Hey @maynard, thanks for your reply! The comparison between the two situations was focused on whether an individual chooses for himself or for the community. We often intend to be self-focused and so we focus on our individual profits instead of our contribution to the community and to others.
But yep, you are right! We're not struggling with a Tragedy of the Commons problem on Steemit! Our votes aren't running out like the ocean's resources do. Anyways, we are individuals with the choice to focus on our profits or to focus on utility and other people. That's the same for fishermen, the focus on what others will do will help them estimate their expected income over years and the choice whether not to is dependent on utility factors like their own valuation of the community, the environment and other people.
And so should we think about whether we would spend our votes on our own profit or on the community and other people. We are limited in votes as our voting power decreases the more we do vote. Otherwise we could simply vote up every post on Steemit :-)
I think the developers would argue that those who vote up a story early which later gains significant popularity deserve 'good curation recognition'. That is, they got it right in predicting what others wanted to read. But as you point out in another comment, that doesn't mean an overlooked submission lacks quality. It merely means it lacked popularity. And given the Steam Power system, popularity isn't necessarily a function of votes - but is also influenced by the powerful influencers.
I think you've missed my point in bringing up a Tragedy of the Commons. Because it goes to the heart of why I think the comparison in this article is problematic. Regardless, it's well done. And I enjoyed reading it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit