Some people on Steemit seem to be using tokenistic game theory arguments in an attempt to justify massive self-voting and vote trading practices with the idea that Steemit is a 'zero-sum game'.
Many of us self-vote to some extent, but I'm talking about 50% or more
The implication is that everybody is (or ought to be) trying to extract as much as they can from the rewards pool, and that self-voting and vote trading are acceptable and inevitable.
Strangely, some of the same people also seem to be of the opinion that flagging against them for such behaviour constitutes 'economic violence', and should therefore not be used to prevent them from extracting as much value as they can from the rewards pool. This is an amusingly incoherent argument, which if taken to its logical conclusion, lays the foundations for a prisoners dilemma which needn't exist.
In game theory, this is a situation where each participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participants.
(paraphrased from wikipedia article)
Since the Steem rewards pool is added to at a pretty constant daily rate, at first glance it could seem to fall into the zero-sum category. Thinking more clearly though, we can see that the value of Steem varies over time, so the rewards pool's value is not fixed and unchanging, and that the behaviour of network participants affects it.
A network effect is an effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others.
(paraphrased from wikipedia article)
When you up-vote worthy content, you are adding value to the platform because you are 'signposting', and making it easier for others to find content they are looking for. This is precisely why curation is economically rewarded. If the ease of finding good content improves, this likely has a positive impact on the Steem price which increases the value of the rewards pool.
If you only self-vote, or predominantly engage in vote trading, you are not adding value to the platform, but may in fact be adding to spam. Much like a weed is sometimes said to be a plant in the wrong place, I think spam could be thought of as content in the wrong place (ie. brought to undeserved attention).
If you are under the impression that Steemit/Steem is a zero-sum game, you may treat it as such, and be jointly responsible for its deterioration through a self-fulfilling prophesy. If however you take the approach of enlightened self-interest, you may find greater ultimate rewards by helping the community and encouraging a sustainable platform.
I do personally think that it would help to spread the enlightenment if curation rewards were increased, so that once again, there is a 50/50 split between authors and curators. This should create more favourable economic incentives and would reduce self-voting, vote-trading and spam.
Here's an interesting video about non-zero sum progress in more general terms.
I'd welcome any discussion about this, and my mind is totally open to convincing arguments against what I've written.
