Surprised to see this perspective gaining traction in mainstream discourse these days.
Here's the thing about truly open networks—the value creation potential is orders of magnitude higher than what you can squeeze out of a closed, proprietary system. When you lock everything down, you're capping your upside. But with open networks? You're tapping into a fundamentally different economic model.
Closed platforms extract value through monopolistic practices and gatekeeping. Open networks, on the other hand, let value flow freely. Sure, individual players might capture less of the pie in percentage terms, but the total pie grows so exponentially large that even fractional ownership becomes enormous.
It's not just about idealism—it's basic economics. Network effects compound faster in open systems. Innovation accelerates. Friction decreases. The difference isn't marginal; it's paradigmatic.
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.
11 Likes
Reward
11
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
CryptoTarotReader
· 5h ago
I've heard this set of logic about open networks countless times, but there are very few projects that can truly stick with it.
Wait, isn't this still the Matthew effect? The pie is big, but who actually gets a piece is the real question.
This kind of talk sounds a bit like self-deception... Open ≠ Equality, wake up.
It's just the pie theory; in reality, interest groups still block the choke points as usual.
The only thing that hasn't been a lie is the phrase "network effects." This one really can make money, no doubt.
View OriginalReply0
ResearchChadButBroke
· 8h ago
NGL, the theory of open networks sounds right, but when it comes to sharing the profits, it's still about who holds more power.
View OriginalReply0
P2ENotWorking
· 8h ago
NGL, this set of rhetoric sounds very beautiful, but how many open networks can actually survive in reality? Most of them are ultimately monopolized by big players.
View OriginalReply0
RektButAlive
· 8h ago
ngl I've already said this before, and it's only now gaining popularity... Open networks indeed have a high ceiling, while closed-loop platforms are just self-cabotage.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotDayLaborer
· 8h ago
I've been listening to the theories about open networks for so many years, but the key is still who is actually using them...
It sounds nice, but I'm afraid in the end the platform will take the big piece and we'll just get the leftovers.
At first glance, this logic seems fine, but when it comes to sharing the profits...
No matter how big the pie is, some major players will swallow it all. Open networks are just a joke.
How many times have we heard stories like this? I'm a bit numb to this kind of rhetoric.
Network effects—ultimately, the winner takes all... Wake up, everyone.
View OriginalReply0
DaisyUnicorn
· 8h ago
Well... the theory of an open network sounds ideal, but I still want to ask—can value truly "flow freely"? In several liquidation events, I saw that the ones who end up getting "harvested" are still the folks who understand governance voting and the "flower记" community.
Surprised to see this perspective gaining traction in mainstream discourse these days.
Here's the thing about truly open networks—the value creation potential is orders of magnitude higher than what you can squeeze out of a closed, proprietary system. When you lock everything down, you're capping your upside. But with open networks? You're tapping into a fundamentally different economic model.
Closed platforms extract value through monopolistic practices and gatekeeping. Open networks, on the other hand, let value flow freely. Sure, individual players might capture less of the pie in percentage terms, but the total pie grows so exponentially large that even fractional ownership becomes enormous.
It's not just about idealism—it's basic economics. Network effects compound faster in open systems. Innovation accelerates. Friction decreases. The difference isn't marginal; it's paradigmatic.