在当前的项目讨论中，评估维度已从预期收益率转向存活周期。这一话语体系的变化，折射出市场参与者风险偏好的结构性收缩——连逐利本能都开始嵌入审慎逻辑。在监管持续趋严的宏观背景下，若干依赖规则模糊地带与信息不对称的商业模式，正面临系统性的消亡。
一、直播电商：从造神运动到客服化回归
直播带货并未整体消亡，但其神话叙事正在经历深度祛魅。早期阶段，单场GMV破亿、天价坑位费、品牌方赔本赚吆喝的三方狂欢，本质上是流量红利与监管真空共同催生的短期均衡。当前，监管层已将全网最低价等话术定性为《反不正当竞争法》规制下的价格欺诈行为；虚假销量、刷单炒信等行为被列入《网络交易监督管理办法》重点打击对象。头部主播纷纷转向合规化运营。与此同时，平台算法也在向货架电商回归，即鼓励商家以店铺为核心构建稳态流量模型，而非依赖情绪煽动与限时冲动转化。所谓一场直播救活一个品牌的叙事正在失效。可以预见，直播将逐步退化为品牌自营的客服型渠道，而非独立的暴利业态。
二、预制菜：工业化逻辑与社会共识的冲突
预制菜行业曾被视为万亿级厨房革命的蓝海，吸引了大量资本涌入。然而，当前市场反对声浪加剧，监管亦在食品安全、添加剂标识、冷链标准等方面持续收紧。从营养学与食品安全角度看，预制菜未必不健康；但核心问题在于，当资本试图用工业化逻辑（中央厨房、标准化料理包）替代传统烹饪中的烟火气与区域性饮食文化，其所引发的文化冒犯感与社会共识阻力是致命的。那些将料理包装点为“科技赋能”的创业者，实际上撞上了由消费者信任、文化认同与食安焦虑共同构成的社会共识壁垒。该行业并未完全消亡，但必须大幅降低扩张姿态，转向合规与本地化适配。
三、深度合成技术：从技术中立到主体责任闭环
AI换脸、深度伪造等生成式应用在技术层面具有较高创新性，但监管响应速度远超技术扩散曲线。根据《互联网信息服务深度合成管理规定》（简称《深度合成规定》），所有深度合成内容必须进行显著标识，平台须落实从内容审核到用户溯源的完整责任链条。此前，围绕虚拟主播代班、AI明星擦边营销、换脸诈骗工具等形成的灰色商业模式，其逻辑根基在于技术无罪。但谁生成、谁负责的主体责任原则确立后，这些模式在法律与合规层面彻底断裂。这不是对技术创新的压制，而是防止深度合成技术演变为信息生态中的潘多拉魔盒。
四、ESG漂绿：从公关叙事到法律风险
部分大型企业曾通过发布华丽的碳中和报告、购买低质碳汇额度，在资本市场构建绿色叙事，以实现估值溢价。然而，随着欧盟碳边境调节机制（CBAM）进入实施阶段、国内绿色金融标准体系（如《绿色债券支持项目目录》2021版）持续收紧，以及第三方核查机构开始承担连带责任，ESG漂绿已不再是低成本营销手段，而转化为高风险的潜在诉讼来源。那些仅靠“绿色包装”掩盖高排放真相的企业，以及将ESG视作公关文案而非战略治理的企业，将面临融资受限、监管处罚甚至集体诉讼的实质性压力。这意味着企业必须实现真正的绿色转型，而非仅维持表面合规。
五、跨境电商：铺货模式的制度套利终结
深圳等地的跨境电商大卖曾凭借海量SKU、粗放式投放、灰色清关与低报避税，在几年内实现数十亿级营收。这一铺货模式本质上是制度套利：利用亚马逊早期宽松的封店政策、欧盟VAT征收漏洞、数据隐私保护的监管滞后。如今，亚马逊大规模封号潮、欧盟全面实施VAT代扣代缴机制、以及《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）下的数据隐私审查，已层层剥去其护城河。依赖抄袭设计、刷单测评、小包裹避税的卖家正批量退出市场。跨境电商的野蛮时代宣告终结，未来竞争将围绕品牌资产、合规能力与本地化运营展开，而非对制度空子的钻营能力。
结语：套利型商业的黄昏与真正竞争力的黎明
上述消失或式微的生意有一个共同底层逻辑：套利。具体表现为三类套利——监管套利（利用规则模糊地带）、信息套利（利用不对称认知）、人性套利（利用冲动与非理性）。过去，规则模糊意味着套利空间即利润空间；如今，规则清晰化导致套利空间转化为合规成本。
有人批评监管趋严压缩了商业活力。相反地，当所有市场参与者在同一套明确规则下竞争，真正的核心能力——产品力、组织效率、合规治理与社会价值——才会成为决定成败的关键。不必怀念那些正在消失的生意。它们的加速退场，恰恰是高质量商业环境到来的先决条件。
In current project evaluations, the core metric has shifted from expected rate of return to operational lifespan. This change in discourse reflects a structural contraction in market players’ risk appetite: even the inherent pursuit of profits is now tempered by rigorous risk assessment. Against the backdrop of increasingly stringent regulation, a host of business models built on regulatory ambiguities and information asymmetry are facing systematic demise.
