P2P Value Exchange

[rushkoff]

One of the things I'd like to see hashed out a bit before and during
the Contact Summit is whether we now have the means to promote more
direct value exchange between the people who are actually creating
value.

The net, at first glance, seems to make the implementation of
complementary currencies a no-brainer. But it's proven harder than it
seemed.

What is the potential for the net to foster p2p value exchange, and
can it occur on a non-local level?

[Venessa Miemis]

i just wrote up a post today on a few projects out there innovating
this space. they're all relatively new to me, so it's more an overview
of my personal discoveries than a list of the "best" stuff out there.

10 Projects Moving Us Towards a Superfluid Economy -
http://emergentbydesign.com/2011/03/22/10-projects-moving-us-towards-a-superfluid-economy/

- The Metacurrency Project - http://metacurrency.org/
- Community Forge - http://www.communityforge.net/
- Bitcoin - http://www.bitcoin.org/
- Symbionomics - http://www.symbionomics.com/
- PaySwarm - http://payswarm.com/
- Ripple - https://ripplepay.com/
- OurGoods - http://ourgoods.org/
- WingCash - https://wingcash.com/
- Open Bank Project - http://openbankproject.com/
- time/bank - http://www.e-flux.com/timebank/

[Greg]

The net's potential for this defaults to a non-local level.
Otherwise, I'd be talking about this with my neighbour instead of
people in a different country. I think the bigger challenge is the
adoption of these systems at a local level.

As far as implementation being difficult... this is a fundamental
shift to the status quo. Probably one of the hardest things one can
attempt. However, the difficulty matches the worthiness of the goal.

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Right, but doesn't the local factor allow for trust that the net can sometimes prevent? 

Or would you say the development of local currencies over net currencies (so far, anyway) is solely a factor of timing and availability? 

-------------------

Douglas Rushkoff

http://rushkoff.com

twitter: rushkoff

Support my latest books

Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age - http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/

 

Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How to Take it Back

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/

[Greg Wedow]

Trust is compicated in relation to currencies. Not only must you trust in the value of the currency itself, but you must trust that the other users also trust in it. Without this, it falls apart. So certainly the adoption of local currencies is a result of this.

I wouldn't say the net prevents trust.  The local factor is more conducive to it though.  It can be easier to use a new thing when you see people around you doing it.

Currencies started locally are relatively easy to adopt locally.  Those started non-locally (on the net) really have to work to overcome the lack of constant reinforcement that local currencies have.

On 2011-03-22 3:49 PM, "Douglas Rushkoff" <rush...@rushkoff.com> wrote:

Right, but doesn't the local factor allow for trust that the net can sometimes prevent? 

Or would you say the development of local currencies over net currencies (so far, anyway) is solely a factor of timing and availability? 

On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Greg wrote:

> The net's potential for this defaults to a non-local le...

[Fabio Barone]

Hi all

I have recently come to think that maybe net and local currencies should be looked at differently, adopting a multi-dimensional approach, and not try to solve all problems
with one tool.

The whole localization effort bumps into boundaries because our reality today is global.

All the while your neighbours may be unwilling to accept some virtual trust you earned in some obscure online group they do not know about? The problem of many our beautiful online currency ideas is that they tend to be bad for getting bread from the baker and paying your taxes.

Maybe we should not try to do that at all?

Don't we want to engage in local communities? Then we might want to use local monies?
While online net currencies flourish. And, as with games money, someone will always find how to transfer such a currency into 'hard' currency if there is ask for. But using the currencies for the space they were meant for.

fabio

2011/3/22 Greg Wedow <greg...@gmail.com>

[Greg]

Good point. Multi-dimensional is key here. I had been thinking in
terms of using both scarce and abundant currencies but I see that
local and non-local are also important categories.

I'm sure a full solution will end up with using multiple currencies
from each category.

On Mar 22, 4:49 pm, Fabio Barone <holon.ea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have recently come to think that maybe net and local currencies should be
> looked at differently, adopting a multi-dimensional approach, and not try to
> solve all problems
> with one tool.
>
> The whole localization effort bumps into boundaries because our reality
> today is global.
>
> All the while your neighbours may be unwilling to accept some virtual trust
> you earned in some obscure online group they do not know about? The problem
> of many our beautiful online currency ideas is that they tend to be bad for
> getting bread from the baker and paying your taxes.
>
> Maybe we should not try to do that at all?
>
> Don't we want to engage in local communities? Then we might want to use
> local monies?
> While online net currencies flourish. And, as with games money, someone will
> always find how to transfer such a currency into 'hard' currency if there is
> ask for. But using the currencies for the space they were meant for.
>
> fabio
>

> 2011/3/22 Greg Wedow <gregwe...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> > Trust is compicated in relation to currencies. Not only must you trust in
> > the value of the currency itself, but you must trust that the other users
> > also trust in it. Without this, it falls apart. So certainly the adoption of
> > local currencies is a result of this.
>
> > I wouldn't say the net prevents trust.  The local factor is more conducive
> > to it though.  It can be easier to use a new thing when you see people
> > around you doing it.
>
> > Currencies started locally are relatively easy to adopt locally.  Those
> > started non-locally (on the net) really have to work to overcome the lack of
> > constant reinforcement that local currencies have.
>

> > On 2011-03-22 3:49 PM, "Douglas Rushkoff" <rushk...@rushkoff.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, but doesn't the local factor allow for trust that the net can
> > sometimes prevent?
> > Or would you say the development of local currencies over net currencies
> > (so far, anyway) is solely a factor of timing and availability?
>
> > On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Greg wrote:
>
> > > The net's potential for this defaults to a non-local le...
> >  -------------------
> > Douglas Rushkoff
> >http://rushkoff.com
> > twitter: rushkoff
>
> > Support my latest books

> > *Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age* -
> >http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/
>
> > *Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How to Take it Back*
> >http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/

[sures...@gmail.com]

Hey folks - I'm peripherally associated with a local currency model in the vancouver canada area. I will provide details when I am not on my phone.

To Doug's question, in my opinion complementary currencies happen in local communities for three reasons:
-most transactions (period) are essentially face to face (by number of transaction not dollar size)
-it is something individuals want not what multinationals that do remote transactions want.
- individuals tend to do face to face transactions.
-one of the primary arguments for CC's is localization

Suresh

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity

---

From: Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@rushkoff.com>

Sender: contac...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:49:43 -0400

To: <contac...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: contac...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: P2P Value Exchange

[Tatiana Maya]

What is the potential for the net to foster p2p value exchange, and

can it occur on a non-local level?

Imagine this local effort happening around the globe:

How would my local area look like if the financial institution I have in mind would take place?? Relationships with the local community. 

First of all: Yes, the bank would have a direct and tangible effect on my local area. If the community is unsatisfied, if there is unemployment, any type of social or environmental injustice, the bank has a role to play in that situation. Equally, if I live in a community that projects social cohesion, that is vibrant and resilient, my bank would have contributed to that too. Each branch is a projection of the community and its success or failure depend on the actions of the locals... its banking platform... is designed as a tool for local action. This means that there are no top-down decisions or hierarchical processes. The platform is a tool that allows its users to have direct and transparent impact in their communities.

The bank promotes localization, social justice, spiritually fulfillment and environmentally sustainable actions. They argue that if the community as a whole can substitute the imports, then more money should be able to circulate amongst us, and we should be able to generate more employment.

The bank promotes localization, social justice, spiritually fulfillment and environmentally sustainable actions. They argue that if the community as a whole can substitute the imports, then more money should be able to circulate amongst us, and we should be able to generate more employment. They stand up for economics of abundance rather than of scarcity. So an economic renewal plan we'll be created by us, the people who live here. It would be an opportunity to creatively and efficiently substitute our imports with local produce and sustainable products and services. 

... there will be a lot of things that we'll find to be absent in our local economy, so there may be a lot of projects to, for example and among many others, re-skill the community. Particularly in topics like [peer to peer] energy and food production, housing and transport. The bank would lend interest-free money to these projects using people's/customer's savings. So, really, the community will fund these projects. 

The bank has an online platform where all the projects are visible to the public, all users can access the project profile, ask questions and make comments. Projects leaders answer any queries from other users of the bank. They should provide enough information as to how their project is environmentally sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling. They also need to say how much money their project requires and a plan to repay this amount. Users vote if and how much money they'll put towards a project. 

Once this project has succeeded at replacing what used to be an import to the local economy, the community should be able to accept a local currency to get access to this good or service. In that way, the borrower pays back the amount borrowed to the users that committed their savings and they can then, use their savings for another project available to the community. Lenders can see value added to their money when they start experiencing the benefits of these newly created local products, therefore, users will not be given interest in cash in return for their money. Official currency devaluation may be balanced with local currency strengthening the local economy. (the complete thought is here).

_________________

CC's are based at the local level, yes, but if you go travelling, you need to be able to have access to the local currency wherever you are so that you can get whatever it is of value to you in that place. I guess you may be able to do that through official currency exchange rate but, nevertheless, that's where I see that the net can do something. Do not know what or how but...I can feel something there. 

I believe that the reason why it is implementation is harder than it seemed is because cc's require the face to face interaction of individuals, as Suresh mentioned, and the net provides the non physical interaction. CC's, as oppose to official currency, are not just about numbers, but about the community relationships and trust building behind the trades.  Many of their users still cling to the numbers thing and either ignore, or do not notice the social interaction factor. One of the big things that I conclude from conversations with the CC practitioners and members, is that many CC schemes fail to get the trust of the local business. Sometimes few business join but because no efforts have been put in place to substitute imports in the local economy, it is hard to trade and know who and where is producing what I need for my, let's say, restaurant. 

A few thoughts

Tatiana

--

Tatiana Maya

The New Economics for Humanity

Truthology Foundation

"Never offer the kind of help that disempowers. Never insist on offering the help you think is needed. Let the person or people in need know all that you have to give - then listen to what they want; see what they are ready to receive" Neale Donald Walsch

[Devin Balkind]

Fiat currency presents its users with an entire ecosystem of products and service that they can consume in their local environment.  We need the virtual tools and the local organization to create an alternative to fiat currency. 

Fiat currencies are backed by 'trust in the system.'  We need to create currencies that are backed by commodities that have intrinsic value such as CSA shares, venison, biodiesel or hours of people's labor.  With backing, we can start building out an ecosystem of goods and service providers.  At first, it requires very individualized offers - going to a restaurant and saying "if I provide you a butchered cow, how many meal coupons can I get?  What else can I provide you?  CSA shares?  An open source POS system?  Foot rubs?  Next stop are the patrons.  What will they give the ecosystem in exchange for meals at the restaurant?  Who else needs what they have?  We need to work through our local networks and offer our neighbors an easy way to use alternatives to dollars on the purchases they already make.  Fortunately, the fiat currency system has been slow to adopt hi-tech transactions systems, so we should be able to provide a more convenient solution than cash and credit cards with RFID and mobile social gaming apps.

Our group is going to start experimenting with land-backed currencies denominated in acre-months, where one acre-month is the value of the bio diesel and biochar we produce from the acre - on average - over the course of a month on FLO farm in Greentown, PA.  We could also include the value of the carbon sequestered by a managed acre, but that would assume there's a functioning carbon market, which there is in PA but not everywhere. 

The next step is building out the network in the rural community so we can convert our production and the production of others into things people in NYC want, transporting people and products to and from NYC via bio diesel powered buses and trucks, distributing production through the emerging network of coworking spaces and then wraping the whole experience into a nice mobile app that uses lots of social gaming mechanics.

We've written a bunch of this stuff out, but need to polish it up a bit before it makes real sense.  Would love as much feedback as possible.

[Openworld]

Devin,

>>Our group is going to start experimenting with land-backed currencies denominated in acre-months

It's geat to hear that you're exploring land-backed currencies for
social ends! One of my main interests at Openworld (http://
openworld.com) has been on land value capture funding for services in
free economic zones.

Here are a few thoughts on land-backed currencies, time-based personal
currencies, and how they might converge via a "flex" conversion
offer.

1. Land backed currencies

Hong Kong and Singapore have decades of experience using auctions and
tenders for leasing out publicly-owned lands to generate revenues for
public goods. In Hong Kong's case, this generated US$ 70+ billion in a
recent 30 year period. On a smaller scale, individual owners - or
resilient communities holding land in common - could issue time-acre
shares as you suggest, and put these up for online auction. The real
estate arenas of EBay and other auction sites could be used for this
purpose.

