1. By incentivizing "gambling"--the risking of time, money and reputation for the chance of an outsized reward--society gets much work done for free. It only has to pay when something works, but then it pays a lot. It pays nothing to gain knowledge about what doesn't work.
2. It only takes one person "hitting "jackpot" (making a great discovery) to revolutionize society and improve everyone's life. In market economies, far, far more people "roll the dice" on a daily basis, greatly increasing the odds of one of them hitting jackpot at any given moment (and the number of jackpots over any fixed length of time).
3. This spreading of risk taking among a great many "entrepreneurs" (French for "risk takers") also ensures that market economies are more decentralized and antifragile than centrally-planned economies (that is, less dependent upon the success or failure of any one risk-taking venture and less susceptible to disruption from random events).

this is where your model fails.

The fundamental question of gambling is expected value. The evaluation of the magnitude risk vs the magnitude and probability of reward.. For example, lets say I play a slot machine that only pays one jackpot. The jackpot is $100,000 and it costs $1 per slot pull.

You would say that the system works the same for the many losers (who paid $1 and got nothing) as well as the winners (who paid $1 and got $100000). In a sense, all players shared in the cost to hit the jackpot, but none of them would have bothered without the outsized reward to the one player who actually did hit it. So even though there is equivalent investment, there is disparate reward.

Up till here, your model makes sense. It fails because it does not take into account the cost of the bet.

Imagine for a moment that the slot machine is malfunctioning . Imagine that the machine will give you the same pull, with the same chances of winning the same jackpot for any amount of money that you put in, from one cent to one dime to one dollar.

It stands to reason that a rational gambler will pay as little as possible, if the decreased cost of a slot pull effects neither effects his chances of winning nor the magnitude of his prize. That is to say, given the opportunity, the gambler will pay the least amount possible.

Now you can take steemit posts (because theyre a great example) or you can take any other entrepreneurial endeavor. They take a risk. sometimes its money, but more often its time and work.

If they get the same slot pull, regardless of the work or time they put into a project -- regardless of the quality, the entrepreneurial gambler will invest as little time and effort as possible in an effort to hit the jackpot.

BY taking the cost of the bet out of the equation, youve broken the gambling analogy.