only on X and you are training exactly one model, the one your defense-tech buyer might use, and none of the others. Post only on LinkedIn and you are betting on Microsoft’s stack. The one corpus every model still reads is the open web: your own site, a blog, a Substack, podcast transcripts, trade press.

So write it once on a domain you own, then let the platforms carry copies. Whichever model your buyer asks, at least one route to your writing stays open.

Anyone Can Feed the Answer, Including a State

This week Zane at Nox posted a screenshot with one word, "Interesting." Under it, an LLM answer comparing American and Chinese tax burdens: confident numbers, clean bullets, and one citation: a China market-entry consultancy's blog.

The numbers were right. I checked. OECD puts China at 20.4% of GDP for 2023 and the United States at 25.6%, and the screenshot was within a rounding of both. The consultancy had done nothing wrong. It read the OECD, summarised it correctly, and got named for it.

Then I tried to open the OECD reports myself and could not. Both are PDFs sitting on a path that blocks automated fetching. I downloaded them by hand.

So the better source is accurate and invisible to the machine doing the citing. The consultancy’s page is plain HTML any crawler can read. The consultancy is in the answer, and its brand rides along every time that screenshot gets forwarded as evidence. The thing that decided who got credited was not accuracy but whether a crawler could open the file.

Shops lose citations the same way. Your good information sits in a PDF brochure, a scanned AS9100 certificate, a downloadable line card, tolerances that appear only after a quote form. A model cannot read any of it. So the competitor who typed the same facts onto an ordinary page gets cited instead, whether or not his shop is better.

If a consultancy can win the slot, so can a state. NewsGuard audited ten leading chatbots and found they repeated false narratives from the Pravda network 33% of the time, with seven citing its sites as legitimate sources; that network published 3.6 million articles in 2024 across 150 sites (Forbes). The technique has a name, LLM grooming. Nothing in that pipeline is disclosed, so you cannot tell who fed the answer in front of you, and what to do about that is a policy question I won’t litigate here. For a manufacturer the practical read is narrower: the answer layer is contested ground, and it rewards whoever leaves the most consistent public record.

There is one good thing in all of this. A model wants to see a claim in a few places before it repeats it, so anything you said once, on your own site only, tends not to stick. Saying true things in more than one place is both the decent way to do it and the one that works.

Builder Read

Go run the test tonight, it costs you nothing: ask three different models who should make your kind of part in America, or who leads your category. If you are not in the answer, that is the pipeline you are not in, and no sales hire fixes it.

Then look at what Jon at Fabworks has been doing, because he is already many years ahead of most shops and probably did not set out to do it for the machines. Design guides on K-factor and kerf and distortion zones. Material comparisons, gauge charts, tap and drill charts, export instructions for Onshape and Fusion. Tolerances and lead times stated in the open instead of hidden behind a quote request. Add the engineering videos he posts on X and LinkedIn and you have a company that has written down, in public, most of what it knows. Every one of those pages is a fact a model can repeat about sheet metal, and his name is attached to all of it. Be like Jon.

The rest is boring and it compounds. Capability pages in plain language that answer the questions buyers actually type. Specs, tolerances, materials and the catalog live on the site, not locked in brochures. The same company facts everywhere the company appears. Get on the podcasts and into the trade press, because transcripts are what models read. And the founder writes, on a cadence, as a person. A booth works four days a year, but your answer works every night. Assign one person to own what the machines say about you, the way you assign someone to own quality. Your competitor already did.

One important limit on all of this, from the same Mintz thread: the buyer still concentrates money in whoever can actually deliver. By his account, one Pentagon task force studied counter-drone for a year and a half, then put roughly 60% of its budget into two established names, and Lockheed’s latest PAC-3 award was “larger than all OTAs in last 2 years, put together.” His summary of what the customer buys:

“Industrial capability, not novel tech. The tech is good enough.”

So keep the two jobs straight. Visibility gets you into the shortlist. The factory gets you the award. AEO is the front of the funnel, not the funnel.

I’m Watching This

1. Matt promised AEO visibility benchmarks for the drone industry within a week. First dataset of its kind; the methodology matters more than the rankings.

2. Xometry rebuilding Thomasnet “for the searchers.” If a 30-year directory becomes the layer LLMs cite for supplier discovery, that is a position nobody priced.

