The game industry is larger than both music and movies combined. Discord is behind almost every gaming community I've run into the last five years, from Eve Online to Valheim and Smash Bros. Looking for a Discord community is one of the first things I do when playing a new multiplayer game. Same with hundreds of millions of other gamers. You can't program your way into that kind of market adoption.
Your use case of “putting a project” on it is a minority. Most users are there for gaming communities.
† Email and mailing lists were something we forbade from day 1. There are a variety of sociological reasons why they're vile, but I think a lot of it has to do with bikeshedding, via "low-cost involvement" - people who care more about potstirring than actually getting work done have a cheap and easy way to keep tabs on big announcement and pick fights. I've experienced a huge number of people who've earned a 'stake in the discussion' by making some small contribution, and then jumped in on every discussion trying to exercise some informal kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto (insofar as such a thing arises naturally from the basic human decency of giving people the benefit of the doubt). What I like about realtime comms - especially ones with nice, logged discussions in multiple, visible rooms, is you don't have to be plugged-in 24/7 to keep up with stuff like you would on IRC (without a bouncer), but at least you have to have some real "skin in the game" of paying attention and being involved - which generally biases towards the folks doing the real work. Decisions get made without the armchair generals; occasionally they'll show up after some big decision got executed on and something was built, with an angry assertion of "Why wasn't I consulted?!?"††, but usually the existence of the actual finished work, fait accompli, tends to to stifle that nonsense real fast.
After multiple decades of dealing with that petty squabbling on email, I don't miss it at all. It was a huge source of burnout.
Of course it does, because software is part of the overall customer experience that built that network momentum and is inexorably linked. Users would not have tolerated, promoted, and evangelized otherwise. It may not be the primary ingredient, but in Discord's case I think it helped.
The actual form of the saying is something like "if every Coke factory burned down, Coke would be back in business the next day. If you hit every Coke customer on the head, Coke would be out of business the next day". (The idea being that if Coke's customers all forgot they were Coke customers, Coca-Cola wouldn't be able to grow a new customer base on the strength of their product.)
Lots of other soda makers, especially the bargain-bin "generic store brand" stuff, taste pretty gross after a can or two, by comparison. Pepsi's alright in that department, but this is a huge market differentiator for Coke.
"The value is in the user base" is just a particularly sticky form of brand, nothing else, set least as long as there are no long term contracts involved. It's not in knowing their logs, it's not in having their authentication hashes, it's not even in exclusivity (I believe that most users of anything in the wildly overlapping spectrum from chat to instance messenger to screen sharing conference call are active on quite a lot of offerings)
You're moving the goalpost. Your assertion is wrong. Revise it, because I really can't understand what you're trying to say other than "you aren't popular unless you're good, because popular means good!" or some other tautology.
Discord didn't "happen to get users". It made a platform people started using despite huge network/entrenchment effect of other players because it's so much better than everything else. I've learnt about Discord following open source projects and moved mine to it as well. It's fantastic, much much better than anything else on the market. Zoom is valued at 100b. Discord for 10 is just a steal.
Coming back to your question: even if you multiply it by 10 and add infinite acquisition resources the team would most likely never be able to recreate Discord.
And what about Slack, Zoom or Coinbase?
Are they $27B, $100B and $100B worth of software?
What company is $x billions of dollars worth of software where x is their valuation? Even Google almost certainly isn't $1.3T (!) worth of software.
It’s more like the user base and network effects are a multiplier of the software value.
If someone wants software now, rather than in 450 years it may be worth paying a premium.
I think the problem is that this random group of people could never create Discord.
They could create a superficially similar chat application, but it’s just as likely to be worse as better.
History shows it cannot. Discord is on another league in terms of technical and usability excellence when compared to competition.
No amount of dev + test + management can get that technology in 500 or 5000 years. You need researchers, and they need to be smart or lucky enough to give you a competitive result.
Discord is not popular because the technology is advanced. It got popular earlier on because the UIs for alternatives were garbage and they nailed the ease of multiple servers/channels/etc.
The entire point is that discord could be easily reproduced from a software perspective. That won’t matter thought because the users won’t be on the new network and will have no incentive to switch.
The UI is really simple to navigate. If you set up roles properly, it's really easy to automate certain things. There's a massive bot ecosystem. The voice, video chat, and screen share features are so much simpler to use than any other product I've used before. The thing that I find insane is that it's 100% free to use.
My one wish would be an easy way to handle multiple accounts.
Compare that to skype where you had to download a whole piece of software, register a new account, go to your email to activate your account, click the link for the community group chat, and then you can finally start talking in a single channel.
If it would take them less than 500 years, then, in some sense, Discord isn't 10 billion dollars worth of software.
I think the point is that almost all of the value of Discord comes from the network effect of people locked in to using it. On the one hand, that's kind of a trivial observation, of course the users are value comes from. But, if you don't realize this, it's important to know. It means you that if even if you build something identical to Discord you're not going to be worth anything like as much - unless you also happen to get users. Or, put another way, you could build something technically worse, but if people adopted it for some reason, you'd be worth more.