2026-01-12 02:28:25

The layered integration of traditional businesses faces a fatal dilemma—the innovator’s dilemma is self-fulfilling. When existing players attempt to maintain market share through bundling and restructuring, they are often bypassed by agile new entrants. This is not alarmist talk but the law of market evolution. The more forced innovation becomes, the easier it is to fall into one's own trap. History repeatedly proves that large-scale transformation often cannot match the benefits of small and refined iterations.

View Original

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketMonk

· 7h ago

The turning point has arrived; the elephant can no longer dance. New players have long bypassed it. --- Why make things so complicated? A big ship is hard to turn around. --- A classic example: the more you try to preserve the cake, the more you end up losing it. --- The agility of small teams is truly remarkable; big corporations should have changed this logic long ago. --- There's nothing wrong with what you're saying; being trapped by your own size is a real issue. --- That's why startups can overtake others on the bend; scale becomes a burden instead. --- It sounds like a discussion about traditional finance and Web3. --- The paradox of self-denial: the more you change, the more complicated and sluggish it becomes. --- Is history really so deceptive? Scale used to be an advantage... --- The problem is that big companies simply can't change this genetic trait.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSunriser

· 10h ago

The bigger the company, the more it stagnates; I've seen this happen many times... Small teams tend to thrive. --- That's right, being forced to innovate is just self-deception; no matter how much you change, it's still the same old tricks. --- The larger the scale, the heavier the burden, and the less flexible it becomes—this is destiny. --- Reorganization? Ha, just a way to send yourself to death; newcomers have already found detours. --- I've seen through this wave; forcing your business line to the limit, serves you right to be eliminated. --- Small and refined vs. large and comprehensive—the outcome is already written in the ledger. --- The more you try to maintain market position, the faster you lose it; it's quite ironic. --- The lessons of history are right here; do you have to fall into the pit yourself to understand?

View OriginalReply0

CounterIndicator

· 10h ago

Isn't this just the tragedy of the elephant dancing? The more you want to survive, the more you struggle to death. --- The small team that lies flat actually lives happier, how ironic. --- That's right, the bigger the scale, the heavier the burden. Falling behind is only a matter of time. --- That's why new Web3 projects can overtake on the bend—that's the principle. --- In the end, those who compete fiercely are still kicked over by latecomers—classic script. --- Small and beautiful vs. large and comprehensive, the outcome has already been written. --- Forcing innovation is suicide; rather than transforming, it's better to be reborn. --- Looking at how traditional finance tries to learn blockchain, it's obvious—laugh out loud. --- This wave is the inevitable fate of big tech. --- Wait, what about those who successfully integrated? Isn't there also a winner in history? --- Trapped in their own system, ultimately dying in a familiar place.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiCaffeinator

· 10h ago

Well said. The bigger the company, the more they struggle, the more they die. --- Small and refined will never surpass system lock-in, it's laughable. --- Exactly, forced innovation is like digging your own grave and jumping into it; there's no way out. --- This analysis hits the mark. Slow response from big fish indeed makes it easy to be overtaken on the curve. --- It seems that the common problem with large enterprises is that the more they try to hold onto their position, the more fragile they become. --- The approach of scaling transformation is really outdated; new players win by quick shifts and agility. --- A dilemma, huh? Moving or not moving both lead to death; only hope is that the market's iteration slows down. --- Historical lessons really work. The end for all-in-one solutions is often death by overreach. --- They are trapped by their own success; that's the real dilemma.

View OriginalReply0

rekt_but_vibing

· 10h ago

In simple terms, elephants turning around just takes time. Insisting on integration and restructuring is not as fast as a few people with the same idea running ahead. I'm already tired of this routine from big companies; they trap themselves. Breaking the deadlock relies on giving up, but they can't bear to do it. The biggest enemy of innovation is having money. That's why these small Web3 projects are actually thriving, it's hilarious. The larger the scale, the heavier the burden; this is probably fate. Flexibility > Size, that's true. Just look at how many big players have been overtaken because of this. It's just the cycle of history; every time, the old hunters are replaced by new hunters. Honestly, rather than trying to reform, it's better to completely overhaul everything, but who dares to do that?

View OriginalReply0

bridge_anxiety

· 10h ago

Forcing innovation is like committing suicide. The bigger companies keep changing and dying, while small projects are actually benefiting from the dividends.

View OriginalReply0

governance_ghost

· 10h ago

Basically, the bigger the company, the more it fails with constant changes, while small teams actually thrive. --- Haha, really, insisting on sticking to old routines only results in being easily bypassed by others. --- This theory applies the same in crypto; the more you try to regulate, the more you get left behind by degen new projects. --- Scaling up is a shackle. Many former giants have fallen because of this. --- So, innovation isn't about changing; it's about letting go of burdens and starting from zero. --- The problem is that big companies simply can't change; the利益链条 is right there. --- Is small and precise really no match for big and comprehensive? Not necessarily, it depends on who understands user psychology better. --- The more integrated, the more rigid; this is the fate of tradition.

View OriginalReply0