There is a lot of Hashi in our stack already; we orchestrate with Nomad (we have our own Firecracker task driver), we backend our certificate system --- which is awesome, certificates just work for Fly apps --- with Vault, and we use a lot of Consul.

I think our take on end-user access management is lower-level than what Boundary is trying to do. Boundary, as I understand it, sees the world the way an IdP RP does, mostly in terms of bearer tokens. We see stuff as infrastructure; a static configuration on an EC2 instance or a CI container; "just Unix". If we weren't building a PAAS, we'd probably lean much more strongly towards Boundary's way of looking at things.

As well, we care about minimizing and understanding as much of the code we expose as possible. For all the talking I've done about SSH here, the serverside of this feature is just a couple hundred lines of code; it is dwarfed by the clientside code. I couldn't say that about a Hashi product. (HashiCorp could though!)