I, and likely many others in this thread, have tried our hand at trading. I've had months where I generated amazing profits. I have "algorithms." Yet I definitely don't pretend any of this stuff is special or noteworthy—why would Sebastian's be?
A huge part of what's cool about Indie Hackers is that people are generally transparent and you can see their approach to roughly similar problems. There are plenty of sites (hundreds of them) where you can find people bragging about their trading strategies and bots. Why does Indie Hackers have to expand into them?
This is nothing like the SubmitHub interview. That had lots of great lessons in customer development, building a brand over the years, etc. Realistically the only lesson from this story is "get lucky."
> In fact, I enumerated some of them as asides in the interview itself, none of which would apply to your hypothetical trip to Vegas.
Why not? I'm sure I could come up with some trite lessons about how poker playing is applicable to business and startups. Heck, there's a whole cottage industry in doing so.
That doesn't mean I think a story about my poker playing would make a good Indie Hackers interview.
> money-making machine has succeeded (answer: obviously not), and ignoring the actual point of the interview
What, exactly is the point of the interview then? You could just as well cover random sites that have launched with 0 profit or revenue. Heck, if you're in that business, I've got a ton of side projects I'd love to share.
I'm trying not to be too critical here, as I genuinely like Indie Hackers. But you need to have some standards for what gets included. Everyone who manages to make money doing something shouldn't count.