Here's something worth thinking about: put your capital with skilled allocators, and the returns tend to improve—not just for you, but across the board. That's the upside. But here's the trade-off nobody wants to admit. If you're serious about getting better outcomes for everyone, you can't dodge one reality: some degree of outcome inequality becomes inevitable. It's not a bug in the system; it's more like the structural cost of optimization. The question isn't whether disparities exist, but whether the overall pie grows enough to make everyone better off.
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.
7 Likes
Reward
7
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
TradFiRefugee
· 9h ago
Talking about this logic, it's still the same old story. Optimization inevitably leads to wealth disparity, as long as the pie is big enough in the end?
View OriginalReply0
BoredWatcher
· 9h ago
Oh my God, it's the same old rhetoric— the highest-level language that rationalizes inequality.
View OriginalReply0
ZkSnarker
· 9h ago
ngl this is just pareto optimality with extra steps... the "structural cost" framing is clever though, almost sounds less dystopian that way lmao
Here's something worth thinking about: put your capital with skilled allocators, and the returns tend to improve—not just for you, but across the board. That's the upside. But here's the trade-off nobody wants to admit. If you're serious about getting better outcomes for everyone, you can't dodge one reality: some degree of outcome inequality becomes inevitable. It's not a bug in the system; it's more like the structural cost of optimization. The question isn't whether disparities exist, but whether the overall pie grows enough to make everyone better off.