not your fault since it got heavily watered down and perhaps improperly communicated in the first place but (3,3) wasn’t/isn’t as simplistic as you’re saying and doesn’t apply to much else
simplistic: (3,3) = buy ( stake) and hold — can apply to anything, really
reality: buy *from protocol* ( stake) and hold
this is why it doesn’t apply to much else. in 99% of cases, for you to buy, someone else must sell to you. therefore (3,3) is by definition impossible. it’s only because you have the protocol acting as a counterparty (abstracted through bonds) that it can exist for Olympus
realistically the format is incomplete: it is ((3,3), P), where P is the protocol as the other player. this creates a dynamic in which coordination amongst individuals a la simplistic (3,3) interpretation *actively strengthens the system*, versus its use in meme and other contexts where nothing tangible/persistent is accomplished via that coordination
the P side is crucial because of its implication when you flip to (-3, -3), because it remains ((-3,-3), P) where the protocol now flips to the bid. this makes (3,3) the only long term sustainable equilibrium for Olympus uniquely, since the -3’s have finite coins that the protocol will ultimately exhaust (as it did 2022-2023).
with no protocol involvement, you’re just doing the dumb ponzi “if we all buy and hold number will go up” that people rightfully criticize because no shit, and defection is the long term equilibrium in such a system (with the hope that you get the timing right).
i’m maybe beating a dead horse but it’s a shame this is so misunderstood bc it’s imo quite significant and the thesis of cooperative dominance (3,3) for Olympus has proven valid (though participation is far far lower today — probably in part bc this is so misunderstood/was co-opted!)