Again keeping it short and choppy as i'm on a phone.
We absolutely need to account for scarce and abundant value clearly.
In many cases the dimensions of reward are identical to the dimensions
More to the point we account for them ao they cycle endlessly as
outputs and inputs.
There is much more to a full platform spec than the value accounting
Sensorica is concenyrating on how to flow through cash hitting the
system as atransitional and boundary issue. At this point this means
thinking about fluid equity, a modification of current thinking
To this end Patrick's thesis that profit is payer's equity is a useful
Ultimately we will need to go much much further.
On May 5, 7:45 pm, Pamela McLean <pamela.mcl...@dadamac.net
> This discussion of the problem of developing an appropriate *value
> accounting* system overlaps many of my current interests.
> To explain my interests in detail would take too long but I'll just flag up
> some relevant areas of overlap from my viewpoint to see how they relate to
> the interests of others in this group.
> To oversimplify the issue - the general idea that interests me is that
> "20th century value" tends to have been measured simplistically and
> financially, while "21st century value" is more complex with various values
> I'm interested in all kinds of initiatives related to this "21st Century
> Value". This value includes - and largely consists of -
> non-material/non-financial wealth. This wealth consists of ideas,
> information, trust-relationship, networks of people (online and offline)
> and other digital and social capital. Many of us are aware of becoming
> increasingly wealthy in these things - but know that they are largely
> invisible - with related benefits and disadvantages.
> Obviously we do all need to relate to the physical world and need to pay
> for things. However it seems to me there is a shift away from a simple
> single idea of "wealth as capital" - just as (during the industrial
> revolution) there was a shift *to* "wealth as capital" and *away
> from*"wealth as ownership of land". NB of course people still needed
> land and
> still needed to eat the food that was produced there - but the emphasis
> shifted. I suggest that a similar shift in emphasis is happening now, but
> this time *away from *"wealth as capital" to the kind of wealth/value I
> described at the start of this paragraph.
> I believe this shift towards a more integrated idea of value is part of the
> big shift that is currently happening in all kinds of ways as we move into
> 21st century (see for instance the articles in Despatches from the
> Invisible Revolutionhttp://pediapress.com/books/show/07ebb0bdddb0412af5bfc25bc35d2a/including
> the one I wrotehttp://www.appropedia.org/User:Dougald/NPT1PamelaMcLean
> I'm interested in David Pinto's idea which deals with the relationship
> between this kind of value creation and the related attraction and
> distribution of money - which he describes as eco^2 - a system that some of
> us have started to experiment with in various small ways.
> I'm interested in P2P things, Michel Bauwens' work and also the ideas
> shared through the London School of Commoning - which is currently
> organising a series of seminars - Quilligan seminar serieshttp://www.facebook.com/l/YAQFIExHPAQHN6S2gcstHWgpVbjKGuaJdiXc_47Wf6n.
> I wonder if any of this ties in with the thinking of others in this group.
> On 5 May 2012 15:31, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <
> > Let me add something here. Most people who have manifested an interest to
> > have a shot at the* value accounting problem* are software people. Their
> > understanding of the problem is biased, they tend to underestimate the
> > complexity of the task. In software it is probably easier to account for
> > value, the deliverable is code and you can more easily define rules to
> > peer-evaluate it. When it comes to R&D, design and distribution of material
> > products the level of complexity is tremendously increased. The problem
> > bleeds out into the social space, because these projects are
> > multidisciplinary, involving people with different ways of thinking, of
> > evaluating stuff... The social dimension is VERY important and the goal of
> > the *value equation* is NOT to precisely evaluate active member's
> > contributions to projects, but to evaluate in a way that every member
> > adheres to, in a way to encourage sharing, collaboration, transparency,
> > which are essential.
> > I think the *value accounting problem* is the problem of the century. It
> > allows the transition from the social web to the collaborative/value
> > producing web. I invite you all to join us to solve this problem for
> > different contexts of application. SENSORICA is your testing ground.
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2012 10:09:58 AM UTC-4, Tiberius Brastaviceanu wrote:
> >> Hi Patrick,
> >> All revenues generated by exchanging a product on the market are
> >> redistributed to active members, participants, in "proportion" to their
> >> respective contributions. I put "proportion" in brackets because evaluating
> >> contributions is NOT an exact science.
> >> By contributing to projects you get equity. Your equity is a % in a
> >> project that has a path to the market, which is used to redistribute
> >> revenues. Your % changes based on your contribution to the project over
> >> time AND based on the contribution of others. If you stop contributing and
> >> others continue to add value to the project, your % gets smaller, which
> >> doesn't necessarily mean that you lose, because the pie is supposed to get
> >> larger. If you never add value to the project again, eventually you'll end
> >> up with almost nothing.
> >> This is the general idea we're going after. There are a few important
> >> problems to solve. The most important one, not only for SENSORICA but for
> >> the entire world, is to find a good enough way to account for value,
> >> tangible and intangible. See our value system doc for more
> >> 76WMz3WhEInWORJ7zfBqg<https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1fERNK99y_3aMx5XgGirRa_76WMz3..
> >> We are taking baby steps. We are now using very simple ways to account
> >> for value, we evaluate them based on their impact on social dynamics, and
> >> we'll add more complexity to it in a progressive manner. The most important
> >> thing is to keep the network creative and productive in the process. Our
> >> design process is iterative, we design and build at the same time.
> >> On Friday, May 4, 2012 12:57:18 PM UTC-4, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> >>> Hi Tiberius,
> >>> I am very interested in the "feedback system" described at
> >>> zmiSXEosduDlL4/edit<http://docs.google.com/document/d/1ivxHMfnArc5q92c6b3d8ecC3jqt0izmiSX..
> >>> , but could not access that document.
> >>> Most specifically, could you summarize what will be done with any
> >>> value collected from sales which goes *beyond* the costs of
> >>> production?
> >>> More bluntly, I am concerned with the destination of Profit, and
> >>> whether the Payer of that value will receive any co-ownership in the
> >>> growth caused by that overpayment.
> >>> My analysis shows if the Payer gains co-ownership when paying for
> >>> growth, then that growth will be auto-distributed to those who need
> >>> the Products instead of being concentrated into the hands of the
> >>> originators.
> >>> Treating (some % of) Profit as the Payer's Investment is a
> >>> negative-feedback loop that will help us avoid the common problem of
> >>> over-accumulation and power concentration that tends to plague any
> >>> project that scales in size.
> >>> Thanks for your consideration.
> >>> Patrick Anderson,
> >>> http://**SocialSufficiencyCoalition.**BlogSpot.com<http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com