I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be.

I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem?

Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it?

Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.

Because if it wasn't hard, then everyone would be doing it, competition would be greater, and separating yourself would be more difficult.

Wow. I hear what you're saying, but I don't know why it's desirable to weed people out in such an unrelated, arbitrary fashion. I mean, that's not much different than saying we should line up would-be competitors and beat them with sticks. The last ten standing obviously want it bad enough, and so, get a chance to compete.

To your point, competition might indeed be greater, but that would be a good thing. Why would we want to stifle access and opportunity? Everyone would still have to bring their A-games and compete against others who are presumably now also able to focus on their passions. So, with focus and dedication, everyone's A-games just get better. Everyone benefits, including consumers, stakeholders, other beneficiaries, and society.

But, what you seem to be suggesting is that we continue to insist that only those who run the gauntlet and/or get by the gatekeepers get a shot. There could be some extraordinarily well-qualified individuals who could launch revolutionary businesses if only given access. To my mind, that's part of the promise of crowd-funding.

So, I have to say, it's kind of odd to me that someone in crowd-funding holds the position you're describing. Crowd-funding is supposed to democratize both investing and access to capital. So, "the people" decide what's of value to society vs. the same investor class. But, what you seem to be advocating sounds more like the gate-keeping and denial of access to opportunities that are the current norms. In my mind, it's hard to reconcile the spirit of crowd-funding with that position.