True.
As I said at the very beginning of this thread, the Mission 70 paper is actually (and perhaps, unfortunately) two papers in one.
The first part (“supply side” or Tokenomics) and irrespective of whether you agree or not with the figures and strategy (more on this below) has been formulated with rigor. They’ve put effort in looking at the data, working through assumptions, formalizing a mechanic and delivering a proposal anchored in that mechanic. So at the very least no-one can argue there is hand-waving stuff in there.
The second bit (the “demand side”) is IMHO the flaky one. Surprisingly, I must say. Because assumptions that anchor the first part of the document are left here as purely aspirational and hand-wavy. No in-depth analysis of potential market size, competitor landscape, positioning, perceived competitive advantage… no sign of primary research (e.g., focus groups for what they are worth, interviews with demand-side CTOs and procurement heads, even retail users in your key target audience, no psychographics of those users, lots of stuff you could do and are not expensive either to do, in the great scheme of things) complemented by a strong secondary research in the verticals of interest, even a basic SWOT. Nothing. That leaves the mouth empty, so to say.
Result is that you risk folks getting understandably salty, and force you to take the (non-enviable) position of being always “at bat” trying to strike the ball as far away as possible, when this could have been reasonably averted by doing otherwise. And, honestly, you didn’t need to be Einstein to figure that one out. Assumptions will always be challenged, of course, but at the very least you have to be able to hold your ground with hard-woven facts.
When I read (reiterating what I said very early on) things like “DFINITY believes that forthcoming onchain cloud engines… will push the burn rate well beyond this threshold” (and I’m picking this up because it’s a clear example: DFINITY “believes”) you cannot but think this is about hope, not a carefully planned and sized-up target market to carve. My point is that they could have placed more substantiated forward-looking assumptions. There are ways to do that: it’s the bread and butter of market research.
And it can be done: it’s not too late. I really hope they do. That would diffuse much of the pushback I see taking place.
As a friend once told me “when in search of hope I go to church…”
Just my 2c.
