Thank you a lot, Marly (is that your name?),

I am amazed by the variety of different concepts and thoughts being put here as a reaction to your article.

since the stronger need to sacrifice parts of their earnings for the group in order to balance out the weaker. But in the end it's all worth it, because if the platform fails, nobody wins

I think that pins it down to what I meant. Even though the winners might think, they won (for example the platform dies and the ones who cashed out on a great scale saved their rewards) they could lose on a greater scale - because whenever many losers will be left, it could be defined as a loss for the total.

Not necessarily because it would be like this, but because those who were left behind would or could think so. It always depends on what those with the many powers would like to do with this power. When I find myself sacrificing a part of my wealth, it is something different than when I find that I simply give up a part without feeling the loss. Which brings me back to the question of how much I really need personally as part of a large human community.

Have a good recovery from this huge amount of responding to your comments :-)

P.S. No, I don't know Dan Larimer's concept, but will try to find it. Thank you.