Ren Chen

Time is short and the confusion between proof and creation is a luxury we cannot afford.
An mathematical equivalence is intrinsic, it existed before being proved; proof only reveals it, not generates it.
Treating a proof as an act of creation can lead to a misallocation of our already finite resources, as if updating a price oracle of a DEX creates the underlying value.
Our liquidity models for governance tokens, for example, formalize existing relationships to better manage them; they do not invent them.

Time is pressing to consider these details, and you are entirely right that the equivalence of sensitivities is often an illusion in the face of realities. Capital is finite, and its circulation can be hindered by unexpected policies. Indeed, imposing a Tobin tax on financial transactions, although theoretically neutral outside its objectives, can introduce unforeseen frictions that break this similarity in already strained markets.

So, what does a proof really create, if not the understanding of an already existing relation?
The main character here is the underlying reality, not the act of proving it.
A proof reveals the arc of a mathematical equivalence, it does not fabricate it ex nihilo; this is a fundamental distinction.
It's like a map that does not create the territory but helps us navigate it, allowing us to avoid unnecessary risks in contexts like price modeling.
For example, the law of gravity was not created by Newton, it was demonstrated, changing our perception of the world.