Thoughts on incentives in a global money:metanet world

So there's two primary aspects here, the third is a middle ground that succumbs to one or the other regardless 
and ultimately doesn't matter as it's just a brand battle at that point.

We have global money and a metanet which is a superset of global money. Both of these are pinned(supposedly...used to be) 
to fundamentals based around the encompassing ideas of decentralization. This means to me and I assume others things like censorship
resistance, resilliency and to a degree deeper than most, a rework of today's norms. 

When it comes to the incentive structure there's also two aspects. The rational economic theories applied to the larger scope of 
the functioning system and the belief of a more pure system based on controlling behavior with incentives applied to use of the systems.

So, I suppose to keep it short and as sweet as possible I'll jump right in where I find the incentives to either fail entirely or 
simply not work as hoped in these scenarios. For starters, the economic rationality theory suggests that people will do good to maintain 
X system because it promotes their gains. The base incentive structure of bitcoin. This is based on a couple factors, and depending who 
you argue with you'll get different rationalizations of how their system arch maintains/upholds this structure. I argue here that we're 
already seeing that faulter and med-longer term it fails completely. Without going too deep here(would love to elaborate in different thread if curious)
we have a system that becomes a megalith and a system that has shifted that incentive structure to split with l2. In both scenarios, the 
competitive nature of the design negates the incentive structure to maintain the assumed ideals. In the megalith becomes a system similar
to what our google/facebooks/aws are today. But under a single system. At that scale those ideals go away completely. Users will have to go
through services because it simply can't be ran by consumer(unless of course the magical tech increases that would put moores to shame in 30-50 years from now...)
(and in either case wouldn't resolve the concerns once the system settles. It would be much like the net is today... to big, too heavy to properly refactor without bigger issues)
The incentive structure becomes moot here as it does in the other case where we've split that scale out to what I consider a very fragile network
that lends itself to other corruption based on design by itself. While this may allieviate concerns temporarily, the design is still the same and 
that competition outweighs the rational assumtions. This isn't a new silicon valley myspace2 start up we're dealing with. Being that 
the structure will be based on blockspace pressure you also created additional avenues to game/manipulate the system negating cr and other properties. 
To cut it short.. the incentive structure is temporary ducttape that falls into similar corrupted scenarios we have today based on system
design and human nature. 

The second aspect is believing we can charge people for every interaction, every like, every byte and bit of data and solve spam, and..in their words
'make people better'. I find this comical on multiple levels, but at the heart it's a belief set only in hope. To believe this you have to 
believe 'bad people' go away or never use your system so your system maintains it's 'pureness'. Without prolonging this much more.. this type of 
pay-per-everything system drives a more powerfully corrupted 'bad actor. A decent argument and counter example: People have to pay to 
'like' something so this eliminates spammers and scammers : People will also pay deep faked models owned by those spcammers which can be used to 
gain following, thus money, thus capital to spend on other campaigns. This idea empowers those bad actors more than anything. I'll drop here for now i suppose..


tl;dr these incentive structures are at best temporary in terms stability before abuse. They end up putting us in a shittier place than we are now
especially if none of it is used toward the accountability of the faulty entities this is believed to end up replacing.