Fwd: Beyond Money ?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

update ... 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante....@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: Beyond Money ?
To: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xeko...@gmail.com>, gbr...@listserv.vub.ac.be, Benjamin Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org>

Thank you Apostolis.

I am x posting your reply from the sensorica-infrastructure google list ,

to Ben and the Global Brain list.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xeko...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dante, I have already taken the road that Ben is proposing. I stopped trying to find equilibrium mathematically when I realized that human beings have the ability to lie.

So , the only option that we have is to create a multi barter network in which each person bids concurrently with all the others. It would also be important that people that are at the same chain of value transfers be able to communicate and or understand their level of interdependence.

Needless to say that this is the problem I am trying to solve. The only addition to this is my theory of capital and exploitation. In other words, the above offer network will have the same problems that the current system has unless we give it some rules that neutralize the effects of capital.

I also agree with Ben about the difficulty of using value equations. In my opinion , you can't avoid the supply and demand dynamics , thus the value equation would have to be affected by them. There can't be an objective value equation.

From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xeko...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:33 AM

To be more precise, capital is a problem because we will never be able to create a complete multi barter network and that is because we do not have all the information about the needs and offers of all the people today and in the future, and neither do they know their future needs now.

 

On Mar 29, 2014 1:28 AM, "Dante-Gabryell Monson" <dante....@gmail.com> wrote:

and Ben's reply ... 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Beyond Money ?
To: gbr...@listserv.vub.ac.be

Cc: "Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group" <evol...@listserv.vub.ac.be>, gac-com...@listserv.vub.ac.be


Open Value Networks seem quite interesting, thanks...

The scheme as proposed seems perhaps not workable to me,
at least without a lot of further specification,
yet I  do feel something in that direction could be made workable...

In particular it seems to me that "value equations" are going to be tricky
and are going to have to include an aspect determining value dynamically via
combining participants' opinions...

Fascinating stuff ;)


ben

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson
<dante....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note : I forgot to mention Open Value Networks , which could , as I imagine,
> be facilitated by certain semantic technologies.
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Value_Network
>
> http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Open Value Network is an approach to commons-based peer production. It
> allows individuals and organizations to
>
> co-create and aggregate value through lateral and large scale coordination,
> cooperation and collaboration
> to serve as a responsible steward of commonly held wealth and assets
> to account for various inputs and outcomes in a common ledger system
> distribute value equitably and intentionally within and beyond the network
> and to share returns amongst contributors, in proportion to their
> contributions.
>
>
>

> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson

> <dante....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for this thread.
>>
>> I sense it can be complementary with other ongoing developments.
>> Even potential support from organizations such as Swift ? ( also Belgium
>> based )
>>
>> I do notice that swift , via one of its innovation departments called
>> innotribe ( has activities in cities on several continents ) , approaches
>> which , although may not exactly what some of us may be describing, is
>> already going in a similar direction ( although still based on current
>> banking cartel credit units / money )
>>
>> see : https://www.youtube.com/user/innotribefilms
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98RYtKQaWcA
>>
>> As for open source, netroots projects which have parallels with what I
>> sense is expressed in this thread,
>>
>> there is for example ( prototype ) https://github.com/automenta/netjs
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/156YzIeH-eoYFl9nMzFxofQ55KVoksqusS0pYYL4WVaA/edit#slide=id.g121aaf830_00
>>
>> I also see potential , in terms of development, to understand potential
>> overlap with projects such as
>>
>> http://www.rhizi.org/
>>
>> https://github.com/willzeng/WikiNets
>>
>> ///
>>
>> In the case of netention, although I am not a programmer, I remember it
>> may also have included elements of understanding and inspiration from the
>> field of artificial intelligence, including around the http://opencog.org/
>> community, and/or contributions from some people who may be on this list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Francis,
>>>
>>> Thanks also for pointing out Dirk Helbing's very relevant work to me...
>>>
>>> I would say that Offer Networks are a specific mechanism fitting
>>> fairly neatly into the overall perspective Helbing outlines....  His
>>> discussions are more conceptual whereas I was trying to outline one
>>> concrete possible mechanism...
>>>
>>> One interesting point in his Economics 2.0 paper is the "tipping
>>> point" of sociality...
>>>
>>> I.e. in some simulations he reports, if each agent in a society has a
>>> utility function of the form
>>>
>>> personal_utility + others_utility * k
>>>
>>> then the higher k is, the more each agent cares about the other agents
>>> (and acts on this care).  What he notes is that there can be phase
>>> transitions in social structure based on k.  Sometimes a small
>>> increase in k can cause a large change in the social order -- a
>>> tipping point....  This is not surprising but it's good to see it
>>> validated in detail...
>>>
>>> It could be that widespread use of a system like Offer Networks could
>>> help to nudge k up toward the threshold level (roughly speaking).
>>> Interesting...
>>>
>>> -- Ben
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Francis Heylighen <fhey...@vub.ac.be>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Ben Goertzel:
>>> >>New H+ mag article by me:
>>> >>
>>> >>"Offer Networks" as possible infrastructure for a post-money economy...
>>> >>
>>> >>What will/should/could come after money?
>>> >>
>>> >>http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/03/26/beyond-money/
>>> >>
>>> >>My suggestion would actually move us closer to a global brain in
>>> >> various ways...
>>> >
>>> > Ben,
>>> >
>>> > This is a really great idea!
>>> >
>>> > I particularly like your way of representing individuals as bundles of
>>> > "production rules" that specify "if I get this, then I am willing to do that
>>> > in return", coupled with the "clearinghouse" (or what I would call a
>>> > "stigmergic medium" or "message board"), where all the production rules try
>>> > to find the best match for their input and output conditions. This exactly
>>> > fits my view of how the Global Brain would help to find the most synergetic
>>> > possible interactions between all the individual agents, and thus boost
>>> > cooperativity, distributed intelligence, and the creation of welfare and
>>> > abundance.
>>> >
>>> > I also like your description of the wicked psychological side effects
>>> > of our present money system, such as "Spending your life doing things you
>>> > don't want, so you can afford to buy things you don't need." :-)
>>> >
>>> > There is of course a lot of work that needs to be done in better
>>> > specifying the precondition-action-postcondition rules, reputation systems,
>>> > clearinghouse, user interfaces, emergent values ("offer money"), etc, of
>>> > your proposed offer network. But I think that we already have the
>>> > conceptual, mathematical and technological infrastructure to do this work.
>>> >
>>> > The components we work with in our Challenge Propagation model at the
>>> > Global Brain Institute should be able to simulate a kind of economy like the
>>> > one you propose. The general idea also fits in perfectly with our objective
>>> > of specifying a system of distributed governance. Therefore, I suggest that
>>> > all the GBI people would examine your scenario in detail, and think about
>>> > possible challenges and solutions to the implementation of such an idea. If
>>> > no major problems come up, we may have found a foundation for designing a
>>> > truly "global brain" system of distributed governance and exchange.
>>> >
>>> > By the way, you may also be interested to look into the work of Dirk
>>> > Helbing, another GBI advisor, on Economy 2.0. It is not as radical as your
>>> > proposal, staying closer to the existing economy, but moving in the same
>>> > direction of a distributed, self-organizing system of exchanges that is no
>>> > longer dominated by big banks, and with more attention to complex dynamics:
>>> >
>>> > Helbing, D. (2013). Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A
>>> > Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society. arXiv:1305.4078 [physics,
>>> > Q-Fin]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4078
>>> > See also presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDnsnOGxrpM
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Great work, Ben!
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Francis Heylighen
>>> > Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group
>>> > Free University of Brussels
>>> > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>>> http://goertzel.org
>>>
>>> "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt.
>>> James T. Kirk
>>>
>>> "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can free
>>> our minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley
>>
>>
>



--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org

"In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt.
James T. Kirk

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can free
our minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley

--
This discussion is OPEN to the public.
This group is about "value network" infrastructure development.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA infrastructure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sensorica-infrastr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sensorica-in...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sensorica-infrastructure.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Indeed Franco :)

Thank you for your shared observations and interpretations.

Indeed, beyond ( and/or alongside ? ) corporate banking, the internet is offering alternative protocols for facilitating transactions, of which cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are but only one element, protocols that have potentials in generating new markets,

likely to co-evolve with currently mainstream private banking cartel credit units.

Corporate private credit which itself also seems to have evolved alongside previous iterations of what may be interpreted as money and financial systems, 

as technology , and the complexity of power relations, evolve.

I will keep you updated about this thread in my next messages :)

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Franco Carminati <franco.c...@skynet.be> wrote:

Dante, all,

I just received the following link to an article dealing with the topic of this exchange   http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/04/04/banks-facebook-bitcoin.html

I still have to dig into it myself !....

I find that Apostolis last message is raising several key issues. A quick reaction below.

