# What is (3,3) and (1,1)?

This has become sort of a crypto meme in recent times, so let us explain. (3,3) is the idea that if everyone cooperated in **Cooky finance** it would generate the greatest gain for everyone (from a game theory standpoint). 

Currently, there are three actions a user can take: 

Staking (+2) 

Bonding (+1) 

Selling (-2)

Staking and bonding are considered beneficial to the protocol, while selling is considered detrimental. Staking and selling will also cause a price move, while bonding does not (we consider buying **CKY** from the market as a prerequisite of staking, thus causing a price move). 

If both actions are beneficial, the actor who moves price also gets half of the benefit (+1). If both actions are contradictory, the bad actor who moves price gets half of the benefit (+1), while the good actor who moves price gets half of the downside (-1). If both actions are detrimental, which implies both actors are selling, they both get half of the downside (-1).

Thus, given two actors, all scenarios of what they could do and the effect on the protocol are shown here:

![](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/dGK0WwK74APyk-CoXxG3SNt2Be_9ZgakAPvFfWODcc1AFXZWvriMfzeElVVfGwuKOYTClOkEFR8cDOZuEy5T7tGMUVv7cSWWrfdmPNy1wDiI5JnmEtER4rWVb06E2nCLPotVnEdt)

If we both stake (3, 3), it is the best thing for both of us and the protocol (3 + 3 = 6). 

If one of us stakes and the other one bonds, it is also great because staking takes This has become sort of a crypto meme in recent times, so let us explain. (3,3) is the idea that if everyone cooperated in **Cooky finance** it would generate the greatest gain for everyone (from a game theory standpoint). 

Currently, there are three actions a user can take: 

Staking (+2) 

Bonding (+1) 

Selling (-2)

Staking and bonding are considered beneficial to the protocol, while selling is considered detrimental. Staking and selling will also cause a price move, while bonding does not (we consider buying **CKY** from the market as a prerequisite of staking, thus causing a price move). 

If both actions are beneficial, the actor who moves price also gets half of the benefit (+1). If both actions are contradictory, the bad actor who moves price gets half of the benefit (+1), while the good actor who moves price gets half of the downside (-1). If both actions are detrimental, which implies both actors are selling, they both get half of the downside (-1).

Thus, given two actors, all scenarios of what they could do and the effect on the protocol are shown here:

![](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/dGK0WwK74APyk-CoXxG3SNt2Be_9ZgakAPvFfWODcc1AFXZWvriMfzeElVVfGwuKOYTClOkEFR8cDOZuEy5T7tGMUVv7cSWWrfdmPNy1wDiI5JnmEtER4rWVb06E2nCLPotVnEdt)

If we both stake (3, 3), it is the best thing for both of us and the protocol (3 + 3 = 6). 

If one of us stakes and the other one bonds, it is also great because staking takes **CKY** off market and puts it into the protocol, while bonding provides liquidity and BUSD for the treasury (3 + 1 = 4). 

When one of us sells, it diminishes effort of the other one who stakes or bonds (1 - 1 = 0). 

When we both sell, it creates the worst outcome for both of us and the protocol (-3 - 3 = -6). off market and puts it into the protocol, while bonding provides liquidity and BUSD for the treasury (3 + 1 = 4). 

When one of us sells, it diminishes effort of the other one who stakes or bonds (1 - 1 = 0). 

When we both sell, it creates the worst outcome for both of us and the protocol (-3 - 3 = -6).