2. Time-based currencies

As @rushkoff suggested in his Radical Abundance keynote at the 2009
O'Reilly Conference, individuals can also issue time-based
currencies. Comment 1 at http://j.mp/ahEtkD -- and a thread on cell
phone-based personal currencies at http://j.mp/99kak1 -- explore how
spot auctions of time offers might work for this.

More recently, a convo sparked by a @venessamiemis post ( http://j.mp/eOS7jH
) mapped an opportunity for individual issuers of time-based offers to
pool them in payment for education, without recourse to taxation.

3. A 'Flex' conversion option: time-acres or time-based services

The above elements could work together in intentional communities such
as Flo Farm. This could be done by building on a currency innovation
introduced by Cincinnati's "Time Store" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store
).

In the early 1800s, members of the Time Store used time-based personal
currencies with a difference -- they could be converted by a recipient
into something tangible. As you'll see in the above Wikipedia link,
the person who issued the depicted Time Store personal currency note
offered three hours of his carpentry services -- _or_ 12 bushels of
corn.

In the case of a community such as Flo Farm, the innovation might be
for residents, as individuals or as groups, to issue currencies
redeemable in the form of (auctionable by the recipient) indicated
time-based services, or a specified amount (also auctionable by the
recipient) time-acres.

The issuers of the note could also set terms and conditions regarding
the use of the services or properties, to ensure that the recipient
hewed to a given code of conduct and agreed to a given arbitration
system in the event of a dispute.

What do you think? I'd love to explore ideas along these lines
further on this forum, as well as a meeting before or during
ContactCon. We live in an old order Mennonite area near the Blue
Ridge (not far from Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm), and I'd welcome a
rendezvous if you have any plans to come this way. I drive fairly
often on Route 84, which looks to be quite near Flo Farm, en route to
and from New England.

Look forward to comments and continuing the conversation.

Best,

Mark Frazier
@openworld





mainly on value capture been also seeing this approach as a promising
extension to the personal currency ideas that Doug outlined in

[Tatiana Maya]

Most of what I've been reading about 'open anything' in this group, is directly related with efforts to relocalize. To me that means, rebuilding the bonds of the community but transcend them to a new dimension of 'humanness'. I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if this is to become a scalable global truth, then, why would we still use money at all?? 

It seems to me that we are heading towards communities that will look at producing as much value as they can by themselves, as long as it is efficient and has meaning and a sense of aliveness to them. I have the feeling that this is leading inevitably to people 'working' on what they like, are passionate about, enjoy doing, are good at or feel can contribute to...so, with no external motive to do anything, other than to do it because we need it and you know how to, or are happy to do it, why money?? Why the need of accountability?? 

You keep accountability of things that are scarce, but to me, we seem to be investing all what we can to create communities of abundance. A few months ago, I used to say that, although we shouldn't need any sort of money to operate, humanity needs a transition. Complementary/community/alternative/local currencies would play the role in that transition. But with the speed at which all this is growing, it almost feels to me that the CC movement won't have time to completely develop. 

Aren't we building a non-monetary economy here?? Or is this just my naive impression?? What would happen if we make the conscious decision of building whatever the projects we are building, with the clear intention of not being dependent on any sort of accountability?? What dimension would this approach add to what we do, and to this conversation??

Cheers

Tatiana 

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Yes, this is something I am working on now. 

McLuhan talked about the electronic media, and saw it promoting globalization (which he actually saw as a problem - 'global village' was a sarcastic construct). 

What he didn't foresee was *digital* media, which seems to work very differently, promoting production instead of consumption, and thus local interests over international brands. 

[BenB]

Tatiana M. you are 'right'...that is: inspiring! We need to make the new models work locally (even if 'local' to a distributed group), and make the local successes visible more widely. I love this quote from your blog:

"Again, my core believe is that we need a system that takes us back to the platform of economic transactions. That platform is social relationships of trust and cooperation. When we recover that deteriorated social membrane, then we, as in, the majority of our civilization, will be able to foresee a world without money. "

The leap to a 'world without money' is more than most people can imagine now; myself included, though I haven't tried hard.  I worry that the digital elite, with credit-enabled-iphones and chic surplus time-banking are in fact outpacing the collective realities rather than forging new surplus viability on a connected path. If it is just a matter of novel convenience rather than real evolutionary relationship, we all lose. Or, how about this 'gamification' trend, a la Seth Priebatsch @TED, to drive a new vision of exchange and currency as 'play'? Maybe, world with money as an afterthought?

I see a 'trans-' (or if we want to be bold and churlish, 'post-') monetary economy. Embrace all forms of exchange as aspects of the holistic current, and navigate individual or communal boats on that stream accordingly. Most, as in 99.9ish%, people/orgs/govs would not know themselves to exist without money as a dialogue and distinction. We ought not invoke the zombiepocalypse by repudiating dimension 1 of social intercourse. We ought not detach in self-referential eddy-currents, unless they really do siphon into new worlds...

New humanness? yes, if you can, that is if you can be seen at it. And not excommunicated!! You're into great visions with your earlier post; and here's a good ref to note for weaving that into functional trust nets: http://thruflo.com/legacy/2009/4/29/its-about-actualisation.html --and two remarkably salient extractions from spamdex beneath it, first a near diamond koan: "It is understandable that money makes people autonomous. But how to act when somebody does not have cash?" and then faintly ominous: "Our website carries on the large-scale sales activity, welcome you to patronize greatly, you will obtain very big pleasantly " oh false dichotomy!

[CulturalEngineer]

Re: "whether we now have the means to promote more

direct value exchange between the people who are actually creating
value."

I've been focussed on that for a while... and take a pragmatic
approach built on what I believe is a sound theoretical foundation.

We agree that new currencies and technologies of exchange are
necessary... And there are many ideas out there.

I'm convinced that the path to actually seeing any of those gain
meaningful practical utility will, perhaps unfortunately, first have
to work alongside existing currencies. I'm as frustrated with the
financial system as you are... perhaps because its affecting me in
very personal ways... but enough on that, we all must search for
realistic solutions.

Look to the roots of transaction and what necessitated the birth of
currencies at all for solutions and you will, I believe, see some
clues.

THE COST OF P2P TRANSACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN DEFINED AREAS MUST
BE SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED. And that must first be done in currencies
people are already familiar with!

Once that network is established, alternative and localized currencies
can build out from that.

What is that network?

It's root lies in this system:

The Commons-dedicated Account & Network

Patent #7,870,067 just granted by USPTO 01/11/'11

A neutral network of accounts for political, charitable and speech
related monetary participation... which in order to properly network
and scale individual capability must allow a viable, one-button,
secure and financially unburdened micro-transaction. Such a network
ideally should maintain its own cloud and bank. Accounts may be
created and/or maintained with zero balances and/or only momentary
balances during a pass-through transfer (monetization model requires
no burden on the actual transaction.)

From user's perspective it's similar to Facebook credits or X-box
points except for Commons-oriented functions instead of games,
etc. ...and most critically NOT adding to or drawing from transaction
costs.

Demo and FAQ http://www.Chagora.com
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/culturalengineer
Civilization Systems Blog http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

Regarding its potential in politics, especially for networked citizen
lobbying and as an ESSENTIAL tool for citizens participation:

Addressing Two Problems:

1. Simplifying the process: “…[campaign contribution] could become
much easier if campaigns can figure out how to allow people to donate
by making the process easier through one click pay methods and a short
form for the additional FEC information required.” – Katie Harbath,
chief digital strategist at the National Republican Senatorial
Committee… now with Facebook

2. The need for a viable tool for voter response to the Citizens
United Decision and broadening the citizen’s capability for
participation in general.

THESE PROBLEMS HAVE NOW BEEN SOLVED!

For simple illustration of the principal:

Some round figures: $25 times 150 million voters is $3,750,000,000.
That would be all of 50 cents a week (giving you even a couple of
weeks off for holidays!)

Now I’m not suggesting that it would work exactly that way… but I am
suggesting there’s a whole lot more potential in speech related micro-
transactions if they can be tapped and networked… if it can be made
easy enough that it becomes part of your regular life…

I believe that CAN and MUST happen.

The potential for additional monetization of news and journalism is
synergistic icing on this cake.

P.S. Actually the system can be used for ALL transactions and in that
sense becomes a serious competitor to PayPal since it can drastically
reduce (and in Commons-focussed areas) eliminate middleman transaction
costs. (I'm finally getting feedback from 'biz types' with hungry
looks in their eyes... frankly haven't gotten much feedback from the
political, meta-political or social theory crowd. BTW, I suspect this
is part of the reason Commons-focussed interests get so little
PRACTICAL attention... and have fared so poorly... the needs of the
Commons require a rational approach to protection... whereas money
provokes a lizard-brain response from which the more collectively-
oriented rebel.)

Anyway, because of the framework envisioned for its ownership and
governance, it offers the potential to establish a Commons-owned
counter-balance to the private forces which may come to depend on it.
Similarly, it can provide sufficient political leverage to ensure that
its own structure can offer the sort of dispersed resilience that can
prevent a government from interrupting its flow.

Nothing here set in stone... but I'm pretty sure I should be a larger
part of this conversation.

As for going to the trouble, risk and expense of patent to protect
something for the Commons...

You're welcome.

Regards,

Tom Crowl

On the Birth of the Global Social Organism
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-birth-of-global-social-organism.html

Finding Roots in a Shifting Landscape: Facebook and the Future of
Social Networks
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/01/finding-roots-in-shifting-landscape.html

Political Fundraising: Act Blue, Facebook and the Missing Network
Imperative
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/08/political-fundraising-act-blue-facebook.html

Why Politics MUST be Localized
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-politics-must-be-localized.html

Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.html

[Tatiana Maya]

Hi all,

Well, I've been working hard on exploring my ideas. It's been a messy process but it seems now that I got to the bones of the matter, and I finally have a starting point.

I would love to read your comments about it. I think this is something we may be interested. What I am tackling here is the lack of action of community organizations that are focusing on social, environmental and re-localization actions (like Transition Towns  and CC's).

You may want to start here and then go to my latest post here.

I would love to hear/read your comments.

Tatiana Maya

[Douglas Rushkoff]

It's tricky, and your business plan (if I may call it that) goes to the heart of the potential logical glitch with Contact as well: how can we expect to be paid a living for delivering groups of people unto themselves? I suppose the only way is not only to love doing it, but to be so good at it that you really are making something possible that wouldn't have been otherwise. 

That's why I say it's tricky. Ultimately, I would think you could develop a set of resources that let people just do what you're talking about. The way civic organizations federalized in the early 1900's (as Putnam explains in Bowling Alone). In the meantime, and at the very outset, you actually workshop these things live for money - which is also a trick since money is the last thing most of these communities have. 

But the "lack of action of community organizations that are focusing on..." is troubling to me. It's like you've come up with a solution but can't find people ready with the problem. There are many groups attempting sustainable community/economic models though. If you're interested in hooking up with them, I can find some lists. 

[Tatiana Maya]

Well, I agree with most of it, except with "It's like you've come up with a solution but can't find people ready with the problem." Maybe I had the wrong wording. I think I have the people, I am part of that community where I think the problem is, and some of them have expressed they share the same need I have. But I have to confirm that and gather data, that is why it is a business model (I can, and should change it according to the inputs) rather than a business plan (a formula to success). I need to refine the idea and test all my hypothesis. I need to do a research, which is the next step after I gather a team (which is forming and I'm very excited about it), define objectives and make sure we are all on the same page. 

We would love to have some of the lists you offer!! We'll definitely need them in the near future and it is good to start gathering contacts.

I really want to think how we could deliver the workshops without asking directly for money...could we ask for what we actually need instead?? Like having a wishlist of things we need at home and people can choose from it?? Something like that?? Anyway, that part of the thinking process comes later. 

Cheers

Tati

[Venessa Miemis]

On Mar 28, 7:15 pm, Tatiana Maya <environline...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I really want to think how we could deliver the workshops without asking
> directly for money...could we ask for what we actually need instead?? Like
> having a wishlist of things we need at home and people can choose from it??
> Something like that??

of course you can do this. check out Trade School in NYC as a working
example. they barter workshops/instruction for goods and services.
very inspiring! :)

http://tradeschool.ourgoods.org/about/

[Michael Grube]

Hi Tatianna,

You have definitely found a problem that many, many people identify with and need addressed. Quite honestly after reading your first cited blog post I was a little blown away - it was, with a few differences, like reading my own thoughts.

I also adamantly agree that humanity is in desperate need to redefine value in currency and in other systems.

Just some thoughts:
As far as this question goes:

"how can we expect to be paid a living for delivering groups of people unto themselves?"