• the article I sent develops several reasons to consider other channels than traditional banks (I guess close to what is being said in this list). I understand that the main goal would be to bring together groups that otherwise would cooperate directly, and hence promote activity that would otherwise not develop. I would think that this is the positive side. Of course the question of trust (or guarantees) still has to be addressed: who guarantees that the debtors will pay-back and creditors will then have safe savings?
• the "value" issue is indeed tricky, and I would think that nowadays trade is running not on "value" but on deals and "exchange value": that means mainly on the value that individuals are estimating according tot heir private reckonings. That is the "supply and demand" dynamic that Apostolis is referring to. But one should remind at this stage that the exchanges based on 'supply and demand" is a way some (more and more) societies are organized: meaning that it is not an "absolute rule" or any "natural". But if one accept the "supply and demand" rule, private initiative and does not control/limit money(credit)/debt piling up, then we are endorsing capitalism. Hence the subject of the present exchange ("Beyond money?") might be overstated. So that I am simply saying in other words what Apostolis has been saying ( "In other words, the above offer network will have the same problems that the current system has unless we give it some rules that neutralize the effects of capital." )

Best,   Franco

___________________________________________

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

within such diversity of solutions being researched and developed,

below, you will find Ben's reply to Prof. Heylighen.

//

So one of the conversations being much more at a level "beyond" money ( but not beyond currency ? Or protocols that become currency ? ) ,

in how to match offer and needs ( or even, generate potentials ), as to reduce , for example, certain dependencies on intermediaries , including reduced dependencies to what some may define as money ?  

Although, in other conversations or articles, even the notion of what is money, and what is not money, and for whom, is being re-questioned.

For example, for some tax authorities ( such as German tax authorities ? ) ,

I vaguely remember that their view on a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin , and the increase or decrease in value of such units, are considered as capital gains or losses, with taxes applied to the increase or decrease of ( speculative ) value on such units compared to the currency the tax department uses ( namely, in the case of the german tax authories, euros ),  but they did not, as far as I remember, want to define it as money as itself  ? ... For me, even the difference in definition between currency and money is not always easy to make, as the two notions often seem to overlap.
In my view, "money" being differentiated and defined as a form of currency that certain power structures decide to legitimize ?   ... entering a p2p paradigm can further blur such conceptions further.

So often, for me it seems easier to differentiate or see commonalities more easily by understanding from technical points of view, although imho it can quickly inter relate with political points of view.

I sense I am far from being able to explain such technicalities as well as some of the people I am sharing the threads from.  ( see below )  Often programmers.

///

In addition, you will also find a reminder from Olivier related to one of the various blends of cryptocurrency applications ( bitcoin forks ? ) 

combined with experiments in the field of Universal Basic Income ,

Open UDC.  

There are a number of such alternative crypto currency experiments - we can even easily create our own - as long as people are prepared to use them.   Open UDC may not have as much of a speculative approach then other such Cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin, Dodgecoin, and even, if my understanding is correct, XRP coins now used as units on top of another technology called Ripple.

In this developing alternative financial world, new words and technologies become available , often trough open source software,

as programmers come together to understand how to invent or re-interpret financial protocols, making them available to any person with access to the internet.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: olivier auber <olivie...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Beyond Money ?
To: 

Please also consider OpenUDC/TRM which tend to solve some of the
problems listed in this thread (effects of capital, decay/inflation
rate...)

http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_UDC

"OpenUDC aims to define a set of open protocols and standards to
exchange new currencies, and to provide a free software implementation
of them.

UDC means Universal Digital Currencies or Universal Dividend
Currencies. Both definitions are fair since a currency in line with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights HAVE TO apply the Universal
Dividend.

The OpenUDC project has a theoretical reference to the Théorie
Relative de la Monnaie (TRM) which can be read to understand why
OpenUDC uses Universal Dividend Money System.

The Universal Monetary Dividend as defined in the TRM is more precise
than the Basic income as it specifies where the money comes from, how
it is created, and why so. But the TRM is not a technical description
of how such a money system can be developed concretely, and so the
choices of OpenUDC technical tools are totally independent of the TRM.

OpenUDC implementations allow human members to exchange in a spirit of
equity, digital goods and services in space, between members, and
time, between members and future members."

