In this example of a propaganda game we have a game which uses the power of gamification in ways which a lot of people could perceive of as sexist, racist, and "evil". This highlights the importance of having reputation not just for the game (which can be reviewed), but also the design of the game (which can be reviewed), and the designers of the game even if they use a pseudonym (which can be reviewed).
On a blockchain you can have a pseudo-anonymuos creator, but it is important to also have an ability to review and rate everything created. A bad design is a bad design, whether it was created by someone pseudo-anonymous like Satoshi Nakamoto, or someone who uses their real name like Dan Larimer. We treat projects as experiments because we recognize most experiments fail, but we learn. We state our intentions in our whitepaper or and manifesto so people can know what we aimed for, even if we fail.
thanks for sharing this material, I like what you posted. Thank you so much
That was fantastic. Practically journalism. I'm going to show that to my gaming, YouTubing teenager.
Oh, I remember seeing that long time ago. Those guys have really cool vids. :-)
I agree, the design speaks for itself. A bad government may take work to replace however.