[jasonzemos]

> Element ends up with some small (10%?) marketshare alongside loads of other Matrix vendors out there doing their thing.

What is a good reason for Element to relegate itself to only 10% of its own market and allow other vendors to pick up the remaining 90%? Can you name a product or service which Element is unable or unwilling to provide that competing investment could make returns on? If you can, why not pivot into that yourself? Can you assure parties investing in Matrix that Element is a trustworthy and synergistic counter-party?

[scrollaway]

> What is a good reason for Element to relegate itself to only 10% of its own market and allow other vendors to pick up the remaining 90%?

In a healthy ecosystem, the primary implementations do not represent most of the clients and servers.

HTTP for example is healthy because there are many http servers, many http clients, they're all pretty compatible and replaceable, and none of them represent the primary implementation with its own off spec quirks that others need to take into account.

[OJFord]

The obvious answer is that it would be jack-of-all-trading, and others would focus on one area, do it better, perceived to be better, or just differently.

[Arathorn]

> What is a good reason for Element to relegate itself to only 10% of its own market and allow other vendors to pick up the remaining 90%?

From a purely capitalist perspective, 10% of a $1TB industry is better than 100% of a $10B company.

[dsr_]

A growing ecosystem where the largest participant is 10% of the userbase is one which is immune from antitrust concerns.

It's likely one that is responsive to user needs.

It's everything that capitalists say that they want: a healthy competitive marketplace.