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Théorie_Relative_de_la_Monnaie
http://project.openudc.org/
https://github.com/Open-UDC/
Ucoin (Fork of OpenUDC) : https://github.com/ucoin-io/ucoin

Olivier Auber


2014-03-29 7:07 GMT+01:00 Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org>:

> Francis etc.,
>
>> Before I would even start to think about implementing such a complex system,
>> I would like to understand its pros and cons better on a conceptual and
>> mathematical level. Then, I would like to simulate it in order to get an
>> ideas of its dynamics in a more realistically complex setting.
>
> Makes sense...
>
>>The
>> simulation environment that we are developing at the GBI, once fully up and
>> running, should be able to do that.
>
> Sounds plausible, though I don't have a strong sense of the GBI
> simulation environment at the moment...
>
>> But the first stage should be to formulate some algorithmic or mathematical
>> specification of the central "clearinghouse"  function that matches offer
>> and demand without relying on a quantitative measure of value such as money.
>> One good approach may be the formalism we have been exploring already for a
>> while at GBI, Chemical Organization Theory (COT, see references below). COT
>> is inspired by chemical reactions in which an input condition (joint
>> presence of certain "molecules") is transformed into an output condition
>> (joint presence of a different set of molecules). E.g.
>>
>>  a + b -> c + d + e
>>
>>
>> This is similar to an individual who wants a and b, and is willing to
>> produce c, d and e in return, as in your offer network.
>
> Hmmm....   Indeed it's *similar*, but I'm not sure it's similar enough
> that one would want to use a chemistry simulator (even an abstracted
> one) to simulate an offer network....
>
> But here we get deep into the details and I'd need to look at COT more
> closely to have a strong opinion...
>
> One could straightforwardly set up a simulation of agents that have
> the capability to provide various goods and services, and have
> needs/desires for various goods and services.    One could also give
> each agent a certain limited capability to predict its future
> capabilities, needs and desires....   Using such a simulation, one
> could "stupidity test" an Offer Networks framework, and see if it
> behaves OK for the simulated agents.  This would be a good idea.   But
> of course, setting up a *realistic* agent population is infeasible (as
> there is insufficient data about the actual probability distributions
> of real human capabilities/needs/desires, for one thing), so there
> would still be lots to learn from trying such a framework with real
> humans as well...
>
>> At present, we are considering dynamics that basically mimic "natural"
>> processes, such as reinforcement learning. But if you have in mind a
>> specific clearinghouse algorithm that would distribute the tasks and inputs
>> in a better way, this could be tested out as well in such an environment...
>
> I haven't thought about the clearinghouse algorithm in detail.
>
> Here are two possibilities, though.  I like the second one better but
> will elaborate both for completeness/ interest
>
> OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
> --------------------------
>
> 1)
> Formulate an evolutionary learning problem, where each genotype is a
> set of pairs (person, action-set), indicating a set of possible
> actions undertaken by the people involved in the network; and the
> fitness of the genotype is: 0 if anyone in the network is doing
> something they're unwilling to do; otherwise, the total sum of the
> weights that each person assigns to the (actions of which X is giver,
> actions of which X is recipient) set in which they are involved.
>
> 2)
> Fitness evaluation involves calculating the barter chains involved in
> an optimal implementation of a given genotype.  This can be done via
> some sort of heuristic search algorithm.   Dynamic programming is too
> expensive, so some approximative approach must be used.  The fitness
> evaluation therefore will just involve an estimate of the actual
> fitness of the genotype, indicating the fitness according to the best
> corresponding barter chains that the heuristic search algorithm can
> find.
>
> 3)
> Fitness estimation will be critical, and will involve caching of
> information about barter chains found during prior fitness
> evaluations, to speed up heuristic search (e.g. by allowing rapid
> discarding of genotypes containing combinations previously found
> infeasible)
>
> ...
>
> This seems a difficult, but very interesting, optimization problem;
> and there may well be a more efficient approach than I've outlined
> above....   Evolutionary learning is rarely the best approach to
> solving a problem, though it's often the easiest approach to specify
> ;)
>
>
> SIMULATION APPROACH
> --------------------------
>
> An alternative would be a Monte Carlo approach, wherein you have a
> simulated agent for each member of the Offer Network, and you let them
> trade with each other for a while and see what results from all the
> trading.  But you run the whole simulation many, many times and record
> the results.  Then, from all the simulations, you measure the fitness
> of the end result (via the same method suggested in Step 1 of the
> evolutionary approach, above).   And you have the clearinghouse
> recommend the assignments that would result from the best simulation
> world found...
>
> Of course, the effectiveness of this approach depends on how dumb the
> simulated agents are.   Caching information about barter chains found
> in prior simulations, as in Step 3 of the evolutionary approach
> mentioned above, would make the simulated agents less stupid as the
> series of simulations proceeds, and improve the ultimate result found
> in most cases...
>
> ...
>
>
> I think the simulation approach is better , as it seems easier to
> tune; both approaches would be computationally expensive and it's hard
> to compare them in this regard without going a lot further along in
> the direction of implementation/experimentation...
>
> ...
>
>
> Alternative suggestions would also be valued ;)
>
>
> -- Ben

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

personal note :

for me, understanding all of this as information , and systems ,

and using directed graphs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_graph )

as a way of expressing it ,

enables a way for me to bring together all the different approaches in use,

and converge them into a larger emergent contextualization on which each of these approaches can build on each other.

