IOTA: The Intra-Owner Trade Agreement and Title of Assurance

[Patrick Anderson]

The IOTA is both the name of a new currency backed by the Sources and Skills needed for the production of a *future* Objective,

And is also the name of the legally-binding terms of operation over those productive assets.

This currency requires at least one "production arena" to share Sources and swap Skills.

----

An Objective is any good or service a group of consumer/owners might want to assure.

Sources are the land, tools, water-rights, plants, animals, and all other non-human inputs required to continually reproduce the Objective.

Skills are the human inputs required to continually reproduce the Objective.

----

As a paper certificate, the obverse of each IOTA displays the *projected* quantity and quality of some Objective across time.  For example, "1 gallon of Grade A milk per week" or "5 miles of taxi ride between 7pm and 2am each day".

The reverse of each IOTA shows two things:

1. The Sources as the actual GPS coordinates of the Property used in that production.

2. The Skills as the commitments of future labor - or Promises to complete that production.

If either of the Sources or Skills are invalid, the IOTA title is invalid.

In real-world use, the IOTA will need to be an electronic currency to allow instantaneous conversion between any of the Objectives available under those terms of operation.

To be clear, the IOTA is not a commodity currency because it is not backed by the Objective, but is instead backed by the Sources and Skills required to create *future* objectives.

Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com

[Patrick Anderson]

AlienDNA51 wrote:

> Any ideas on how to connect the value with the only real scarcity (that of resources) and maybe even human rights?

Are asking how we would solve the issue of scarcity for all those not yet a part of the system?

If so, then this is my answer:

1. When any co-owner of Sources decides they have surplus Objectives, they can sell those Objectives.

2. If Objectives are left within the production arena for general sale, they will be sold for a Profit to any non-owners willing to by at market price.

3. Upon sale, the original owner receives the real costs of that production, but the Profit is treated specially.

4. The Profit is essentially treated as the payer's investment, causing the latecomer to gain ownership in the growth of the Sources that form the basis of that (or any other) production arena.

5. We immediately invest that Profit *for the payer* into the purchase or buildout of more Sources required to make future Objectives of the same type.

6. Treating Profit as the payer's investment causes all consumers to incrementally gain the co-ownership needed to insure their future needs and also auto-distributes control to those willing to pay for that growth.

[Sepp Hasslberger]

On Jun 13, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote:

> The IOTA is both the name of a new currency backed by the Sources and Skills needed for the production of a *future* Objective,
>
> And is also the name of the legally-binding terms of operation over those productive assets.
>
> This currency requires at least one "production arena" to share Sources and swap Skills.

Sounds good but of course the proof is in the pudding. It needs to be organized and put to use in a real world setting to see how it works out. Is there, or can there be generated sufficient interest to make this into a model for people in other parts of the world to follow?

I think it is work on the ground that will establish the validity (or lack of it) of the idea.

Do you have a draft of the IOTA, or is it in the idea stage for now?

>
> ----
> An Objective is any good or service a group of consumer/owners might want to assure.
>
> Sources are the land, tools, water-rights, plants, animals, and all other non-human inputs required to continually reproduce the Objective.
>
> Skills are the human inputs required to continually reproduce the Objective.
> ----
>
> As a paper certificate, the obverse of each IOTA displays the *projected* quantity and quality of some Objective across time. For example, "1 gallon of Grade A milk per week" or "5 miles of taxi ride between 7pm and 2am each day".
>
> The reverse of each IOTA shows two things:
>
> 1. The Sources as the actual GPS coordinates of the Property used in that production.
>
> 2. The Skills as the commitments of future labor - or Promises to complete that production.
>
> If either of the Sources or Skills are invalid, the IOTA title is invalid.
>
> In real-world use, the IOTA will need to be an electronic currency to allow instantaneous conversion between any of the Objectives available under those terms of operation.
>
> To be clear, the IOTA is not a commodity currency because it is not backed by the Objective, but is instead backed by the Sources and Skills required to create *future* objectives.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Sincerely,
> Patrick Anderson
> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
> http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Next Net" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decen...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Mark Roest]

Hello Patrick and All,

Your idea is starting to shape up, but I see a key point of brittleness in #5 below:

The special value-add of flexibility of other forms of currency is the ability to allocate investment among other objectives as well as the one in the original transaction. This is a social good, rather than an individual one (which appears to be the goal of your approach).

