There's a fundamental difference in how capital allocation actually works. Market-driven competition creates real incentives for efficiency and effectiveness—the best ideas and most capable allocators naturally rise to the top through constant pressure and competition. Governments, by contrast, simply lack those same feedback mechanisms. Institutional decision-making without market discipline breeds inefficiency at scale. The real risk isn't capitalism itself, but systems where capital flows are controlled by those seeking personal gain rather than genuine returns—that kind of rent-seeking behavior eventually hollows out the entire mechanism. If we want sustainable systems, especially in emerging financial infrastructure, we can't build them on foundations where power concentrates without accountability.
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.
12 Likes
Reward
12
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GlueGuy
· 20h ago
The theory of market competition sounds good, but in practice, isn't it the capitalists who seek that approach that are also to blame for capitalism...
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityHunter
· 20h ago
The competitive landscape does have some issues, but the government isn't entirely without advantages, right? The problem still lies in the concentration of power and the lack of oversight.
View OriginalReply0
ChainMemeDealer
· 20h ago
In simple terms, it's market selection vs. rent-seeking. This logic is more evident on the chain.
---
Rent-seeking is truly a tumor; both traditional finance and crypto can't escape it.
---
Wait, does market competition necessarily lead to efficiency? What I see is a frenzy of accumulation like top players eating snail noodles.
---
Decentralization sounds beautiful, but after power is dispersed, is it really harder to supervise than centralized control...
---
The most critical point—power concentration without accountability. Isn't this the current situation of many DAOs?
---
Systems built on competition are indeed vibrant, but the question is how to prevent them from evolving into new rent-seeking arenas.
---
Well... that's what they say, but early infrastructure often requires strong promotion. Can we just rely on market forces to wait it out?
View OriginalReply0
DeFiChef
· 20h ago
Market competition vs. bureaucratic system, this comparison is really harsh... But the rent-seeking approach is not wrong; the real issue is that no one is overseeing the power.
There's a fundamental difference in how capital allocation actually works. Market-driven competition creates real incentives for efficiency and effectiveness—the best ideas and most capable allocators naturally rise to the top through constant pressure and competition. Governments, by contrast, simply lack those same feedback mechanisms. Institutional decision-making without market discipline breeds inefficiency at scale. The real risk isn't capitalism itself, but systems where capital flows are controlled by those seeking personal gain rather than genuine returns—that kind of rent-seeking behavior eventually hollows out the entire mechanism. If we want sustainable systems, especially in emerging financial infrastructure, we can't build them on foundations where power concentrates without accountability.