Game Theory in RAI Protocol
Game Theory in RAI Protocol
The RAI protocol represents an innovation in how users interact with decentralized financial (DeFi) systems, particularly in the creation of a new type of currency driven by internal coordination among stakeholders, rather than centralized policy enforcement.
Fundamentally, it mirrors the Prisoner's Dilemma—a classic scenario in game theory where individual self-interest conflicts with collective benefit, often leading participants to choose non-cooperative actions, even though cooperation would yield the best outcome for all parties involved.
The Prisoner's Dilemma
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a fundamental game theory scenario often used to analyze strategic decision-making. The story goes like this:
Two thieves are arrested for trespassing, but the police suspect they intended to rob a store. With insufficient evidence for the robbery, the police separate them and offer each a deal:
"You are charged with illegal trespassing, which carries a sentence of 1 month in jail. I believe you planned to rob the store, but I need your confession to prove it.
If you confess, I’ll drop the trespassing charge and set you free — but your partner will get 12 months for robbery.
I’m offering your partner the same deal.
If you both confess, your confessions lose value, and you'll each get 8 months in jail."
Each player wants to minimize their jail time. So what should they do?
The Payoff Matrix:
You Stay Silent
-1 month / -1 month
-12 months / 0
You Confess
0 / -12 months
-8 months / -8 months
Blue number: your outcome
Red number: your partner’s outcome
Assumptions and Conclusion:
Both players aim to minimize their own jail time.
Both are selfish and do not care about the other's outcome.
There is only one interaction — a one-shot game.
They cannot communicate or make prior arrangements.
These assumptions lead to a suboptimal outcome: (Confess, Confess), with a payoff of (-8, -8). If both stay silent, they would each serve less time (-1, -1). However, this is an unstable equilibrium, because if either believes the other will stay silent, they are tempted to confess and go free. Therefore, (Confess, Confess) is the only Nash Equilibrium — a state in which neither player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy, given the other’s choice.
If both cooperate and stay silent, they achieve a better result. This illustrates that two rational individuals may fail to cooperate, even when cooperation would be in their best interests. Overcoming the Prisoner’s Dilemma is crucial not only for society in general but also for RAI’s ecosystem, demonstrating that cooperative behavior in a financial economy can lead to better outcomes than selfish and competitive behavior.
Game Theory Analysis in RAI
In the simplest model of the RAI ecosystem, there are two players and three possible actions:
Staking RAI: Locking RAI tokens to receive rewards and support the ecosystem.
Bonding (Buying Bonds): Purchasing RAI tokens at a discount to contribute to the treasury.
Selling RAI: Withdrawing capital, which puts downward pressure on the token’s price.
Strategic Dynamics:
When staking rewards and the RAI price are rising, players tend to stake RAI.
When staking rewards are predicted to decrease and the price falls, players may be tempted to sell RAI.
In neutral conditions with no significant downside risks, players may prefer bonding because of the discounted entry price and potential for arbitrage profit (details about bond discounting are covered in the "Bond Contract" section).
Price Influence:
Staking RAI → Drives token price up (+2)
Selling RAI → Drives token price down (-2)
Bonding → Does not directly affect price but offers +1 profit from discounted tokens
RAI Payoff Matrix:
Stake
(6, 6)
(4, 4)
(~2, -2)
Bond
(4, 4)
(1, 1)
(~1, -2)
Sell
(-2, ~2)
(-2, ~1)
(-6, -6)
Note: "~" indicates asymmetric outcomes depending on which player chooses the action.
Interpretation of Matrix:
Stake/Stake (6, 6): Both players stake, leading to a price increase and high rewards — an ideal win-win outcome.
Bond/Bond (1, 1): Both buy bonds, helping the treasury but gaining less than staking.
Sell/Sell (-6, -6): Both sell, crashing the price and causing major loss — the worst scenario.
Stake/Bond (4, 4): One stakes and the other bonds — a healthy and balanced outcome.
Sell/Stake or Sell/Bond: The seller harms the ecosystem, but the other player still gets a small benefit.
Behavioral Drivers:
Players' decisions depend on:
Staking APY
Market sentiment
Macroeconomic environment
Personal time horizon
This matrix serves to illustrate the positive dynamics of cooperation. In short:
Mutual cooperation leads to the highest collective benefit.
RAI is not for short-term opportunists. If you're not planning to participate long-term, we suggest you reconsider. We do not need sellers who dump RAI when the price is low and buy back high — this behavior damages the entire ecosystem.
Last updated