The point is not that you are delivering them to themselves - the point is that you have insight that they have not had the time or will to develop that will help them achieve their goals. Essentially the service is, if I may use some idealistic wording here, showing people how to effectively fight back against the mixed up priorities of our current global economic system. If the service is delivered effectively at all and people understand what they are "buying", it should be well worth the money and easy for most people to justify.

I suggest, and by no means would your business's service be limited to this, teaching people "civic intelligence" skills that could prepare them to be more aware of news and events relevant to them as well as how to find out . Other services might including introducing groups to important social and economic concepts that will either give their activity or group an advantage or make them aware of obstacles that they would otherwise not know about.

This is an incredibly exciting project to me, as what I am currently developing now might aid in that kind of activity. Very cool :)

Tatianna I suggest you talk to Robert Steele as "public intelligence" is what he is devoting his life to.

That's it. It's really inspiring to see somebody pursuing this. Keep going!

Michael

[Michael Grube]

P.S. What I am really saying is that you may want to identify some concrete methods to help guide these organizations or groups of people. Basic intelligence skills is one service. Another might be research methods. Another might be communications in a subtler form - how to catch the attention of your audience with SEO, Twitter, Facebook or a local radio station.

[BenB]

Reflecting on Douglas' original question in light of the interest for new models of value resolution (the best term I've got for a combo of creation, aggregation, derivation, multiplication, determination which are all involved) I can see a propagative training system much like Permaculture has used to efficiently distribute the know-how of primary production--keeping that horse before the cart of commerce. Otherwise, and as is largely now the case, we have wonderful tools, theory and intent lacking for much potential energy of practice. If I can try incision, many who prefer currency alternatives hold an bruise of resent towards the more general American sociology (and to a large degree personal psychology) which accords worth and status to various achievements of cunning, insight, craft, persistence, charisma, happenstance etc. These are not 'free' abundances, and to the degree that they are collective values, we can perchance abide their de facto celebration (while subtly shifting context). So yes, value collection/harvest learning in parallel, at least, to exchange technology!

Parallel to this 'production methodology' of course is the valid process of educating and demonstrating benefit from reclaimed local/intentional currencies, for which there is already good effort but substantial obstacle/entrenchment. But certainly the net can foster experimentation, demonstration, facilitation as we discover new patterns, and re-articulate old...

[Tatiana Maya]

Thanks Michael,

Thanks for the suggestion and we'll certainly keep it in mind. As the post mentioned, this is stage 1, so we're mobilizing the team. You and anyone who wants to, are more than welcome. 

Stage 1 is about the following:

Objective: Prepare for a succesful business design project

Focus: Setting the stage

Description: Assemble all the elements for successful BM design. Create awareness of the need for a new business model, describe the motivation behind the project, and describe a common language to describe, design and analyze and discuss business models.

Book Sections: BM Canvas (Pg 44), Storytelling (pg 170) (This is basically what I did in my latest post, although I didn't quite use storytelling, but I did use the canvas)

Activities: 

• Frame project objectives (I'd like to set this with the team, there is an item on it in BetterMeans for discussion).
• Test preliminary business ideas (That is, the team discuss the initial canvas, which is the one in my latest post, and decide on an initial canvas that the team feels comfortable to go out and test, we need to discuss how we are going to test those ideas, are we going to send surveys via email?? Are we going to interview people, are we going to have casual conversations and make sure we as, let's say, 5 key questions, what are those questions....)
• Plan: Apparently this is about the research and design stages which come later.
• Assemble Team...WHO'S ON?? ;-)

Critical Success factors: Appropriate people, experience and knowledge. (Well, I don't have business background so I could well be not appropriate, neither experienced. So, to me really, the appropriate people are the people who want to see this happening. I trust that the right skills, wisdom and knowledge will come at the right moment from the right people. I'm ready to jump, in fact I'm already in the pool and it wasn't as cold as I thought, so you can come and join the swimming party)

Key dangers: Overestimating value of initial idea(s) (Key!)

So Michael, theoretically, after we agree on the initial canvas, project objectives and know more of each other, that is, establish some bonds, we go out, test the initial ideas and then come back to the office (BetterMeans and BusinessModel canvas) to discuss about it and move on. We should then start a thorough research or immersion, which is stage 2. And then we should be able to consider all the options we have to 'develop the product', that is, to develop the contents and choose the method of the workshop. And there is where 'civic intelligence' can be discussed. 

Also, there is where we talk about different revenue ideas, like offering the workshop in exchange for items, or for money for a particular purpose or whatever we can think of. Stage 2 also includes scenarios. So we can go nuts there in terms of 'ideation'. We can go out and test again a few features of our ideas, come back and keep going. In this stage is where we start applying Steve Blank's concept of customer development which is about, going out, testing, coming back and adjust the product accordingly. But I won't go that far yet, first I need a team, we are 3 so far, I don't think we need a huge team, but I am happy to keep asking for a little while, whoever is there, is the right people.

Here is the slides about business model generation and customer development, in case you missed it in my blog: http://www.slideshare.net/Alex.Osterwalder/successful-entrepreneurship-5747012

I want to jump in the arctic ocean and ask the following: I am after Steve Blank's book (among many other things hehe). I can just go to Amazon and buy it and pay the shipment and the exchange rate, no issues there whatsoever. Is there anyone here, or is there a group of people here who would be happy to get it for me and send it to my place, based on the assumption that I will make a good use of it and will 'pay back' by sharing the knowledge that I find there and is been applied to the project?? If not, why not and/or under what conditions would you individual, or you group of individuals, do that?? 

Cheers

Tatiana

[Samuel Rose]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's tricky, and your business plan (if I may call it that) goes to the
> heart of the potential logical glitch with Contact as well: how can we
> expect to be paid a living for delivering groups of people unto themselves?
> I suppose the only way is not only to love doing it, but to be so good at it
> that you really are making something possible that wouldn't have been
> otherwise.
> That's why I say it's tricky. Ultimately, I would think you could develop a
> set of resources that let people just do what you're talking about. The way
> civic organizations federalized in the early 1900's (as Putnam explains in
> Bowling Alone). In the meantime, and at the very outset, you actually
> workshop these things live for money - which is also a trick since money is
> the last thing most of these communities have.

This is why, here in Michigan (and Ohio and PA), we're looking at
developing basic infrastructure, preferrably in co-owned/co-governed
arrangements, simultaneously. I describe this in a kind a bot of a
rant-ish way here
http://p2pfoundation.net/?title=Michigan:_The_Transformation_Manifesto
I've received lots of interest from people around the state and
country. The next step for me here is turning those pieces into a
workable plan. I am focusing on founding cooperatives for opensource
software and technology now, and eventually food systems, energy,
education, housing. We're also working on models that create a
collaborative export economy across regions to compliment local
economic activity. Basically, the goal is to help people become
co-owners of their food, shelter, energy, technology, and education.
We can work together under these contexts to figure out ways to
systematically remove money from the equation when possible, phased in
over time. We can also get non-money resources that are present and
abundant moving to generate a multitude of different types of wealth
that will meet basic needs.

--
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samue...@gmail.com
http://futureforwardinstitute.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan

[Marcos]

On Mar 22, 12:13 pm, rushkoff <rushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The net, at first glance, seems to make the implementation of
> complementary currencies a no-brainer. But it's proven harder than it
> seemed.

I can tell you that without a reputation network, p2p currencies won't
work in a world full of strangers. It's like national currencies --
they are backed by the faith in the country.

Hopefully in some future, we won't be strangers....

marcos
pangaia.sf.net

[CulturalEngineer]

You are right!

I've also been making this point... Hope you will take a look at my
project above. I believe I have a pragmatic path forward though that
will not likely be apparent at first glance.

Feedback and/or questions would be helpful and welcome...

[Patrick Anderson]

CulturalEngineer wrote:
> THE COST OF P2P TRANSACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN
> DEFINED AREAS MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED.

When you say 'cost', I wonder if you are talking about the 'price'
a consumer pays.

Sorry if that seems nit-picking, but it is very important that we
separate the two, for the difference between Price and Cost is
the magical value called Profit, and Profit is *undefined* when
consumers (co-)own the Means of Production.

For example, you must pay all of the initial and recurring costs
to install and maintain a network within your home, but you do
not buy that connectivity back from yourself each month, and
so can only pay the real Costs, while Profit is meaningless.

This is profoundly significant considering the amount of money
the corporate ISPs celebrate as 'earnings' each Quarter.

We, the users, pay that extra value called Profit, and yet we
never gain real ownership in those networks, and so remain
dependent upon those 'providers'.

Profit is something that we must charge against non-owners,
during growth, but we must treat that overpayment as an
investment from those late-comers which we will use to grow
the size of the network, but will finally 'vest' to those payers
as their real co-ownership - so the network can scale without
the concentrating ownership (and power) into the hands of
the few initiators.

> Some round figures: $25 times 150 million voters is $3,750,000,000.
> That would be all of 50 cents a week (giving you even a couple of
> weeks off for holidays!)

I agree. We, the People, must invest to fund and co-own the physical
layer for the purpose of having real control and also for the immense
benefit of avoiding paying tribute to others.

Dis-Tribute == Without-Tribute

> Anyway, because of the framework envisioned for its ownership and
> governance, it offers the potential to establish a Commons-owned
> counter-balance to the private forces which may come to depend on it.

This sounds very interesting, and I know I've been to your site before.

Could you give a brief summary of the approach you envision?

Thanks,
Patrick

[Tom Crowl]

Will be happy to... 

But will save a lot of time if you first try demo http://www.Chagora.com ... now set with 'demo' dollars so no risk or expense... was tested with actual bank accounts and real money... and should be ready for millions of users according to developers.

Demo gives you $50 but could actually open an account with $5, $10... (let me know if any glitches along the way... but database is sound)

FAQ should help with explaining some of the mechanics as well as how to monetize w/o touching the transaction...

By Commons-ownership, and monetization outside transaction... system ultimately offers a potential for a 'distributed institution' able to withstand and act as a counter-weight to oppressive forces whether from corporate of government sources (this might take some 'spainin'...)

Actually I desperately welcome your feedback! Maybe I'm an idiot missing some obvious things... in fact I'm sure I am... but I really think the roots are in this concept...

Especially with recent input to consider its potential as broader Internet wallet as opposed to just for politics and charity (though those are central and have special needs and capabilities which must be ensured).

Feel free to call with questions: 818 363-0775

 Regards,

Tom Crowl
http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

[CulturalEngineer]

TRY THE DEMO! IT DOESN'T BITE!

The technical approach:

I call it a Pooled-User-Determined Account.

Keeping it simple... in very practical terms.

What I am describing is a model for a Commons-Owned, Self-supporting
Internet Wallet that doesn't add to transaction costs, allows a viable
micro-transaction (especially useful in politics), the networking of
transaction and the protection of user information.

All under some form of User/Commons/Universal ownership and
governance...

With an independent VIABILITY on its own... that makes sure that the
Commons is NO LONGER A BEGGAR AT THE TABLE.

I believe there are a number of very important additional emergent
properties but let's start with the basics.

OKAY!

A simple and obvious requirement is that it must be a financially
equivalent transaction for the donor and recipient whether the
contribution is via this system (let's call it Chagora for now at
least) or if you, e.g. went directly to the recipient's website...

(an example):

Donor wants to give $20 to Red Cross...

User can got to Red Cross website, whip out his Visa and give $20...
Red Cross pays transaction fee to Visa and Red Cross gets, I don't
know ... $19.50 or something... doesn't matter.

or

User goes to Chagora... puts in $20... Chagora pays Visa transaction
fee... Chagora transfers $20 to Red Cross and recoups the fee for a
$20 Visa charge from Red Cross. Equivalence...

Of course, then the obvious question is... okay... big deal...but two
things... so what's the advantage of using such a system if I can just
go to the guy's website myself... and aren't there going to be some
costs incurred by Chagora that have to be covered somehow?

Yes! Of Course...

The advantages have to do with the additional capabilities which I'll
describe in brief... and the monetization arises via some variations
on traditional advertising (with emphasis on local)... before you get
your nether hairs all in a knot... remember this is under a form of
universal ownership so essentially it can act as a tax by the Commons
on entities which are attempting to address it... there are also
monetization potentials in certain campaign or charity services which
may actually drastically reduce what equivalent charges would be in
the private sector... but basic services in those areas are envisioned
as being freely offered at no charge to legal candidates or causes.
P.S. This is a low-cost business when the profiteering is removed...
its almost an automated process.

