[AndrewKemendo]

Great analysis.

(A) When there is more than one solution

And this is exactly why the concept of a "growing pie" is flawed. Markets generally pool around a single solution versus averaging around multiple and there isn't enough capital (labor or dollars). I think it comes back to power law driving behaviors here and everyone wanting a huge win. So in effect markets look like fixed pies in the short term and the winner is the one that grows the pie.

Trouble with this scheme is, the "pie growth", when it happens, is distributed to a very small group of people who have the ability to make big bets - so it compounds.

In terms of (B) those are basically local maxima tied to (A) so that distribution of growth is chaotic and skewed. So while it might seem like corruption of the network, it actually is a function of the "winner take all" nature of any market in the absence of either consumer/user self regulation or some deus ex machina regulator (government etc...).

Bottom line, it's a problem with how humans act (or fail to act) collectively around information sharing.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Trouble with this scheme is, the "pie growth", when it happens, is distributed to a very small group of people who have the ability to make big bets - so it compounds.

It seems like the real trouble is that we've set things up so that "big bets" are required.

Huge tomes of regulations that have one-time compliance costs, so the cost to a tiny shop is the same as it is to Comcast or Microsoft, and regulatory capture to keep it that way.

Tax laws that encourage profits to be kept within the corporation instead of returned to investors, which requires successful companies to become conglomerates.

Laws that allow Hollywood and Apple to control content distribution and reject anything from anyone who poses a competitive threat to them.

Fix things like that and you won't have to be so big to grow the pie.