English Translation:

It is not a moral or ethical problem that the token economy is desirable and undesirable in economics, but a thoroughly economic and practical problem. That is to say, the desirability is to increase the token value in the long term and undesirable results in lowering the token value. What are the undesirable behaviors in the case of bit coin? Spam or 51% attack. If this happened steadily, the value of bitcoin would have been much lower than it is now, and fortunately bitcoin has kept the high value of it now because it has effectively prevented this attack. Takeover of funds through Ethereum's smart contract vulnerabilitys is another example. While attackers may be looking for maximum profits, the value of the entire network will naturally fall. The criteria that defines what is desirable and undesirable has nothing to do with the pursuit of instant gratification, but the long-term win-win situation in which the whole ecosystem is large and the individual is also profitable. This and only this can accurately describe the positive out looks pertaining to the discussion of the token economy.

So how can token economy designers avoid undesirable behavior that lowers the value of an ecosystem? This can also be seen in terms of cost and revenue. If the profit is not greater than the cost, the material motivation for the action will disappear and if the expected return on the undesirable behavior is less than or greater than the desired behavior. In terms of cost, the basic design concept is to make costs rise when doing undesirable behaviors. Spam attacks are more likely to cost a lot of commission, or to invest 51% in equity or mining hashes to attack. Even if you can do 51% attack if you like some mining grass, it will be because it is more profitable to grow the market as a good actor without doing 51% attack in the long term. Even if the attack succeeds at a large cost, it may be possible to earn less than expected after a rumor has been circulated to the market. For example, if it takes a long time to unpack a token, such as staking (Translator Comment: I believe this is to mean something like the power-up/down forms of staking.) , continuing to lower the value of the ecosystem will be a cut-off.

Translator Comment [Bitcoin Gold]

However, the token economy based on the blockchain can not change the system quickly to control every changing situation. Hence, semi-centralized or centralized solutions are emerging in recent years. It is possible to influence only a specific account through a reputation or a number of pros and cons based on permission system, or to introduce authentication and blocking system in a blockchain company to empower only those who fit with their ecosystem growth philosophy.

Translator Comment (Censorship of 'bad actors' by the 'good' actors)

This approach is often criticized by those who have decentralization as a goal. However, I consider this centralized solution to be a transitional factor for facilitating the connection between the blockchain and the real world, and I think it is a variable that can be selected from fully decentralized to fully centralized by the token economy designer. This will be mentioned later when discussing the hybrid model.

[이전 글] 5. Disagreement between Reward and Goal Behavior

※ The copyright of this post is by @clayop and prohibits unauthorized use and theft. If quoting some or all of the text, you must specify the original link and the author.

Translated By: Google Translate and Edited by iknowyourider (aka Translator)