I appreciate the conversation the post initiates.

Nevertheless, by counter-example -- OpenClaw's creator was just recruited by people with more capital than countries.

If they could "re-produce" it with their capital, they would've preferred that.

Whatever he has, is still a moat. What that is, is debatable.

Is it brand? Is it his creativity? Is it trust/autheticity? A vision? Ownership of a repo or leadership of that community?

All those are perceived moats (or risks) by these folks that tried to scoop him up.

like another guy said, it's rhe marketing thing. the open claw thing became a hit sensation in the news etc. and now OpenAI can claim it as theirs. they have infinite money anyways, so might as well buy stuff like that I guess.

Luck has always been a solution to reach. It doesn't scale, though.

In the case of OpenClaw I think you're looking at a fairly pure iteration of luck there, too. It isn't even a case of "I prepared for years until luck finally knocked" or any variant like that. It was just luck.

If that is the only counterexample I'd say it doesn't disprove the point, if anything it just strengthens it. Nobody can build a business plan based on "I plan to be as lucky as OpenClaw".

It was 100% the brand. The creativity may be a bonus for OpenAI. They saw a shitload of people buying Mac Minis specifically for this software.

I don't find a single counter-example compelling. I guess as evidence that "only moat" is somewhat hyperbolic?

But to counter the counter-example, what would have happened if he did not join? OpenAI can just write and release their own version. They can then do the typical loss-leader and advertising tricks that OpenClaw cannot.

The "simply write and release" is what used to be a barrier.