Community Pod [Ep 3 Part 2]: Why Olympus DAO & ‘3,3’ is Bad Game Theory

Economist Paulo explain the flawed logic behind Olympus DAO’s popular ‘3,3’ staking meme and its game-theoretic model. How the original payoff matrix was fundamentally wrong—ignoring real-world behaviors like marginal utility, sell pressure, and multi-agent dynamics. We also discuss how to apply better game theory to staking and trading in crypto, the dangers of partial knowledge, and why scams thrive on unrealistic promises. -------------- Timestamps -------------- 00:00 Intro: What is Olympus DAO and “3,3” 01:00 Why Olympus is bad game theory 01:43 Overview of Olympus mechanics 02:38 Issues with payoff assumptions 03:49 Incorrect payout logic explained 04:37 Marginal utility of money is ignored 05:35 Selling becomes rational at higher wealth levels 06:34 Matrix fails to model others’ actions 06:56 Real-world context matters more than abstract models 08:48 How to build better staking game theory 09:55 Why sell-sell should be a valid equilibrium 10:34 Game theory lessons for crypto 11:42 Takeaway 1: Fundamentals drive sustainable outcomes 12:25 Takeaway 2: Equilibrium is subjective 13:21 Takeaway 3: Partial knowledge is dangerous 14:19 Takeaway 4: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is 15:27 Why Whitepaper Reading Club matters 17:33 Olympus as fake medicine analogy 18:03 “When people want the impossible, only liars can deliver” 18:35 Risk, lottery logic, and university exam analogy 19:27 People act to improve odds, not maximize expected value 20:17 What are you really modeling? @sgsmu #cruptocurrency #gametheory #blockchain #crypto #decentralized