The Spiro Circle

James Spiro
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Tech News
  • Updated Weekly

Join me as I discuss issues relating to Israel, tech, media, and news. Sometimes with a guest, sometimes solo. www.thespirocircle.com

  1. 1d ago

    This AWS product leader couldn't install his own product. So he built a $42m company - #0094, Gal Ordo

    The week Gal Ordo joined Amazon Web Services as the Product Leader for AWS Security Hub, he did something his colleagues thought was unnecessary. Instead of using the internal templates that AWS provided to get the product up and running, he insisted on installing it from scratch the way a customer would - no shortcuts or help from the team that built it. But then he said it took him four to five days. “It was so hard for me to install,” said the co-founder and CPO of Native Security. “And I am within AWS! I’m the product leader for that. What does it mean for a customer going in the first time trying to use that? At best, they give up; at worst, they misconfigure it, and then they don’t have active security coverage.” That initial moment planted the first seed. But the second came a month later, when Ordo attended his first Executive Briefing Center session on behalf of Amazon. There, a room of executives from Fortune 100 and Fortune 50 companies had one message for the young product leader sitting across from them: “Why are you showing us the problem after it happens? Why can’t we just prevent it?” “I remember them telling me, ‘Why do you even allow me to get to that place? Why don’t you just give me the knob to say this can never happen in the first place?’” Ordo recalled. It was those two experiences, operating a product too complex for its own builders to operate, and a customer too exhausted to keep reacting, that became the founding logic of Native Security. The Tel Aviv-based cloud security startup emerged from stealth in March 2026 with an official $42 million in funding (he says they have already secured more, up to $55 million), and a collection of Fortune 100 customers already running its platform in production. According to industry research, 80% of cloud breaches stem from misconfigurations — resources left exposed, permissions set too wide, settings that drifted after an engineer’s late-night change. Among companies that use multiple cloud providers, only 33% have a unified security strategy across them. Ordo’s argument to me is that the tools to close that gap have always existed inside AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle - but enterprises cannot operationalize them at scale. Native’s answer is what Ordo calls a control plane, a platform that lets security leaders specify an outcome in plain language, such as: “My sensitive data should never be exposed to the internet.” It then translates it into enforceable technical controls across all four major cloud providers simultaneously, using those providers’ own native capabilities rather than adding another external layer. Before any policy goes live, the platform simulates its impact by surfacing which services might break, or which cross-cloud dependencies might be disrupted, so security teams can act without fear of taking down production. “The building blocks are there, they’re strong, they’re powerful,” Ordo said. “But they’re hard for customers to use.” Ordo co-founded the company with Amit Megiddo, CEO, who led Amazon GuardDuty, and Eyal Faingold, CTO, who served as VP of Cloud Security Products at Check Point. Between them, the three founders have shipped security products used by tens of thousands of enterprise customers globally. The initial $31 million Series A was led by Ballistic Ventures, whose roster includes Phil Venables, former CISO of Google Cloud. He joined the round and, later, the board, even calling Native’s approach “the next big evolution in cloud security.” The company currently employs around 50 people across Tel Aviv and the United States, drawing talent from IDF cyber units, Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, and CyberArk, with a target of 90 by the end of 2026. The founding question was whether the knowledge they accumulated inside those organizations could be turned into something different. Notably, knowledge of where the tools broke down, where customers gave up, and where the cycle of detect-and-react became self-perpetuating. “There is a reason this hasn’t been done before,” he concluded. “It’s incredibly difficult to achieve. The technical problems we’re solving are very hard.” [5-MINS PREVIEW: The founding story of Native Security] The Spiro Circle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

  2. 5d ago

    The Depth Premium: Why Deep Thinking is Becoming Rare in the AI Era - #0093, Yuval Ariav

