3 ms·
This is clever! I see at least one flaw, though: what if the two sides disagree about the amount of money that should be contributed to the fund?
by thegasman 10y ago
This is clever!
I see at least one flaw, though: what if the two sides disagree about the amount of money that should be contributed to the fund?
- stormbrew 10y agoWell, in my premise there is no need for agreement. If side A thinks it's worth $N and side B thinks it's worth $M, they each get ($N-$M)/2 to work with. This asymmetry is what makes it a bad choice to try to overpower a less wealthy opponent by simply outspending them. I haven't really thought through the consequences of requiring some kind of agreement in advance, but my instinct is it couldn't really work just because being obstinate would be heavily rewarded.