Trust is weird. We give it to strangers when we buy something on eBay, yet we withhold it from neighbors we’ve known for years. Why? Most people think trust is just a "feeling" or some vague moral compass, but it’s actually a math problem. Specifically, it's a game theory problem. If you’ve ever spent time on the internet in the last few years, you’ve probably stumbled across The Evolution of Trust, a playable essay by Nicky Case. It isn’t just a game; it’s a terrifyingly accurate mirror of how we treat each other in the digital age.
It's based on the Prisoner's Dilemma.
You know the drill. Two people have a choice: cooperate or cheat. If both cooperate, they both win a little. If one cheats while the other cooperates, the cheater wins big and the cooperator loses. If both cheat, they both get nothing. It sounds like a classroom exercise, but it’s the blueprint for literally every human interaction from international diplomacy to who does the dishes. Nicky Case took this academic concept and turned it into something you can play in ten minutes.
📖 Related: Iron Banner Dates Destiny 2: Why the 2026 Schedule is Driving Everyone Crazy
The game starts simple. You put a coin in a machine. If the other person also puts a coin in, you both get three coins back. But if you put a coin in and they don't, they get three coins and you lose yours. It’s a gamble. And honestly, it’s a gamble we take every time we send an email or start a relationship.
Why the Copycat Always Wins (At First)
In the game, you meet different characters. There’s the Always Cooperate person—basically a saint who gets exploited until they’re broke. Then there’s the Always Cheat person. They’re the "snakes." They do great in the short term because they prey on the saints. But eventually, the saints go extinct, and the snakes are left with no one to steal from.
Then comes the Copycat.
In game theory terms, this is "Tit for Tat." It was first popularized by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod’s famous 1980 tournament. The strategy is bone-dead simple: I start by cooperating. After that, I just do whatever you did last round. If you were nice, I’m nice. If you cheated, I’m biting back. This strategy is incredibly robust. It’s "nice" because it starts with trust, but it’s "tough" because it doesn’t let people walk all over it.
The Copycat wins because it builds long-term relationships. It rewards players who are willing to build something together. But there’s a massive, glaring flaw in the Copycat strategy that the game highlights brilliantly: miscommunication.
The Problem of the "Accidental Cheat"
Imagine you meant to cooperate, but your internet cut out. Or you said something that was meant as a joke but came across as an insult. In the world of The Evolution of Trust, this is called "noise."
If two Copycats are playing and a mistake happens—one person accidentally "cheats"—it triggers a never-ending cycle of revenge. I hit you because I thought you hit me. Then you hit me back because I hit you. It’s a downward spiral. We see this in Twitter feuds and political gridlock every single day. One tiny misunderstanding turns two potential allies into bitter enemies.
This is where the "Copykitten" comes in. This character is a bit more forgiving. They wait for you to cheat twice in a row before they retaliate. They give you the benefit of the doubt. In a world full of mistakes and "noise," a little bit of forgiveness actually makes the whole system more profitable for everyone. It turns out that being a total pushover is bad, but being a "forgiving Copycat" is the sweet spot for a functioning society.
Real-World Math: The Christmas Truce of 1914
This isn't just a browser game. It’s history.
Nicky Case references one of the most famous examples of the game of trust in real life: the Christmas Truce during World War I. For a brief moment, soldiers who were supposed to be killing each other stopped. They played soccer. They swapped cigarettes. This didn't happen because they were all "nice guys." It happened because of a phenomenon called "Live and Let Live."
When soldiers face the same enemy units for months in the same trenches, they realize that if they don't fire, the other side probably won't either. It’s a repeated game of trust. They realized that "cooperating" (not shooting) was better for their survival than "cheeting" (shooting). The generals hated it. They tried to break it up by moving troops around frequently. Why? Because if you don't play against the same person twice, you have no incentive to build trust.
🔗 Read more: Why the Google Doodles Rubik's Cube Still Drives People Crazy (In a Good Way)
What This Means for Your Daily Life
We live in a "low-trust" world right now. Why? Because the internet makes our interactions feel like one-off games. If you can insult a stranger and never see them again, your incentive to cooperate is zero. You might as well be the "Always Cheat" character.
But here’s the kicker: trust is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you assume everyone is a snake, you become a snake to protect yourself. Then everyone else sees you being a snake and they stop cooperating. You’ve successfully built a world where everyone loses. On the flip side, if you start with the Copycat mentality—give trust first, but have boundaries—you create a "win-win" environment.
Actionable Insights for the Real World
- Repeat the Game: If you want to trust someone, don't make it a one-time deal. Trust grows in "repeated games." Break big projects into small milestones so you can "play" multiple rounds of cooperation.
- Clarify Before Reacting: If someone "cheats" or lets you down, ask if it was a mistake. Remember the "noise" factor. Was it a technical error or a bad day? Don't start a revenge cycle over a typo.
- Be Proactive, Not Passive: Don't be the "Always Cooperate" pushover. You’ll just get burned. Be the Copycat. Start nice, but don't be afraid to set a boundary when someone takes advantage of you.
- Decrease the Cost of Losing: If the "cost" of being cheated on is your entire life savings, you’ll never trust anyone. Lower the stakes. Start small.
Building trust isn't about being "nice." It's about being predictable and creating an environment where it's mathematically smarter for the other person to be honest. Whether you're playing the game on a screen or navigating a corporate merger, the rules are the same. Start with a coin, hope they do too, and keep a sharp eye on the snakes.
Trust is a choice, but it’s also a strategy. Use it wisely.
Next Steps for Your Trust Strategy
Stop viewing trust as a binary "yes or no" and start viewing it as a series of levels. Begin with "Low-Stake Iterations." In your next collaboration, set three small deadlines instead of one massive final delivery. This allows you to test the "Copycat" strategy early on. If they miss the first small deadline, you haven't lost much, and you can address the "noise" before the stakes get too high. Consistency is the only way to beat the snakes in the long run.