3 ms·

I'm struggling with the findings here. From the article: all late adopters ("NLAs") and non-delayed early adopters ("NEAs") had a cash out (or abandonment) rate

by basseq 9y ago

I'm struggling with the findings here. From the article: all late adopters ("NLAs") and non-delayed early adopters ("NEAs") had a cash out (or abandonment) rate of ~10%. (Ironically, higher for NEAs at 11%, but likely not statistically significant.) But delayed NEAs cashed out at 18%, and at even more significant rates where social ties were stronger (e.g., dorms). And these delayed NEAs can affect NLA adoption in the long term. Separately, we could say that general exclusivity schemes (e.g., gmail, facebook) can accelerate broader market demand. But, of course, it's not causation: plenty of "exclusive" products never gain traction. So this suggests there's a certain class of people who care deeply, potentially more about "status" of being an early adopter than the underlying tech, and will be toxic if they don't get what they want. So... identify these people carefully?

tom_mellior 9y ago
> But delayed NEAs cashed out at 18%, and at even more significant rates where social ties were stronger (e.g., dorms). One possible explanation that immediately came to my mind was that these "delayed NEAs" were thinking something along the lines of "we were promised an instantaneous peer-to-peer payments system, but it was not instantaneous at all; screw this, it is obviously broken" and got out for this reason. There is no detail in the press release about what explanation for the delay was given. It's hard to judge people's motivation without that. > exclusivity The press release tries to make this about exclusivity, but I don't see how their far-reaching guesses follow from the data.