3. The follower market. Levels’ observation says audience is now a store of value for people who already have everything else. Watch what that does to the value of any follower count, including yours.

Const

I made that call in May: China spent 30 years and 700 million people assembling that machine, and no subsidy rebuilds it on a ten-year horizon. Now I can put prices on it.

In 2002, Chinese factory labor cost 57 cents an hour. A hundred million people were moving from villages into factory cities. The whole world was opening its wallet. Those three conditions built Shenzhen’s supply density, and none of them exist anymore, anywhere. Not in Vietnam. Not in Mexico. Not even in China, which is why BYD’s newest plants are in Thailand, Brazil and Hungary.

So the low-wage path is closed. Not hard. Closed. No amount of subsidy reopens it. The conditions are gone.

But there is a second path, and three countries have been walking it this whole time. In 2012, the last year the BLS ran the comparison, German factory labor cost $45.79 an hour against America’s $35.67, with Switzerland at $57.79. They pay their factory workers more than America does, and they are still manufacturing powers. Japan pays about what we do and runs the deepest machine-tool bench on earth. How? None of them do consumer assembly. They make machine tools, precision components, instruments, factory automation. The stuff that makes the stuff. High knowledge, low labor share, number one in a thousand narrow markets that never make headlines. The Germans even have a name for those companies: hidden champions.

That is the whole choice. The low-wage path is gone, and the high-wage path is not a consolation prize. It is the layer with the margins, and it is the national version of what I keep saying about shops in Stop Counting Heads: fewer people, much more per person. America already produces $220k+ of value per manufacturing worker against China’s $40-50k. We are already the high-wage producer. The mistake is spending policy and capital trying to become the low-wage one again.

And America already owns pieces of this layer:

• Applied Materials, Lam Research and KLA build the machines that make chips; most of the world’s fabs stop without them.

• Lincoln Electric has made welding equipment in Euclid, Ohio for over a century and pays factory workers a profit-share bonus big enough to make national news: $33,029 a head for 2013, the last year they published the figure (hope it’s still going well).

• Hypertherm cuts steel around the world and is owned by its employees.

And the next generation is already forming:

• Machina Labs teaching robots to form sheet metal in Los Angeles.

• Divergent printing and robot-assembling structural parts, and raising $290 million in September 2025 at a $2.3 billion valuation to scale it for US defense.

• Agility building robots in an Oregon factory built for building robots.

Three stories from this week show where the line runs.

America Is China’s Third-Biggest Customer

China’s exports to the US fell 20 percent last year, and total Chinese exports still grew 6.1 percent.

Where the goods go now: China’s total trade with ASEAN was $1.06 trillion, the EU $830 billion, the US $560 billion. America is third.

Some of that is relabeling, the Mexico story from May at national scale. But relabeling is the small part. Global Trade Alert sized the redirection at about $150 billion, landing in ASEAN, Africa, Latin America and the Gulf, with none of it showing up in the EU or Japan. Those are not transshipment hubs for the American shelf. They are customers.

The companies read the same way. Shein’s Europe business is now bigger than its US business, $14.8 billion against $10.1 billion, and the US side has sat flat at about $10 billion for three years. BYD sold 1.04 million cars overseas across 110 countries without selling one passenger car in America.

A tariff wall is a bet that reaching the American consumer is the thing worth paying for. That bet gets cheaper to lose every year.

The Wall Went Up Before the Supply

On Tuesday the FCC put foreign-made robots and power inverters on its covered list. The exemption path runs through the Buy American standard, and that standard has a schedule: domestic components have to clear 65% of component cost through 2028, then 75% from 2029. Assembly does not count.

Three weeks ago, in What Survives to 2036, I put humanoid robotics at 40 to 70 percent Chinese BOM. This week the FCC made that number a compliance problem.

A robotics builder did the math in public: you cannot buy American actuators at scale. The one part every robot needs. Thirteen hours into his thread, a small shop in Upstate New York replied that they build precision rotary and linear actuators for humanoid robots, in their own plant.

Hold both facts. There is a legal requirement, and there is no supply. Whoever builds the supply has customers waiting by law, and the deadline is 2029.

The timing matters more than the rule. Automation is the only way a country with American living costs competes on labor, and the US just restricted the imports its own automation runs on. Robots for robots come first. And the honest benchmark for a robot here was never “beat a Chinese worker.” It is “beat landed cost plus tariff plus six weeks of lead time.” That is a lower bar. In some categories it is beatable now.

Notice what an actuator is, by the way. It is not a consumer product. It is the stuff that makes the stuff.

The Machinist Isn’t Underpaid

A shop owner telling kids to stay out of the trade he runs. Downthread he says why:

“the wages are still stuck in the 1990’s.”

The two ads are not a clean comparison, the Domino’s number folds in tips and mileage against the driver’s own car. The national medians are cleaner and they say the same thing. Machinist $56,150, plumber $62,970, same high school diploma to start, and machining is the only one of the two projected to shrink. Meanwhile 462,000 manufacturing jobs sit unfilled.

Everyone reads this as “manufacturing pays too little.” I read it the other way.

The machinist is not underpaid by world standards. He is priced out by his own economy.

Housing, healthcare and school set the cost of his life, and the services economy around him sets those prices. An expensive life prices labor out of factories. A tariff adding 10 to 12.5 percent to a bike, depending on where it comes from, is real money, and it is small next to rent.

The German machinist costs even more than ours and stays busy, because he works in the layer where labor is a small share of the product and the product is number one in its niche. That is a positioning problem, not a wage problem. Fixing the machinist’s rent is government work, not startup work. Fixing what he works on is ours: fewer people, much more per person, in products the world has to buy.

A Wall With No Export Test

One warning before my Builder Read. Japan's phone industry grew up inside a protected home market and never won outside it. Korea protected its industry too, with one difference: survival was conditional on selling abroad. POSCO and Samsung had to win outside the wall to keep their place inside it.

The sharpest blueprint for rebuilding here makes the same miss. Aaron Slodov’s “How to Build American Shenzhen, Fast” is the best case anyone has written for rebuilding the full stack, and I agree with most of it (his factories run on software and small teams, his list runs materials, electronics, machining, actuators). But read it asking one question: who buys? The answer is American startups and the Pentagon. The word export appears four times in the whole essay, every one about Chinese export controls. His stated endgame is that Chinese component dependency “becomes moot.” That is import substitution, not competitiveness.

And his map of 68 reindustrialization companies has exactly one entry under machine tools, a mobile machine shop in a shipping container. He sees the gap. He writes that America "barely makes the machines that its factories run on," and then scores that category a 3 out of 5 on venture return and a 3 on dual-use, in the same entry where he says the dual-use case is inherent because every factory needs machine tools. It lands twelfth of twelve. The dependency is not in dispute but the scoring axis is.

The American wall has no such condition. Protection, no performance test. A base that only ever sells to mandates and startups will be excellent inside the wall and helpless outside it. A wall without an export test breeds dependents. Korea’s bred Samsung.

Germany’s hidden champions never needed a wall at all. Their test was the world market from day one, and that is why they can pay $45 an hour.

The wall needs a door.

Builder Read

The opportunity is a filter, not a field. A gap is worth filling in America only when at least one is true:

• a mandate guarantees the demand (the 65% domestic content rule, the specialty metals clause);

• physics favors proximity (heavy, bulky, custom, fast-turn, what OSHCut‘s Caleb Chamberlain told me: “we beat them on speed, we tie them on heavy”);

• or labor is a small share of cost (a fab is mostly machines, which is why TSMC keeps doubling Arizona, now $265 billion committed).

Everything outside the filter stays imported, and should. Aim at the layer that passes the filter everywhere: the stuff that makes the stuff. The covered list is a parts catalog of things America now has to learn to build, with a date attached. What Survives to 2036 said pick narrow and go deep. This is the list to pick from.

I’m watching this

• Whether that actuator shop in Upstate New York ships in volume.

• And whether Chinese machine tools keep moving upmarket, because five domestic immersion scanners targeted for 2026 and 20 for 2027, against ASML’s roughly 130 a year, is a ratio today and a trajectory tomorrow.

The high-wage layer is reachable, but it is not reserved.

Const

No China this week. No robots. This week is about a question I’ve been circling for years, in other people’s companies and in my own: who owns your clock. Last week’s issue argued the empty trade is ten years. The fine print is that the ten years only work if they’re yours, and I’ve come to believe the way you fund a company decides exactly that.

