The Myth of the Solo Unicorn - Stephen Forte
Stephen Forte
SubscribeSign in
The Myth of the Solo Unicorn<br>Ronald Coase was right, Sam Altman was wrong...
Stephen Forte<br>Jul 08, 2026
Share
In 2011, my LSE professor Christopher Pissarides arranged for our class to listen to Ronald Coase. Pissarides had won the Nobel Prize the year before for his work on unemployment, so this was one laureate calling in a favor from another. Coase was 100 years old, still sharp, and willing to give back to his alma mater. He had won the Nobel Prize, founded a school of economic thought, and watched the entire postwar corporate economy organize itself around an idea he wrote as a homework assignment as a young man at LSE in 1937. What I remember most is that he laughed at himself when asked about the relevance of the paper in 2011. He told us technology had moved so far past the world he wrote about that his original paper might already be a museum piece.<br>That paper was “The Nature of the Firm,” and Coase was being too modest. The paper aged better than almost anything written in economics that century. But the joke has aged beautifully too, because we are now living through the moment he was gesturing at, and most people are drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from it.<br>Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribe
The conclusion floating around right now is the one-person billion-dollar company. Sam Altman has talked about a betting pool among his tech CEO friends over which year the first one will appear. The framing is irresistible. AI writes the code, designs the product, drafts the contracts, runs the support queue, builds the deck, and handles the books. So why would you need anyone else? One brilliant founder, a stack of models, and a billion dollars.
It is a great story. It is also mostly wrong. Not because AI is overhyped, but because the people telling the story have confused a product with a company, and confused a cap table with a business. AI will shrink the firm dramatically. It will not delete it. The firm is not disappearing. It is being compressed.<br>Two very different billion-dollar companies
Start with a distinction that the whole debate tends to skip. There is a world of difference between a one-person company valued at a billion dollars on a cap table and a one-person company producing a billion dollars of durable annual revenue.<br>The first is a financing artifact. A handful of investors agree on a number, the number goes in a press release, and a unicorn is born. You can get there on a demo, a narrative, and a good week. The second is an economic organism. It has to survive customers, competitors, procurement departments, churn, security reviews, renewals, regulation, failed implementations, board members like myself, and the ordinary cruelty of market cycles. One of these can happen to a solo founder in a quarter. The other has to be earned every year against people actively trying to take it from you.<br>The paper unicorn is a cap table story. The durable unicorn is a systems story. When Altman’s friends bet on the first one-person billion-dollar company, I suspect they are mostly betting on the first kind, and the first kind tells you almost nothing about how companies actually work. A valuation is a snapshot. A business is a decade.<br>Why firms exist in the first place
This is where Coase earns his Nobel. He asked a question so simple it sounds naive until you sit with it: if markets are so efficient, why do firms exist at all? Why isn’t the entire economy just independent people contracting with each other for every task, hour by hour?<br>His answer was that using the market is not free. It costs something to find the right people, negotiate terms, verify quality, coordinate the work, settle disputes, and build enough trust to do it again next week. Coase called these transaction costs, and he argued that firms exist because sometimes it is simply cheaper to do things inside an organization than to keep running back out to the open market for every transaction. A firm grows, he said, until the cost of organizing one more thing inside it equals the cost of buying that same thing outside. That boundary, the line between what you own and what you rent, is the whole game.<br>Now you can see why Coase laughed in 2011. AI takes a sledgehammer to the right side of that equation. Finding talent gets cheaper. Drafting documents gets cheaper. Producing software, coordinating workflows, managing internal knowledge, standing up a new business function, running an experiment, all of it gets cheaper, and in some cases it falls toward zero. Every one of those was a reason to hire someone. Every one of those is now, at least partly, a subscription or a prompt.<br>So the solo-unicorn crowd has the first half of the argument completely right. AI pushes production and coordination costs toward zero. Where they go wrong is assuming that all transaction costs are the same kind of...