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...
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity
What is the potential for the net to foster p2p value exchange, andcan it occur on a non-local level?
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:
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
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
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
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.
--
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.
I'm sorry, I don't see your "project above"..... Which project?
Thx,
Marcos
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
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.
--
- Ripple - https://ripplepay.com/
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.)
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.
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):
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 duringthe Contact Summit is whether we now have the means to promote moredirect value exchange between the people who are actually creatingvalue.The net, at first glance, seems to make the implementation ofcomplementary currencies a no-brainer. But it's proven harder than itseemed.What is the potential for the net to foster p2p value exchange, andcan it occur on a non-local level?
Is there a single place where you describe this? Do you see why people are confused?
On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Dan Gooden <dani....@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Are you suggesting the users of a product
should be the collective owners of the
Means of Production for that product?
- Bitcoin - http://www.bitcoin.org/
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
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.
--
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 unsustainable2. 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.