What could solve the Steemit Tragedy of the Commons?

Recently @anyx raised concerns about The Steemit Tragedy of the Commons

Only two kinds of solutions

Garrett Hardin, who wrote the original article about the Tragedy of the Commons, identified only two potential solutions: either 1) private property rights, or 2) coercion to control the behaviour of all concerned. He was convinced that neither education nor morality/ethics alone could solve the problem.

I like http://web.mit.edu/mission/www/m2017/pdfs/ultimate.pdf this discussion of the potential solutions, by Charles E. Kay:

Hardin (1968) noted that he could envision only two solutions to tragedy of commons problems: privatiza- tion, that is turn the commons into private property, or government regulation, which he referred to as “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected,” and subsequent study has not identi- fied any other class of remedies (e.g., McCay & Acheson 1987; Simmons et al. 1996). Hardin (1968) did note that education was important, but only in getting people to agree to or to accept coercion—he specifically did not see any hope that education, per se, would cause indi- viduals to act in the collective good, or if it did that it would be effective.

Why not coercion?

Individuals will act according to the incentives that they themselves perceive, regardless of the intent of any regulation, or other threat. See Thomas Sowell or Frederic Bastiat for more detailed and eloquent reasoning. For some recent and quite practical application of this reasoning, I like this podcast "How Regulations Affect Our Everyday Lives" where Tom Woods interviews Per Bylund:

Freedom, not coercion!

I am very much partial to the private property solution, so much so that I do not want to endorse coercion (the use of force or the threat thereof). Coercion isn't a 'solution', because it will in general cause more and worse problems that it solves. Besides, who has any moral right to coerce others into submission? Furthermore, coercion is not only incompatible with the principles on which Steemit was founded, it would also be impractical here in this part of cyberspace, where anyone is free to leave at any time. (The worst anyone could possibly do would be to threaten the value of the Steem held by others.)

So, in this first partial response, I want to plea for keeping things decentralised and free. I this that this will best serve us all in the long run. I accept that I may be wrong, but I cherish my right to be wrong, and appreciate that the creators of Steemit provided me and so many others the chance to try interacting freely with others, without coercion!

S. Lan Smith
Kamakura, Japan
August 19, 2016