One problem with this idea is that collective action problems exist. I truly want this new world, but my employment and promotion decisions are based on the old one (closed journals are older, and most of the prestigious journals are old and closed, and to get a job that's where I need to publish). Critically, the same is also true of all of my colleagues. So we all submit to the old journals, which thereby retain their prestige. In many ways, it's similar to platform economics, with Elsevier in place of WhatsApp.

(I'm also not sure that awesome == efficient + productive, but that's a different issue).

yup, awesome will need to include charisma and deep pockets to bootstrap. then again I can see a smooth transition from an extant system with an oddly benificent CEO, but I can be delusional like that.

if awesome = neither effective nor productive then we're going to get mass starvation and mass death, or at the very least feudalism, and that doesn't sound nice

I know of no competitive natural system that's more wasteful than its competitors

yea, but no thanks, neo-liberalism is obviously garbage

laisez faire is no way to solve the tragedy of the commons

what's a monopoly?

In this context, in my personal opinion and world view?

A monopoly is MAGLIGNANT FUCKING TERATOMA!

Excuse my emphasis and emotion, but that's the best analogy I can come up with.

Unless of course you want an economic or dictionary definition, but I don't think that's what you were asking.