2026-01-11 23:22:20

There's a phenomenon worth pondering—two applications sold by Nikita Bier experienced a sharp decline in user numbers immediately after changing hands. Even more strangely, both projects announced their closure in the 9th month after transfer. This naturally raises the question: are these products truly genuine business ventures, or are they just shells that look good on the surface? This pattern isn't exactly new. Similar models can be seen in some of Sam Altman's projects before founding OpenAI. Now, Bier is the head of product development at X platform. From these cases, it seems some entrepreneurs are more skilled at creating glamorous stories rather than sustainable products.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 10h ago

Selling projects, this trick is indeed skillful; telling stories is much better than building products.

View OriginalReply0

DevChive

· 10h ago

Shell selling expert, the story is told so smoothly, all the products are just paper tigers

View OriginalReply0

RadioShackKnight

· 10h ago

Damn, it drops sharply right after resale and closes in the 9th month? The timing is too perfect, feels like a countdown to shutting down for good.

View OriginalReply0

NFTArchaeologist

· 10h ago

Closing after just 9 months of selling the product? This tactic is truly clever, it feels like they're not building a product but telling a story.

View OriginalReply0

DustCollector

· 10h ago

Oh no, this routine feels a bit familiar... Looks like a storytelling expert. Quickly dead after transfer, and all in the 9th month. These numbers are too neat, something's off. Creating glamorous stories vs actual products, the gap is really incredible. Reminds me, some big shots seem to do the same... Boast and package, but as for the product... Once transferred to X, no one dares to question anymore, right? Power outweighs everything. Shell projects can also be sold at high prices, really treating us small builders like fools. Closing in the 9th month... this timing isn't accidental, is it? A good story can make money, but those who actually build products are the most exhausted, right?

View OriginalReply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 10h ago

This routine is too familiar, with top-notch storytelling skills and zero product endurance.

View OriginalReply0

RamenDeFiSurvivor

· 10h ago

Sell out and run, closed after 9 months, this move is brilliant. It's just packaging stories to cash out, same old trick. --- Bier now manages X's products, I just want to see what tricks he can come up with. --- Two projects meeting the same death, how low must the probability be? It must take a lot of "coincidence." --- Creating glamorous stories to make quick money vs. building real products, some people clearly choose the former. --- User crash leading to closure, this timing is really precise. Feels like a scripted setup. --- Does Sam Altman have something similar? Looks like this routine is still quite popular in Silicon Valley. --- The problem is, people like this can still get promoted, which is really absurd. --- Shell projects sold at a good price, the next buyer taking over is the real unlucky one. --- Nine months is a bit too coincidental, isn't it? --- A good story can be valuable, but a good product is actually less important? That's Web3 for you.

View OriginalReply0