This is basically a repeat of SEO.
At first, you have the early adopters. Things grow organically and it doesn't feel like a zero-sum game because there aren't many players.
Next comes the growth phase, where more people get involved, and start competing for attention/clicks/votes/whatever points system.
Next comes the exploiters, who discover weaknesses in the system and take advantage of them. They tend to make a lot of money because there's not much competition in this niche.
Next comes the crossover, where the exploit knowledge becomes public, and everyone now must do it because everyone else is.
Next comes the shutout, where the company running things starts actively punishing bad actors, but by this time, being a bad actor is essential to survival, so people do it anyway. It becomes a game of cat-and-mouse, new exploits, new mitigations.
Eventually, the company manages to fix their algorithms enough that the exploits don't offer decent marginal returns anymore, and it returns to what the company originally intended: 1% of people are successful, 99% of people make next to nothing, and the company makes shitloads.
And then the new big thing comes out. The old system goes into decline and the new system starts to take over. Rinse and repeat.
You're describing society. Any free "social" system, virtual or otherwise, can and will attract the same ingredients and the outcome will be a strong approximation of a normal society.
> normal society
Maybe society needs to change.
Further reference: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
This is such a good overview, I feel that an academic version of this idea should be given in software development 101 classes.
Yes but I'd say business school.
anywhere and everywhere. The same process works with our political leaders, so everyone should be aware
product life cycle?
monetized platform life cycle