The only reason B2B isn't winner takes all, yet, is cronyism (sales people with golf clubs can still beat bottom up selling). This leads to fragmented markets where people can't leverage network effects as easily and so switch from growth and distribution to revenue, early.
For non US investors that tend to be culturally more risk averse, this early focus on revenue vs growth is comforting, so there is a bias towards B2B. But it is a bias towards the wrong type of B2B and there is an opportunity to invest in B2B startups that capture network...
...effects for distribution and become 'platform scale' [NB, I define platforms differently from, say, @benedictevans as being anything leveraging network effects with sufficient scale, and not just 2 sided marketplaces. Notionally this is $50B+ market cap pure Internet co's].
There is ultimately no difference between B2B and B2C other than B2B hasn't yet caught up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is a recipe for how to build a place like this. Importantly, it has to be a recipe, not a design.
Establish a simple hierarchy like the human body: a head (here, the cathedral), and the rest. At building level either consciously use symmetry or consciously break it.
Have squarish spaces between buildings for people to interact. Put trees in them where possible.
Prioritise pedestrians over bicycles and bicycles and motor scooters over cars. Remove on street parking and remove bicycle lanes where spaces can be pedestrian first.
Fantastic thread. Why movies are full of recycling franchises like Marvel while innovation in indie fringes doesn't percolate up. I suspect reason for this is the following:
Mainstream is hyperconnected, over-dense network (groupthink, ossified) and is potentially disrupted only when overall network becomes a small world one (goldilocks area between connected and Balkanized) and stuff that appears in the creative niches can bubble up to mainstream.
Reason it isn't bubbling up to mainstream is that niches have also been hijacked with their own form of groupthink (Taleb's tyranny of the minority), meaning that alternative though or creativity is suppressed where the niches are in open forum or connect to the mainstream.
1. Crypto is a technical solution to pure Internet infrastructure, it can’t prevent laws against it. Financial services consist of a technical and regulatory component.
2. The adoption of Internet based currency tokens by central banks uses a crypto based technical solution to replace banking rails with the Internet. It doesn’t use the crypto aspect for regulation so is not decentralised.
3. DeFi extends crypto solutions to financial products and ownership more widely. Financial products are basically fungible contracts and ownership, transferable non fungible ones.
Coinbase is like Netscape. It's a well designed UI on top of a new network (Bitcoin/web) created using a new protocol (Bitcoin spec/HTTP). It's worth more than Netscape because it holds currency but maybe it should be valued based on financial services, not tech stock growth.
Like Netscape and unlike, say, Facebook, it doesn't own its own protocol. It's not a platform in the traditional sense.
Now you could argue that Coinbase is like Google which sits directly on the web and therefore doesn't own its own protocol, but Google monetizes its traffic not its deposits or their transactions.