Why LinkedIn can’t “just do this”

Thesis:

They can copy features; they can’t copy Ibby’s aligned incentive system without breaking their current model.

Imitation barriers:

1. Business-model conflict

Ibby optimizes for low volume + high certainty. LinkedIn monetizes attention + volume dynamics. Copying Ibby meaningfully requires shifting what they reward.

2. System, not feature

The differentiation is the bundle: canonical profiles + evidence/claims + interrogation + enforced mutual handshake + reliability consequences.

3. Network effects around reliability

If Ibby becomes the place where “intent reliably becomes a conversation,” both sides prefer it—and that preference compounds.

4. Proprietary compounding data moat

Structured claim graphs + Q/A transcripts + outcome feedback = fit intelligence you can’t buy off-the-shelf.

5. Brand & trust posture

“Neutral ground + anti-spam + enforceable reciprocity” is a posture shift for a social network; it creates brand-image conflict.

6. Organizational friction

Enforcing behavior, penalties, new success metrics, and new surfaces is a multi-org change—slow even for giants.

Close:

We win by compounding reliability + structured evidence. Copying requires them to change incentives; copying us late means they’re chasing our data flywheel.

“LinkedIn can copy a feature. What’s hard is copying the system. Ibby isn’t ‘better matching’—it’s a mutual handshake that enforces real first conversations, plus evidence-based profiles that get smarter with every interrogation and outcome. For LinkedIn to do that credibly, they’d have to change incentives away from volume and workflow gravity, which is self-cannibalizing and politically hard. Meanwhile, our structured fit dataset and reliability loop compound defensibility over time.”