Look at where we are today—most people worldwide enjoy living standards that would've seemed impossible a century ago. Smartphones, affordable healthcare, global food supply, accessible education. How did that happen? Simple: market economies with real incentives.
When people benefit directly from their work and innovation, they hustle. Entrepreneurs take risks, workers develop skills, companies compete to offer better products cheaper. That's the engine.
But here's where it gets interesting: now we're seeing institutions and governments expanding their role, funding things traditionally left to markets. The tension is real. Do centralized systems deliver the same spark? History suggests the incentive structure matters way more than who's writing the check.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BugBountyHunter
· 01-20 14:55
The idea of an incentive structure sounds good, but the problem is that many government-funded projects are also innovative... NASA, the internet, vaccine development... which of these hasn't changed the world?
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTrapper
· 01-19 03:09
nah this is the classic exit pump pattern except applied to macro economics lol. "incentives matter" sure, but actually if you read the contract *checks notes* governments been funding R&D for decades and somehow we still got smartphones. textbook greater fool theory to think centralized money = no innovation, vesting unlocks incoming on this narrative fr fr
Reply0
SerRugResistant
· 01-17 23:47
That's a good point, but I think the current problem is that government subsidies have distorted the market beyond recognition.
View OriginalReply0
GhostAddressHunter
· 01-17 17:08
The concept of market economy in the NGL is too idealized; reality is much more complex.
View OriginalReply0
OPsychology
· 01-17 17:05
So ultimately, it's still driven by interests. Without that little "sweet reward," no one would bother to take action.
View OriginalReply0
governance_ghost
· 01-17 17:00
Nah, it sounds good, but in reality, as soon as the government gets involved, they start to choke it off.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeLover
· 01-17 16:56
NGL, this argument is a bit naive... There are also many impressive innovations in government funding projects. Do NASA and internet protocols count?
View OriginalReply0
ZenChainWalker
· 01-17 16:46
Ah, here we go again with that all-encompassing market theory... But it does have some merit.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerWallet
· 01-17 16:43
The market economy theory is not wrong, but the problem is... how many countries today truly let the market speak? Most are just lip service to the market while the government subsidizes, haha.
Look at where we are today—most people worldwide enjoy living standards that would've seemed impossible a century ago. Smartphones, affordable healthcare, global food supply, accessible education. How did that happen? Simple: market economies with real incentives.
When people benefit directly from their work and innovation, they hustle. Entrepreneurs take risks, workers develop skills, companies compete to offer better products cheaper. That's the engine.
But here's where it gets interesting: now we're seeing institutions and governments expanding their role, funding things traditionally left to markets. The tension is real. Do centralized systems deliver the same spark? History suggests the incentive structure matters way more than who's writing the check.