facilitation of stag-hunt-like cooperation is really useful. Because cooperating to do stuff beyond the capabilities of individuals is useful but hard.
the dynamic you discuss in the post applies to stag hunt facilitation because their success depends on willingness of others to provide more resources (up to some point where they can generate more)
the difference between, e.g., Theranos and standard entrepreneurship does not lie in the dynamic you discuss in the post. It lies in how egregiously Elizabeth Holmes was lying relative to the standard level of misleadingness. (and of course, more honesty would be better...)
It would of course be very valuable to determine if a stag hunt will pay off or will fail! But the difference between the two does not lie in the dynamic you discuss in the post (which applies to both ultimately successful and unsuccessful stag hunts).
In my view:
facilitation of stag-hunt-like cooperation is really useful. Because cooperating to do stuff beyond the capabilities of individuals is useful but hard.
the dynamic you discuss in the post applies to stag hunt facilitation because their success depends on willingness of others to provide more resources (up to some point where they can generate more)
the difference between, e.g., Theranos and standard entrepreneurship does not lie in the dynamic you discuss in the post. It lies in how egregiously Elizabeth Holmes was lying relative to the standard level of misleadingness. (and of course, more honesty would be better...)
It would of course be very valuable to determine if a stag hunt will pay off or will fail! But the difference between the two does not lie in the dynamic you discuss in the post (which applies to both ultimately successful and unsuccessful stag hunts).
Cool, that’s not a crazy view. I might engage with it more, but I feel like I understand where you are coming from now.