Hacker News Reader

Comment by scandox | Hacker News Reader

> Imagine you’re investing in Apple in 1980. There is plenty of risk involved and you’re still not sure this Jobs kid has what it takes, but do you like the idea? The mission? The product?

This is delusional. From Apple's Wikipedia:

"Between September 1977 and September 1980, yearly sales grew from $775,000 to $118 million, an average annual growth rate of 533%"

They were selling products that people wanted for profit. Comparing ICOs to this is ludicrous and seems to me to encapsulate the hazy thinking of this entire sector.

View on HN

We aren't there yet. Successful projects are building protocols with the goal of developers using them to build next-gen products that people actually want. Current speculation (a16z, polychain, ...) is that it will take another few years for this rollout to really take effect.

> products that people actually want

This part of the process is usually considered one of the first steps in a successful business.

If we're talking about developers, then there are already a variety of projects that "people" developers actually want.

The consumer oriented blockchain-natively-dependent projects are not here yet because the protocol layer isn't mature enough.

This isn't just my opinion, but those of the "actual" investors in the blockchain space such as a16z and polychain.

Why there were no blockchain projects for the last 10 years?

> This part of the process is usually considered one of the first steps in a successful business.

You're absolutely right, of course. However, I'm reminded of this wonderful (recent) quote by Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi:

"Business is actually surprisingly good for everything that the company went through. The part of the business that is not going well is the profitability part. We have some details to work out."

https://www.axios.com/uber-ceo-1516627656-77c68a5a-6d42-4c85...

I don't understand the "however" part.

People actually want to press a button on their phone and have a car show up and take them somewhere seamlessly. Uber has been doing that since they launched.

Doing it profitably and sustainably is another question. But the basis of the enterprise isn't even a little confusing.

I think we're on the same page.

My point: a business without actual products people want to use is not viable (contrary to what some appear to think), but a business without profitability is not viable, either.

(you're right, Uber has a slick product, though arguably because they subsidise it.)

People want crypto (not just coins: services, software), and some sell them for profit.

I am preparing new products to match this demand.

Instead of bashing an entire line of business, maybe you should too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com