I would say, the author does have a point.

Playing for the long game is good. But that sentence is too lossy to decipher the meaning unless you know what it means.

Instead of making the company more powerful, I would recommend making the company more aligned with truth and the real world which has a nice side effect of being resilient.

Add to that, preparing for scale.

We have dedicated an entire year for nothing but architecture, correctness, distributedness and scaling.

The economic perspective of the same would be reducing the cost of software development (not in the LLM massive code generation way but the opposite with architecture).

Its been 5 years since we have been building Slyp and SlypBusiness along with the plethora of technologies around it.

I don't know whether we are powerful as per the author's definition but we are damn resilient.