    Most VCs will tell you they invest in people. Push them further, and you’ll hear the same formula of exceptional team, large market, and right timing. It is recited so often it has become meaningless. But Yuval Ariav, Founder and Managing Partner of Symbol, doesn’t give me that answer. Ask him what he looks for in a founder, and he’ll acknowledge that integrity and grit matter, but then he sets that all aside. “If I had to put one overarching theme for us, it’s depth,” he told me. “We like to see that founders went to the validation threshold the capital market requires — and then way beyond it. Because what that tells us is that they are really interested in the problem, that they really understand it.” Much of the theme of today’s conversation is about depth, and how to avoid “non-deep” thinking (I try to avoid the term “shallow”). For Ariav, the ability to go deep is the willingness to go so far into a problem that you exit the comfortable zone of apparent mastery and enter the uncomfortable zone of knowing how much you don’t know. “We like to see people whose level of expertise forces them to say, on some things, ‘we don’t know.’ Because that’s how you really know they know their stuff.” Symbol is a $50 million pre-seed and seed fund Ariav co-manages with Racheli Kogan, and bets on founders working outside the mainstream of Israeli venture, in sectors the local capital community has traditionally dismissed. We spoke soon after Business Insider named Symbol to its 2026 Seed 100, the first time an Israeli fund has appeared on a list that includes Sam Altman, Accel, and Greylock. The ranking’s stated criteria, which highlighted those who identify technologies before they become mainstream categories, are basically Symbol’s entire thesis. The problem is that depth is vanishing There’s a paradox at the center of Ariav’s argument: That the quality he bets on is becoming scarcer precisely as building companies gets easier. Because of AI, he notes, “building products has never been easier, faster, cheaper.” When there are more founders, lower barriers to entry, and more buzz, the very environment that Symbol is making a contrarian bet on is becoming full of less intellectual effort. “The capacity for depth… it’s not just that you understand something deeply,” he said. “It’s that you are fine with sitting on your ass at home and spending six hours diving into god-awful McKinsey super boring reports to understand some fundamental truth. That is a skill set that is rapidly fading from the world.” Research found that average sustained attention on a digital screen dropped from 150 seconds in 2004 to 47 seconds by 2024. Ariav, who teaches a course at Columbia University on data, AI, and society, watches this in real time. “Our collective attention span is going way down,” he said. “At a time when the world is more complex than ever.” Contrarianism isn’t the answer Here is where Ariav diverges from the standard VC contrarian pitch. Being reflexively contrary, he argues, is just as lazy as following the consensus. “Being reflexively contrarian is also easy. You look at Twitter [X], and you just add ‘no’ in the beginning of whatever somebody says.” What Symbol looks for is different: founders who have gone deep enough to discover something the market hasn’t seen. “When you meet the best founders, at some point they will say something to the effect of: we’ve observed something the market doesn’t understand. At that point, they shine a spotlight on a hidden truth.” For Symbol, it is about finding the pre-consensus thinking across a world that is no longer operating in the very depths that depend on new discovery. And with a world that changes as AI becomes more embedded in our lives, the ability to think, explore, and innovate is becoming a commodity in and of itself. [Watch a preview: The "Depth" Problem: Why great tech founders are getting rarer] The Spiro Circle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

    The Depth Premium: Why Deep Thinking is Becoming Rare in the AI Era - #0093, Yuval Ariav

  3. Aug 2

    "Love the chaos": What 22 years in the IDF taught one Israeli founder about leadership - #0092, Shahaf Galili