Here's a number almost nobody believes. Venture capital funds about 4.4% of startup dollars. That's from the Kauffman Firm Survey of roughly 5,000 companies, and academic work (Da Rin, Hellmann & Puri) puts the share of firms that ever take VC below 1%. Even among the Inc. 5000, the fastest-growing companies in the country, a Kauffman survey found only 6.5% raised venture capital. The path every founder story glorifies is the rare one. The default American company is built the other way, and manufacturing is where the other way lives.

The Grind: Slow, Cheap, Painful, and Yours

The first way is the one I did. Start from zero, borrow as little as possible, win one customer at a time. In machining, the industry’s own data (NTMA, via Top Shops) says what that road looks like: the average shop under $10M revenue runs a 4.5% profit margin. Cross $10M and it becomes 8%, and the best cohort touches 15%. A $5M shop at 5% is worth maybe $750k after decades of work. Cross the valley to $10M at 8% and the multiple expands with you, call it $4.8M. Slow, cheap, painful, and at the end the thing is yours. Your clock, your customers, your name on the building.

I ran that company to profitability. And before it, two companies in the advertising space, in the very early days of the Internet, started from zero. Dry ramen in an office without a window. A complete nightmare of bookkeeping I had to run with no experience before I could even touch client work. The grind is real and so is the freedom. I think people who've never made payroll from cash flow underestimate how different a decision feels when nobody can call a board meeting about it.

The ceiling is real too. I wrote a whole issue about the $167k-per-employee trap, and the company that broke it, the sheet metal unicorn from last week ran exactly this sequence: eight years on cash flow, then one institutional round, roughly 10% sold at $1.01 billion, for capacity and not payroll. I won’t retell the story. The point for today is the order of operations.

And the pattern is much older than the current wave. Haas Automation, the company whose machines sit on half the shop floors in America, has been privately held since 1983. No rounds, no exit, one owner’s clock, and it grew into the largest machine tool builder in the country.

To me that’s the sequence that keeps the clock. Boring revenue first, capital second, and only for capacity.

You Can Buy Your Clock Back

The second way starts on someone else’s capital and steps off it. Software people write like they invented this move around 2017. Manufacturing did it decades earlier, at much higher stakes.

The most famous receipt in our industry: in 1981, thirteen Harley-Davidson executives, Willie G. Davidson among them, bought the company back from AMF for $80 million, almost all of it borrowed. The corporate parent had run the brand into the ground. The operators took the clock back, studied Honda’s Marysville plant, rebuilt manufacturing around just-in-time, and brought Harley to the public market in 1986 on their own terms.

Two years later, Jack Stack and 12 fellow managers bought a dying International Harvester remanufacturing plant in Springfield, Missouri, with 119 jobs on the line and almost nothing but debt. That became SRC Holdings and the whole open-book management movement. Buying your clock back is not a Silicon Valley invention. It’s an operator tradition.

The recent software cases just documented it better than anyone, with numbers, and they’re worth reading for the mechanics alone.

Buffer, 2018. Joel Gascoigne spent $3.3 million, about half the company’s cash, to buy out its main VC investors: 67.29% of the Series A shares, at an $80.8M valuation. The investors who sold made a 40.5% return over three and a half years. Roughly 10% a year, a savings-account outcome by venture math, and that modesty is exactly what made the deal possible. Gascoigne’s reason:

“It was clear that Buffer had become less of a fit for VC funding... I refused to compromise on the transparency and remote work aspects of our culture, so we started to explore slower growth goals.”

Wistia, 2017. The founders turned down an acquisition they describe as “a life changing amount of money” and instead took on $17.3M in debt to buy out their investors. Their logic is the cleanest statement of the treadmill problem I’ve found:

“Many people advised us to take on a new equity investor, but we knew with that strategy, we’d eventually be back in the same position: that investor would need a return one day too, just as our current investors did.”

Gumroad, 2017. The dark version. Sahil Lavingia’s own account: a $7M Series A from Kleiner Perkins, growth stalled, no Series B materialized, and he laid off 75% of the company to keep the product alive. Then came a transaction I still find hard to believe: Kleiner sold its stake back to Gumroad for $1, dropping the liquidation-preference overhang from $16.5M to $2.5M. Lavingia’s verdict on the whole structure:

“We were venture-funded, which was like playing a game of double-or-nothing. It’s euphoric when things are going your way, and suffocating when they’re not.”