What we really need is a new system for accounting for the multitudinous resources humans use, which recognizes the local value of those resources which are part of the ecological base, the ecosystem, and the set of approaches to production of goods which humans need, also meeting the needs of other ecosystem players. The point here is that a sustainable life and culture support system varies according to the ecosystem of which it is part.

To design a sustainable economy management system, of which a currency is a (currently) primitive tracking device, it is more efficient to scale it to an eco-region, which is a collection of one or more of each of a specific set of ecosystems. Depending on how they are counted, there are around 130 to 170 terrestrial eco-regions on our planet.

If it is done with a globally consistent (or at least compatible) information technology, then it is possible to aggregate the information it creates in each ecosystem for use in planning eco-region activities so everyone can thrive, and also to aggregate eco-region data to be able to have biome-wide and planet-wide dashboards, which in turn make it easier to provide support wherever it is needed due to human and natural system breakdowns.

As I have written before, I have a general plan for this system, but as of yet, I don't have the alliance or the funding to build it.

Regards,

Mark

--

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:51:52PM -0700, Mark Roest wrote:
> Hello Patrick and All,
>
> Your idea is starting to shape up, but I see a key point of brittleness in
> #5 below:
>
> The special value-add of flexibility of other forms of currency is the
> ability to allocate investment among other objectives as well as the one in
> the original transaction. This is a social good, rather than an individual
> one (which appears to be the goal of your approach).
>
> What we really need is a new system for accounting for the multitudinous
> resources humans use, which recognizes the local value of those resources
> which are part of the ecological base, the ecosystem, and the set of
> approaches to production of goods which humans need, also meeting the needs
> of other ecosystem players. The point here is that a sustainable life and
> culture support system varies according to the ecosystem of which it is
> part.

How much worth is the Moon?

> To design a sustainable economy management system, of which a currency is a
> (currently) primitive tracking device, it is more efficient to scale it to
> an eco-region, which is a collection of one or more of each of a specific
> set of ecosystems. Depending on how they are counted, there are around 130
> to 170 terrestrial eco-regions on our planet.
>
> If it is done with a globally consistent (or at least compatible)
> information technology, then it is possible to aggregate the information it
> creates in each ecosystem for use in planning eco-region activities so
> everyone can thrive, and also to aggregate eco-region data to be able to
> have biome-wide and planet-wide dashboards, which in turn make it easier to
> provide support wherever it is needed due to human and natural system
> breakdowns.
>
> As I have written before, I have a general plan for this system, but as of
> yet, I don't have the alliance or the funding to build it.

Your proposal boils down to making consensus trusted remote measurements.

I'm afraid that's a problem much too hard for this universe.

Meanwhile, you can buy a beer with BTC by touching two mobile devices.

There's a pretty steep usability gap, even for a working system versus vaporware.

[Mark Roest]

Hello Uegen,

Re "Your proposal boils down to making consensus trusted remote measurements."

No, it doesn't. It boils down to local measurements, local system models, and local economic management -- at the village and neighborhood scale. It builds upon an open source GIS / digital imaging system built in a global collaborative effort, which is designed to be an affordance for local, integrated ecosystem and economic modeling. I know people who have the technical skills to build the architecture, and I know of people who have the economic skills to structure the content processes (modeling resources).

What is required is the will to globally support local grass-roots self-management by communities. The aggregation functions facilitate purchases, organization and flows of special resources which are not locally available, including high-tech energy and information and communication technologies. The people needed for this are ready, willing and able; we need to know of each other and have a way of visualizing the whole and its systems, which will require significant seed funding to achieve.

