It's like surfing. Some people want to see hundreds of surfers on the wave before they start paddling out. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I personally believe that a better way to surf, especially when it comes to technology which tends to have short cycles, is to learn how to spot the wave as it builds, while it's still a swell, before it breaks. I've seen time and again that there's incredible value to be had if you can learn how to do that.

One of the best examples of this value being that you're able to hire really talented people, because they form the critical mass at the beginning of a successful wave. Once the larger corporates come in, this advantage disappears.

I definitely agree with the notion that the early adopter group is more often than not more talented than average. But, I'm sure companies also take this into account when deciding whether or not to pick a new technology.

"If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same."

And even then, the signal is only the same, but it's not worse. Whereas if large companies don't always optimize for quality, but have other incentives at play, or if they are less nimble, or less efficient, then looking for what large companies look for might actually end up setting you back with worse signal. So there's no upside I think.

A notable project choosing it and succeeding is signal. But there is a lot of noise. An individual judgment about the value is noise unless that individual has demonstrated a pattern of picking winners early and correctly.

Early adopters are often smarter than the average bear, but are also much more likely to jump ship the moment the next fad breaches. That might be OK if you only need them for a short time.