kaal:claim:3782203-019

Allowing periodic opportunities for renegotiation lets players escape the grim trigger trap, but it does not improve outcomes overall because it creates new incentives to defect and then gamble on talking one's way out of the punishment.

Source quote, verbatim

Or if you allow periodic opportunities for renegotiation, then you might be able to get out of a grim trigger trap. This sounds like it would improve outcomes, but in fact it gives new opportunities for defecting/cheating.

From

Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, A Technical Perspective on Decentralization (2021), Infinite variations of Prisoner’s Dilemma, p. 13
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782203 · source PDF

Cite as

Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, A Technical Perspective on Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782203

Holds when

repeated games with renegotiation windows

Classification

failuresupport: arguedfailure: renegotiation-loopholefamily: collective-action-and-coordination-failurecontingent-capitalrisk-and-incentives

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is ab8a22d0dbb026a09212a4c85963f3c05787cf80775e8613ae3724e3883e7a56. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/b6292467d18ab907...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782203-019.md | sha256sum