What if every thing was rewarded or penalised perfectly in portion to the effect (every GET, PUT, relocate, parsec vote, split, merge, cache hit, etc etc)? Putting aside whether this is practical, let’s just see if it’s possible. I suspect not, since each of our lists for how value ‘should’ rightly flow would be a little different.
The task is to decide what compromise is acceptable and how to implement those compromises, not to make an ungameable economy.
The ability to ‘game’ the system comes down to who considers what is fair or unfair.
Some rhetorical thought experiments:
Is it wrong for a deviously smart person to be rewarded less than a well-intentioned smart person?
What value do spammers derive from their spam and is it reasonable for the network to object and declare their spam is not valuable?
Can there be any one singular set of correct use cases?
Is growth of any kind desirable or only specific kinds of growth, and why, and how can this be managed?
It’s useful to talk about what’s valuable in the network and which rules will best express those values, but it seems like this thread will struggle to get past ‘measuring sentiment’, despite the apparent desire to be a way to ‘decide the rules’. Very interesting conversations happening here regardless of what ends up actually happening 
I lean toward simple clear economic rules that favour emergent behaviour, a network that’s empowered to manage resources for their health, and a flexible vault-level mechanism to define the fluctuating boundaries of value flow (eg rate limiting / cache expiry policy / fault tolerance levels).
), I am stating that it applies to legitimate as well as illegitimate gains.
