Thanks Apostolis. Yes, the tool you shared can be useful to me ! http://valnet.webfactional.com/ as for the rest : Its really interesting to approach the various notions of capital. ( Thanks Michel for bringing up the topic ) It would be interesting to see / express the different forms of ( dominant ) capital in the form of a license. See it as such. a few more pieces of a puzzle in attempts at understanding a larger picture , and give an example in the direction heaing in the direction of an open capital license ? : Which are the forms of capital that derive solely from contracts ? Or are they all some form of another of contract ( in relation to our approach to our own health ? ) Can we break them down, into granular descriptions, and understand how they are constructed / related ? When understanding the more granular / monadic aspects of such contracts which may create or preserve capital ( including for example engagements to preserve ecosystems as commons , as a form of capital ? ) how could we enable such "open capital license" ? ... Some years ago, I tried to imagine how we could apply this to monetary tokens. Which I essentially see as metadata, created through a debt contract. Money in itself seems to be only one type of capital. Yet one which seems to be rather central in our attention span / preoccupations ? I tried to understand what the "awareness" was of current money, and noticed somehow that it was, in my own interpretation, not only debt based, but in some kind of "addicted" awareness, as interest on monetary creation through debt / credit seemed to lead to a need to more credit creation to expand the monetary mass. I also noticed that certain individuals or entities within a system may have a privileged access to credit creation, or even simply a privileged position in terms of a transfer of such type of money through profits... or a combination of both, in itself creating artificial scarcity of such tokens for a majority of the population, and abundance for a small minority, who could hoard it from the real economy , including in the form of a speculative economy in which such monetary mass could be expanded, while reducing monetary flows in some "real economy" of transactions between people, limiting inflation ( ? ) , and using such approach to proportionally increase the power of a small minority over a majority of individuals , when most have become dependent on a monopolistic globalised monetary architecture to access interdependencies , value creation, resources... Hence, I perceive it as a hierarchical coercive system. How to reverse such "awareness" ? I feel like building on Michel's initial question - regarding a license. I imagine that an intentional license , related to such metadata, could serve as a filter for the usage of such tokens. Better still, it may not need to be exchangeable tokens. It could simply be metadata, created out of a variety of transactions. This is where the netention idea , and linked data protocols, enter in the equation. Within such kind of contextualized metadata information systems, there may be the potential to include the current mainstream debt based financial system, but also the possibilities to circumvent undesired consequences by reducing dependencies on such debt based system, and routing around some of its effects. For example, encouraging investments of hoarded surplus profits, into contributive p2p production infrastructures, yet defining conditions of such investment into , for example, access to use value derived from such infrastructure, hence a variety of metadata related to such production and transactions related to such production, yet not requiring to guarantee property as collateral to a repayment of such debt tokens plus interest, gradually investing into production infrastructures which can become less dependent on the conditions ( the license ? ) of the current monetary system, when interconnected through the intentional conditions ( as metadata of transactions engaged in ) defined within a larger, more complex information system for transactions then one limited to one specific monopolistic currency. It could remain open to a variety of forms of capital ( hence equipotential ? ), while each peer could choose of the transactions it wished to endorse and engage in... creating an emergent environment ? And , hopefully, depending on if it is a open license, copy contextual data and creates forks... ps : got mixed up in last mail, stated that you asked the question, while it was Michel On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:

@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 <[email protected]>

...

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 equipotentialit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality> y.

An attempt as such social contract and resource allocation information system described , for example, via this netention presentation<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByfmjEDwh_feV1hsX1o1OVFXTlE/preview>( 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 <[email protected]

...

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:Moneyand the material on licenses is here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Licensing

a list of open currency related concepts:

- Open Bank Project <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Bank_Project> - Open Book Management<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Book_Management> - Open Capital <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Capital> - Open Currency <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Currency> - Open Data Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Data_Currencies> - Open Fair Credit Standard<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Fair_Credit_Standard> - Open Hardware Microcredit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Hardware_Microcredit> - Open Identity Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Identity_Currencies> - Open Money <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money> - Open Money as a Commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_as_a_Commons> - Open Money Bibliography<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Bibliography> - Open Money Blogtalk Radio<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Blogtalk_Radio> - Open Money Manifesto<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Manifesto> - Open Money Project <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Project> - Open Patent Alliance<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Patent_Alliance> - Open Rules Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Rules_Currencies> - Open Source Bounties<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Bounties> - Open Source Core Banking<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Core_Banking> - Open Source Credit Rating Agency<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Credit_Rating_Agency> - Open Source Currency<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Currency> - Open Source Finance Meetup Group<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Finance_Meetup_Group> - Open Source Financial Transactions Processing<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Financial_Transactions_Processing> - Open Source Hardware Bank<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Hardware_Bank> - Open Source Hardware Reserve Bank<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Hardware_Reserve_Bank> - Open Source I-Bills <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_I-Bills> - Open Source Ratings Are Needed To Break the Ratings Agency Oligopoly<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Ratings_Are_Needed_To_Break_the_Ratings_Agency_Oligopoly> - Open Source Voucher Payment Project<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Voucher_Payment_Project> - Open Transact <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transact> - Open Transactions <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transactions> - Open Transport Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transport_Currencies> - Open UDC <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_UDC> - Open Wallet <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Wallet> - Open Xchange <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Xchange> - Open-Universal Digital Currency Project<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open-Universal_Digital_Currency_Project> - OpenCoin <http://p2pfoundation.net/OpenCoin> - Opensocial Virtual Currency API Proposal<http://p2pfoundation.net/Opensocial_Virtual_Currency_API_Proposal>

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:32:08 +0200 From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]> Subject: [P2P-F] open capital License? To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> 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

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>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

2013/2/5 flawer <[email protected]>

...

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.

Yes, this solves a). it is one way to do it.

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.

There could be accumulation even inside our own currency. Also, it shouldnt be the choice of an individual, or a specific group, it should be a property of the monetary system itself. This is known as the prisoners dilemma<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classic_prisoners.27_dilemma> .

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

-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

@Patrick thanks we mostly agree except that you dont take into account that most of the time we need exterior investment from someone that doesnt want the resulting product for personal use. @Michel I mostly agree with the Metacurrency project. @all Definitions: Peer production and peer governance: 1) The ability of producers to create groups which are governed by themselves and their ability to own and trade their product of labor. 2) The ability of the consumers to decide which product will be created by a group of producers and their ability to bargain directly with the producers.. 3)The tools are owned by the consumers. These 3 provide a forth property: Production is non-exclusive. If consumers want more product, new groups of producers emerge that satisfy that need. In other words, production is driven by need and any person can take part in it. That is why I call this peer production. Now, we could define peer/open money as the money that only allows peer production to occur. This is in my opinion a precise definition. We have given a property to money based on the production processes that it allows. It might seem counterintuitive to do so. After all, the production process is defined by the relations of the workers and consumers in the production process, money is an abstract thing. I have already given an example of how banks control the production process but one could answer that from a theoretical perspective. The theory of Commodity_fetishism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism> is a good start. That theory in essence explains how people believe that the value of a commodity(in cash, not use-value) (and subsequently cash itself) is intrinsic to the commodity itself, ie it is a property of the commodity when in fact that value is governed by the social structures that took part in its production. Setting rules on money ,then, is nothing more that setting rules on the production process and vice verca. So, as a conclusion, we need to change the rules that govern money if we want peer production to flourish. 2013/2/5 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>

answer via fb:

<https://www.facebook.com/groups/ouishare.money/299740970149341/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment#> Etienne Zoupic Hayem <https://www.facebook.com/zoupic> Metacurrency (Eric Harris Braun & Arthur Brock) answered this with : Open rules, Open transport, open data. Open Tules : you can see the rules and edit them Open Transport : the flows happen in an open source environment with transparency Open Data : you can/could access anybody's datas, flow, history

For a complementary currency scheme today, there are 2 things that do interest me, 2 maps, and they need to be visible, accessible and transparent in order for me to assess a system : - flow of the currency : rules of creation, how and when, rules of circulation : where and how, rules of desctruction, how and where. - rules of governance : who created the currency scheme, who decides it now, who can decide / edit / modify the scheme, how do I enter the governance's scheme??

When the first map gives me the model of the currency : its vision, mission, goal and design ie : mechanism chosen, the second map gives me the power concentration or division

The big difficulty with money when you speak about tradable goods is that it is an agreement : So if you fork, your change the rules. Which is what is happening between bitcoin and freicoin, they are not using the same software cause if you fork and chose your own system, changing's the design scheme then you can't trade anymore with the other one.

So while in GPL or software code I could go alone for my new distribution and I would/could have users taking it further in 20 years, when I create a money or currency scheme, I need other players alive to agree the same rules as me at the same moment or there will be no game exchanges. Forking alone is stupid with a monetary scheme because it's a collective game.

So a GPL licence for money would be : - Everybody can see the code of creation - Everybody can propose modifications as long as it is accepted by others / majority / the community (to be defined) - you are free to replicate the design of this currency elsewhere

Does it answer your question?

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM Subject: [P2P-F] open capital License? To: p2p-foundation <[email protected]>

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

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

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>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

-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

I point the issue so as to solve it, not throwing things out. There are many projects at which you can contribute: engineer--> a)open source ecology: open sourcing and reducing the cost of hardware programmer--> b) value network <http://valnet.webfactional.com/>s : programming a value accouting program to deal with peer production(many different people coordinating) me right now -->c) provide an information system to consumers so that they become investors of the products they need. (reputation system) programmer -->d) ripple <https://ripple.com/>: creating a decentralized system of insurance for money. programmer -->e)creating an new peer/open currency. lawyer ---> f) Since the ownership of infrastructure will need to change according to the people using it, someone needs to find a structure that complies with the current laws in a way that noone could manage steal the infrastructure from its users. I need to go back to work. 2013/2/5 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:

...

need exterior investment from someone that doesnt want the resulting product for personal use.

Traditionally yes, but Crowd-Funding is reducing this dependency.

Crowd-Funding can be thought of as an interest-free loan repaid with product.

Though the approach I propose is more like Crowd-Ownership since the micro-investors receive real co-ownership in the Physical Sources instead of just a one-time payout of the Object(ive)s.

In the case where Crowd-Funding cannot meet our needs, we can treat some non-zero percentage of Profit as Payer Investment while the rest is used to pay the VC Angels or bankers.

I hope we can work on this iteratively, solving small issues such as this along the way without throwing out the entire approach.

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis