Maximize or balance benefits? (P1)

Game theory 3.3 has proven to have certain advantages and become famous in the crypto industry. However, I want to give another perspective in balancing the interests of the user and the system. The Equilibrium Theory

First and foremost, this is my personal view; I am not attempting to determine which projects are excellent or poor.

OlympusDAO and Game Theory 3.3, as we all know, have proven their business models and made a lot of money for many people. Zeus and his team did an excellent job of presenting a fantastic theory that can be used in a variety of projects.

Like many other projects attract users by maximizing their profits and from there they develop a protocol to do that. However, as reality shows, maximizing the interests of each individual does not always equal maximization of the community’s benefits.

The goal of this theory is to employ Nash equilibrium to balance the interests of both users and the system.

The optimum scenario is equilibrium, not one that promotes parties to agree to maximize their personal interests, which is potentially harmful to the system’s and community’s interests.

The User and the System are the objects in this theory. When the two are in balance, the system and the users will evolve together in a long-term manner.

When the system evolves in a sustainable way that benefits each user, the entire community benefits to the greatest extent possible.

When the market goes down, the system of many projects does not seem to be structured to optimize growth, and the majority of projects suffer from continuous negative storms until their token value decrease 1–2 years of growth.

It cannot be denied that the market’s negative impact when it crashes is inevitable. Furthermore, it is clear that market capitalization drops rather than increases, implying that cash flow will always flow from initiatives that are no longer profitable to new projects that appear on a daily basis.

With the above reasons, what I want to do is build an ecosystem that aims to create multiple uses for my tokens instead of just independent projects.

A lot of great projects, after a period of strong growth in accordance with the best-case scenario they designed, falter and get stuck in the very scenario they created when the market crashed for a variety of reasons.

One of those reasons in my opinion is either an imbalance of interests between the user and the system or just encouraging behavior that is theoretically beneficial to the system in a nice scenario without contemplating the behavior of the user when they Sell.

This creates a bottleneck on a group of negative behaviors (but will definitely happen) and loses the value of tokens and projects, thereby affecting the interests of all users.

Putting aside negative behaviors for the system (but positive for the actual interests of users) makes the system always face negative risks when the market crashes.

Based on that idea, I want to come up with another Theory based on Nash Equilibrium about building a system to encourage behaviors that create a balance for both User and System, thereby helping both objects can develop together sustainably.

The key point is to encourage all behaviors from Buy — Stake — Invest — Sell into balanced scenarios and partially control those behaviors on a cyclical basis, and create a continuing phase difference that helps avoid the phenomenon of overloading 1 behavior on the system.

I will call it: The Equilibrium Theory of Benefits

To be continue…

Hubert —

Let’s connect!

Crypstarter Network: https://crypstarter.network Crypstarter Finance: https://crypstarter.finance Twitter: https://twitter.com/cst_blockchain Medium: https://crypstarter.medium.com/ Reddit: https://reddit.com/user/crypstarternetwork Github: https://github.com/Crypstarter Discord: https://discord.gg/KWPPTvzeuw Telegram Global: https://t.me/crypstarter