    In cybersecurity, hesitation can be the most expensive decision a company makes. Shahaf Galili knows this not as a management theory, but as a lived operational reality forged across 22 years running offensive cyber units inside the Israeli military. “You always need to make decisions when you don’t have all the information,” says Galili, co-founder and CEO of Mars Security, a Tel Aviv-based threat detection startup that raised $9 million in 2025. “The most dangerous thing to do — if you’re investigating a breach, if you’re conducting an offensive operation, if you’re trying to decide which product line to invest in — is to wait. Targets are moving and evolving. There’s a lot of chaos and multiple unknowns.” It is a philosophy shaped by his real-world experience in the Israel Defense Forces, confronting actual life-or-death consequences. Galili left the IDF at 39, relatively later than most who leave after their mandatory three-year commitment, which he considers an advantage. The extra years gave him something that fast-track civilian careers rarely produce: a visceral comfort with operating under conditions that would paralyze most executives. “The more chaos that you live through,” he said, “the better you will thrive in chaos.” That thesis now underlies how Galili runs his founding team and how he thinks organizations should respond to a security breach in progress. His core conviction is that an imperfect action consistently outperforms a perfect decision arrived at too late - or one not performed at all. “I believe that an action, even if it’s the wrong one, is always better than not acting,” he explained. “An action will help you understand reality. You need to act… and then have the flexibility to understand that you made a mistake and change.” I pointed out that there is something almost Shakespearean in how he thinks about cybersecurity. Hamlet, history’s most famous illustration of the cost of indecision, understood perfectly what needed to be done but died precisely because he couldn’t bring himself to do it. The play is a 400-year-old case study in strategic paralysis, and one that Galili would recognize immediately as a security failure as much as a human one. History, it turns out, doesn’t repeat itself - but we all know it can rhyme. Delay was Hamlet’s ‘fatal flaw’. In cybersecurity, it remains one of the most common that can still cost enterprises their data. This is not merely philosophical for Galili. The detection gap that Mars Security is built to close between the moment an attacker enters an organization, and the moment the organization realizes it is partly a technology problem and partly a mindset one. Security teams have been conditioned to gather more data before acting. Attackers, meanwhile, are moving across identities, cloud environments, SaaS platforms, and corporate networks in hours, not days. “You need to be good all the time,” Galili said. “The attacker has one advantage: he has the initiative. If you take this from him and start being proactive, looking all the time at how they’re evolving, they don’t have a chance.” The best piece of advice he ever received from a commanding officer? He doesn’t hesitate: “Love the chaos.” The ability to embrace chaos in 2026 is as applicable to building a startup as it was to running operations in the years before - even if contexts and technologies evolve. And the leaders who thrive are never the ones who waited for more certainty before moving. They’re the ones who always kept moving. The Spiro Circle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

    "Love the chaos": What 22 years in the IDF taught one Israeli founder about leadership - #0092, Shahaf Galili

  4. Jul 30

    Find Your "Mona Lisa" Before the Hackers Do - #0091, Toni Samson

    While I was recording an episode with Toni Samson, co-founder and CEO of Arte Security, she told me it was important for companies and CISOs to “find your Mona Lisas.” It made me remember how a few thousand kilometers away, the actual home of the actual Mona Lisa had learned that exact lesson the hard way. Last October, thieves walked out of the Louvre with crown jewels worth more than $100 million. French investigators later found that only one of the two cameras covering the break-in point was even working, and staff didn’t have enough screens to watch the footage that did exist. The whole operation lasted minutes. Imagine that: The Louvre, home to the most famous painting on earth, couldn’t tell you in real time what was happening to the jewels twenty feet away. It didn’t know where its own “Mona Lisa” was, so to speak. And a few days ago its gallery finally reopened - this time, without the stolen jewels. That’s the trap Toni was warning me about, except she wasn’t talking about paintings. Her metaphor was directed at CISOs who need to know the most important assets in their enterprise, and make sure those are more protected than just applying blanket protection over everything. “Find your Mona Lisas,” she said. “This is the most important. You will not be able to close everything. It’s too much. It will never be fast enough.” The value of each asset varies by company. A shoe manufacturer’s factory floor matters more than its HR files. A bank’s Mona Lisa is the data itself, sitting in very specific places. “The question now is: How can I protect my most critical things? [Because] not everything is the Mona Lisa,” she said. “Not everything needs to be protected the same.” This is where Arte’s own work gets specific. The company helps enterprises identify what parts of their data require more attention (and protection) than others. It then specializes and tailor-makes a solution that helps them protect their Mona Lisas from theft or hacking. The company was founded with co-founder and CTO Asaf Ohayon at the end of 2025, and Toni herself comes from a background in the Israeli Ministry of Defense as Director of Critical Infrastructure & Data Center Cybersecurity. Another example may be a hyperscale AI data center, where its Mona Lisa isn’t necessarily a database. It might be the chiller controller. Bad actors wouldn’t even need to breach a firewall to take an AI cluster offline. All they would need to do is make the room too hot to run. This sounds obvious until you actually try to do it. Security researchers estimate that roughly a third of large businesses can see less than three-quarters of their own assets at any given time: Think of it as the digital equivalent of a museum that isn’t sure how many rooms it has, let alone what’s in them. I asked her to help me quantify it: how do you actually know which door is the one with the painting behind it? To distinguish between the Mona Lisas and what I called “The James Spiro Original Scribble”. Her answer was to identify what you’d protect first if you could only protect one thing, and build outward from there. “Make sure your Mona Lisa is protected,” she said, “and put it as number one priority.” Every laptop or every forgotten API endpoint is indeed an attack surface or entry point. And for a long time, the instinct in cybersecurity has always been to try to lock all of them at once. But Toni’s point is that this instinct is now outdated, because when attackers can use AI to move at machine speed, treating every asset as equally precious means treating none of them as precious enough. The Louvre is now spending close to a billion euros to build the actual Mona Lisa her own dedicated room. Most businesses won’t get that budget. CISOs will have to actually know where their Mona Lisa hangs before someone else finds out. [Watch a preview: “Not everything is the Mona Lisa” — Cybersecurity priorities, explained] Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