Regards,

Mark

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:19:02AM -0700, Mark Roest wrote:
> Hello Uegen,
>
> Re "Your proposal boils down to making consensus trusted remote
> measurements."
>
> No, it doesn't. It boils down to local measurements, local system models,
> and local economic management -- at the village and neighborhood scale. It

Then your measurements are indirect, and hence untrusted.

The point of proof-of-work digicash is that you can verify
the claim locally, using a particular cheap, ubiqutous
piece of equipment, preferrably already in your possession.

I cannot verify the claim about your local community without
travelling there, should we even agree on a common measurement
process, or agree on a neutral third party.

This obviously isn't remote, and it also doesn't scale.

> builds upon an open source GIS / digital imaging system built in a global

Are you talking about using satellite imagery as proxy for
primary output? That's good actually (provided there are multiple
independant sources and we know they're not colluding), but you
have no way to verify ownership of the terrain claims.

> collaborative effort, which is designed to be an affordance for local,
> integrated ecosystem and economic modeling. I know people who have the
> technical skills to build the architecture, and I know of people who have
> the economic skills to structure the content processes (modeling
> resources).

Who is going to trust all these people?

> What is required is the will to globally support local grass-roots
> self-management by communities. The aggregation functions facilitate
> purchases, organization and flows of special resources which are not
> locally available, including high-tech energy and information and
> communication technologies. The people needed for this are ready, willing
> and able; we need to know of each other and have a way of visualizing the
> whole and its systems, which will require significant seed funding to
> achieve.

Notice that Bitcoin was the work of one person, albeit building up on
prior work. Your alternative not only needs to make sense and work,
it needs to provide considerable advantages over existing, mature
(by the time) P2P digicash systems in order to succeed.

What are your unique selling points here? Preferably, in the
terms most people can understand, and relate to.

[Patrick Anderson]

Do you have a draft of the IOTA, or is it in the idea stage for now?

I have a few rough drafts that I need to merge and cleanup.

I used to call it the 'GNUrho', but am moving away from that.

http://mail.thefnf.org/pipermail/discuss/2012-June/001363.html

http://p2pfoundation.net/Inter-Owner_Trade_Agreement

http://sharewiki.org/en/IOTA

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-community-io/2012Aug/0007.html

http://patware.freeshell.org/gnurho.htm

http://p2pfoundation.net/GNUrho

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/IOTA

I will work on the combination and try to post something later this week.

[Mark Roest]

Hello Uegen,

Thanks for the clue as to your focus -- "proof-of-work digicash". I was responding to a proposed way of operating an economy which Patrick has been developing and promoting for more than two years, that I know of. I've been developing my proposal for about thirty years. Since you are in the discussion, I am happy to address your concerns as well. Lest you conclude I am not addressing your concerns directly, I do that in the last paragraph (the sentence with Kiva), which builds on the foundation I lay in the preceding ones, so you can cut to the chase and then return to the development if you wish.

Patrick, what I have to say is also relevant to your world-view, offering an alternative.

You appear to be starting from an experience base which is centered in competition for scarce resources within society. I am starting from R. Buckminster Fuller's perspectives (having taken his lecture course in the spring of 1966):
1. The 'competition for scarce resources' psychology is based on lack of understanding of whole earth systems, and on unpleasant experiences among people who share that limitation of understanding.
2. The solution is using comprehensive design science to work in harmony with nature, thus enabling humanity to collectively ensure that all of us are able to live full, abundant lives which realize our human potential, individually, culturally and as a species whose purpose, now that we have (and are exercising) the capacity to destroy the web of life on this planet, is stewardship of life. Bucky demonstrated that there is an abundance of resources, and the way to support it and harvest an appropriate portion of its surplus is to understand its systems, and design truly elegant physical solutions to meeting our physical needs.

