> telling on them only works if you can ensure they all get burned down to the ground as a result. Isn't that assuming you have to out yourself to identify oth

> telling on them only works if you can ensure they all get burned down to the ground as a result. Isn't that assuming you have to out yourself to identify others? That seems like something a company could coordinate well such that there was little or no indication of where it came from (a source identifying one or two bad actors and calling for industry wide testing would serve their interests without specifically outing them). And I'm not sure why they need to get burned down to the ground. It's about removing the advantages they've gained through cheating, and possibly applying a social penalty if it was bad enough, not ensuring they are destroyed. > If some survive, you'll now be competing with them as an actor nobody trusts, and nobody wants to deal with. Eh, even if it did come out that your company was responsible for outing others, this is business where past behavior has less sway, and knowing the other party will follow the rules is hardly a disqualifying factor as long as you don't do something with them that isn't following the rules. It's not like competitors are commonly giving ammunition to each other with the understanding it won't be used. And if they aren't working with you because they can't without exposing more cheating... well then that's a problem they should be trying to fix already, given the new realities. I think in any well functioning market this all works out normally. The automotive market doesn't seem to be a well functioning one though.