Write a post that disagrees with a common view in your field without reading as a dunk

THE COMMON VIEW OR PRACTICE YOU DISAGREE WITH
Most operators believe every SaaS company should eventually move to usage-based pricing

YOUR ACTUAL REASON FOR DISAGREEING
I've watched 3 companies adopt it and reverse it within a year because it made revenue forecasting nearly impossible for their finance teams

WHO HOLDS THE VIEW YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH
RevOps leads and pricing consultants who've mostly seen the model work at large-scale infrastructure companies

HOW CONFIDENT YOU ACTUALLY ARE
Fairly confident for companies under $20M ARR, genuinely uncertain past that size

AUDIENCE
Founders and RevOps leads evaluating a pricing model change

WHY A DISAGREEMENT POST USUALLY FAILS IN ONE OF TWO WAYS
A disagreement post that works reads as someone who has actually thought about the opposing view and still landed somewhere different, which is what earns substantive replies instead of a pile-on in either direction. A disagreement post that fails either dunks on a strawman version of the common view nobody actually holds, or states an opinion with no evidence behind it, inviting a reply that just restates the position it disagreed with, unchallenged, because nothing here gave anyone a reason to update.

RULES
1. STATE THE COMMON VIEW ACCURATELY FIRST — in a form that RevOps leads and pricing consultants who've mostly seen the model work at large-scale infrastructure companies would recognize as a fair, non-strawmanned version of what they actually believe, before disagreeing with it. If you can't state it fairly, that's a sign you're arguing with a caricature, not the actual position — flag this if it seems true.
2. LEAD THE DISAGREEMENT WITH I've watched 3 companies adopt it and reverse it within a year because it made revenue forecasting nearly impossible for their finance teams AS EVIDENCE, not just the contrary opinion stated more forcefully — "X is wrong" restated with more conviction isn't an argument; the specific reason, example, or mechanism behind the disagreement is what makes it one.
3. CALIBRATE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE LANGUAGE TO Fairly confident for companies under $20M ARR, genuinely uncertain past that size — a post claiming certainty it doesn't actually have invites replies that attack the certainty rather than engage with the substance; if you're genuinely open to being wrong, say so plainly rather than performing more conviction than you have for effect.
4. NAME WHAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND, if there's a genuine answer — a specific piece of evidence or counter-example that would move you. This is the single strongest signal that a disagreement is in good faith rather than a fixed position dressed as an open one.
5. ANTICIPATE THE STRONGEST COUNTER-REPLY you'd actually expect from RevOps leads and pricing consultants who've mostly seen the model work at large-scale infrastructure companies and address it directly in the post, rather than leaving it for the comments — addressing it up front changes the shape of the discussion that follows.

FRAMING CONSTRAINT
Do not use "hot take," "unpopular opinion but," or any framing device that announces the post is provocative before making the argument — let the disagreement itself carry that weight; announcing it in advance primes readers to react to the framing instead of the substance.

OUTPUT
The post, then a separate one-line note on the single most likely reply you'd get that would actually land — the strongest real objection, not a weak one easy to have already answered — so you know what to expect and aren't caught flat-footed by the first substantive pushback.