Okay... now to the One-button transaction... especially the one-button
Political Contributions... and MOST especially the viable MICRO-
transaction whether in politics or for other purposes:

The Pooled-User-Determined-Account

In essence money and Information go on separate tracks when you make a
deposit in your account. When a User deposits money in his/her account
certain rights are lost and certain rights are retained.

For example... let's take that $20... When you put that $20 into the
account you can't take it back out... You no longer 'own' it... but
(and this is the critical element) you retain CONTROL over its
distribution... down to the penny... (some kinds of trusts work like
this... but this is for everybody).

Now you can immediately give out that $20 to Red Cross or whatever in
which case Chagora simply acts as a sort of pass-through...

Or you may keep some amount in your account for future purposes (like
people do with those inevitable hanging x-box points)... and give it
out in all sorts of increments to all sorts of recipients.

How about the micro-transaction?

Okay, so you've got $2.75 left in your account after whatever other
stuff you've been doing (or $100, or 25 cents... it doesn't matter)

And you get an email to "Join the rest of us here at Greenpeace (or
whatever) click here and give 25 cents to repair our ship damaged by
whatever...

So you click the button and give 25 cents... how would that work? And
be secure?

Button links to your account... a 25 cent PLEDGE (NOT an immediate
transfer) is recorded to Greenpeace...

You, either immediately or on a pre-determined (by user) periodic
basis receive an request for email, IM, or similar confirmation for
that pledge alone or a list of pledges to confirm or deny
individually.

Okay, now what happens to that 25 cents and those transaction charges
(remember it came out of an original $20 deposit whose transaction
charges were paid by Chagora) ...

Back to explaining the P.U.D. account... when you deposit into Chagora
your money goes into one or more POOLS... but your information and
decisions regarding its distribution remain with YOU!

So when you designate that 25 cents to Greenpeace... (to make the
example clear) it's combined with other pledges to Greenpeace to reach
$20... Greenpeace pays the charge on a transfer equivalent to $20...

Its a little more complicated in actuality but that's what is
essentially accomplished.

ON PERSONAL INFORMATION:

When signing up for Chagora, obviously at least enough information is
required to complete the deposit should it be via Visa, MC or
whatever... HOWEVER from there on, its up to the User...

Obviously for political contribution certain information is demanded
and if donor anticipates participation that must be provided... but
that need not be utilized elsewhere and is under the control of the
User. Similarly a charity contribution could be anonymous or not (user
choice).

I'd suggest that ultimately this network provides a possible home for
certain information which can remain under the control of the User
alone.

And further, that an account has functionality even when un-funded and
accounts can be opened with no money at all for other purposes.

I sometimes skip around and assume things are clear to people when
they aren't... so Please ask questions and try demo to guide
questions... or please point out faults and/or concerns (there are
many potential concerns)...

Maybe this is a helpful way to look at it!

When we give (or are taxed) money to government it goes into a big
pool and they do stuff with it. Presumably we have influence over
that, but leaving that shaky proposition aside...

This is like putting money into the pool... but YOU decide what to do
with it... together with others.

All in all a somewhat scary proposition but we'd best get on with it.

I'm rather desperately seeking some notice here... some questions...
comments... criticisms... critiques...etc... this has cost me
everything and the hearing for eviction is a week from Monday... no
shit.

AN ADMISSION: I have ulterior motives... I want to (quite legally and
pragmatically) weaken or destroy the TBTF banks and crack open the
political system and break the dominance of the duopoly.

And create the foundations for a more people oriented financial
system... I believe this is a seed.

On Apr 1, 7:40 am, Tom Crowl <culturalengin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will be happy to...
>
> But will save a lot of time if you first try demohttp://www.Chagora.com...
> now set with 'demo' dollars so no risk or expense... was tested with actual
> bank accounts and real money... and should be ready for millions of users
> according to developers.
>
> Demo gives you $50 but could actually open an account with $5, $10... (let
> me know if any glitches along the way... but database is sound)
>
> FAQ should help with explaining some of the mechanics as well as how to
> monetize w/o touching the transaction...
>
> By Commons-ownership, and monetization outside transaction... system
> ultimately offers a potential for a 'distributed institution' able to
> withstand and act as a counter-weight to oppressive forces whether from
> corporate of government sources (this might take some 'spainin'...)
>
> Actually I desperately welcome your feedback! Maybe I'm an idiot missing
> some obvious things... in fact I'm sure I am... but I really think the roots
> are in this concept...
>
> Especially with recent input to consider its potential as broader Internet
> wallet as opposed to just for politics and charity (though those are central
> and have special needs and capabilities which must be ensured).
>
> Feel free to call with questions: 818 363-0775
>
>  Regards,
>

> Tom Crowlhttp://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

[CulturalEngineer]

I'll keep explaining as best I can...

But first,

Thank you Mr. Rushkoff for your message and encouraging words... I
look forward to the introductions you offered!

I re-posted what I suppose is the rather clumsy explanation of the
mechanics above as a proposed answer to the Quora question "What will
be the next big thing after Facebook and Twitter? Why?"

Now while I don't expect everyone to feel the same way, I'm very
disappointed that within minutes it was voted down and disappeared
from the list... (You can only now see it in the collapsed section.)
All anonymously and without comment and without trying the demo.

I assume there are objections but I don't know what they are...

This makes it very difficult. And I've faced this for 3 years... these
casually closed ears and minds... (the demo has been up for 2 1/2
years) and everyone I actually talk to and spend time with or asks a
few questions... or knows something of my personal history... knows
that there is something of considerable substance here. Fortunately
recently I'm breaking through in a few places... sooner or later I'll
have a chance to speak and present and I'm actually very charming and
nice in person.

But I believe this has to be illustrative of something not terribly
healthy in the Quora culture when things can disappear so quickly.

This is a simple model but comprehensive in its direct implications as
well as the more indirect implications.. the devil or angel if you
will which may arise out of the details of its execution.

Perhaps its the few who go berserk at the idea of it being patented?
Or, in fact, oppose patents generally. If so... you hand the world to
mega-corporations who in many cases are the only ones who have the
resources for execution and implementation. But I have no idea for the
actual reasons it was voted down... really before it could scarcely
have been read!

Thank you to the couple other people who've taken notice and with whom
I'll be speaking.
And if any know or would share the reasons for down votes I could
really use the feedback.

Its not my desire to share the fate of a Ignaz Semmelweis (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis ) so I try to keep a
sense of humor and avoid despair... but it can be very difficult.

Regards,
Tom Crowl




On Apr 2, 7:31 am, CulturalEngineer <culturalengin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Douglas Rushkoff]

A lot of it has to do with where you post what you're doing, and what question you think your tool is answering. 

"What will be the next big thing after Facebook and Twitter" is not the most articulated call for a new issue/candidate donation tool. What if I answered that the next big thing after Facebook and Twitter would be a new organic cure for Lupus? 

Plus, you can't let the experience of your rejection characterize the tool for all of us. Many people are only here finding out that there's a sad person with a tool that hasn't caught on, now criticizing other cultures. You have to stay positive, figure out exactly what community or issue or people need the thing you're doing, and then plug it in accordingly. 

Giving up credit and patents almost always help get a social concept spread more widely. And if you do want to keep them, then you need to find people and institutions ready to pay for the use of the service. 

[Samuel Rose]

Tatiana, thanks for your message.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Tatiana Maya <environ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of what I've been reading about 'open anything' in this group, is
> directly related with efforts to relocalize. To me that means, rebuilding
> the bonds of the community but transcend them to a new dimension of
> 'humanness'. I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if this is to
> become a scalable global truth, then, why would we still use money at all??
> It seems to me that we are heading towards communities that will look at
> producing as much value as they can by themselves, as long as it is
> efficient and has meaning and a sense of aliveness to them. I have the
> feeling that this is leading inevitably to people 'working' on what they
> like, are passionate about, enjoy doing, are good at or feel can contribute
> to...so, with no external motive to do anything, other than to do it because
> we need it and you know how to, or are happy to do it, why money?? Why the
> need of accountability??
> You keep accountability of things that are scarce, but to me, we seem to be
> investing all what we can to create communities of abundance. A few months
> ago, I used to say that, although we shouldn't need any sort of money to
> operate, humanity needs a transition.
> Complementary/community/alternative/local currencies would play the role in
> that transition. But with the speed at which all this is growing, it almost
> feels to me that the CC movement won't have time to completely develop.
> Aren't we building a non-monetary economy here??

I think you are right. One of the first areas ripe for experimentation
is a network of waste-to-raw materials. Flows of waste can be routed
to processors, converted to usable materials, then usable materials
sent back to waste sources, and all or part of that can happen without
any money changing hands.

--

[Samuel Rose]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's tricky, and your business plan (if I may call it that) goes to the
> heart of the potential logical glitch with Contact as well: how can we
> expect to be paid a living for delivering groups of people unto themselves?
> I suppose the only way is not only to love doing it, but to be so good at it
> that you really are making something possible that wouldn't have been
> otherwise.
> That's why I say it's tricky. Ultimately, I would think you could develop a
> set of resources that let people just do what you're talking about. The way
> civic organizations federalized in the early 1900's (as Putnam explains in
> Bowling Alone). In the meantime, and at the very outset, you actually
> workshop these things live for money - which is also a trick since money is
> the last thing most of these communities have.
> But the "lack of action of community organizations that are focusing on..."
> is troubling to me. It's like you've come up with a solution but can't find
> people ready with the problem. There are many groups attempting sustainable
> community/economic models though. If you're interested in hooking up with
> them, I can find some lists.
>
>
>

You've got me thinking, Douglas, that there could be a use for a way
for people to "audit" their lives, and see how much of their activity
is currently in 20th century industrial paradigm ecologies, and how
much they have invested in emerging p2p ecologies/economies.

This is actually directly related to the models we're developing for
our project "Understanding Today's Economic Transformation"
http://rockethub.com/projects/1349-understanding-today-s-economic-transformation
(contributions of any amount welcome, as this campaign is still active
with 14 days left to go!). A practical application that is possible
from that work could be an application to see your transition, plus
ways to enhance participation in emerging systems.

People communicate with me that they need workable ways for
transitioning themselves as individuals and collaborative groups
towards peer-to-peer economies. Re-localization is definitely part of
the picture. So is organized sharing. And a fundamental approach that
allows your work and systems to be highly re-usable/inter-operable.

[CulturalEngineer]

Fair critique... and accepted with gratitude that you took the time to
offer it!

And you're right, I have developed a bit of a chip and have not known
quite how to handle it... this is a new experience.

The frustration arises for many reasons and in my mind central is that
I do believe the tool is ultimately much broader than as simply a
campaign contribution tool. Part of my frustration has been that it is
seen in that limited light.

It has nothing to do with campaign finance or charities in the long
run... its about essentially liquiifying P2P association and
transaction with both existing currencies and eventually new
currencies as well as creating a counter-balancing institution
essentially against oligarchy.

But to ever accomplish that you're going to have to start with things
that everyone can relate to and find use for... Frankly, I believe the
whole non-profit sector in both politics and charity are seriously
messed-up... but I deal with what's in front of me as the clay out of
which to mold a new paradigm.

In other words that it could be a larger part of the Users financial
life... and it could be via an institution he/she OWNS and GOVERNS!
Now maybe that sounds crazy but that's actually the design when you
get into the details.

But that can't happen till such a network is catalyzed and is NOT
corporate, bank, or government owned.

And I understand about the patent issue... and expect little in
return... which I think is fair considering this is (I believe) a
profitable model intentionally proposed to be for the benefit of
everybody.

And if Goldman/Sach ran it they could make money... but capabilities
would be lost.

So I don't think its such a bad idea to have this protection... and
I'll happily turn it over or work out a license or something today for
no compensation at all till its capable of producing something. But I
have eviction in a week and must face realities and I know this has
provoked much of the attitude you so honestly and fairly point out as
unhelpful to my own purposes . This is actually a product of a lot of
work beyond that simple mechanism. And I was not always such a poor
person but have followed where my curiosity have led me at
considerable personal sacrifice. Frankly I"m happy to give up credit
and patent for a home somewhere... or even to be able to stay in this
granny unit I built over the garage... and live modestly and keep
working on things I enjoy. I'm 61. If I was a publicity hound you
would have heard of me a long, long time ago.

And the reason it should be a 'profitable' model... and protected...
is that in this case at least 'profit' should actually be a tool for
the Commons to check concentrated power... but that's a long argument
and I could be wrong... But this was never envisioned as simply a
donation tool for politics though that was its genesis. But I am
seriously trying to search for larger solutions.

So I believe it leads to a network that very much is in the league of
Facebook and Twitter...