I also find cybernetics / system sciences useful in offering a general understanding of various levels of complexity of the information systems we may be able to cocreate and / or use :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_cybernetics

http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Weaver" <silken...@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 1, 2014 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Beyond Money ?

To: <gbr...@listserv.vub.ac.be>
Cc: "Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group" <evol...@listserv.vub.ac.be>,

Hi Ben and all,

I finally found the time to read the article and the various responses.
Of course I like very much the idea of a distributed peer to peer economy.
Here are two preliminary reflections:

1. It seems to me that the offer network idea bundles together two related problems.
The first is basically a mathematical problem of extending the the unidimensional
value represented by money to a multidimensional one. This involves the definition of a space of values with an open ended dimensionality and a very complex metric necessary for it to serve its function. The second problem is designing and implementing a viable economy that utilizes multidimensional value system and works at least as good as the current one (that with all the obvious drawbacks seems to enable the operation of a complex civilization). It might be a good idea to decouple the two problems and discuss each of them separately.

2. Understandably the article focuses, for the sake of simplification, on the exchange of what I would call atomic units of value e.g. an Hamburger, and hour of programming etc. This simplification however hides and perhaps overlooks the vast complexity of the current economic machine and its transactions. I tried to play with the idea a bit and could not come up with an obvious or less obvious way of how can the mechanism of an offer network be scaled up to meet the complex challenges of today's economy. For example how can an offer network deal with the following complex operations:

1. Designing producing and distributing silicon chips (including the machines involved in the process). I use this example because of the criticality of this specific category of products to the future information society.
2. Building an Highway from city A to city B (same goes for an overseas shipping route, flight routes etc).
3. Run a biotechnological facility capable to research and produce a vaccine against say Ebola virus (lately on the news) or a medicine for Alzheimer (including setting research priorities etc).
4. Building AGI agents capable of operating in physical space and interacting with humans (that's for you Ben :-)).

These are just a few examples where the exchange process is extremely complex, involves a highly coordinated operation of hundreds and sometimes tens of thousands of agents, legal operations, budgeting, risk taking and long term planning in conditions of uncertainty.

In as much as we do not like the unidimensionality of the current value system and its hierarchical structure, I think it is far from easy to devise a scalable offer network capable of coordinating the more complex economic operations a progressive civilization requires. A possible approach to the problem of scalability is to create a mechanism that reduces the dimensionality of value as a function of the complexity of coordination inherent in increasing the scale of the exchange operation but this idea is no more than hand waving at this point. It certainly involves inventing new mathematical tools and not only smart algorithms.

Weaver 

--
"It is not guilty pride but the ceaselessly reawakened instinct of the game which calls forth new worlds."
(Heraclitus Reloaded)

[Leander Bindewald]

Hi Dante, thank you for keeping me in the loop with this and great to see the integration of Netention and Ripple.

The the second point that Weaver decribes below reminds me of something that keep coming back to me again and again these days, particularely since disintermediation reentered the discourse through Bitcoin: I reckon that the problem of „non-atomic“ units of value is what classical economics tried to describe through trancactioncost theory. The work of Ronald Coase is about the only thing that I benefited from in my business degree. Transaction cost theory always seemed to me for the social sciences, what entropy is in the natural sciences: the elephant in one’s axiomatic space which you know you have to reckon with but really can’t.

Big hug, Leander

*L*

    ͝         

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Complementary Currency" group.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opencc+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/opencc?hl=en
Participate on our Ning Forum : http://opencc.ning.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Complementary Currency" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencc+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Thanks Leander. Interesting.

Are you aware of the development of "Open Value Networks" ?

It , imho, completely changes the cost framework related to what Ronald Coase brings forward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase#The_Nature_of_the_Firm

In the case of Sensorica  , its Open Value Network works with Open Sourced R&D , and ... uses internet channels to facilitate communication.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Value_Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixgp8_B9g5A