hia! n joy! http://sharewiki.org/en/Ecoeco_platform full text: With reliable shareabilities standards(*) we could experience nearer the more meaningful use of private property standards for communicating with people because of the needing of material or inmaterials things from others. Basic barter, currencism and for frees are the conventional managements shareful.be more wants to improve. I.e. instead of forcing people acting as: -What is mine is mine and i can give it to someone else who then would think it's only hers, we propose: -It is more productive for you to share everything you own, you just need to choose the right shareful clause for each thing. and then act towards others like: -This is mine and i want you to feel it as yours too while you use it, but 'yours' doesn't mean you can deny others using it at your free will, you should allow and encourage others to shareful it too. The agencying of ads is a very participatory and communicative experience yet to be further enjoyed in ecoeco platforms. It consist in you copmfortably publishing offers and wants from other people you are regularly communicating with outside the ecoeco platform. I.e. -I publish my mums barter offers and her shareful wants from my user because she doesn't like computers The thresholding is a very useful feature for stocks and specially for gathering people together for a something common, such as consumer groups, planned collective buyings, crowdfunding, etc. The estating of a certain mass of needed people or parts to reach a something provoques an incentive for achieving that something with the counter countdown, automates the dealing (i.e. -I join a wanted threshold from an ad of yours and i ask you for getting 3 kilos of pears from you). Thresholds expiriness doesn't need to be forced, they could be just an optional field. It'd be enhaced with further specifying a posible diverting option if the wanted mass is not reached in a certain time, for not having to lose what has been achieved meanwhile never having completed it fully. The ads ownership sharing is another not much enjoyed featuring anywhere. It could tend to make a more communitarian looking model for people managing their things. At least, it will be always an interesting available option while dealing with others. It could also save the publishing of too similar ads, and so, encourage people working on the same things to join more instead of seeing themselves as competing rivals. The active use of a platform wide corporate user * that receives and routes resources is a permanent challenge for the platform. It is normally foreseen as the one having the or too much power in the market / platform. In fact, at least in decentralized environments, there are always administrators taking often a non interacting role. We propose Admin to be an active user having an extensive crowdsourced protocol of how is (s)he (we) going to do* when you donate something to the Admin. This could serve for saving users federations bureaucracies (while not impeding them) and would be providing guidance to other people grouping themselves for a common ad (less ads, higher quality) that would at the same time provide guidance for user Admin to copy what they do. When thinking in inteligenting the semantics in any of the browsable elements of the platform (i.e. -You may be interested in...) unmaterial categories relationing (someone's own axiology) would do peers better networking than with material excuses (ads, ads categories and tags), so they should have more weight in the relationing analysis. I.e. -You would be more interested in communicating with John, who is interested in developing very similar human values than you. So we need to implement inmaterial developings in the platform* (and not just rely in material issues for relating peers) and more importantly give that type of content a preference (or more weight) in the relationing. It wouldn't be bad to implement flow* featruing for the inmaterial developments, it would just another tool for easing that. Also, it is also proved that implicit activity in the platform (i.e. -John uses to login at the same time as you) tends to be more valueable than the explicit activity (i.e. -Mary likes the same things as you like). The specifying of qualifiability standards* is something more transparent and more difficult to game than vague qualifiability standards for the advertised products. An easer tool for this is a parametered ecological degree table for all ads qualifications that could be commonly used by all peers. For securing the quality of the qualifications made by any peer, we should allow the crowdsourcing of those qualifications (i.e. allowing negative comments on qualifications), and also allowing users complaining about fake or gamed qualifications from wishful or cracky other peers about their things and the table itself through a contact form, external forum* or else. With consistent qualifiabilty standards we could be featuring conditional force for directing the flow, simply with phrasing a clause on the terms of the platform estating that benefits arisen from the exchanging of those more corrupted things as the table estates have to be invested in more pure things. This featuring would give more transparency to the adverts and more importantly would enable the posibility of offering non ecological things or the selling of things for conventional corrupted money just if they are directed to develop some other more pure things with them (i.e. -I sell cocacola for euros, but i am forced to invest the benefits of that into an ecovillage project). This way we would be assuming the contextual present corruption that we all have in our daliy doings and would be recicling them, instead of keeping the platform for purity and forcing peers of managing their corruptions off platform.