These are all tools of transaction...

They are revolutions because they are radically changing the nature of
proximity and restoring lost capabilities ... to at least potentially
reach everyone in his/her world (which was true for us as hunter-
gatherers but been a lost capability for a long time)

Money is also a transactional technology... and I'm working to help it
through a similar transition. Yes, I'm blundering but my intentions
are good and I do listen to criticism... I'm trying to get something
done. And first step is to be heard somewhere.

But you really are right... I have been wallowing a bit. But I really
think this has the potential as the core to be an important piece of a
new financial paradigm. And hope that I may still have the opportunity
to present that.

And I really do thank you for your attention. And hope I may have more
of it when I'm in better situation.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis) so I try to keep a

> ...
>
> read more »

[CulturalEngineer]

"Social media has come to be understood as little more than a
marketing opportunity. However, we see it as quite possibly the
catalyst for the next stage of human evolution."

I could scarcely agree more! In fact not only social media but the
messages arising from organs of centralized influence generally. In
the ways we fill our time... in the "Days of Our Lives", our
'attention economy' is manipulated more professionally and effectively
by forces with narrower and narrower agendas and motives.

And they're getting very good at it... and that's scary.

In fact both advertising and money are 'decision technologies'... and
I mean that in very specific ways. Yes, viewing a currency as a store
of value has utility... but like the properties of light can be viewed
as both a wave or a particle, similarly I suggest there's value in
understanding moneys role as a 'decision technology'.

Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.html

(These are ideas roughly laid out... not set in stone... but I'm
pretty sure there are some good kernels there.)

Oligarchy doesn't require conspiracies in dark rooms... only unchecked
natural forces in large dynamic systems. Author David Brin has also
written quite a bit on this and how it leads repeatedly to cultural
pathology. He has spoken and written quite a bit of the coming "age of
the amateur"... (count me in)... and how transparency and new
technologies can empower the individual and assisting and maintaining
a necessarily explicit social contract more grounded in individual
agreement and empowerment. Especially when external forces (commercial/
govt) become so inescapable and overwhelming.

Yet repeatedly in history, despite what may have been great wisdom in
their original design... institutions inevitably evolve, stagnate and
ultimately stand in opposition to the creation of new institutions
that would empower those who inevitably become victims of the
pathologies that grow (often unrecognized) in the old ones.

The only resolutions in history have been either collapse and start
over... or mechanisms for more or less continuous 'revolution'...
which are ultimately technologies for recognizing and addressing
stresses that build up, injustices that build up... with something
short of complete dissolution of still useful social structures and
violence.

That's actually what laws and constitutions are supposed to be
about.... they are technologies.

These 'soft' technologies that surround their harder brothers are
where the real success or failure lie for this developing landscape.
While I'm not at all surprised at the upset about money in politics...
I AM surprised at how little attention is paid to remedying that.
(e.g. there was a time when television could have had 'soft'
technology around it making campaigns and non-commercial citizen
engagement much more potent... but once the pattern is set its very
difficult to dislodge.)

SO... for me the challenge is how to empower those without existing
network or technologies to be players on the field. And to accomplish
that before other forces foreclose even that possibility.

Now the political micro-transaction (in my opinion) has a big role to
play... but its really part of a bigger story... and for me that's
about understanding more fully both the role and roots of decision in
any social organism... and the roles played by various decision
technologies... and how we may improve those relationships.

I believe the micro-transaction, viably enabled via this mechanism is
the key (not the end alone) to the foundation of a new, independent,
distributed financial structure... a NETWORK then useful for far more
than that single important root.

The irony is this... I believe money, politics, charity and law are
ALL broken technologies taking us in unfortunate directions... yet I
find that short of chaos and collapse... there's no way to remedy
without working through them.

I'm committed to a pragmatic approach. And understand how a narrow
tool would not be seen a 'the future of facebook' so its good to have
the feedback... also good to have a chance to address the "aren't you
just further empowering already corrupt institutions with this?" which
is also a very astute observation and a recognized pitfall.

I'll lay out what the heck I mean by "liquifying P2P association and
transaction" and why I think this plays a role in a separate message
if OK... and I realize that it could sound like a lot of hooey... but
when new paths are needed... you better hope there are fools like me
willing to walk down them. Cause maybe one of us will find the path
out.

And I also realize this "altruism problem" I've touched on will need
clarification... the problem doesn't arise out of its dysfunction...
but actually is a problem which arise because of its necessity and
issues associated with it that arise with scale. This in turn relates
to problems in representative systems... and the need for sortition...
(a different but old technology... the recognition of a need for its
return arises out of the framework I'm working from.)

So I guess what I'm trying to get across it that I'm thinking about
much more than an API for throwing quarters at politicians. And don't
quite know how to get it all into an elevator pitch. I'm in an
exploration... not at a destination (yet)... things like the Pooled-
User-Determined Account or a re-visiting sortition are part of the
scenery along the way.

Personal Democracy: Disruption as an Enlightenment Essential
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/06/personal-democracy-disruption-as.html

Finding Roots in a Shifting Landscape: Facebook and the Future of
Social Networks
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/01/finding-roots-in-shifting-landscape.html

Regards,
Tom Crowl

On Apr 3, 6:44 pm, CulturalEngineer <culturalengin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Devin Balkind]

Sam, if we can outline possible paths to transition and figure out what the tasks, missions, milestones, etc are involved then we can start laying out a game.

I'd definitely be interested in working on the gamification of transition.  In fact, I'll start a thread on it...

[Marcos]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:46 AM, CulturalEngineer
<cultural...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right!
>
> I've also been making this point... Hope you will take a look at my
> project above. I believe I have a pragmatic path forward though that
> will not likely be apparent at first glance.

I'm sorry, I don't see your "project above"..... Which project?

Thx,

Marcos

[Samuel Rose]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sam,
>
> I find this idea of a  p2p-oriented personal transformation scorecard and
> proposed pathway to be awesome.
>
> I really hope you can expand on it and publish it as a blog proposal, this
> is something to be worked on, perhaps in the context of
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Facilitation,
>
> Michel
>

Look for this from us soon for sure. We have some work that some
people may recall from about a year ago that was a foundation for
this, and we'll revisit it and post it to blog and wiki soon.

> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

[Samuel Rose]

Devin, thanks.

I personally do not see what I am talking about as "gamification".
Also, while it is possible there could be "tasks, missions and
milestones" towards transition, anything resembling "tasks, missions
and milestones" would be determined by the people doing the
transitioning (not by us).

I could see the benefit of having a "game" (for example, people could
use it to learn the dynamics and possible outcomes), but it wouldn't
be the central focus of my efforts and energies. Instead, I am
thinking of practical tools that people can use in their lives. Again,
a "game" could be a building block towards the creation of practical
tools and I am cool if you want to do that, but I intend to pursue a
bit of a different route as a starting point.

--

[Ryan Fugger]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, Venessa Miemis wrote:

- Ripple - https://ripplepay.com/

Hi.  I'm the founder of the Ripple project.  The main project site is at http://ripple-project.org/.

Alternative currencies are really at a disadvantage because they have a smaller pool of users, and are therefore much less useful than mainstream bank money.  The chance of one particular currency growing to rival the government currency is very small, and even if it did, it would probably have a lot of the same problems.  What we need, I think, is a way for private currencies to form a network, like banks do, so users of one currency can pay users of another.

Each bank essentially issues its own obligations as currency (money in an account is a bank obligation), and they have built a trust network over which they can route payments between each other on behalf of their account holders.  Where the banking network is hierarchical and centrally-controlled, though, ours should be non-hierarchical and decentralized. 

The banking network works by routing payments through trusted intermediaries:  I trust my bank, since I accept their obligations as valuable.  When I send money to someone at another bank, the payment gets routed through my bank, the central bank, and finally their bank.  The connection to the next intermediary at each step is based on one or both parties accepting the other's obligations.

We can set up the same kind of trust network with private obligations.  Users simply set up accounts with each other as a way of declaring that they trust the other's obligations.  The main difference is there's no central bank to route every payment through -- the system has to find a path through the network connecting payer to recipient.  I call this a Ripple network.

The cool thing is that once you have this, you don't really need much extra to start "issuing a currency".  You can just put yourself on the system and invite people to accept your personal obligations.  Of course, you can set up a more monolithic traditional currency and hook it up to Ripple -- but most currency systems we know, including the banking system, are just ways of intermediating trust between users.  To me that seems like a hack if we have a system that lets users trust each other directly, and it can scale up without needing specialized and/or privileged intermediaries.

A few years ago I built http://ripplepay.com as a single-server proof of concept of this idea.  Right now I'm working on a protocol and server implementation for distributing a Ripple network over many hosts.  Once that is released, I plan on building a marketplace on top of the Ripplepay service, and I hope other developers will be interested in building their own Ripple services as well.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Ryan

[richard adler]

Ryan,

A smaller pool of users is not a disadvantage unless you actually are trying to rival government currency, and the better ideas presented in these discussions so far have had nothing to do with such a quixotic goal. (Attempts to replace government currency on that scale invariably end with knocks on one's door in the middle of the night--they never end well, and it would be a waste of  limited time--and a waste of even more limited resources--to try.)

The most promising solutions are additive and complementary to the institutions and systems already in place. If a given proposal would require the actual replacement of an existing institution (particularly one with legal and financial might behind it), or a massive migration by the public from one way of doing things to another, or the deployment of resources greater than those available to a typical neighborhood, then that idea is dead on arrival, no further discussion necessary.

Fortunately, there seems to be a slow, but steady, trend in these threads toward alternative currencies that actually do have a future: smaller-scale initiatives that can be implemented in neighborhoods and smaller communities, capable of growing from the ground up, and built to one degree or another on bonds of trust that can be established through everyday social relationships, both face-to-face and virtual.

It's good to see the Ripple project appears to be one of these.

Richard

[Ryan Fugger]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, richard adler <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

A smaller pool of users is not a disadvantage unless you actually are trying to rival government currency, and the better ideas presented in these discussions so far have had nothing to do with such a quixotic goal. (Attempts to replace government currency on that scale invariably end with knocks on one's door in the middle of the night--they never end well, and it would be a waste of  limited time--and a waste of even more limited resources--to try.)

Right -- I did not mean "rival" in the sense of "replace", but in the sense of "become as useful as".  It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and without some viable mechanism to scale up, I don't see how local currencies will ever become useful for a significant portion of my transactions.
 

Fortunately, there seems to be a slow, but steady, trend in these threads toward alternative currencies that actually do have a future: smaller-scale initiatives that can be implemented in neighborhoods and smaller communities, capable of growing from the ground up, and built to one degree or another on bonds of trust that can be established through everyday social relationships, both face-to-face and virtual.

It's good to see the Ripple project appears to be one of these.

Yes, thank you. 

Ryan
 

[Openworld]

Ryan,

Great to see the progress the Ripple project has made!

Do you see a path for launching RipplePay on mobile devices, in a way
that advances personal currency ideas outlined by Douglas Rushkoff in
his "Radical Abundance" keynote (http://j.mp/4nvDf7 )?

As far as I can tell, mobile apps may be in a position before long to
support multiparty exchanges of personal currencies among people who
have never met before.

Let's say you and I have smartphones with facial recognition and
Augmented Reality apps. In the course of our first meeting, we agree
that it would be interesting to size up opportunities for exchange of
personally-issued currencies.

Taking a photo with a smartphone might pop up related information on
overlapping interests. It could also include pointers on
trustworthiness (links to Ebay reputation, etc) of the person in
focus. The trust-related data might be on a third party "user profile"
site where we could find summaries of prior work done and explore
feedback ratings earned from past services.

Our respective Augmented Reality popups also could hold data on our
"standing offers" in the form of personal currencies. These could be
offers of specific kinds of time-based services, our upcoming garage/
yard sale items, and/or access to real estate as envisaged by
@devinbalkind's comments elsewhere in ContactSummit Group.

When a conversation led to an interest in a direct exchange, a
RipplePay-like system might allow the participants to agree on a
exchange rate (e.g. Ryan's 1 hour = Mark’s 3.5 hours) -- and generate
a swap of of digital vouchers redeemable for the agreed number of
hours and types of service.

The time-based vouchers could be converted into services by the
parties on a timetable agreed to at the time of the agreement. Or,
before the personal currencies were given, the parties might agree
that they could be transfered to third parties for projects that
satisfy criteria set out by each issuer on the voucher and his or her
user profile site.

If the parties proved unable to agree on an “exchange rate” for their
respective time donation offers, an Augmented Reality-based personal
currencies system could offer a potential solution. It would give the
parties the option to hold a real-time online auction of the vouchers
on eBay or on a dedicated (RipplePay-sponsored?) spot auction site.

