The company I previously worked for was a traditional telecommunications service enterprise, initially focused on phone bill payments. The blockchain department was an innovative business unit, incubating projects and products internally, functioning as a cost center. The company funded it, but it also had some revenue targets. The department’s income sources mainly included:
All projects were delivered, with bidding projects involving software development according to specified requirements and then handing over everything. Projects introduced through personal connections involved delivering internally developed blockchain products, including development, integration, and after-sales support. If there were no successful bids or no projects from personal connections, there would be no revenue, leading to some income pressure.
This profit model is relatively easy to understand. A long time ago, before I understood the department’s income sources, I casually mentioned to a colleague, “Nowadays, it’s no longer about making money by selling software,” implying that the department leader’s approach to making money was problematic. The colleague asked, “Then how?” I casually replied, “By selling services.” At that time, I wasn’t focused on the issue; it was just a casual conversation.
I thought of this topic because, today, I asked HR about the company’s profit model, “We’re not like selling pancakes, making money on each sale. Why do internet companies have high salaries? It’s not from direct revenue but from investors pouring in money. Internet companies’ money isn’t real; many internet companies are losing money in their financial reports, yet many investors are willing to invest. They first capture the market and users, then go public, and finally, the shareholders pay.” We also have IPO plans…”
Of course, I question the truth and accuracy of these claims. But one thing is certain, this sales model is entirely different from the previous company.
HR mentioned that if I have any questions, I can ask anytime, as our corporate culture promotes “open communication.” I responded that directly asking might only get some “sanctimonious” answers; some things need continuous “probing” to find the truth. I realized that my behavior might be related to previous experiences.
If you ask a realistic and specific question, and the person answering goes on and on about various topics—certain bank financial practices, what some university professor said, the experiences of high-ranking officials in certain institutions, the demands of company executives, the behavior of certain employees, famous quotes, historical anecdotes, and so on—you’ll find they haven’t directly answered your question. It seems like an answer, but it isn’t. Occasionally, you might think this person is highly knowledgeable, dealing with high-level individuals and speaking in grand methodologies.
Over time, you realize that for every specific issue, they respond with methodologies, skirting the main point, never answering directly. Often, they talk about the same examples from different angles. Summarizing methodologies from specific issues is an advanced skill, but focusing solely on methodologies can be disastrous. Every problem is understood, but nothing is resolved. Later, you might think, perhaps they don’t want to answer because they don’t know the answer either. Someone said, maybe they are also confused.
In terms of specific work content, the only requirement was “customer recognition,” meaning it should be profitable, ideally with direct benefits. You can list all technical directions related to the product, but you’ll find that under the criterion of “customer recognition,” none are needed. There isn’t a single technical direction for the product that can be delved into.
“Customer recognition” is undoubtedly a correct criterion. Any company action aims to profit, and the costs should be reflected in the revenue, which is understandable. But it just feels very difficult. The company’s profit model is such that very few domestic companies make money under it.
Especially seeing certain domestic open-source projects thriving, finding a breakthrough for the department’s products became even harder. In the past few years, without significant innovations, lacking technical reserves, development paths, commercial resources, and even the engineering quality is questionable. When you point out the product’s lack of competitiveness, you’ll hear, “Actually, our company isn’t specialized in this,” with senior management repeatedly abandoning the department and products, all indicating the department’s demise.