Inequality Paradox

Today’s platform-schemes break too easily: What if we could build a platform that evaluates it’s health and adjusts the return of capital?

According a study we reviewed some time ago stated that 10% of Europe’s top make 35% of accumulated wealth, piling up the inherited capita and well known fact: when the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the growth rate (g) the money wealthy people make piles up while everyone else’s incomes stall [1].

This is summarized into a a simple statement where r > g = inequality.

Platformization may cause inequality and derail its cooperatives into dead-end deals retaining the control with the platform owner [2].

The platform’s market can be considered healthy as,

  • Growth rate is bigger than return on employed capital, making investors bid on clients’ awareness.
  • Client can bargain, for example, through extensive pay back schemes.
  • Borrowers could liquidize the investment in an external marketplace if its financial targets are not met.

Now image unhealthy state where,

  • Growth rate is significantly less than return on employed capital, making investors to hand pick clients by any terms.
  • Clients may face difficulties through poorly agreed terms and low negotiation power.
  • Investors are not able to liquidize the investment since there are only a few institutions in the marketplace.

Individuals’ economic ability should be comparable with lender’s return of capital, whereas platforms should introduce tools to seek this kind of balance. Healthier platform-schemes could be improved by establishing real dialogue between platform actors withouth intermediares, ultimately providing effective mechanism for wealth distribution.


[1] ‘Technology and Inequality – MIT Technology Review’. Accessed 5 August 2018.

[2] James Temperton. ‘The Biggest Legal Crisis Facing Uber Started with a Pile of Vomit’. Wired 2018, no. 7 (n.d.): 98–107.

Leave a Reply Text

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *