Re: [CONTACTCON] Digest for contactsummit@googlegroups.com - 2 Messages in 1 Topic

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Tiberius Brastaviceanu

unread,
May 4, 2012, 12:02:05 PM5/4/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
Hey Suresh! 

This one came with small financial components and A LOT of visibility. We are now Montreal's first team in Innovation, representing out city at the provincial level. For this one we were awarded $2,500 and we can win $10.000 in Quebec towards the end of the month. 

If you are interested in a more general question of financing open value networks, we are engaged in a few things at the same time. You have all the details here  http://www.sensorica.co/home/building-a-community/revenues   

We are expecting to raise something close to $100K this year, in grants. We hope to generate some revenue with our products, first sales during this summer, and we planning a few crowdfunding campaigns. 

BUT, as I was telling Douglas, we need help to develop our infrastructure. 

See also the value system document. 
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1fERNK99y_3aMx5XgGirRa_76WMz3WhEInWORJ7zfBqg  

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:57 AM, <contac...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/contactsummit/topics

    Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> May 03 09:09AM -0700  

    Thanks Douglas,
     
    I am afraid we're going to grow beyond the capacity of our
    fragile/rudimentary infrastructure. We need some serious help in making the
    infrastructure more solid. We've learned a lot about "value networks". We
    have clear ideas; we know where we are going. But we are lacking resources
    to improve the infrastructure. This is where you could *really *help.
     

     
    On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 5:04:05 PM UTC-4, rushkoff wrote:

     

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group contactsummit.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.




--
t!b! 
co-founder of SENSORICA
an open, decentralized and self-organizing
value network (an open enterprise)



Patrick Anderson

unread,
May 4, 2012, 12:57:18 PM5/4/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
Hi Tiberius,

I am very interested in the "feedback system" described at
http://docs.google.com/document/d/1ivxHMfnArc5q92c6b3d8ecC3jqt0izmiSXEosduDlL4/edit
, 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

Tiberius Brastaviceanu

unread,
May 5, 2012, 10:09:58 AM5/5/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
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 
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. 

Tiberius Brastaviceanu

unread,
May 5, 2012, 10:31:51 AM5/5/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
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.  

Patrick Anderson

unread,
May 5, 2012, 2:13:27 PM5/5/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
> underestimate the complexity of the task.

Yes, we must not oversimplify in our quest to understand the system...

But we may have already missed something already in our simple assumptions.

We believe the consumer who pays Profit is not a contributor.

I believe this is a grave mistake that causes us to forget that origin
of value altogether.

I am just saying part of our confusion about how values should flow is
our innocent ignorance of the true origin of Profit.

Treating the consumer who pays Profit as yet another type of
investor/contributor might be one of the complexities we are missing.

Would it ever be possible to consider such a bizarre notion?

Thanks for your consideration,

Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com

Pamela McLean

unread,
May 5, 2012, 7:45:53 PM5/5/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
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 included.

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 Revolution  http://pediapress.com/books/show/07ebb0bdddb0412af5bfc25bc35d2a/ including the one I wrote http://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 series http://www.facebook.com/l/YAQFIExHPAQHN6S2gcstHWgpVbjKGuaJdiXc_47Wf6npDcg/www.schoolofcommoning.com/content/what-role-commons-economy.

I wonder if any of this ties in with the thinking of others in this group.

Pamela

klaitner

unread,
May 6, 2012, 1:45:31 PM5/6/12
to Contact
Hi Patrick, i'm on holidays so i'll keep this short and get back to it
later.

Tibi's group arr focussed on minimum viable right now.

To your point, ultimately there is no profit, only people making
things.

If they are consumed they have added value, if they are not they have
'paid' for the inputs.

Profit is only required in a scarcity based system where risk is not
accounted for explicitly.

On May 5, 2:13 pm, Patrick Anderson <agnuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > underestimate the complexity of the task.
>
> Yes, we must not oversimplify in our quest to understand the

klaitner

unread,
May 6, 2012, 1:54:59 PM5/6/12
to Contact

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
of value.

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
piece.

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
transitional strategy.

Ultimately we will need to go much much further.

/kdl
On May 5, 7:45 pm, Pamela McLean <pamela.mcl...@dadamac.net> wrote:
> 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
> included.
>
> 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.
>
> Pamela
>
> On 5 May 2012 15:31, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tiberius.brastavice...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>https://docs.google.com/**document/pub?id=1fERNK99y_**3aMx5XgGirRa_**
> >> 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
> >>>http://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1ivxHMfnArc5q92c6b3d8ecC3jqt0i**
> >>> 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>

Tiberius Brastaviceanu

unread,
May 21, 2012, 7:19:37 PM5/21/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
Pamela, your reply resonates a lot with what I do. 