  5. Jul 26

    After Wiz, Cybersecurity Founders Are Thinking Bigger - #0090, Oren Yunger

    Israel’s cyber numbers from 2025 were staggering. We all know the big ones: Google acquired Wiz for $32 billion. Palo Alto Networks spent $25 billion to absorb CyberArk. ServiceNow bought Armis for $7.8 billion. When the final tally was complete, strategic mergers and acquisitions in the cybersecurity sector had reached $81 billion - more than four times the volume of the prior year, according to data compiled by Notable Capital and Morgan Stanley. For Oren Yunger, Managing Partner at Notable Capital and one of the architects of the firm’s annual Rising in Cyber report, the significance of those deals runs deeper than just their valuations. “The ceiling has kind of been shattered,” he told me. “You can build businesses that are just massive. You can do things that we, in the past, thought were unimaginable in cybersecurity,” he added. “Companies should get acquired between $200-400 million dollars — that’s the best you can do. Now we’re seeing companies that really are paving the way to the next set of companies to go and build bigger and stronger.” For much of the last decade, cybersecurity exits were measured in hundreds of millions, not the tens of billions we see today. The Wiz deal alone, which became the largest high-tech exit and business deal in Israel's history, poses a new question to a new generation of founders: If they could become a $32 billion business, what is possible for us? The M&A wave of 2025 coincided with a shift in how enterprises think about the AI era and the risks that come with it. In 2024 and early 2025, the defining question for enterprises deploying AI was whether they could build agents capable of autonomous action. Yunger now argues that that question has largely been answered and a new one has emerged. “The big question that we’re seeing is: can you put it in production, can you scale that agent, can you trust its operations?” he said. “Security is just a huge part of this question that needs to be answered at enterprise scale.” The Rising in Cyber 2026 report, which surveyed nearly 150 chief information security officers from the world’s largest companies, puts precise numbers on the gap between deployment and protection. Seventy-one percent of respondents said their organisations already have AI agents running in production environments. But only 11% described their tooling to secure those agents as mature. That gap is where Yunger sees the next wave of investment flowing, and where the next generation of large cybersecurity companies will be built. The broader cybersecurity sector is projected to reach $255 billion by 2029, up from $153 billion in 2025, according to IDC estimates. Early-stage investment is accelerating: Series B rounds grew 74% to $3.3 billion in 2025, with average deal sizes jumping 75% to $49 million. In a year when most software categories saw venture funding decline, cybersecurity’s earliest rounds were the only segment to grow year over year. The momentum has continued into 2026. CrowdStrike acquired SGNL, Palo Alto Networks purchased Koi, and Sophos acquired Arco Cyber — all in the first half of the year. The platforms that spent 2025 making transformational acquisitions are now targeting the AI-native capabilities they need to stay competitive as the threat landscape continues to evolve. Microsoft, which dominates five of the largest cybersecurity verticals, is adding capabilities faster than at any point in its history, with CrowdStrike and Palo Alto doing the same. But their acceleration has not crowded out newer startups. If anything, it has raised the stakes for founders who can identify the problems that the large platforms have not yet solved. “Security companies today are answering those questions,” Yunger said, “and the ones to follow will eventually accompany every single technology shift that is happening in the market and will continue to do so for as much as I can think of.” Yunger claims the thesis is confirmed by Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chief executive, who he said has described engineering as converging into four enduring disciplines. One of them is security engineering: a category he considers permanent regardless of how AI reshapes the rest of the technology industry. “Doesn’t matter how AI is affecting our markets, what jobs AI potentially will threaten and maybe change… Security is here to stay.” For founders building in the space today, that is both a reassurance and a challenge. The ceiling “has been shattered” and the market is expanding faster than we all predicted. Large companies are acquiring quickly, and the venture dollars are flowing earlier. What founders may be asking themselves now is if they can also build something the platforms may have no choice but to pay to absorb. And Wiz has shown them that the answer may be worth $32 billion. [Watch a preview: The Cybersecurity Ceiling Just Got Shattered] Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

  6. Jul 21

    The Impossible Math of Israel's Information War - #0089 Rachel Lester

    Israel isn't fighting one information war. It's fighting three. At least, that’s the takeaway I had when I read Digital Warrior: Inside Israel’s Battle for the Narrative After October 7 by Rachel Lester this week. Rachel served in the International Branch of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, first on active duty, then in reserves from October 8th, 2023, editing and shaping video content for accounts with over 10 million followers across platforms. You probably saw her videos from the official IDF X account, or from her personal Instagram, @Rachel.In.Reserves Thinking back to the early days following the October 7 massacre, what struck me most was the impossible communications challenge the IDF faced. Her job, and the job of the army, was to explain multiple things to the world at once. “I think that Israel faces social media challenges that no other army and no other country in the world face,” she told me. “I think that we have the unique challenge of trying to reassure our civilians that we are safe and that the army is in control, while at the same time conveying to the world these are our enemies, this is what our enemies are doing right now… this is what our enemies just did: committed the largest attack on Israel in our history. And if we don’t fight them, then they’re gonna do it again and again, as they’ve said.” One country, three completely different messages One of the central arguments in Digital Warrior is that the IDF isn't running one narrative. It’s running three, simultaneously, to three audiences - and the messages don’t just differ in tone, they actively contradict each other. * To the local, Hebrew-speaking audience - the message is reassurance: we are strong, we’re handling it, you don’t need to worry. * To the Arabic- and Farsi-speaking world - the message is closer to a warning: we are strong, we’re watching you, and your own leaders are the ones corrupting you. * And to the international, English-speaking audience, the posture flips entirely: we are at risk, we are under attack — because that’s the only framing that earns Israel the right to defend itself in the eyes of the world. Project strength to one audience and vulnerability to another, at the same time, and you’d think it’d collapse under its own weight. Rachel told me it basically does, sometimes. The three departments work almost entirely independently of each other - there’s no room for someone to coordinate the tone across all three. “Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t,” she said. The moment she paused I considered the paradox Israel found itself in, and thought about why it didn’t apply to Hamas’ messaging strategy. So I put it to her directly: Didn’t Hamas actually pull off the version of this that Israel is still struggling with? A fear campaign aimed at the region, running alongside a sympathy campaign aimed at the West without the contradiction ever really catching up to them? “That’s an interesting point I hadn’t considered before,” she said. Western outlets, she pointed out, never really broadcast the moments when Hamas spokespeople promised “to do October 7th again and again.” That footage exists, as Rachel saw firsthand, but it just doesn’t travel the way photos of dead children (or P.O.D.C., a term she coined for the book) do. As the war dragged on, Hamas’ messaging was contained inside its Arabic-language threats, but its English-language grief campaign spread across the world. Somehow, the two rarely collided in the same feed, in front of the same audience, at the same time. This was not true for Israel, whose messaging sometimes came out slowly or inconsistently - and whose critics were quick to highlight these contradictions. This is more than a media-strategy story It would be easy to file this under another “PR problem” Israel has to overcome, and move on. But I don’t think that’s what it is. Our conversation kept circling back to how, in a war where legitimacy determines whether you’re even allowed to keep fighting, the coherence of your story and its narrative matters as much as the truth of it. That challenge is only becoming harder now that AI makes it easier to manipulate and dismiss authentic content. During our conversation, we discussed the “liar's dividend”, a term coined by legal scholars Bobby Chesney and Danielle Citron for exactly this phenomenon: real evidence getting waved away simply because fake evidence is now possible. She mentioned an instance in 2023 when journalists doubted the validity of footage released by the IDF. And earlier this year, genuine footage of Netanyahu was mistaken online for an AI fabrication. So the tech doesn't even need to be actively used against Israel. Its existence alone is often enough to doubt or undermine its digital efforts. That’s the tension I’d encourage you to sit with if you pick up Digital Warrior: not “is Israel’s PR bad,” which is the question everyone already has an opinion on, but “can any democracy actually hold three contradictory messages together in an age when information is everywhere?” Digital Warrior is out now. You can follow Rachel on Instagram here. For transparency: I have no financial relationship with this book or its sale. This recommendation is unpaid. [Preview: We discuss “How the IDF Talks to Israelis, Enemies, and the World — All at Once”] Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

  7. Jul 19

    The AI "Habitat" That Waymo Never Built - #0088, Dr. Tal Cohen

    On July 8, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sent a letter to the autonomous vehicle industry saying that AV developers had shown a “clear pattern” of driverless cars blocking ambulances and fire trucks, ignoring flares and flashing lights, and in some cases driving directly into active emergency scenes. While not technically naming Waymo, it was undeniably a focal player in the robotaxi reckoning - saying there was “a functional insufficiency” among automated vehicle developers regarding “a pattern of interference with first responders”. At the same time, a different conversation has been unfolding inside the AI industry. Some of its leading figures have begun looking beyond engineering for answers. Anthropic recently launched its Faith & AI Covenant Roundtable to discuss how best to infuse morality and ethics into AI, while OpenAI's Head of Strategic Futures, Dean Ball, sparked debate after saying he had begun studying the Talmud to better understand AI policy. Dr. Tal Cohen, co-founder of Drive TLV and managing partner of Next Gear Ventures, joined me to discuss these issues. In an interview recorded just after the NHTSA letter, Cohen used Waymo as the clearest example of what he calls “The Habitat”: the missing institutional layer of trust, permissioning, and accountability that must exist around an AI system before it’s allowed to act with consequential impact in the world. “Two, three years ago, I was irrelevant, because there was no capability to talk like that,” Cohen said. But AI ability is expanding, and it is clearly starting to outpace the governance structure meant to contain it. “The capability is expanding,” he added, pointing to Waymo’s rapid deployment. “Suddenly, you have a gap between what the capability can provide and what we are lagging as a society.” Cohen’s main argument is that the industry has spent its energy on the wrong bottleneck. Public debate about AI has focused overwhelmingly on physical infrastructure constraints related to chips, energy, and data centers, or on the capabilities of the models themselves. But he told me the actual constraint is a broader and less visible vacuum around the governance that authorizes an autonomous system to act, who reviews what it did, and who has the standing to revoke its authority when it gets something wrong. “So then the question is: who’s gonna own the habitat that’s gonna authorize Waymo to go into crime scenes or not?” He argues society will hand over billions of consequential driving decisions before governments build the institutional framework capable of supervising them. In his framing, regulators, municipal transportation departments, and NHTSA itself are unlikely to build that infrastructure fast enough on their own. He expects, and believes the moment demands, some hybrid of public and private coordination to define a constitution of sorts for autonomous systems. “We’re gonna live in the centuries or decades of habitat construction,” he said. “People really don’t get it yet.” A manuscript he's been circulating, The Case for Habitat, argues this point exactly: That without a system or code in place, organizations face an uncomfortable choice. “You either put somebody in the basement, don’t let it do what it can do… or let it destroy your business,” he concluded. In Cohen's words, the capability is “shiny,” but the Habitat is “boring.” Yet history suggests that the boring is often what determines which transformative technologies succeed. [5-Mins Preview: Can Judaism solve AI alignment?] Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

    The AI "Habitat" That Waymo Never Built - #0088, Dr. Tal Cohen

  8. Jul 16

    The $125 Billion Leak AI Agents Are About To Make Worse - #0087, Ofir Tahor

    Every day, billions of dollars move through the global payments system as people buy things online. And every day, a portion of those transactions gets reversed. Not through fraud in the traditional sense, but through disputes: a cardholder tells their bank they don’t recognize a charge, or that a service wasn’t as described, and the money often comes back to them almost immediately. Multiplied across the entire e-commerce economy, that adds up to an estimated $125 billion a year. It’s a leak most consumers never think about, and most of fintech rarely discusses. In the AI era, however, as users continue to delegate AI agents to conduct financial transactions online, it is becoming the latest hurdle global payment companies need to overcome. Ofir Tahor, co-founder and CEO of Justt, has spent the past six years building a company around that gap. His explanation of the problem starts with its age. “This is a mechanism created about 60, 70 years ago,” Tahor said, describing how card networks originally designed chargebacks to protect cardholders in a world of physical stores and mail-order catalogs. A customer could go straight to their bank rather than the merchant, flag a transaction as unrecognized, and get reimbursed while the burden of proof shifted entirely onto the business to explain why it should keep the money. Tahor explained that perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the industry is how almost nothing else in e-commerce still works this way. “If you take companies like Shopify, which did a revolution in the e-commerce world, and Stripe, which did a revolution in the payment processor world, chargebacks stayed behind,” he said. Checkout, fulfillment, customer support, and fraud screening have all moved to real-time, largely automated systems. But dispute resolution remains a paperwork exercise: a merchant compiles documentation, sends it to their payment processor, which forwards it to the cardholder’s issuing bank, like Chase, Citibank, or Wells Fargo, where a human being reviews it and makes a call. “It’s still very manual-operated,” Tahor said. “It’s somehow stayed behind in comparison to many other processes within e-commerce.” The consequence is a phenomenon known as ‘friendly fraud’: cases where a legitimate transaction gets disputed anyway, whether through genuine confusion or deliberate manipulation of a system stacked in the cardholder’s favor. It’s now the second most common type of fraud globally, and as the ability for agents to buy things themselves only speeds up, Tahor doesn’t expect it to slow down. “It’s easy to report a chargeback, and it’s becoming easier,” he said. The data backs this up. Mastercard’s 2025 State of Chargebacks report, based on research from Datos Insights, forecasts global chargeback volume growing 24% from 2025 to 2028, reaching 324 million transactions annually. It’s a trajectory that was already straining a decades-old system before AI-driven commerce entered the picture at all. The argument that clamping down on friendly fraud will be a net positive for the ecosystem and, in turn, the consumer, is the origin story behind Justt’s name. “It’s from the word ‘justice’, in order to create balance in the ecosystem,” Tahor said. Even though it may sound like the company is out to protect Big Business, it is an attempt to build a system that helps merchants keep money they’re owed while still returning money to cardholders when they’re right. In that world, everyone wins because consumers aren’t left paying those costs. Justt was founded in 2020 and has since raised $100 million. It works with more than 250 global enterprise merchants and over 80,000 small businesses, and was named to Forbes’ 2026 Fintech 50 list this spring, the first chargeback-focused company to make the list. It shows that chargeback management, long treated as a back-office cost center, is being recognized as core financial infrastructure in its own right. Learn about Ofir Tahor, chargebacks, fraud, and building Justt in the preview here: The Spiro Circle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Spiro Circle at www.thespirocircle.com/subscribe

See All (95)

About

Join me as I discuss issues relating to Israel, tech, media, and news. Sometimes with a guest, sometimes solo. www.thespirocircle.com

Information

  • Creator
    James Spiro
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    95
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © James Spiro
  • Show Website
    The Spiro Circle