While I was demonstrating Threatvine to the Dutch Cyber industry in The Hague a few weeks back, one delegate stumped me. I was giving her the whistle-stop tour of the “social network” aspects of Threatvine. Participants gain endorsements from others. They earn rankings. And they are awarded points for engagement. She stopped me mid-flow, and asked “What do people get from the points?”. My mouth flapped, soundlessly, for a few moments. I made some unimpressive statements about gamification of engagement. In my defence, it was late in the second day, and it’s a difficult concept to explain properly.
On a trivial level, members actually get nothing from their points – and certainly not in the way she was asking. They don’t get money off. They don’t get vouchers. Points – at least in this case – do not mean prizes. Even in more abstract terms, people don’t get any practical benefit from their points. The points are, odd as it may seem, purely for the benefit of everyone else.
of peaches in the market drop, the pricing differential for peaches also drops. The market collapses. The paper essentially explains why used-car salesmen end up with a bad reputation (and so did “horse traders” before them). Akerlof jointly won the Nobel Prize for Economics for this paper in 2001, and rightly so.lower than the real value of “peaches”, to account for this risk. But sellers do know if their cars are any good. Yet they won’t make money on peaches, and so end up selling only lemons. As the numbers
Not all markets are so simple in terms of what is bought, sold, and how it is paid for. The job market is similar. On the face of it, a prospective employer does not know whether a candidate is suitable or not. They must therefore address this “information asymmetry” by looking at secondary indicators such as qualifications, previous roles, and so on. When these are disrupted (for example in the US where credit scoring job applicants was outlawed) the results can be complex and unpredictable.