Scan to Download Gate App
qrCode
More Download Options
Don't remind me again today

Have you noticed? Recently, the online food delivery services have started burning money again.



Alibaba directly invested 50 billion, Meituan followed with 30 billion, and JD.com also did not hold back, throwing in 20 billion. A friend asked me, what is the purpose of burning money like this?

This reminds me of when a leading exchange launched the Alpha feature last year. At that time, a bunch of people questioned: what’s the point of this points system? Looking back now—after getting used to using that platform for your wallet, wanting to switch to another? Difficult.

I myself am a living example. Although I still open the wallet of another exchange for airdrops now, when it comes to high-frequency operations like transferring and receiving new coins, my hand has habitually clicked on that app.

**This is the terrifying aspect of path dependency.**

Recently, when I wrote that article about Ctrip, many people said that they make money by monopolizing the market. But where is the monopoly with Ctrip? It's just that when you want to book a ticket, the first thing that pops into your mind is them. Once a habit is formed, the cost of switching becomes absurdly high.

So you see, after the leading exchange Alpha went live, another one immediately got anxious and quickly put together a BST to compete. This wallet war is likely to last a long time—until one side captures 80% of the market share, it may not settle down.

To be honest, the other exchange hasn't really come up with anything impressive lately. Their own chain... can they take it seriously? Stop just following behind others all the time.

The essence of the money-burning battle has never been about burning money itself, but about seizing the user's "first reaction." Whoever wins this wins the market.
BST-2.35%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 3
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SmartContractPlumbervip
· 12-01 08:52
The term path dependence sounds nice, but to put it bluntly, it means poor user stickiness. On a platform with strong product capabilities, users won't be easily pried away. I looked at the contract permission design of a certain exchange's chain—really, don't even mention it, they haven't even fully fixed the reentrancy vulnerability. With such infrastructure, no amount of money spent would make a difference.
View OriginalReply0
PseudoIntellectualvip
· 11-30 18:47
Path dependence is really amazing; once you get used to it, you simply can't change it.
View OriginalReply0
SignatureVerifiervip
· 11-30 18:41
ngl, the path dependency angle here is legit underexplored. most people just see the cash burn and miss the actual lock-in mechanism being constructed in real-time. technically speaking, what they're really auditing is behavioral switching costs—insufficient friction to migrate = market dominance. cold calculus tbh.
Reply0
  • Pin
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)