There is an ancient Chinese proverb: "Good horses are common, but good talent spotters are rare." So, who is more important, the innovator or the evaluator of innovation? The question is not really about determining superiority, but it highlights that the importance of both is at least equally significant.

In the traditional economic system, innovators have many standard ways to gain rewards: selling patents, starting businesses (selling products), joining innovation labs, winning innovation awards, or even receiving tips from audiences.

On the other hand, the pathways for evaluators to gain rewards are much more high-threshold: becoming a partner/independent investor, joining a promising startup, or buying stocks and other financial products. Clearly, the threshold for becoming an investor is much higher than for becoming an entrepreneur. Joining a startup actually still relies on the innovator’s pathway, which is quite contrary, while buying stocks after an IPO often means missing out on the most innovative phase. However, are these high thresholds for becoming a talent spotter really necessary? Upon careful consideration, who is most qualified to be a talent spotter? The answer is every user of an innovative product, as they are often just ordinary people. Yet, the traditional market mechanisms actually prevent the most qualified people from becoming talent spotters.