The pattern holds all the way up. 37signals was profitable from day one, turned away nearly 30 VC firms (“all the VCs could offer us was cash and connections. We’re fine on both of those fronts”), and took exactly one check, a minority investment from Jeff Bezos personally, structured so none of it was needed to run the business.

I lived a version of this path with DigiFabster: raised VC early, then built toward profitability on revenue (and debt) when it became clear we couldn't raise anymore. It took almost six years to get to meaningful revenue, through COVID, inflation, and dried-up venture capital, all before manufacturing became sexy for investors. Almost 12 years of building. I kind of owned my destiny, but not entirely. Learned a ton.

The Treadmill, and What It Actually Returned

The third way is round after round, valuation as the scoreboard, exit as the plan. Manufacturing just ran a full experiment on this model, at scale, with the 2020-2021 vintage of digital manufacturing companies. Here’s what came back.

Fast Radius, the UPS-backed microfactory star, went public by SPAC in February 2022 at a valuation around $1.4B. Nine months later it filed Chapter 11. The assets sold to SyBridge for $15.9 million, less than ten cents on the dollar of what investors put in.

Shapeways, the original 3D-printing marketplace, SPAC’d in 2021 at roughly $600M. Chapter 7, July 2024.

Desktop Metal is the full arc in one company. SPAC at $2.5 billion in December 2020, market cap above $9 billion at the peak of the frenzy, acquired by Nano Dimension in April 2025 for $179.3 million, and 117 days later it filed Chapter 11 anyway. The binder-jetting IP and printer platforms, the crown jewels a $9B market once priced, liquidated for $7 million. Nine billion to seven million in four years.

Even the wins deserve a second look. Fictiv raised roughly $192M over a decade and sold to Japan’s MISUMI for $350M in 2025. A real exit, saved jobs, a strategic home. But an exit below 2x total capital raised flows through the liquidation-preference stack first, and what reaches common shares and founders after ten years is, by construction, a fraction of the headline. Xometry made it through the IPO window, and even there the founders kept 60% of the voting power through dual-class shares precisely because their economic slice was far smaller.

I want to be careful here. The graveyard doesn’t prove ambition is stupid. To me it proves something narrower: every 18-month round sells a slice of the company and resets the growth bar higher, and when the window shuts (mine says 2028-2030), companies built on that cadence have to shrink back to whatever their revenue per employee actually supports. Some can’t.

Some Businesses Can’t Be Bootstrapped, and It’s Better to Admit It

Now the honest half, because The Hopium doesn’t do strawmen. There are businesses where bootstrapping isn’t slow. It’s impossible.

Chris Power said it plainly on Core Memory this month:

“You need, I don’t know, over time, $30 billion, like maybe more than that.”

Elsewhere he’s framed the whole company as “$10B or zero.” That’s why he spends founder-hours on media and fundraising, and why I think the people mocking him for it miss the point: at that scale the capital requirement is the product requirement.

Kalanick’s Atoms just raised $1.7B before naming a single product, on the same logic. And the archetype for all of it, SpaceX, survived 2008 by a thread and needed two decades of billions before the Falcon 9 cadence looked inevitable.

Last year I wrote a post questioning exactly this approach. It went viral and collected close to a hundred opinions from manufacturers and investors, which tells you how real the risk is: nobody could agree whether this is the Tesla of machining or the next Hyperloop One. And still, I'm rooting for Chris. Honestly, I had my doubts then and I hold some now, even as a founder who's supposed to have the higher risk tolerance. But he's betting everything on his own conviction, and the industry needs people who make that bet. I respect that immensely.

The sharpest comment on that post came from Jason Premo, who runs a Swiss lathe shop and called it on the record: “prediction: flameout in 3-5 years.” Chris replied with his email address and an open door. I keep thinking about the fact that Premo’s window and mine, reached by completely different roads, land on the same years: 2028 to 2030. That’s when we find out.

I believe the test here is demand certainty, not ambition. If your customer is the Pentagon and your competition is onshore by default, the treadmill is the only road that gets there, and world-class fundraising genuinely belongs in the founder job description. If your customer is a purchasing manager who can switch to a cheaper quote on Tuesday, you are not Hadrian, and borrowing Hadrian’s playbook will bury you.

