Has any one ever studied the reputation points as rent, and wondered why there is no redistributive tool?

I'm partially joking, of course, but there's something interesting in the question, I think.

I've seen that sometimes reputation points act in a way similar to capital, where you get every once in a while some proportion simply because you have high reputation, and users up vote their answers or questions. It's obvious that rep points are more like income, since they come out of labour by the user, but it sometimes mimics a bit capital.

I'm not referring specifically any stackexchange community, but about human behaviour in general.

Or maybe I'm not making any sense at all...


1 Answer 1


One doesn't need reputation in order to survive and participate on the site; let alone to meet basic life necessities. So there's no social-justice justification.

And reputation points aren't a currency, they're a signalling mechanism.

So redistribution would reduce, rather than increase, total system welfare.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know that... also, I was trying to fit them in a macro perspective, instead of the obvious micro. =P $\endgroup$ Jul 1, 2016 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Anoldmaninthesea. I think both the question and the answer could be much more detailed. I am upvoting the answer though, because EnergyNumbers has a higher rep! $\endgroup$
    – Giskard
    Jul 2, 2016 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ @denesp =D =D ! $\endgroup$ Jul 3, 2016 at 8:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .