@
X LinkedIn

Moats in LLMs: Why Timing > Model Quality

The real moat isn’t the brain. It’s the gut.

INTRO: Why Model IQ Isn’t Enough

People obsess over raw horsepower - bigger models, tighter datasets, better RAG. That’s fine if you’re benchmarking. But if you want users to come back, those aren’t the differentiators. How the model behaves is.

Not “what can the model do”, but “when does it choose to act?”

What does it surface? What does it ignore? How does it build trust over time?

These are questions that separate a novelty from a habit.

The real defensibility in LLM-based products won’t come from raw capabilities. It will come from how they’re sequenced, packaged, and personalized.

The hard truth: the moat1 isn’t in the model. It’s in the interaction flow.

LESSON FROM FACEBOOK: Feedback Beats Features

Facebook didn’t win because it was first. It won because it got people hooked. Status updates, likes, and the News Feed weren’t obvious innovations2 - they emerged from tight feedback loops inside dense social pockets3.

The product wasn’t the network. It was the timing loop - triggers, rewards, emotional reinforcement. That’s what made it sticky.

TODAY’S LLM PRODUCTS: Same Brains, No Gut

Most LLM apps are still thin wrappers. Same backend, new UI. The equivalent of Facebook’s News Feed - a habit-forming interaction loop - hasn’t emerged yet. Take agent notifications. If they interrupt at the right moment, they re-engage. If not, they become noise4.

Behavioral moats begin when systems know when not to speak. They earn the right to interrupt. They build trust by showing restraint.

MEMORY AS A MOAT: ChatGPT vs. Claude

ChatGPT’s memory is crude but sticky5. It remembers details. Applies them contextually. Saves you from repeating yourself. That’s retention. That’s friction reduction. That’s a higher bar for churn.

Claude6? Smarter in some ways, but amnesiac. Stateless. Every session is a reset. No context carryover.

Doesn’t matter how good the IQ is if users feel like they’re talking to a stranger every time.

Holding and applying context - without making the user repeat themselves - is a durable moat.

WHAT INTERACTION MOATS ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE

Some teams talk about “interaction architecture” like it’s just routing models. It’s not. It’s decision logic.

Here’s what actually matters:

  • State management: Track goals, actions, preferences, emotional tone.
  • Policy logic: When to speak, stay silent, reflect, nudge, or escalate.
  • LLM-as-controller: The model decides next actions, not just next words.
  • Retrieval: Pull context from personal history or cohort patterns.
  • Feedback loops: Adjust based on what worked, implicitly or explicitly.

These are judgment layers, not generalizable APIs. They’re bespoke - and hard to copy.

WHY UX IN LLMs IS BEHAVIORAL PACING

LLM-native apps will win on behavioral timing: what appears, when, and why.

The tuning loop isn’t about fine-tuning models anymore. It’s about tuning the experience.

Prompt design - getting the LLM to say the right thing - is table stakes.

You’re building rapport now.

Data is no longer just for pretraining. It’s for learning behavioral signals - so the system can act at the right moment, not just say the right thing.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: WHY OWNERSHIP OF THE INTERACTION LAYER MATTERS

It’s tempting to outsource this layer to plugins, wrappers, or third-party services. That may work early. But over time as products mature, the interaction layer becomes core IP. It holds trust, retention, and product feel. You don’t have to build it all from scratch. But you do have to own it.

WHERE THE MOAT ACTUALLY LIVES

Interfaces are easy to clone7. Decision logic is not.

Why this nudge, at this moment? That’s the invisible layer - hard to fake, harder to replicate.

Same reason you can copy Spotify’s UI, but not the implicit logic behind Discover Weekly. The magic isn’t on the surface. It’s in the hidden layers - weights, heuristics, and sequencing8.

Smarter models help. But instinctual timing - how you deploy those smarts - is the true edge.

A NOTE ON THE “MODEL IS THE PRODUCT” VIEW

There are claims that the moat is shifting inward - that with better RL and agentic training, labs will internalize the full behavior stack and turn models into end-to-end applications. This is plausible in domains with dense, automatable feedback (search, coding, structured Q&A).

But in high-context, high-trust domains like therapy, coaching, education, and health - behavior isn’t just task output. It’s the timing, memory, and micro-adjustments that define experience.

These patterns aren’t pre-trainable. They require iteration in the wild.

That’s where interaction moats still hold - and where application-layer teams have a durable advantage9.

Footnotes

  1. “Moat” is a loaded term that I think gets overused. I’m using it here as a shortcut for durable differentiation at the product level ↩

  2. The News Feed (2006) turned static profiles into dynamic engagement engines ↩

  3. Facebook launched in tight college networks. This created fast feedback loops. See: The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick ↩

  4. Notification timing is a well-known growth lever. In LLMs, it can become a semi-autonomous, personalized engagement tool ↩

  5. ChatGPT memory, launched in 2024, allows session continuity by remembering facts and preferences: https://openai.com/index/memory-and-new-controls-for-chatgpt/ ↩

  6. Claude, as of early 2025, is stateless: https://www.anthropic.com/index/introducing-claude ↩

  7. In rare cases like early iOS vs. Android, higher quality UI became a major differentiator that was hard to clone - but not because polish alone mattered. The advantage came from deeply understanding edge cases, execution quality, and behavioral predictability at a systems level ↩

  8. Behavioral moats work like recommender systems - visible output, hidden logic ↩

  9. “Model is the product”: https://vintagedata.org/blog/posts/model-is-the-product ↩