This spot auction – if successful – would set the market value of the
individual’s personal vouchers in terms of other currencies that other
party preferred.

I’m sure that there are a number of issues (secure data sharing,
online dispute resolution, digital notarization, etc) that would have
to be rigorously developed in such a personal currency app. But given
RipplePay's support for multinode transactions, it seems that
components are coming within reach to create a working prototype.

What do you think?

Best,

Mark Frazier
Openworld.com
@openworld

On Apr 7, 2:02 pm, Ryan Fugger <rfug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, Venessa Miemis wrote:
>

> > - Ripple -https://ripplepay.com/
>
> Hi.  I'm the founder of the Ripple project.  The main project site is athttp://ripple-project.org/.

> A few years ago I builthttp://ripplepay.comas a single-server proof of

[Dan Gooden]

hi everybody,

a few things i've been thinking about and working on...

economic discussion (incl barter, trade, exchange and currencies) has
a basic assumption that we are separate entities, and that each entity
requires a reward for engaging in production (be that sharing a bike,
helping in a garden, or doing traditional work).

my belief is that we are simultaneously separate entities, i.e.
conscious individuals AND a single entity, i.e. community.
when you consciously operate at at a communal level, the basic
underlying assumption of most economic thought is no longer 
relevant.
it doesn't make sense to need individual motivation if you are 'one
and the same'…

a poor example of this is the idea that my left hand refuses to do
something unless my right hand gives it a massage after.

NOW we already operate consciously at a community level in some
circumstances, as family units, groups of friends, and romantic
unions...

now consider our behaviour when operating in those culturally defined
containers. do we require motivation to help our partner, our spouse,
our parents, or our friends? typically not, doing so likely leads to
the disintegration of those units.

SO i believe what is important is not a new form of economic system
that is fairer, but the creation of new larger cultural containers of
trust & love (e.g. trust networks?) that become embedded in our
language and behaviour, leading us to operate at a higher, collective
level of consciousness.

the only system that appears to make sense from that perspective is
gift culture, because it recognises that by helping others you are
helping yourself.

SO my contribution, as i believe technology can make it easy to
manage, filter, and understand reputation and trust...

building an open source, commons (public domain) project called
sharedearth.net. initially starting as a p2p gift culture \ sharing
platform, my vision is to grow it into both
- a platform for communities to consciously co-ordinate and manage
their resources 
- a digital reputation and trust service
splash page here: http://sharedearth.net
details about the project (source code, finances, mockups, etc):
http://sharedearth.net/transparency.html

in terms of schedule, probably beta release in the next two months,
and public availability 2 months after that.

On Mar 23, 4:13 am, rushkoff <rushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the things I'd like to see hashed out a bit before and during
> the Contact Summit is whether we now have the means to promote more
> direct value exchange between the people who are actually creating
> value.
>

> The net, at first glance, seems to make the implementation of
> complementary currencies a no-brainer. But it's proven harder than it
> seemed.
>

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I buy that. It's a matter of how long will it take us to get there universally, and whether we need to take any baby steps along the way.

Until farming, no one saw the need to keep track of much at all. But when people put a season's investment in the soil, they also sought to "own" their labor. It didn't feel fair that someone else who hadn't worked his own land could get the food. 

But yes, I would say you are right about the real goal. It's not a matter of figuring out how to keep track of tit-for-tat contributions and debits, but getting back to sharing abundance. I think the more that people can get an experience of this, even in low stakes situations, the more they will feel ready to try commons-based sharing in general. 

On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:25 PM, Dan Gooden wrote:

hi everybody,

a few things i've been thinking about and working on...

economic discussion (including ideas of bartering, tit-for-tat, trade,
exchange, and monetary) has a basic assumption that we are separate
entities, and that each separate entity requires a tangible reward for
engaging in production (be that sharing their bike, helping someone do
their gardening, building a website or whatever).

my belief is that we are simultaneously separate entities, i.e.

conscious individuals AND a single entity, i.e. unconscious community.

when you consciously operate at at a communal level, the basic
underlying assumption of most economic thought is no longer

relevant...

it doesn't make sense to need individual motivation if you are 'one

and the same thing'. a poor example of this is the idea that my left

hand refuses to do something unless my right hand gives it a massage
after.

now we have the ability to act consciously at the community level and
most of us already do, operating as family units, units of friends,
and most commonly as romantic unions...

now consider our behaviour in those conscious units. do we require

motivation to help our partner, our spouse, our parents, or our

friends? typically not. we operate from a basis of love & trust, that
is bound up in a cultural container that we call 'family', or
'friends', or 'lover'.

so this line of thoughts leads me to believe that what is important,
is not a new form of economic system that is fairer and more socially
advantageous, but the creation of new cultural containers of trust &
love that become embedded in our language and behaviour, essentially
uplifting of level of consciousness so that we become simultaneously
conscious individuals, and conscious communities.

finally the only system that makes sense when operating at a communal
level of consciousness is gift culture, because it recognises that by

helping others you are helping yourself.

SO my contribution, as i believe technology has an enormous role to
play here because it can make it easy to manage, filter, and

understand reputation and trust...

building an open source, commons (public domain) project called
sharedearth.net.

initially starting as a p2p gift culture \ sharing platform, my vision
is to grow it into both
- a platform for communities to consciously co-ordinate and manage
their resources
- a digital reputation and trust service

splash page here: sharedearth.net

details about the project (source code, finances, mockups, etc):

sharedearth.net/transparency.html

in terms of schedule, probably beta release in the next two months,
and public availability 2 months after that.


On Mar 23, 4:13 am, rushkoff <rushk...@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the things I'd like to see hashed out a bit before and during

the Contact Summit is whether we now have the means to promote more

direct value exchange between the people who are actually creating

value.

The net, at first glance, seems to make the implementation of

complementary currencies a no-brainer. But it's proven harder than it

seemed.

What is the potential for the net to foster p2p value exchange, and

can it occur on a non-local level?

[CulturalEngineer]

Sorry its taken a while to get back to you... stuff going on...

Mechanism is described in some detail in a comment by me on this
string above and can be experienced via the practical demo at
http://www.Chagora.com

Proposal is (or was) up as an answer to:

What will be the next big thing after Facebook and Twitter? Why?

http://www.quora.com/Technology-Trends/What-will-be-the-next-big-thing-after-Facebook-and-Twitter-Why

But was voted off the list within an hour... unfortunate... don't know
why. PowerPoint has almost 15,000 hits and my blog numbers growing
worldwide despite being solo theorist... I'd love to see it actually
show up on that next thing after facebook list so I can maybe get
feedback. But its immediate fall off that list will make a great
anecdote eventually and I have to find consolation where I can.

Food for thought:

There is a simple truth underlying the quality and survivability of
any civilization…
Its the decisions its members make individually and collectively. All
we see that is a civilization can be most fundamentally defined as a
product of decisions: ideas + actions.

Money is a technology… actually a very complex interacting collection
of hard and soft technologies (a trading platform is hard tech; laws,
regulation, design of oversight, etc. are soft tech)

It’s broken… whether intentionally, accidentally or a combination…
IT’s BROKEN!

Major social damage is ongoing and will no doubt continue so long as
these idiotic paradigms hold sway. This is a global problem and
growing.

Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.html

(Money, along with advertising and torture devices are DECISION
technologies… and operate at a very fundamental level to steer human
decision. Viewing currencies in this light has utility.)

There are no easy solutions… but NEW STRUCTURES AND INSTITUTIONS ARE
NEEDED!

I’m a designer…
In trying in my long-winded and confusing way to explain a development
I believe to be very important… Ms. Miemis actually summarized it
better than I had:

“Are you saying there needs to be a p2p network controlled by its
users and not governments or corporations, and that transactions
should be able to be made via this network with no transaction fee?”

YES… I am!

This is not in opposition to either private enterprise or government…
but a suggestion that a new structure is necessary which is not
exactly either.
While my Commons-dedicated Account method… (and it IS a specific
method) was originally conceived out of a desire to address issues in
political fundraising and for the networking of very small
contributions…

THE SAME MECHANISM IS VIABLE FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS!

AND can undercut PayPal and all similar while offering capabilities
they cannot.

I believe there’s a critical opportunity that won’t be open long… to
at least begin to make changes in the structure of finance, money and
credit-creation generally… to de-centralize at least a part of that
process.

And I’d like to suggest why a GENERAL UTILITY Internet Wallet under
Commons control and ownership has a vital role to play in
accomplishing those ends. Ends that may never be reached by request or
accident at this stage… especially if they are dependent upon a
positive response from the same Corporatist mindset you refer to. They
must be intentionally designed and implemented… and come into
existence alongside (but not in direct opposition to) existing
structures. (in my opinion… which sorely needs feedback).

The evolution of television provides an example of how a ‘hard’
technology… which COULD have done a lot more to open up politics,
community, and civic life generally… has instead made politics
ridiculously expensive… ALL because of the ‘soft’ technologies around
it (first laws and regulation… finally simply cultural acceptance and
forgetting)… ultimately becoming a sea of marketing to the ‘lizard
brain’ and vastly INCREASING the cost of civic participation instead
of reducing it.

Here’s an old post on the root idea:

Why Chagora back from (5/31/08)
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-chagora.html

I feel like the guy standing outside the locked door to the party
holding a keg... while everyone inside is screaming... "When's the
beer gonna get here!"

Empower the Commons... Catalyze the Network

Regards,
Tom Crowl

On Apr 4, 3:14 pm, Marcos <stalkingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:46 AM, CulturalEngineer
>

[Douglas Rushkoff]

In your FAQ you describe chagora as a way to make civic and political donations. In some of your emails you suggest you have developed a commons currency. In others you talk about a universal e wallet.

Is there a single place where you describe this? Do you see why people are confused?

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 9, 10:04 am, Douglas Rushkoff <rushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In your FAQ you describe chagora as a way to make civic and political donations. In some of your emails you suggest you have developed a commons currency. In others you talk about a universal e wallet.
>
> Is there a single place where you describe this?  Do you see why people are confused?

i'm going to echo douglas's sentiment here.

tom,

i really want you to be able to find the validation you seek in your
ideas and the quality of the prototype you've created with chagora,
but i think it needs to be clearly defined. people simply don't have
the bandwidth to read through sagas of blog posts trying to find the
kernel of the point.

you said my distilled description was pretty accurate:

a p2p network controlled by its users instead of governments or
corporations, where transactions can be made with zero fees incurred.

if this is what you want, i'd say you're preaching to the choir. i
suppose i can only speak for myself, but for me this is the big idea
of what we're contemplating here..... how to create an infrastructure
that is fair, equitable, and generates and shares abundance instead of
scarcity.

as a thought experiment, let's pretend everyone here is in 100%
alignment with what you're saying.

ok, now what?

i would like to suggest that there are many many people who "get" what
your'e talking about. so, instead of spending (wasting?) your time
trying to convince others of the theory of why this is important, find
the communities that already understand/believe this, and share your
resource there.

i don't know if you have in your mind what a 'next step' would be, but
i think it would be worth your time to start building the network and
community of people with whom these things resonate, and then begin
testing the actual functionality within a group of people willing to
experiment with it.

it may also help to think about a specific use case, in order to gain
traction. for instance, you mentioned campaign finance. i would
brainstorm the lowest barrier to entry use case with the largest mass
appeal. (i can tell you for myself, i could care less about
contributing to a political campaign... even as a transaction fee free
microdonation of .25 cents. i simply don't care, and don't think that
is an effective allocation of my .25 cents. i'd rather give that money
to a peer to help them fund a social venture or project in service of
the commons. but that's just me.)

if you can match something that's socially useful and meaningful, with
the mechanism to fund them without fees, then you're onto something.

just food for thought.

- v

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Exactly. We're on the same page with you. 

Have you developed a software tool or network protocol or begun programming something that enables some aspect of the equitable infrastructure we have gathered to assemble? 

[Dan Gooden]

hi douglas,

agree that a number of approaches will be needed along the path, and
taking it even further, there doesn't even need to be one universal
outcome..

a diverse eco-system of cultures and approaches is more evolutionarily
resilient, realistic and adaptive.

> Douglas Rushkoffhttp://rushkoff.com

> twitter: rushkoff
>
> Support my latest books

>         Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age -http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Totally true. I am just trying to find out what he is trying to say or contribute. He seems to be saying he has The answer. And I just want to find out what he wants us to see or implement or integrate.

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Oh. That was a different thread. Agreed.

