On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > On 9/14/2019 9:57 AM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm being an officer to have fun, help out the game, and earn brownie > > points with you all. I wouldn't do it just for the Coins. > > Agreed, for the most part. > > > That being said, if we do assume Coins motivate people, I think there > > is an argument for balancing. If officers aren't completing reports, > > or people aren't judging CFJs on time, etc, it might be a sign that > > the rewards aren't high enough relative to the other ways of making > > money. So a system that automatically decreases the reward for things > > people are already eager to do, and increases the rewards for things > > people are not eager to do, may be desirable if we imagine Coins are > > how people are motivated. > > No amount of coins will motivate anyone if there isn't an actual shortage of > goods (to buy with coins) that people want to use coins to compete for. > > We've played with "true" shortages before (e.g. when pending proposals was > so expensive that players could afford 1 per month as a baseline). But none > of the "recent" (back through 2016) economic systems have had true shortages > like that because we weren't willing to have them. > > -G.
Did shortages make the gameplay worse? I worry they might discourage new players, or encourage people to submit big proposals combining unrelated things. Shortages do sound fun, though. In the spirit of markets, it might be fun to limit proposals by having a limited number of proposal tokens sold off every quarter, like a reverse of the quarterly cheque buy-backs. What other shortages has Agora had in the past? CFJs? Voting? Tradable blot-expunging tokens would probably be an even worse idea than putting a price on voting, but oops, too late, I guess I just suggested that. -- - Falsifian
