@flawer

The problem with the definition that all new money/value needs to be spend for more projects that are "shareful" is that it doesnt account for the lending of value/money. That is the main mechanism with 
which a bank makes money. Someone want to start a business, shareful or not, the bank gives money and in exchange it wants more money in the future.
So although the bank doesnt interfere in the business structure, it is able to extract wealth because it can do these things:

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.

@Dante 

Maybe you should look at something like this: http://valnet.webfactional.com/accounting/network/24/ .
Semantic graphs are very difficult to work with. No doubt, they are at a stand still for so many years.

@Michel . I have read few of them.I dont have much time unfortunately. Almost all try to create new value flows and thus break the chains of people from the the central monetary system. 
So this is what I call a BSD license style effort.
In other words, if someone finds it more profitable, he switches back to the old system.

@all 
I am working on a ruleset myself, but my main point here is that as new value flows emerge,we are of dire need of a ruleset as a guide for future efforts.
In contrast, the creation of peer property through peer production has been analyzed thoroughly. 
We need a good definition of the creation of private property through peer production, ie through non-exclusion.

Value networks, specifically need such a definition.


2013/2/4 Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@gmail.com>
I wish to briefly add a point of view in response to Apostolis question :

Beyond more distributed forms of tokenization - token creation, token exchange,... - , beyond the use of debt itself as a token,

I personally look forward to using the lowering of contextualization thresholds to facilitate the creation of new markets / information systems , new thresholds for granular and modular combinations of engagement,
which can be intentionally based, and in which reputation can potentially play a role as non-tradable ( social ) capital, whilst enabling other properties I identify as p2p, such as equipotentiality.

An attempt as such social contract and resource allocation information system described , for example, via this netention presentation ( made by Seth )

and a early prototype 

http://er.netention.org/

note : it does not yet have the functionalities described above, but its architecture enables it through its further development, by importing for example various ontologies - rdf schema, etc - ... ) 

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
hi Apostolis,

probably not related but chris cook uses the concept of http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Capital (more via http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:OpenCapital)

my material on money is here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Money and the material on licenses is here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Licensing

a list of open currency related concepts:





Message: 1
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:32:08 +0200
From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekoukou@gmail.com>
Subject: [P2P-F] open capital License?
To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAOX4E5HhTj7sT-C1g0BTc-nkoEoyMYAJ+q1+j+9Vm_GPWdnWTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or
resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to
resources and especially capital(infrastructure)?

(When it comes to capital, open access can be a bit more restrictive, ie
allowing only the consumers and producers to have access )

The gpl license prohibits that subsequent releases of the code as
closed-source. This is a protection mechanism that needs to be used for
capital as well.

Here capital is not an idea, but a material thing that either exists now or
we have a promise for its existence in the future(money).

Has anyone defined a license or a set of rules that need to apply to money
and the existent capital so as to be called open capital?

I think that we are lucking a good rule set when it comes to money.
As I have said in this list many times before, inequalities can arise even
in an environment where all knowledge is open source and all resources are
peer governed
 simply because we have small differences in abilities  and thus a
difference in accumulated value(money) which if it reaches critical mass
could lead again to big inequalities(since money create money).


--


Sincerely yours,

     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

_______________________________________________
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