note : as to understand the element that enables the network effect, I may perhaps focus on the understanding that such metadata can be used, pretty much like a tag, and hence any corresponding metadata , or even data patterns, could overlap across several "games", or in effect, "create" a variety of games... or opportunities for games, as people find out about such opportunities, and can decide to act upon them.
It opens up new markets, in a p2p approach, along a variety of forms of capital. This is one of the applications I see as possible with netention, once the prototype will become more mature... On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Apostolis, Thanks. > > yes, I thought of the network effect. > > Hence the granularity, which enables modularity, at a single agents point > of perspective. > > One agent / user / player, > can play several overlapping "games" ( including economic ones ), > > and direct its choices based on understanding of how other people's > engagements match, and on the contextualisation of resources or potential > resources. > > This is possible through the use of a variety of metadata, including a > combination of engagement metadata with resource related metadata ( apples, > pears, ... ) , and which can include debt based metadata ( what we > currently call money ), but certainly does not restrict the economic > networks to such layers of transactions, broadening transactions to a much > larger potential of transactions based on information of available capital. > > Hence, as briefly mentioned in the last message, the self contextualizing > information systems open up an understanding of potential choices within > economic networks, hence creating a defacto series of context based > (meta)licenses ( themselves based on conditions defined within these > granular elements ) > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dante, have you thought of the network >> effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect> >> ? >> >> The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So, >> even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to >> play by the rules that someone else created. >> >> It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form >> of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules. >> >> We need to propose a specific game. >> >> >> 2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi Flawer, Hi All, >>> >>> I totally get you flawer. >>> Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of >>> license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem >>> to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ? >>> >>> Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, >>> but generally speaking, >>> >>> I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, >>> except for examples related to collaborative consumption. >>> >>> Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. >>> Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone. >>> >>> Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is >>> often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge. >>> >>> My impression is that very often people understand currency as an >>> object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data >>> and metadata, created out of specific contracts. >>> >>> I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... >>> *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to >>> have any value.* >>> >>> Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into >>> contextualized descriptions, >>> enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework >>> for "game 2 game" transactions. * >>> >>> Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta >>> game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support >>> choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of >>> interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized >>> collective intelligence".* >>> >>> I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems >>> to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ? >>> >>> Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? >>> http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics >>> >>> I may need to find different ways of explaining it. >>> >>> Perhaps conversations on this list can help... >>> >>> How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its >>> license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become >>> currency when accepted by others, >>> but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the >>> contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context >>> and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from. >>> >>> In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a >>> license to choose from, and to contribute from. >>> >>> In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open >>> capital license... >>> >>> Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by >>>> > whom they are used. >>>> > b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending). >>>> > >>>> > After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy >>>> > produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because >>>> > of those 2 reasons. >>>> > >>>> > Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from >>>> > money. >>>> >>>> if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access >>>> you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what >>>> money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced >>>> thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is >>>> increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer >>>> property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to >>>> be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal >>>> use by default. >>>> >>>> i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the >>>> commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us >>>> whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' >>>> them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It >>>> is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much >>>> competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so. >>>> >>>> >>>> also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing >>>> condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible >>>> for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their >>>> values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful >>>> producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for >>>> those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the >>>> ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list >>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net >>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list >>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net >>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis >> >> >
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