I (along with many others) have recognized the importance of creating different solutions which are designed to flow from each ecosystem's surpluses; judicious augmentation of ecosystem capacity (meaning it doesn't disrupt other aspects of the ecosystem, or of other ecosystems which may have overlapping membership, such as animals or humans who use both) is allowed. The most efficient path in this direction comes from the knowledge of the indigenous cultures which co-evolved with each ecosystem; they are the natural leaders for the design of a new civilization which draws on what is good from each approach to reality.

The selection of technologies from industrial societies is best from among those which fit the criteria set out by Schumacher in 'Small is Beautiful', along with selected large-scale enabling technologies which are used in a distributed, rather than centralized, fashion. (Think semiconductors for information technology and solar photovoltaics, and islandable smart micro-grids.)

I understand that there is also a two-book series on 'The Evolution of Cooperation' and something like 'The Success of Cooperation', which would be supportive of your potential explorations in this direction. Their gist is that cooperation allowed our species to flourish, and that it ultimately prevails over competition.

I suggest you go to Burning Man (if you like large-scale events) or explore other exponents of the gift economy, as well as read Fuller's work, and the genre of sustainable economic writings by people like Lovins, Hawken, and many more, in order to get enough of a picture of the alternative to your experience of life to realize it might be possible after all. There is a process of building trust and cooperation which has to go along with this, and I acknowledge that there is a lot to learn about when trust is not warranted -- and how to change those conditions. Check out the CCARE program at Stanford University's School of Medicine. It stands for Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education, and its curriculum,which has been deployed in over 2000 schools, was based on technologies provided by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his colleagues.

Traditional cultures work together to manage their participation in their natural worlds, and most successfully maintain trust and cooperation, at least until relatively high-tech armies come to conquer them and steal their resources. We can use resources such as Peter Burgess' Community Accountancy, which includes (as forms of gift economy such as micro-lending, notably Kiva, often do) using telecommunications and video to prove that an action has been performed. That, plus a system which incorporates both aerial photography and support for each individual and village on the ground to enter their perceptions into the knowledgebase in real time, offers pragmatic and sufficient documentation for parties to remote transactions. Note that the emotional and psychological context is not actually 'proof' -- it is celebration of accomplishment by parties who are supportive of each others' well-being. Such parties are both the survivors of the global holocaust that was European expansion, and pioneers of the paths to the future.

Regards,

Mark Roest

[Patrick Anderson]

You appear to be starting from an experience base which is centered in competition for scarce resources within society.

It is true that most scarcity today is an unnecessary side-effect of our inability to work together in the 'right' way.

You are talking about the *potential* of production when organized for mutual benefit.

But there is almost no production organized in this way because we are confused about the very definition of success.

We need a way to transition from our current approach toward something better, and need self-imposed constraints to keep us from accidentally drifting back to our old ways.

Of course we could easily grow and transport (when needed) enough food and clothing and medicine, etc. for everyone on the planet many times over.

But we find ourselves in the middle of a catastrophic situation where the land and water and genetics and tools needed to accomplish these goals are being bought-up and locked away to stop the natural abundance that is otherwise possible because we are taught that overcharging the consumer is the goal of all business.

Most of the world's population is living in painful scarcity even though there is enormous potential.

I do not agree that a gift-based economy can scale to any useful degree because there is no binding of trust and so no way to be sure you can get what you need tomorrow even if you work hard and give much today.

We need to use real property rights to create 'cells' of production that we cannot be swept from when we start to succeed.

And we need a way to bind workers to promises they make so they must achieve the goals they commit to achieve if they are going to continue receiving value from others.

[Mark Roest]

Hello Patrick,

I agree to the need for a transition process, and the knowledgebase concept is designed to provide the ability to measure what is needed where -- both absolutely, which enables us to measure aggregate impacts to the planet, and after accounting for what can be produced and consumed locally, in the ecosystem-based paradigm I point to.

I forgot to copy Peter Burgess, which I am now doing; he is the creator of Community Accountancy, and knows his stuff.

Regards,

Mark