I never made a claim that it's ineffective, just that it's of limited effectiveness. The diminishing returns kick in quickly, and it's not applicable in more domains than it is applicable.
The latter, and I would disagree that “this works and scales well” in the general sense. It clearly has very finite bounds by the fact we haven’t achieved agi by running an llm in a loop..
The approach of “try a few more things before stopping” is a great strategy akin to taking a few more stabs at RNG. It’s not the same as saying keep trying until you get there - you won’t.
The amount of paths in the wrong direction are infinitely more than then number in the right direction. You'll quickly realize this doesn't actually scale.
As you describe this is largely a cash flow business and the bulk of the value should be extracted via dividends to the benefit of major shareholders.
A tech enabled business needs gross margins north of 70% to be attractive from a leverage standpoint, unless revenue is scaling very rapidly. Without these there’s no attractive exit opportunities.
Sorry to break it to you but 10% profit on 6.5M rev is very low and will absolutely not fetch a high multiple, especially considering this is a mature 10 year old business. This is not a high growth business and you may have grown overly rose colored glasses by thinking it could be priced as one.
There are border towns where some workers do daily crossings. Without refund infrastructure in place it looks like this would add $250/day fee for all of these individuals
The whole thesis OP is making is that this isn’t really true, evidenced by real world behaviours. Electron apps have some of the highest market share, even the worlds most popular ide is an electron app.
The amount of people who won’t adopt based on pricipal is exceedingly small.
I think your benchmark may miss the mark a bit if this is your angle.
20m records and 9k/sec isn’t very impressive. I would imagine most prospective customers have larger workloads, as you could throw this behind Postgres and call it a day.
FWIW I was interested but your metrics made me second guess and wonder what was wrong.
More than the team with no product. There's a huge difference between large entrenched businesses and early-stage startups. Turnover in large corporations is huge, the team has turned over multiple times already, they can do so again.
An early stage company that barely has any code? Yes, in that case, it's the team that matters because they haven't fulfilled the vision yet.
Are there any difficulties in obtaining TN Visas related to the stage of the sponsor company?
More specifically, is it feasible for a Canadian operating startup to open a US entity and employ Canadian engineers under the TN Visa category? This would be an early stage non-VC backed company, but profitable and paying above prevailing market wage.