Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Economic allegiance systems (allegiance and status stored in the blockchain).  (Read 1299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit


The distributed economic allegiance system:
A participant may pledge allegiance to a participant of equal or higher level whether economic or other criteria. This pledge is sworn or sown into the blockchain.

Definitions:
Mentors are like leaders/mentors in a social network.
Apprentices are like followers/apprentices in a social network.
Pledges are a promise of loyalty sown into the blockchain.

How it all works:
Participant A (Alice) is now a sworn Apprentice of participant B (Bob) who is the Mentor. The Mentor earns a percentage of the credits that the Apprentice earns. In this way participant A and participant B are linked in an economic allegiance stored within the blockchain itself.

A Mentor who has more Apprentices would gain more credit and rewards. As a Mentor gains more Apprentices their title could reflect that.

By having this economic allegiance system cooperative competition is encouraged.

This is not the only possible economic allegiance system but is just an example of what can be built. There are endless possibilities but the main component which has to exist is to allow one address in a blockchain and public key to swear allegiance to another. This allegiance can be sworn to anything because the public key and address could be a regular corporation, an autonomous agent, a contract, a DAC, some principles, I think you get the point.

So for example if Mentor A swears to a set of principles, then their investments would be set up in such a way so that it automatically invests in what that organization representing those principles requires. That means in order for the investment to take place there are certain qualifications which would have to be met, and the Mentor would decide if these qualifications align with the principles of his or her followers, if the Mentor signs off on it then his followers would automatically invest as the Mentor does. This can be facilitated and amplified by Ciphertext-Policy Attribute-Based Encryption.

Additionally, the Apprentices would be able to set aside a specific amount of investment capital to be used for this purpose in follow the leader manner. The Apprentice is always free to break allegiance. The benefit of allegiance is that the Apprentice would become part of a guild and gain a guild badge giving them inclusion and all the special privileges associated with being a member.

Please peer review.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 09:28:30 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline domsch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
This approach is similar to an idea I had a week ago - just that yours is more personal and is more focused on educating on an individual and personal level with a thorough learning/teaching process.

Think of it as mentor circles in the entire ecosystem. These mentor circle consist of experts of an industry experts from another, similar industry and just successful people with past experience. The purpose of this circle is it to offer help (when requested) to other DAC's. It is basically a decentralized point where knowledge is shared, help is given and everyone tries to leverage each other in a combined effort. This would obviously be done in a very open way so that other DAC's and citizens (we need to find a name for the workers inside the DAC ecosystem), can benefit from the provided information.

This is basically a mix between Quora and the board of a company.



(yeh sorry for the bad arrow, I'm not the best at drawing with my mouse...)

The part's basically represent an industry (DACP) or a company that is working on launching several DAC's (Invictus). The DAC's that are overlapping each other shows that they are working together and share knowledge and resources. The DAC's do also benefit from the Mentor Circle's help - but they do also contribute to it by either compensating the help they received, or offering help for others (Take and Give). The other part is another industry (DACP) or company that is closely associated with the first part, meaning that their collaboration benefits both parties. So now both mentor circle's consist of insiders and outsiders.

A banal Example: The left circle represents a Music DACP, while the right represents the Movie DACP. The Music industry needs help in creating a new music video and since they do not have a current insider they are looking for outside help from the Movie DACP. The work can be compensated in cash/rewards/points or in a knowledge/help exchange where the Music DACP helps the Movie DACP pick the right songs for a new Movie.


A Mentor Circle can be anything: A Forum (like it is with Invictus), a Communication Group (e.g. Skype or Keyhotee), a platform etc. etc.



I think that we can greatly combine the 2 ideas and throw in another idea I had some time ago about a collaborative start-up blog (read more about it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/1sgz5p/how_about_a_collaborative_exchange_platform_of/ ). An example of combining the 2 ideas would be to allow it to apprentices to receive mentorship after seeing a mentors contribution to a specific question. Obviously the mentor should be willing to take apprentices. But we should also create an open job and apprentices/mentor market (linkedin/freelancer). Lets work on such an idea together.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 01:27:23 PM by domsch »

Offline luckybit

I prefer to get rid of the word "worker" entirely from our lexicon and replace it with participant. We participate in the creation and operation of the DAC. We participate and aha we own, but this way of thinking about it probably isn't going to make sense to our society built up of workers and bosses.  I'm just suggesting this is how I would internally describe the worker. All participants are initially treated as functional equals and there is no coercion if the system works right. This does not mean all participants have equal roles or positions because reputation should matter, just that the framing of the word participant and the DAC itself should not view one participant as the boss of another.

