Right and agree, Twilio, Sendgrid etc prove the model. To be more precise on the point, and as investors in Twilio, I’m thinking about how you’d frame the discussion on which companies fit this model where you have to consider the ratio between —

1. Number of net negative churn rate companies, and
2. Magnitude of negative churn (i.e the companies that become massive users due to massive growth, for example in Twilio’s case, their top 5 users), and
3. The actual churn of companies using the platform whose money you’re “leaving on the table” in this model.

There are many SaaS companies who theoretically might fit this biz model. For example a cyber company that charges per successful system alert, patch etc or an automotive simulation company that charges per mile.

However, I think based on the above ratio this model is most relevant when it fits —

1. Developer first GTM, where on boarding process strives for as little friction, and ideally the marginal cost per additional user trends to 0.
2. Tough to solve problems that aren’t core business challenges — i.e there’s justification for paying, but not enough internal drive to develop a competitive set, and there’s no C-level approval needed.
3. An enabling core technology where new businesses get built on top, offering the VC like upside that is needed for the out sized negative churn.

Full disclaimer, also a Twilio and Sendgrid (now TWLO!) share owner in the public markets.