It is inevitable given the network effects, the scale, and the limits of human attention. Specifically: 1. A single consumer has the attention span to follow/s

It is inevitable given the network effects, the scale, and the limits of human attention. Specifically: 1. A single consumer has the attention span to follow/support only a handful of performers. 2. Performers with higher number of followers are more likely to get recommended, hence get new followers. 3. Having 100 vs. 100000 followers doesn't change the performer's costs. Hence, once a few superstars are established in a niche, you have very low chances of outcompeting them. If you want to realistically make a decent amount of money, you need to either look at the markets where your costs scale up with the number of clients (e.g. doctors, lawyers, consultants), or at emerging/rapidly moving niches where the dominance has not been established yet. Of course, the human brain is bad at natively feeling linearity at large scales [0], so a tiny chance of a huge payoff will always feel lucrative, even if the actual chances are against you. There are whole industries relying on people NOT calculating the chances [1] and the whole "become a streaming superstar" thing appears to be one of them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law [1] https://theconversation.com/designed-to-deceive-how-gambling-distorts-reality-and-hooks-your-brain-91052 https://theconversation.com/designed-to-deceive-how-gambling...