[bisRepetita]

Even back then, you did not have to grow as fast as VC made you think. It was a choice by Zuck to grow fast and take a lot of investment, he did not have to grow that fast.

This is Zuck's interview in 2005 in Stanford: >So, I mean when you’re 16 running a site and your core people are the kitchen table, your operating expenses are relatively low.

>[...] we just kept our operating expenses low so far and by doing that we’ve been able to stay cash flow positive for basically the entire system’s company

>[...] we decided that it was ok to go a few months in cash flow negative while [...] like you know, using like $100,000, not like millions. So, um and then but, now were back. We do a lot of page views.

See page 26: https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/cyberhijack/2005-10-26-Zucker...

[lotsofpulp]

If your strategy involves needing to take advantage of network effects, growing as fast as possible seems like a requirement. It is a winner take all dynamic.

[Alex3917]

> If your strategy involved needing to take advantage of network effects, growing as fast as possible seems like a requirement.

Not necessarily. Most businesses with network effects (including Facebook) follow the "come for the tool, stay for the network" approach.

[kqr]

Right, but in any given group of people, the first people won't stick around to become the network unless they have reason to believe their network will shortly span their entire group -- i.e. grows fast.