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 <dante.monson@gmail.com> 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 <xekoukou@gmail.com> wrote:
Dante, have you thought of the 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 <dante.monson@gmail.com>
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...




On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <flawer@shareful.be> 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