  In robust decision making under uncertainty, a natural choice is to go with
safety (aka security) level strategies. However, in many important cases, most
notably auctions, there is a large multitude of safety level strategies, thus
making the choice unclear. We consider two refined notions:
  (i) a term we call DSL (distinguishable safety level), and is based on the
notion of ``discrimin'', which uses a pairwise comparison of actions while
removing trivial equivalencies. This captures the fact that when comparing two
actions an agent should not care about payoffs in situations where they lead to
identical payoffs.
  (ii) The well-known Leximin notion from social choice theory, which we apply
for robust decision-making. In particular, the leximin is always DSL but not
vice-versa.
  We study the relations of these notions to other robust notions, and
illustrate the results of their use in auctions and other settings. Economic
design aims to maximize social welfare when facing self-motivated participants.
In online environments, such as the Web, participants' incentives take a novel
form originating from the lack of clear agent identity -- the ability to create
Sybil attacks, i.e., the ability of each participant to act using multiple
identities. It is well-known that Sybil attacks are a major obstacle for
welfare-maximization. Our main result proves that when DSL attackers face
uncertainty over the auction's bids, the celebrated VCG mechanism is
welfare-maximizing even under Sybil attacks. Altogether, our work shows a
successful fundamental synergy between robustness under uncertainty, economic
design, and agents' strategic manipulations in online multi-agent systems.
