The market's definition of "long-termism" projects seems to be somewhat overly idealized.

Carefully examining the praised project cases, the requirements are often like this——the team must continuously deepen their focus on the product, but not raise too much funding or valuation; there must be innovative breakthroughs, but not joint speculation by institutions; growth must be driven by genuine incentives, yet the validity of "incentive mechanisms" is to be denied; finally, profit distribution should benefit ordinary community participants and not become a game for the few.

The problem is, what is the probability that all these conditions are met simultaneously? High funding can attract top talent and resources, but strict valuation constraints can easily lead to team attrition. Innovation often requires sufficient capital to support trial and error, but this is essentially a form of "incentive." Ensuring fair returns for ordinary users inherently requires some form of mechanism design in market competition.

Rather than obsessing over the definition of "long-termism," it's better to ask—what kind of project logic can truly go far?