# Playing To Win (for fun and profit)

**URL:** <https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174>\
**Category:** Research\
**Created:** [August 19, 2019, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174 "2019-08-19T01:46:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![burrrata](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/burrrata/32/135_2.png) [@burrrata](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/burrrata)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/1 "2019-08-19T01:46:19Z")

</div>

Creating a thread to post all the different ways you could potentially game SourceCred!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![burrrata](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/burrrata/32/135_2.png) [@burrrata](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/burrrata)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 1:53am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/2 "2019-08-19T01:53:20Z")

</div>

What inspired me to start this thread is that I just created a [mega comment](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sneak-peek-sourcecred-discourse-plugin/171/5) in [another thread](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sneak-peek-sourcecred-discourse-plugin/171/5). I could easily have broken this into multiple threads (and probably should have), but I just created on long thread instead. As a result, regardless of if someone likes multiple points I posted or just one, each reader can only give me a single “like”. If I had broken it into several comments I could have gotten many more likes on many more comments.

Maybe this is good because it encourages community members to break each idea into it’s own comment to be replied to accordingly? Maybe it’s bad because then arguments will be more likely to become fragmented, encouraging short pithy statements like on Twitter vs long form constructed ideas? I dunno… but it’s def something to consider if points are being given out for likes. The more opportunities people have to like your stuff, the higher the likelihood that you’ll get lots of likes

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![s\_ben](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/s_ben/32/816_2.png) [@s\_ben](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/s_ben)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 7:42am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/3 "2019-08-19T07:42:20Z")

</div>

> [@DAO Reputation System Challenges](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/dao-reputation-system-challenges/165):
>
> SourceCred is primarily a reputation protocol. This could be extremely useful for DAOs, which typically allow for pseudonymous participants and need a way to gauge the trustworthiness of various inputs to the system. Below, I attempt to define the general challenges DAOs face when using reputation systems. Goal is to develop this into an article on how SourceCred could work with DAOs, with integration ideas/examples added, perhaps merge these ideas with @decentralion’s [SourceCred and DAOs: A Sk…](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-and-daos-a-sketch/161/2)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![s\_ben](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/s_ben/32/816_2.png) [@s\_ben](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/s_ben)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 7:43am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/4 "2019-08-19T07:43:13Z")

</div>

> [@SourceCred for documentation](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-for-documentation/140/7):
>
> Proposal passed a while back, funding it. So far work has concentrated on automating the current system for reviewing invoices, process, payments, etc., but work is beginning soon on the voting part. This is though basically just automating the informal system that’s already in place. E.g. you have to find two people in your domain to nominate you to become a contractor. What new besides the automation is the appeal process if your contractor status is revoked. I suppose a person you vouch for’s…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![s\_ben](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/s_ben/32/816_2.png) [@s\_ben](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/s_ben)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 7:43am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/5 "2019-08-19T07:43:46Z")

</div>

> [@SourceCred governance](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-governance/130):
>
> Not to bikeshed (please don’t reply to this if you think it is or you’ll give me cred), but what is SoureCred’s position on governance? I know that seems like a tomorrow problem. But if this is going to direct money (the end game), it’s going to be political. The most succinct definition of politics I ever heard was “how to decide how to spend the money”. In any SourceCred instance, the parameters choices will always be value judgements, whether subjective or objective (“All Models Are Wrong But…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Beanow](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/beanow/32/98_2.png) [@Beanow](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/Beanow)\
**Post date:** [August 23, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/playing-to-win-for-fun-and-profit/174/6 "2019-08-23T13:48:34Z")

</div>

See also [Farming cred attacks/abuse](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/farming-cred-attacks-abuse/133/6)