i agree with you and i think it is a good point but just one doubt i have that liquidity argument is correct assuming that this doesn't effect the fundamental p

i agree with you and i think it is a good point but just one doubt i have that liquidity argument is correct assuming that this doesn't effect the fundamental pricing and cause bubbles (for ex.[oversimplified one] if lot of people followed trend following - it keeps driving bubbles in the long run - although i know counter argument is markets actually become efficient with more trading, but it is hard for me to buy into that 100% - i hope i'm wrong though). Also I think a decent gauge would be how much open-source has been contributed back and how much of it is valuable. Other things are hard to quantify like the example you gave, but I can't prove that you're wrong either. Also when you develop something like physics, once proved - it always works with very good precision(reason we can launch satellites accurately). Or let's say a software or database that is supposed to work a certain way. What's being done at quant funds - I can't think of something on those lines that could be useful. Lot of these things don't always work because you're still speculating with large inaccuracy but a slight edge statistically. Some interesting links: http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/warren-buffett-hedge-fund-bet/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/warren-buffett-hedge-fund-bet/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-99-of-trading-is-pointless-john-bogle-2015-07-30 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-99-of-trading-is-pointl...