I have not given psychology any thought in this topic, I don’t know if it feels relevant.
I feel a little confused, do you confuse me with the one who created the topic?
Is psychology relevant for creating an optimal system that will benefit the growth, health and sustainability of the network, I don’t know if it feels relevant too me.
This raises alarm for me. I hear similar arguments alot lately, when individuals is challenged by someone with stronger arguments and have more knowledge. Similar arguments is often used trying to manipulate to win an argument, either consciously or unconsciously. It is, if not specified under certain conditions, logical incorrect and it is demonstrated by the examples below.
Not A or B is right: That does not exclude that A is either better/much better, worse/ much worse or equal to B.
What makes A or B a better solution even if none are right/correct depends on what the conditions are, what is the goal and purpose that A or B is intended to solve.
Example 1: A algorithm that controls store cost can be very hard to develop, a supply/demand market might be optimal because it does not have to rely on a algorithm, but it needs some conditions, that the market is hard to manipulate and that farmers can join or leave without restrictions.
A scenario where farmers can’t join or leave without restrictions, in that case a central algortihm might be a better option/optimal, or a foundation that governs store cost.
I hope we don’t discuss if all farmers should be paid equal or different depending on different contribution to the network.
I believe that David Irvine and the Maidsafe team will try to find a solution that is optimal for a successful network and that if someone makes alot of profit or not is of less importance.