While good in principal and as good as we can get today, we need to be aware of it's flaws. In particular, that certain stakeholders can manipulate, or have outsized influence on the market, as a result the system no longer operates as efficiently as it could, it begins to atrophy more or less.
I guess this is why we hold on dearly to principals of liberty and freedom. To ensure that proper feedback mechanisms exist to keep an honest system.
Edit: and rule of law. Especially application of said law without preferential treatment.
My wife's sister is a paediatric oncologist in India. People come to her when their kids get sick, and she does her analysis and gives them a diagnosis, which might be that there is a fairly high probability that their child is going to die. Sometimes people go away and get Ayurvedic "treatments" for their child's cancer, which claims an efficacy of 100%. After those "treatments" have failed, the parents return, now with children who were much more sick than before, and often when there is nothing that can be done, and so they end up watching their children die.
All of which to illustrate why even though this statement:
> People don't sign over value to companies unless they value what they're getting in return.
reads as convincing, when taken in isolation, it actually says very little when held up against the harsh light of reality. Optimising towards a stupid goal is still stupid.
An impossible task indeed. That's the great thing about a market. The system designer doesn't have to understand what "actually beneficial" means, and participants don't have to take their word for it. People don't sign over value to companies unless they value what they're getting in return.