The Fourth Way: Buy What Somebody Already Built

There’s a path almost nobody glorifies, and the data on it is the most lopsided in this whole issue. McKinsey’s “great ownership transfer” report from February: by 2035, about six million American small and mid-size businesses face ownership transitions, including roughly 71,000 in manufacturing, with over a million viable sale candidates worth up to $5 trillion.

Now the number that stopped me. Under current patterns, 92% of exiting owners simply close the business. Only 5% manage a sale. Three decades of customers, process knowledge, trained people, and cash flow, defaulting to zero because nobody showed up to buy it.

That’s the fourth way: skip the twenty-year grind, buy one somebody else already finished, for a few times its cash flow, and bring the front-office playbook every issue of this newsletter describes. The crowd is chasing round three of a physical-AI startup. The empty room is a $2M-revenue shop with no succession plan, listed nowhere, about to close.

So…

For the wallet reading this.

Funding: underwrite the clock. Before the metrics, ask whether this company owns its time or rents it by the round, and whether its market actually requires the capital it’s raising.

Building: the sequence with receipts is the unicorn's. Boring revenue first, institutional money once, for capacity, on your terms. And if your wall genuinely needs billions, admit it on day one and treat fundraising as an engineering discipline, the way Power does.

Buying: 92% of retiring owners close instead of selling. I think that’s the single most inefficient market in American manufacturing, and the playbook to run what they built better is public.

One more thing about clocks, because I think it belongs here. This week I read a post celebrating billionaires who still work ten-hour days in retirement, offered as proof that people are meant to work forever. A commenter named Ken pushed back with a line from his mother:

“You are going to spend the rest of your life inside your own head, so make sure you decorate it with beautiful things.”

I’m on Ken’s side. Work gives purpose, and I love this industry, but it shouldn’t be the sole purpose that eats every hour you have. And I believe the funding paths decide this too.

The bootstrapper can take a Tuesday for his kid’s game and answer to nobody. The founder on the treadmill checks with the board. Small difference in a week, enormous over ten years. So when I say the ten years should be yours, I mean all of it: the company, the hours, and the choice of what fills them.

I’m Watching This

1. Hadrian’s promised 2-million-square-foot factory, “the biggest buildout outside Elon’s Gigafactory” per Chris Power, and whether any audited number ever appears behind his “billion plus in revenue next year.” The $1.6B January round was led by T. Rowe Price, which is pre-IPO money. The treadmill’s biggest live bet in our industry, running in exactly the window my 2036 issue says decides everything.

2. The CMMC Reform Task Force. DoD paused third-party certification in July and promised findings within 60 days of its RFI. Thousands of small shops spent six figures getting certified because the government asked them to. If reform kills the third-party requirement, that compliance moat evaporates and the committed get punished for committing. Watching what survives.

3. Atoms' $1.7B war chest meeting its first real product. Kalanick merged everything he owns into one company and named mining, construction, and food production as targets, all sectors with no federal anchor. The biggest live test of whether a bits founder can buy through the atoms wall.

Last week the empty trade was ten years. The fine print: the ten years only compound if the clock is yours.

Const

Read more

Read more

Read more

I’m Const. 12 years in US manufacturing. Ran a machine shop, built DigiFabster (quick quoting for job shops), worked with hundreds of manufacturers across 40+ countries. This newsletter chases one thing: the gap between the headline and the data. Someone’s always selling hopium. I find it.

Read more

I’m Const. 12 years in US manufacturing. Ran a machine shop, built DigiFabster (quick quoting for job shops), worked with hundreds of manufacturers across 40+ countries. This newsletter chases one thing: the gap between the headline and the data. Someone’s always selling hopium. I find it.

Read more

I’m Const. 12 years in US manufacturing. Ran a machine shop, built DigiFabster (quick quoting for job shops) and worked with hundreds of manufacturers from over 40 countries.

This newsletter is all about one thing: the gap between what’s in the headlines and what the data shows. Someone is always selling Hopium. I find it.

Read more

This newsletter is all about one thing: the gap between what's in the headlines and what the data shows. Someone is always selling Hopium. I find it.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more