Recently, I came across an interesting perspective: the massive outflow of top talent from certain regions can weaken developed markets’ greatest advantage in technological competition—the ability to attract and retain talent.

But wait, this logic doesn’t quite add up. If developed markets truly monopolize the world’s top talent, including those “chosen ones” who were nurtured with huge educational resources, then by all accounts, the gap should only continue to widen, right?

What’s even more bizarre is this: on one hand, people say emerging markets’ education systems are riddled with problems, causing a brain drain; on the other, they’re worried about being overtaken. So is the receiving side’s system flawed, or is there something wrong with the environment?

Just look at the example of India: Silicon Valley CEOs and multinational executives of Indian descent are everywhere—that’s true talent export. But what’s the result? We haven’t seen any market become invincible just because it “poached” Indian talent.

At the end of the day, it’s the same in the Web3 and crypto industry—real innovation has never been built simply by “headhunting” talent. Top talent is certainly important, but ecosystem, mechanisms, and long-term strategy are the real core competitive advantages. Talent inflow alone ≠ absolute advantage; this principle applies to any industry.