The article makes the plausible claim (but perhaps incorrect) that Dakota is tapping less than 1% of the addressable market, and has shown a sustainable MVP.
No, the article makes a fantasy claim that an intent is as the same as the reality. This is the same magical thinking I observe on the Left routinely.
An intent to give a loan under certain conditions does not mean these conditions will ever be satisfied even less so that these conditions will be satisfied for any amount of the loan.
The cancer example does not have these qualities.