You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Steemit Tragedy of The Commons
The basic idea is to eliminate the commons. If you have a piece of land that nobody owns, the incentives can be for everyone to exploit it in every manner and to a degree that the land is ruined. If someone owns it, the owner won't want the land ruined and will most likely define rules and limits governing its use.
Not all commons can realistically be converted to private ownership (example: air), so this approach isn't always a useful one.
I see thanks. As we know Ostrom’s achievement was to effectively answer that private property isn't the only means of protecting finite resources from ruin or depletion. So I guess the one main question here is if any of Steem is commons or not (including social elements like trust in the system itself). And if it is, we'd perhaps be wise to learn from these kind of principles in action and if not, have an effective transparent model that we can all believe in. Thanks for finding the time to response @smooth.