Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Growth or opportunities for growth must be present to convince buyers and investors to exchange more-liquid assets like cash for less-liquid assets like ownership. I part with $100 that I can spend anywhere for a share of stock that I hope will grow in value. Without opportunity for growth I have no incentive to part with my $100.

In the Facebook example, if Zuckerberg didn't want to grow Facebook, but wanted to still capitalize on it, he could have found a buyer and sold. The buyer would have been interested in growing it, and committed resources to doing so. Growing or Selling were the only two real options that would deliver Zuckerberg any gain. Once he decided not to sell, his only option was to deliver investors growth, so they would be willing to place their money in Facebook.

Another example would be an iOS app. There are plenty of apps in the app store where the developer built it, put it out there, charged $0.99 and that was it. If the app meets a need, this can work for a while, but eventually either demand will change or competitors will arise and the developer would either need to update/grow their app to maintain their revenue stream.

Growth is a fundamental piece of the financial system and eventually everyone decides to either grow, sell, or undercapitalize their asset.




Without wanting to sound like a socialist, couldn't these apps / businesses just be built to "cover costs"? Instead of producing 500 millionaires.

I'm not saying I could necessarily resist the temptation of becoming a millionaire at the cost of turning my great idea in to a shitty one, but I sure wouldn't feel good about it.

Perhaps I'm just a bit naive about these things.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: