[rosywoozlechan]

I appreciate the context you provided about what makes Substack appealing and how it may mitigate some of the threat. However, I believe the main point of the article is that Substack represents yet another example of money being poured into disrupting existing channels. When the funding dries up and the music stops, we may lose more than just Substack. We may witness a diversity of providers going out of business because they couldn’t compete with deep-pocketed investors throwing money around. In the end, we could be left with a spam-riddled Substack struggling to make any money at all, while the old services are gone because they couldn’t survive the onslaught of VC wealth. It’s a bad bet that could leave us with nothing but craters and scorched earth where a thriving newsletter community used to be.

[gregdoesit]

Are we ignoring how one of Substack's major competitors, Ghost is doing just fine? Bootstrapped, on a $6M run rate, their growth speeding the past years and openly sharing their revenue details [1].

What would happen if Substack went out of business? Newsletters can (and would) migrate to Ghost or other alternatives that are also thriving.

[1] https://ghost.org/open/

[rpgbr]

Except Ghost isn't free, and I doubt most of Substack newsletters (I mean those from amateurs writers, not the pros that make a living off them) would be willing to pay. That's where the destructions will happen.