On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Dan Gooden <dani....@gmail.com> wrote:

[CulturalEngineer]

Ok! I understand...

Points taken... that's really all I want: to communicate the ideas, to
find the issues that need to be handled... and most importantly to see
this built... and built right. (not an insignificant issue... e.g.
partisan Chagoras would be a disaster).

The shortest version I can come up with:

Under this self-sustaining model, a general utility Internet wallet
under Commons-ownership and governance can out-compete any corporate
model while enabling needed transactions now impracticable thereby
both funding and empowering the development and implementation of
further capabilities including but not limited to a more resilient
Commons and more enabled individual within it.

There's no short answer to the obvious next questions: The how and why
questions. But I'm convinced they're fully answerable.

Totally agree on your ideas for 'next steps'... that's why I'm here. I
need a community! I'm literally in a room over a garage and know
nobody locally having anything at all to do with this kind of stuff
and feel a need to find one.

Does demo help? Its simple but illustrates method for the one-button
contribution and how it handles campaign reporting requirement... and
deals with transaction costs being passed through by this "Pooled-user-
determined Account" method.

And discusses possibilities for monetization OUTSIDE the transaction
by a burden ON corporate and commercial structures. (A critical
element)

Okay that's the core mechanism... which it turns out could also have a
more general utility... hence the 'general Internet wallet' expansion
of a concept originally designed to address campaign finance issues...
(this was contemplated originally but I felt that would be too
ambitious a goal... I've seen the light on that however.)

SO now we get to where we are talking about a network that could have
fairly high market penetration... (I'd assumed that would be the case
with a pure political/charity focus but see the wisdom in expanding
the reach and agree heartily.)

Visa has a network... so does PayPal... and Mastercard... etc.

BUT THEY DO NOTHING WITH THAT NETWORK... AND THEY GIVE THE MEMBERS OF
THAT NETWORK NO TOOLS TO CO-ORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER!

What if they could? (I'm actually glad they're not doing it because
they'd catastrophically interfere and burden that P2P co-ordination.)

The intention here is that this network CAN facilitate that! ( further
enhanced with 'electoral/geographic networking capabilities utilizing
systems of graduated anonymity in addition to the myriad other forms
of networking we're already used to. Yes, I can discuss some details
behind idea... essentially involving off-the-shelf already existing
stuff just dedicated to new purposes)

So ultimately it can possess enough of its own institutional strength
to do the jobs we agree need to get done (resilience, user-owned and
controlled, transparency, etc)

Assuming that part is making sense... and assuming it can be shown how
system can work for all transactions is any amount... and can
eliminate any transaction cost at all from Chagora for P2P
transactions in certain areas and undercut PayPal in more typical
commercial transactions...

THEN we can assume it can compete with existing systems... and in
fact, could dominate the space... w/o having to act as a beggar from
either government OR corporations.

All this is with nothing but existing currencies... and all quite
conventional. This is intentional. I believe its important that this
be an acceptable structure to all sides of the political spectrum...
and more than that... it has to be difficult for existing power
structures to oppose.

Perhaps I'm naive but my brief experience hasn't led me to expect any
zeal from mainline party organizations, lobbyists or large
corporations about actually expanding citizen participation... and
diluting their own influence no matter what they say... (again take
your example from television). And they will quietly fight it... as
they'll fight much of what you all are trying to do... mostly by
ensuring that you really never have the resources to do it RIGHT!

(they might throw you peanuts... and invite you to talk about some
future possibility... but they won't REALLY help you get there... I
believe Ms. Miemis has already had a bit of that experience as have
many others.)

In fact, while I wouldn't want to overstate it... when in D.C. and
speaking to my own Congressman's Chief of Staff... he was going
overboard telling me how complex and impossible it would be to do all
that campaign reporting just for small contributions... and about the
difficulties with the FEC... and how no one would care and blah, blah,
blah...

(p.s. this is horse pucky... one of my oldest friends was a senior
software project manager for Verizon supervising projects building
humongous billing systems, customer interfaces, etc... this stuff is
all a no-brainer in terms of software and could have been done years
ago.)

But then I stopped him and said... "Ok, fine... but if I come up with
a system that does it... do you know a politician that would stand up
and say he's against the idea of people being able to make small
contributions easily?"

And that stopped him. He had to agree that none could never come out
against it publicly... (but there may well still be a quiet battle so
to speak)...

For that reason... to accomplish the goals we share... I believe a
base of power is required. And I believe the existing power structure
is going to have to be backed into even allowing it to be built so it
must be approached carefully.

I believe this model can provide the means to do that.

I'm not a programmer... but I know a couple... and the finance
backoffice part is essentially done... and with a bit of backing and
help I believe that could be up for the simple financial transaction
relatively quickly. The rest is all doable. So tell me if I'm wrong
but that simple software tool is (and has been) ready since the Fall
of '08.

Though I wouldn't launch that w/o some legal work, interface and
presentation improvement and additional testing. And as you point
out... w/o some pre-planning likely involving pre-agreement from a few
key potential recipients whether those be P2P* projects or some
lobbying efforts of a Ralph Nader and a Ron Paul. (I believe these two
roughly described political constituencies are the first ones who'll
be interested and ultimately this is central to the strategy that
drives the mainline organizations in despite an expected lack of
enthusiasm on their part).

*see the second half of my piece "On Social Energy, Enterprise &
Expanding the Technology of Money for an idea I call the "Citizens
Commons-dedicated Earmark" which is an idea along those lines


SO...

The problem isn't so much protocols (though they're critical; there's
nothing insolvable about the problem given the resources)... the
problem is finding a way to empower a constituency that can ensure and
support their development and implementation.

In other words, the Commons not only needs invention in this area...
it needs a path to allow implementation of those inventions.

(The potentials regarding localized and new currencies arise AFTER a
network like this is formed... and I believe this network is much
needed to facilitate that... and it may be very impracticable without
it.)

Let me add a final note... I've been fortunate in my life to sort of
'live' both ends of the economic and political spectrum... (my 'ex'
comes from a very old line... a Princess of the House of Savoy who's
father was key in founding of MCA... and I've been everything from a
janitor to a trader)...

And what I've learned is this: the sad truth it's very difficult to
get anything done as beggars... the Commons has been a beggar at the
table for a very long time.

I don't want the Commons to be a beggar anymore. And that's why a
pragmatic self-sustaining model under universal ownership is critical.

> Douglas Rushkoffhttp://rushkoff.com

> twitter: rushkoff
>
> Support my latest books

>         Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age -http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/

[Venessa Miemis]

> The shortest version I can come up with:
>
> Under this self-sustaining model, a general utility Internet wallet
> under Commons-ownership and governance can out-compete any corporate
> model while enabling needed transactions now impracticable thereby
> both funding and empowering the development and implementation of
> further capabilities including but not limited to a more resilient
> Commons and more enabled individual within it.

ok tom, i'm with you. a free peer-to-peer value exchange network would
be great. if chagora (or let's just call it "the mechanism that
facilitates a peer to peer transaction") takes no fees for
facilitating the transaction, how do you propose that the
infrastructure of the system will be financially supported, and how do
you have identity verification as well as assurance that transactions/
accounts are secure and resilient against being hacked?

- v

[Venessa Miemis]

for inspiration of a use case, check out ProFounder - https://www.profounder.com/
- crowdfunding business investment.

here's how they make money:

"Company authorizes ProFounder to debit a fee for the Services equal
to 5% of the total value of PUBLIC investment dollars collected if and
only if that Company receives 100% of its PUBLIC investment Raise Goal
from a bank account designated by Company (the "Service Fee"). There
is no fee for funding raised through PRIVATE investments. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Service Fees are for the Services, which
Services DO NOT include underwriting of a Raise, or issuance or sale
of securities. In the event that Company does not pay the Service Fee
at the time that 100% of the Raise Goal is met, Company will no longer
be eligible to participate in the Services with respect to that Raise
and Investor pledges will not be converted into Investments via the
Services. Furthermore, if Company fails to pay the Service Fee,
ProFounder reserves the right to prohibit Company from future
participation in the Services and to terminate Company's status as an
Company."

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I spoke with them for a while. They've got some serious VC behind them, now.

The trick is they are exploiting the "friends and family" loophole, so that investors do not need to be credentialed. Normally, to invest in a company that isn't on a public exchange you need to be a "qualified" investor, which means you make a million bucks a year or something. To invest in profounder companies, you need to be a friend or family of the company.

My idea was for them to "create" friends via social networking. You engage with people about their company, become friends virtually, or after a certain amount of weeks involved in their forum, and then qualify to invest. But they indicated that's too dangerous for them to do.

[Venessa Miemis]

another one - FriendFund - http://www.friendfund.com/

i can give you about 80 other examples of these types of crowdfunding
platforms.

[Venessa Miemis]

douglas,

not sure if you saw this one - SEC opens the gates to crowdfunding and
a new structure of capitalism - http://bit.ly/fXJwFx

- v

On Apr 10, 10:35 am, Douglas Rushkoff <rushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I spoke with them for a while. They've got some serious VC behind them, now.
>
> The trick is they are exploiting the "friends and family" loophole, so that investors do not need to be credentialed. Normally, to invest in a company that isn't on a public exchange you need to be a "qualified" investor, which means you make a million bucks a year or something. To invest in profounder companies, you need to be a friend or family of the company.
>
> My idea was for them to "create" friends via social networking. You engage with people about their company, become friends virtually, or after a certain amount of weeks involved in their forum, and then qualify to invest. But they indicated that's too dangerous for them to do.
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Venessa Miemis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > for inspiration of a use case, check out ProFounder -https://www.profounder.com/

[sures...@gmail.com]

Venessa - I am interested in any materials that you have on crowdfunding platforms etc. Could you please forward.

Thanks!
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I didn't see that. It would change everything.

[Venessa Miemis]

tom,

another site you might want to check out -

Payswarm - http://payswarm.com/

"Support one another. The Universal Payment Standard.

PaySwarm enables people that create digital content such as blog
posts, music, film, episodic content, photos, virtual goods, and
documents to distribute their creations through their website and
receive payment directly from their fans and customers. If you have a
passion for creating things on the Web, or would like to support
people doing great things - PaySwarm is for you.

The platform is an open web standard that enables Web browsers and Web
devices to perform Universal Web Payment. PaySwarm fixes the problems
with rewarding people on the web - it reduces and nearly eliminates
transactional friction. It ensures that the people that you want to
support are automatically rewarded for their hard work.

We need Web-native payment technology. That is, it is designed to work
with how the Web works, not how the banks and the credit card
companies work. The technology can be integrated directly into
WordPress-based websites with support for Drupal and other content
management systems in the works. It has a simple, well-defined API,
like Twitter, that allows for universal payment on the web."

[CulturalEngineer]

Thanks! Been getting lots of great feedback!

And Mr. Rushkoff's work has been central to my thinking with this from
very early on... I refer to his work and cite him here in an old post:

Gov 2.0 and New Economies - Designing the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/09/gov-20-and-new-economies-designing.html

My hope is that this network... if catalyzed.... especially by a
broader utility... becomes 'the elephant in the room' so to speak...
and can thereby ensure the kind of resiliency and resistance to
censorship or attack that he has so rightly pointed out as critical.

On Apr 10, 2:03 pm, Venessa Miemis <venessamie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tom,
>
> another site you might want to check out -
>

> Payswarm -http://payswarm.com/

[CulturalEngineer]

YES! PaySwarm understands the problem... and I love the engineering
mentality rather than partisan approach to these problems!!!!

I believe my demo shows that capability RIGHT NOW.. (for instance that
one-button push to pledge pennies for a blog post w/o having to do the
credit card thing all over again).. and could actually be less complex
but am very into knowing about and integrating with their standards
and understanding their concept better!

I've actually posted about my demo over at the Nieman Journalism Lab
being useful in news/journalism and the arts....

They should know about my demo and patent! WHO can I talk to... this
is very exciting to me...

On Apr 10, 2:03 pm, Venessa Miemis <venessamie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> tom,
>
> another site you might want to check out -
>

> Payswarm -http://payswarm.com/

[CulturalEngineer]

David Brin (wrote The Transparent Society and other great books) has a
quote I love:

"Reciprocal accountability—freeing individuals to hold each other
accountable—is the only truly long term solution to predation."

In a way that's true about different power centers in a civilization
too... they have to be able to hold each other accountable. Checks and
balances!
Paradoxically (but not for the first time) the Commons itself, and the
'un-connected' Individual are the two constituencies that end up
getting short-changed as other power centers conduct their power
battles...