Patrick, your perspective is interesting. I want to start by saying that SENSORICA is a pilot project. The ultimate goal is commons-based peer-production, is a peer-to-peer economy. At this moment it is something wired, insuring the transition between the present-old and the new economy. We need to face the future world but also to have our roots within the present-old world, in order to suck in resources. The profound change we're all witnessing is a metamorphoses process. At this moment SENSORICA is fine-tuned for the transition. If we let it flexible enough it will be able to morph into the real thing, as our society shifts towards its new state of dynamic equilibrium.  

Kurt, your observations are always fascinating. Yes, we are focused on fluid equity

For the boundaries, I think there will always be a distinction between the consumer and the producer. If the only relation between them is only the act of consumption, without any other involvement of the consumer in the process of design, production and/or distribution, the value exchange process will be reduced to one dimension: product against (some form of) currency. I also think that this kind of shallow relation is VERY healthy. There should always be different answers to the same problem, some level of competition is healthy, the consumer should be able to chose between different proposed solutions to the same problem, and this will not only make our world more beautiful, because more diverse, but will stimulate designers to search for more elegant solutions. I am all for collaboration, but I also believe that competition is as natural in us as collaboration. Every type of economic system establishes a ratio between the two. Capitalism blows up the proportion in favor of competition. In a p2p economy the proportion will most probably be inverted, but competition will never go way, which frees the consumer, which means that shallow relations between producer and the consumer will exist, which means that the consumer will pay profit (as you way), and will not be taken into consideration within the system. 

This is NOT to say that we aren't already moving in that direction. Consumers are becoming agents of marketing, ambassadors of products, evangelists, they provide valuable feedback on products, they even take part in the design process, they are early testers, etc, etc. I am just saying that this tendency is not going to go to the other extreme. It will stop somewhere on the road, and a value accounting system SHOULD take these contributions into consideration.   

In the end, any economic system MUST keep the number of free riders and parasites under control. If there is only a shallow connection between a producer and a consumer, the consumer can always abuse this relation. 

Patrick Anderson

unread,
May 24, 2012, 2:26:01 PM5/24/12
to contac...@googlegroups.com
Tiberius Brastaviceanu wrote:

> society shifts towards its new state of dynamic equilibrium

Yes, even a society in 'perfect' stasis (one where growth is
not a goal in itself) will still be in continuous flux
because of indiviual desire to change course - increasing the
need for some things while decreasing the need of others.


> shallow relations between producer and the consumer
> will exist, which means that the consumer will pay profit

Most consumers will always pay some amount of profit as
they change their minds (as described above) and buy
products for which they do not yet have co-ownership in
the Means of Production for that product.

But once a consumer gains sufficient co-ownership in the
Means of Production for any specific product, the amount
he must pay at that point is purely the costs of production
(where wages are calculated as a cost).

For example, if a consumer co-owns enough of an Avocado
orchard so that he can receive all the Avocados he will eat
for the entire season, then he must pay (actually pre-pay)
all the costs of production (including all wages), but he
does not need to *buy* the Avocados from the other co-owners
since he already owns his % according to the % of ownership
he has in the orchard.

But if decides he wants some Olives, even though he does
not have co-ownership in an Olive orchard, and if he is not
willing to just invest in trees for that co-ownership, but
instead wants the Olives *right now*, then he can probably
buy that product 'late' from some owner that has surplus
Olives, and that owner will most likely charge profit against
this late-paying consumer, as usual.

Now, if that owner of Olive trees selling surplus were to
treat some amount of that profit as though it were an
*investment* from that disadvantaged consumer, then that
consumer will incrementally gain co-ownership in the growth
of that orchard (or in the trees already there if the current
owner is wanting to sell-off some of his trees) until, after
some seasons, the payer of profit will also have enough co-
ownership in the Means of Production needed such that he will
no longer *buy* Olives from anyone, but will own his %
already, according to the amount of co-ownership he holds,
and whether he paid his portion of the costs of that
production (including any wages).

This causes profit to safely approach zero as consumers
slowly gain the co-ownership needed to stop buying products
late, and instead to pay costs (including wages) early.


Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages