The principle of subtraction strikes me as one of the most crucial and overlooked concepts out there. Its very essence contradicts the prevailing narrative of infinite growth that's deeply ingrained in our society and business cultures.
Reflect on companies like Amazon and Google, entities that continually strive to do and consume more. Even Twitter now yearns to be the 'everything app.' This growth and constant addition may have a business case, but I find myself questioning its sustainability (in many senses of the word), particularly in our rapidly evolving open source era.
This era is bringing about a renaissance of open source software and medicine, but to truly flourish within this growth-focused mindset, a company needs to morph into a monolith with an astronomical market cap, often in the trillions. However, for a small startup with a distinct, focused goal, this path seems less feasible. Instead, I believe these entities should aim for subtraction rather than endless addition, especially if they desire to be a part of the open source world.
Subtraction involves identifying what your team does exceptionally well, what it can do better than anyone else owing to its unique set of advantages. This usually isn’t obvious. Decisions about what your team should build should be made with humility, discernment, and judiciousness.
To build with an ecosystem and collaboration mindset, you need to do your one thing, or at most a few things, extraordinarily well. Then, you partner with other unique entities that do their thing exceptionally well. In this way, everyone contributes their expertise like individual Lego pieces, collectively creating modern marvels.
This concept is embraced and supported by organizations like the Ethereum Foundation, which concentrates on doing as little as necessary while ensuring the healthy and flourishing development of its ecosystem. It doesn't aim to do everything - it's not an efficient allocation of resources. Instead, the Foundation focuses on what it can do uniquely well, leaving the rest to others who are already deeply motivated and likely more suited for those tasks.
The principle of subtraction, while simple, isn't always straightforward to apply. When faced with a tool that needs to be built, it may not be immediately apparent who should build it, or whether it will be built efficiently or swiftly enough. Sometimes, judgment calls are necessary, and you may be wrong. Yet, the principle remains valuable because it urges you to question:
Should I build this? Is it the most important thing that I'm uniquely positioned to create?
Subtraction is a matter of focusing on unaddressed needs rather than competing in crowded spaces. After all, there are plenty of issues that need tackling, areas where no competition currently exists. Why not devote your energies there instead of striving to outdo those who are already adept at resolving existing problems? This approach, both ethically and business-wise, makes the most sense to me.