State of Mind vs Incentive-Driven Behavior

[BitcoinErrorLog]

BCAP introduces "State of Mind" (SOM) to categorize stakeholder engagement, ranging from advocacy to opposition. While it adds a psychological layer, it oversimplifies decision-making and falls into a trap that somehow defining patterns of behavior can be predictive of outcomes.

Behavior should be viewed as arising from dynamic rational, incentive-driven actions, not fixed psychological states. Decisions are better understood through cost-benefit analyses tied to security models, costs, and expected outcomes, making the SOM framework less comprehensive.

A serious model would assess economic incentives to reflect true decision-making dynamics, and, ideally, just use actual measured data, not imaginary predictable personas.

Bitcoin governance is not vibes & virtues. Bitcoin is an actual economic system with physical constraints that will bend any emotion to submission.

[rencryptofish]

there is some literature on how psychological layer impacts decision making, maybe the most notable is the theory of bounded rationality from herbert a simon (Limitations include the difficulty of the problem requiring a decision, the cognitive capability of the mind, and the time available to make the decision) (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1978/press-release/)

state of mind is akin to bounded rationality in that if a game starts where stakeholders have limited time to make the decision, how can we expect the rational, incentive driven actions to take place? it is a pre-cursor to the rational, incentive-driven actions. i agree that if major stakeholders are engaged then what you're saying will take place