Why do I bring this up?

I believe this is why a Commons-owned Internet Wallet must be a self-
sustaining model... it must be able to MILK the corporate/commercial
cow for its nourishment while acting as a guardian of the Commons and
guarantor of individual Internet rights. With a ubiquitous User-
base... it really IS the elephant in the room.

(Hey, ya gotta go for the BIG vision... things are way too stale.)

On Apr 10, 2:03 pm, Venessa Miemis <venessamie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> tom,
>
> another site you might want to check out -
>

> Payswarm -http://payswarm.com/

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 10, 10:13 pm, CulturalEngineer <culturalengin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> They should know about my demo and patent! WHO can I talk to... this
> is very exciting to me...

the guy behind payswarm is manu sporny, he's on twitter @manusporny

you can also check out EmanciPay, which i'd call a concept for a
microaccounting system to track content you consume and enjoy,
combined with a mechanism to appreciate that content via micropayment.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/EmanciPay

that project is being done at harvard via Project VRM, run by doc
searls, who can be found on twitter @dsearls.

- v

[CulturalEngineer]

Thanks! Will follow-up in the gentlest manner I can muster...

RE "how do you propose that the

infrastructure of the system will be financially supported, and how
do
you have identity verification as well as assurance that
transactions/
accounts are secure and resilient against being hacked"

First re monetization: see Chagora Assumptions (http://
culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/01/chagora-assumptions.html) which
lays out some envisioned pathways (which are actually expanded if
system has potential as a general utility). Essentially at least a
considerable part of the monetization arises because right now BOTH
Campaign and Charity services are big biz essentially milking the
Commons... that sector should BELONG to the Commons. With that in hand
the Commons can begin to move into (shhhhh!) banking.

Re ID verification and account security:

Its simplest aspect is that a 'button-push' to move whatever it is 5
cents, $5 or $50 in a PLEDGE rather than a call for the immediate
movement of funds. No movement of funds occurs till a secondary
confirmation comes via email or other means from the donor.

More interestingly, because its a 'pre-funded' account which goes into
one or more pools... and information is on a separate track... for any
individual the total potential loss would be limited to whatever was
in the account (which is completely un-connected from Users regular
bank accounts).

This in no way completes security concerns... or is meant to suggest
that somehow minimal losses would be okay, but rather indicates a
couple of already existing elements which are helpful I believe.

Actually the greater threat to security could be the possibility of
'phony' charities and causes... which because of the potential speed
and scale of an eventual system could move great amounts of money from
a lot of people very quickly to dangerous or corrupt individuals or
purposes... And this may be even a more important area about which to
be concerned and requires thoughtful consideration... (some of which
has already been thought about but again this is why more involvement
is needed. I believe these problems could also afflict other ideas out
there (like PaySwarm so look forward to talking to them)

P.S. BTW, for the mechanics of the transaction (how it flowcharts) you
can try to wade through the specific 'claims' which are at the end
(sections 9 &10):

http://www.google.com/patents?id=WkDxAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Patent+7,870,067+B2&source=bl&ots=cpzBMRKYwA&sig=Lj0B1Rs9tuG1-3ZCkeRiwYlqX9M&hl=en&ei=O_GhTeyKLpOosAOxhu34DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Patent
7,870,067 B2&f=false

[CulturalEngineer]

Here's something to think about... to frame some piece of
discussion...

This morning two big companies involved with Internet Infrastructure
are joining... Level 3 is buying Global Crossing for $1.9 Billion
dollars in stock... (the rich get richer)

For a moment envision this idea of an empowered 'Commons-
Biz'...Internet wallet under some form of universal ownership... but
let's say it had 150 million users for this hypothetical (voters in
this example... but as an Internet wallet that utility jumps to 6
billion potential users)

...but with just that 150 million users... or as an act of the
collective body out of its profits... they could buy it for 25 cents a
week in 50 weeks... and own it.

[Patrick Anderson]

CulturalEngineer wrote:
> ...but with just that 150 million users...
> or as an act of the collective body out
> of its profits... they could buy it for 25
> cents a week in 50 weeks... and own it.

Are you suggesting the users of a product
should be the collective owners of the
Means of Production for that product?

[Douglas Rushkoff]

That's interesting to me, and the way I'd like to see most utilities (like cash) work. 

Interestingly enough, it's the way the banking system has learned to PAY ITSELF for transactions. They created SWIFT, a non-profit corporation, to handle bank-to-bank transactions. Swift charges banks to do the transactions, who in turn charge their customers the SWIFT fee. But then SWIFT pays it back to "member banks!" 

So the banks get to charge for the transactions without being the ones who charge. Plus it's a non-profit, so there's many layers of taxation removed. 

We should be able to create user-owned cooperatives of the same kind. 

-------------------

Douglas Rushkoff

http://rushkoff.com

twitter: rushkoff

Support my latest books

Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age - http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/

[CulturalEngineer]

"SWIFT" is a very, very interesting parallel...

In a hunter-gatherer society...
1. Intermediaries for transaction were unnecessary (so winks, nods,
kisses, kicks in the shin, etc. were unhindered by what I'd call
'landscape costs')
2. And transactions were networkable across the entire social body...
but more difficult outside of it.

Banks made themselves a tribe... and by some weird accident of history
got monopolization of the 'decision technology' that even those
outside their tribe are dependent on... (money, once accepted as money
has a biological force)

And then started bleeding little bits out of those transactions and
ending up hoarding way too many of those 'decision rights'...

(though I wouldn't put too much into my over-generalization here... it
does have a certain tragic poetic quality to it!)

On Apr 11, 7:22 am, Douglas Rushkoff <rushk...@rushkoff.com> wrote:
> That's interesting to me, and the way I'd like to see most utilities  
> (like cash) work.
>
> Interestingly enough, it's the way the banking system has learned to  
> PAY ITSELF for transactions. They created SWIFT, a non-profit  
> corporation, to handle bank-to-bank transactions. Swift charges banks  
> to do the transactions, who in turn charge their customers the SWIFT  
> fee. But then SWIFT pays it back to "member banks!"
>
> So the banks get to charge for the transactions without being the ones  
> who charge. Plus it's a non-profit, so there's many layers of taxation  
> removed.
>
> We should be able to create user-owned cooperatives of the same kind.
>
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>
> > CulturalEngineer wrote:
> >> ...but with just that 150 million users...
> >> or as an act of the collective body out
> >> of its profits... they could buy it for 25
> >> cents a week in 50 weeks... and own it.
>
> > Are you suggesting the users of a product
> > should be the collective owners of the
> > Means of Production for that product?
>
> -------------------

> Douglas Rushkoffhttp://rushkoff.com

> twitter: rushkoff
>
> Support my latest books

>         Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age -http://www.orbooks.com/our-books/program/

[cooljeanius]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:29:56 PM UTC-4, Venessa Miemis wrote:

- Bitcoin - http://www.bitcoin.org/

Came in here to mention this one. Good to see someone already beat me to it! Doesn't really seem to be working to well yet, but I'm sure as it catches on it will get better.

[Samuel Rose]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't see that. It would change everything.
>
>

Agree, we've been waiting for this to happen since we first started
"Open Business Models WikiHive" back in 2005. The next thing SEC could
do is support Local Investment Portfolios, allowing people to save
money in funds that primarily invest in the local economies where
investors live....

> On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Venessa Miemis wrote:
>
>> douglas,
>>
>> not sure if you saw this one - SEC opens the gates to crowdfunding and
>> a new structure of capitalism - http://bit.ly/fXJwFx
>>
>> - v
>>

--
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samue...@gmail.com
http://futureforwardinstitute.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan

[Ryan Fugger]

Hi Mark.  That's a few steps down the road for sure, and quite a bit more complex than I imagine it, but mobile clients are definitely in the cards.

Ryan

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I never understood bit coin as more than a thought experiment. It's just a way to create artificial scarcity without a fixed commodity resource.  But the amount of electricity we would spend to run an economy this way seems extreme, no?

[Samuel Rose]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never understood bit coin as more than a thought experiment. It's just a
> way to create artificial scarcity without a fixed commodity resource.  But
> the amount of electricity we would spend to run an economy this way seems
> extreme, no?
>
>

Yes, I think you are right. I liked the idea of creating an anonymous
transaction via p2p software. However,

1. I think you are right, the way that the bitcoin currency itself is
generated is ultimately be unsustainable

2. Not allowing or a plurality of currencies was a massive oversite.
People should be able to use the software to issue currencies, period.

I think there are some useful pieces that could be borrowed from
bitcoin software design, though.

>
> On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, cooljeanius <egal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:29:56 PM UTC-4, Venessa Miemis wrote:
>>
>> - Bitcoin - http://www.bitcoin.org/
>
> Came in here to mention this one. Good to see someone already beat me to it!
> Doesn't really seem to be working to well yet, but I'm sure as it catches on
> it will get better.

--

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Agreed. He did a lot of legwork and helped develop the model further. I wouldn't know what I know now had I not contemplated what works and doesn't in the bitcoin proposal.

[Jaromil Rojo]

Op zaterdag 16 april 2011 02:00:44 UTC+2 schreef Sam Rose het volgende:

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never understood bit coin as more than a thought experiment. It's just a
> way to create artificial scarcity without a fixed commodity resource.  But
> the amount of electricity we would spend to run an economy this way seems
> extreme, no?
>
>

Yes, I think you are right. I liked the idea of creating an anonymous
transaction via p2p software. However,

1. I think you are right, the way that the bitcoin currency itself is
generated is ultimately be unsustainable

2. Not allowing or a plurality of currencies was a massive oversite.
People should be able to use the software to issue currencies, period.

I think there are some useful pieces that could be borrowed from
bitcoin software design, though.

I don't see your point in bitcoin being unsustainable.

But i agree with your second point and this recent commit might be a hint http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6178 

as well the recent fork to namecoins being in the works: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin

In case you like to read and compile sourcecode, I'm maintaining my own branch of bitcoin on http://code.dyne.org/?r=bitcoin - looking into these issues and glad to interact. this is the time to point out things in code rather than speculating... there are no changes to the actual code in this branch, just facilitation to compile it with autotools for now, while i'm contemplating to aggregate and implement more features.

ciao

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

Ryan, I was recently thinking about implementing an alternative currency system within SENSORICA, an open and decentralized value network, designing, producing and distributing high tech material products. SENSORICA follows the Discovery Network guide, and as a network it is designed to interface with other similar networks, forming super-networks of value production and distribution. Value is meant to flow freely within SENSORICA but also through the entire (eventual) super-network. 

SENSORICA is on the verge of generating revenue. If we demonstrate that this model is economically viable we'll see other similar value networks emerging and strongly interacting with each other. This new creature can one day spread across the globe. This is how I want to reprogram our global economy, by "polymerization" of small networks, which are easier to form because they respond to immediate needs, into super-networks. Anyway, I think SENSORICA would be a great testing ground for Ripple. 

If you are interested please contact me directly. 

[Technoshaman]

On May 27, 7:33 pm, Tiberius Brastaviceanu

<tiberius.brastavice...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is how I want to reprogram our global economy,

I'm wondering whether any one of us can really reprogram the global
economy... Wouldn't it be a more productive approach to engaged in the
study that the complexity of the global economy deserves, observing
how the new mode and relationships of production and distribution
emerge from the womb of the capitalist system, identifying the
leverage points of that epic process, and inserting our talents and
energies to accelerate it?

> by "polymerization" of small networks, which are easier to form because they
> respond to immediate needs, into super-networks.

What do you imagine could serve as attractor for small networks to
become "polymerized"?

How does your Multitiudes project reate to that?

[cjen...@googlemail.com]

Tiberius

I think that the global economy is evolving fast, and our role is to
give it a helping hand.

I came late to this thread, but this subject - which I have been
working on for ten years from a background including six years as a
director of a global energy exchange - is at the heart of my work at
UCL's Institute for Security and Resilience Studies, and also in
Scotland where I work with the Nordic Enterprise Trust.

My work

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isrs/about/fellows/ChrisCook

is on 'resilient' (ie polymerised) markets.

This presentation of mine last summer at Strathclyde University gave a
holistic view of a P2P approach to the financial system.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/economic-systems-thinking230710

My first ISRS resilient market seminar presentation principally
addressed the resolution of existing debt: transition to a low carbon
economy will be addressed in another seminar.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/flight-to-simplicity

Vinay Gupta (another ISRS fellow) was kind enough to film and post
it....

http://blip.tv/the-hexayurt-project/episode-5254175

I plan on coming to ContactCon if at all possible.

Best Regards

Chris Cook