Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Back to today

From X

@convequity 1 click

Convequity on X

A company gets an API key from a model provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) and links it in OpenCode Console. OpenCode, the coding agent, uses that key to run models at the provider, billed to the company. It is a bearer credential: anyone with a copy can spend on the account. OpenCode disclosed unauthorized access to a legacy system being decommissioned. Keys for about 1.4% of Console users who linked external providers may have been exposed. OpenCode calls it a distillation attack. Users report charges for runs they never made. Provider terms generally make the key owner responsible, so the bill can land on the customer. A copied key works at the provider until revoked. OpenCode already runs on Cloudflare Workers, and Console is a gateway with budgets. Direct calls with a stolen key bypass Console and its budgets. Whether that legacy host ran on Cloudflare is undisclosed. In our view, customers need a control layer they own that keeps the raw provider key away from the agent and its vendor: a vault-held key, or Cloudflare ($NET) AI Gateway prepaid billing with no customer provider key, plus scoped keys, spend caps, per-user limits, alerts and full logs. F5 ($FFIV), Kong and LiteLLM offer related controls. We cannot say these would have stopped this breach. They can limit blast radius, spend and detection time: metrics we think a CFO will ask for before the next rollout.
@convequity

Convequity on X

As AI agents take over more software work, a SaaS vendor's future comes down to how much of the interface, workflow and data layers it keeps. Ahead of this quarter's software earnings, we will watch how far management is willing to change products and business models to keep that work, because strong defenses today can erode if a company refuses to change. Our SaaS Survival Scorecard evaluates the structural resilience to expanding agentic work, vendor adaptiveness, and what the market is pricing in. Route 3: customers keep working in the vendor's interface, workflows and data as agents do more of the tasks. Route 2: customers move to an agent interface such as ChatGPT or Claude but still rely on the vendor's workflows and data. At the weakest end, only the data layer remains. Route 1: customers replace the vendor, using AI to build and maintain all three layers themselves. Our view: leading security platforms like $PANW have the stronger Route 3 case, since analysts investigate inside them. Datadog ($DDOG) faces more Route 2 risk as developers work inside coding agents and call on it from there. Deeper dive available at Convequity.

Investor Letters

All letters

My Last GFL Update - Hopefully

GFL’s take-private structure hinges on BC Partners rolling 60% of its stake to preserve debt portability under the 40% permitted-holder…

GFL $16B
310 Value’s Newsletter 5 clicks

Are Neoclouds Dead?

Neoclouds face tighter debt financing as AI infrastructure capex outruns cash flow, leaving cash-burning GPU providers more exposed than…

NBIS $42B
Daniel Romero 9 clicks

Reddit: Deep Dive Analysis

Reddit generated $805 million in Q2 2026 revenue, 95% from ads, but slowing Google search referrals expose AI-driven traffic and…

RDDT $18B
Hated Moats 6 clicks
WULF · long

Terawulf INC

TeraWulf is shifting from bitcoin mining toward data centers, seeking a higher-quality and more defensive business model.

WULF $5.4B
Value Investors Club

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 69 of 269

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

190 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.