Hacker News Reader

Couldn't the explanation be as simple as them lacking imagination? They're not a Silicon Valley funded startup. My impression is they lucked into the golden goose, and this move makes me think they're downright clueless about their options when things get adversarial.

View on HN

I guess that's possible, but it's hard for me to imagine that with billions of dollars at stake they didn't even consider it. I think they made the calculation that forcing their customers and creators to use crypto would lose them even more business than banning their core product.

I just can't fathom such a risk-averse decision. I mean, their business is dead. Even if you're not normally the type of leader to bet the farm on a wild shot, certainly it's the rational choice when the other option is a guaranteed 90% loss in expected valuation.

What are those last 10% worth to you? Unless it's still the difference between personal financial independence and wage slavery for the majority owner, I can't see how that's the rational choice. That's why I'm concluding lack of imagination and borderline incompetency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com