I. Livestream E-commerce: From the Cult of Celebrity Streamers to Return to Customer Service
Livestream sales as a whole have not vanished, yet the myth surrounding it has undergone thorough disenchantment. In the early days, a three-party bonanza featuring single livestreams generating over 100 million GMV, exorbitant slot fees, and brands operating at a loss for exposure was essentially a short-term equilibrium fueled by traffic dividends and regulatory loopholes.
Currently, regulators have ruled marketing phrases such as "the lowest price across all platforms" as price fraud in violation of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Fake transactions and manipulated reviews are listed as key targets for crackdown under the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Transactions. Top livestream influencers have all moved toward compliant operations. Meanwhile, platform algorithms are pivoting back to shelf-based e-commerce, encouraging merchants to build stable traffic centered on official stores rather than relying on emotional manipulation and time-limited impulsive purchases. The narrative that "one livestream can revitalize a brand" is fading away. It is predictable that livestreaming will gradually evolve into a customer service channel for brand self-operation, instead of remaining an independent high-profit business format.
II. Ready-to-Cook Meals: Conflicts Between Industrial Logic and Public Consensus
The ready-to-cook meal industry was once hailed as a blue ocean set to trigger a trillion-yuan revolution in catering, attracting massive capital inflows. However, public opposition has grown louder, while regulators keep tightening rules on food safety, food additive labeling and cold chain standards.
From nutritional and food safety perspectives, ready-to-cook meals are not inherently unhealthy. The fundamental challenge lies elsewhere: when capital attempts to replace the warmth of home cooking and regional culinary cultures with industrialized models such as central kitchens and standardized meal packs, it triggers profound cultural alienation and resistance rooted in public consensus. Entrepreneurs who frame pre-made meals as "technology-enabled innovation" have run head-on into formidable barriers formed by consumer trust, cultural identity and food safety concerns. The industry will not disappear entirely, yet it has to scale back aggressive expansion and prioritize compliance and localized adaptation.
III. Deep Synthesis Technology: From Technological Neutrality to Closed-loop Accountability
Generative applications including AI face swapping and deepfakes boast remarkable technological innovation, but regulatory oversight has advanced far faster than the technology itself. In accordance with the Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis for Internet Information Services, all deep synthetic content must carry prominent labels, and platforms are required to implement a full accountability chain covering content review and user traceability.
Previously, grey-area business models built around virtual streamers, borderline marketing using AI-generated celebrity content and face-swapping fraud tools were predicated on the notion of "technology being neutral and blameless". However, the establishment of the accountability principle — creators bear full responsibility for their outputs — has completely broken the legal and operational foundation of such practices. This is not a crackdown on technological innovation, but a necessary guardrail to prevent deep synthesis technology from becoming a Pandora’s Box for the information ecosystem.
IV. ESG Greenwashing: From PR Narratives to Legal Risks
Some large enterprises once created a green image in the capital market by releasing polished carbon neutrality reports and purchasing low-quality carbon credit quotas, so as to secure valuation premiums. Today, with the official launch of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), continuous tightening of domestic green finance standards such as the 2021 version of the Catalogue of Eligible Projects for Green Bonds, and the imposition of joint and several liability on third-party auditors, ESG greenwashing is no longer a low-cost PR tactic, but a major source of potential litigation.
Enterprises that disguise high carbon emissions with superficial green packaging, or treat ESG merely as PR copy rather than a core governance strategy, will face substantial pressure including restricted financing, regulatory penalties and even class-action lawsuits. This demands genuine green transformation, rather than token compliance.
V. Cross-border E-commerce: The End of Institutional Arbitrage via Inventory Dumping
Top cross-border e-commerce sellers based in Shenzhen and other regions once achieved billions in annual revenue within just a few years through extensive SKU portfolios, indiscriminate advertising, grey customs clearance and underreporting for tax evasion. This inventory dumping model was essentially a form of institutional arbitrage, taking advantage of Amazon’s lenient early account suspension policies, VAT collection loopholes in the European Union, and lagging regulation on data privacy protection.
Nowadays, large-scale account bans on Amazon, full implementation of VAT withholding and remittance across the EU, and rigorous data privacy reviews under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have stripped away all such unfair advantages. Sellers relying on plagiarized designs, fake reviews and small-parcel tax evasion are exiting the market in droves. The era of wild expansion for cross-border e-commerce has come to an end. Future competition will center on brand equity, compliance capabilities and localized operations, rather than exploiting regulatory gaps.
Conclusion: The Dusk of Arbitrage Business and the Dawn of True Competitiveness
All the declining business models mentioned above share one core essence: arbitrage, which falls into three categories — regulatory arbitrage (exploiting ambiguous rules), information arbitrage (capitalizing on information asymmetry), and behavioral arbitrage (taking advantage of human impulses and irrationality). In the past, regulatory ambiguities equated to profit opportunities. Today, clarified rules have turned former arbitrage space into mandatory compliance costs.
Some argue that stricter regulation stifles business vitality. On the contrary, when all market players compete under clear and unified rules, genuine core strengths — product competence, organizational efficiency, compliance governance and social value creation — become the decisive factors for success.
There is no need to lament the fading of these old business models. Their accelerated exit is precisely the prerequisite for the emergence of a high-quality business ecosystem.