Hi Chris,
You compare Indonesian fishing practices with voting here on Steemit. Interpret this comparison through Utility Theory (a utilitarian analysis). And conclude that steam voting can be understood through a profit maximization matrix. I think that fairly describes your argument.
I'm not so sure the two compare. For one, Indonesian fishermen face a declining bounty through overuse - or abuse - of their seas. This can be seen as a Tragedy of the Commons problem, where a few game a shared resource to take more than their fair share - thereby destroying it for all. In a pure free market, the incentive is for individuals to maximize utility of that resource regardless of its sustainable use or the needs of others. It eschews collective action.
But if enough people organize to impose a regulatory system on use - with penalties for misuse - then resources can be shared and allotted per the institutional goals of the group. Not necessarily by equal share - though that's possible too. But certainly in a way to prevent Tragedy.
So the question is, how is this similar - or dissimilar - to Steamit voting? Are the two comparable?
Well, every member has a vote. But some votes are more equal than others. This is determined by a Steam Power metric. Those with Power can influence notoriety and placement of a submission more than others. But is it a zero sum game?
And that's the crucial question. A Tragedy of the Commons is built on the premise of a zero sum game imposing competition to the depletion of a limited resource. But votes aren't a limited resource. And use of Steam Power isn't really zero sum.
Steam is much more like an imposed regulatory system managed by an automated system. Which doesn't mean it can't be gamed. Just as all regulatory systems can be. But given its structure, does mean outcomes should be more transparent than most bureaucratic systems run purely by people.
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 :-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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