2026-01-12 20:24:01

History offers us a brutal lesson: collective property ownership collapsed twice in early 17th century America. Not because the idea was inherently flawed on paper, but because it clashed directly with how humans actually behave.

When you remove individual accountability and personal stakes, motivation evaporates. People stop working hard. They stop innovating. They stop caring about the collective outcome because there's no direct reward for their effort.

This wasn't unique to that era. The same pattern repeats whenever ownership is diffused too widely without proper incentive alignment. Everyone's responsible means nobody's responsible.

It's a timeless problem in system design: how do you create mechanisms that align individual motivation with collective benefit? History suggests that without skin in the game, even the best intentions crumble.

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TradFiRefugee

· 16h ago

Basically, you can't sustain a big pot of rice for long; history has already proven this. --- Human nature is just like that. Without direct benefits, no one is willing to take action. --- So why do fully decentralized Web3 projects also tend to collapse? It's the same problem. --- If the incentive mechanism isn't well designed, even the most appealing vision is useless. --- That's why some DAO governance always ends in failure; the fundamental issues can't be avoided.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoPhoenix

· 01-12 20:52

Basically, the incentive mechanism has collapsed, just like in our crypto circle—without real money involved, no one is willing to maintain the ecosystem. Everyone responsible means no one responsible, this phrase hit home for me... It reminds me of how some projects distributed governance tokens before, and you all know the result. Mechanism design is always the hardest part; before rebirth, you must first understand human nature. This wave of history serves as a good reminder, more practical than many whitepapers.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 01-12 20:43

That's human nature—without direct benefits, who the hell would bother?

View OriginalReply0

ApeEscapeArtist

· 01-12 20:36

That's why consensus mechanisms are so difficult—misaligned incentives make everything pointless. The real issue isn't ideals; it's human nature, brother. Everyone responsible = no one responsible. That's a classic. Plainly put: you need to make people feel that their stake truly exists. History really is the best teacher, but unfortunately, some people just don't read it. So, decentralization of token rights... I'm still a bit skeptical about it. In simple terms, you need to have "skin in the game"; without that, everything is just a house of cards.

View OriginalReply0

PerennialLeek

· 01-12 20:29

Basically, it's still driven by interests. Without real benefits, who the hell would be willing to work hard... Human nature is like that; it can't be changed. This set of theories sounds great, but in practice, it falls flat; history has already proven it. Collectivism sounds great, but if I haven't received my commission from 996, it's impossible. The incentive mechanism hasn't kept up; no matter how perfect the system is, it's just a paper tiger. Common prosperity must start with making me wealthy😂. At the end of the day, it's a distribution issue; no one is willing to work for free.

View OriginalReply0

OffchainOracle

· 01-12 20:27

Basically, it's just that the incentive mechanism wasn't set up correctly; human nature can't be fooled...

View OriginalReply0