Anyone who has a mentor chooses a mentor because they think or feel like they need one. Perhaps the mentor can help them become a better investor or invest in their behalf as a broker. Maybe the mentor has legendary moral principles or just understands the principles of the DAC ecosystem. These things will take a while to teach and one of the mistakes of the Internet generations was that the old school or old guard did not pass down the value of privacy to the later generations. Privacy mattered until it didn't and now it's an uphill battle to convince people the value of privacy.

An example of how the economic allegiance system could work in a practical example. If you and I are mentors and we value the principles of open source, privacy, free markets and free software, then as mentors when we invest it's because we have done due diligence and people trust our decisions. The apprentice will not know how to avoid scams, will not know the reasons why open source, privacy, free markets or free software are so important, they will be the mainstream adopters who are currently on Facebook and Twitter who don't know the DAC value system.

That is really just one practical example. There are many many other examples and its very flexible. I also don't want to imply that every DAC should have the same value system or same principles. Some people will want to invest according to their principles though and that must be allowed.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:27:04 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline domsch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
I prefer to get rid of the word "worker" entirely from our lexicon and replace it with participant. We participate in the creation and operation of the DAC.

Exactly that's why I asked for a new terminology. Participants seems a lot better and makes it clear that they are not "working" for someone, but that they are participating in a synergy that benefits everyone.


The apprentice will not know how to avoid scams, will not know the reasons why open source, privacy, free markets or free software are so important, they will be the mainstream adopters who are currently on Facebook and Twitter who don't know the DAC value system.

I think that because of our educational mission and teaching potential adopters why some of the aspects of the ecosystem (open source, privacy, free market, flat hierarchy, independence) are so important not just for the ecosystem, but also for themselves, we will be able to convince them to participate. This means that someone that intends to join a DAC has already done the necessary research to understand the purpose behind our intentions and what they can gain from them. So we do not have to thoroughly mentor them what a DAC etc. - this will be all done a way that appeals to the masses and makes it clear for everyone why this is the future.

I actually think that a "mentor" should be a fix role assigned to someone inside the DACP (industry) or inside a DAC. So if a newcomer is convinced of the ecosystem and has past experience in the movie industry, he joins a DAC and in the first maybe 60 - 90 days he is simply being shown around and taught how everything works. Then after this short learning process it gets to the "doing" part. The best about this all is that basically after 6 - 9 months of working in a DAC, anyone can take a new apprentice and teach them the in's and out's of a DAC.

Therefor, a mentor does not need to be paid or an apprentice does not need to pledge to give a % of his earnings to his assigned mentor. A mentor is simply someone that acts on behalf of the DAC/DACP, and by teaching the newcomer about what they exactly do, he and his DAC will benefit as they have a new participant that is working collectively with the others on creating a greater output for everyone involved. The direct compensation for the mentor could be points or a badge that indicates that he had taught people in the past.

Others want to contribute to this discussion?

Offline luckybit


I actually think that a "mentor" should be a fix role assigned to someone inside the DACP (industry) or inside a DAC. So if a newcomer is convinced of the ecosystem and has past experience in the movie industry, he joins a DAC and in the first maybe 60 - 90 days he is simply being shown around and taught how everything works. Then after this short learning process it gets to the "doing" part. The best about this all is that basically after 6 - 9 months of working in a DAC, anyone can take a new apprentice and teach them the in's and out's of a DAC.

I think you're focused more on the teaching aspect of it while I'm focused more on the economic allegiance aspect of it. The economic allegiance allows for a guild to form where members pay dues. It also allows for mentorship to form where members pay for leadership. It's not just about teaching because some things cannot be taught. It's also about social organization which always starts with mentors and apprentices and progressively gets more complex from there.

The mentor is someone who is more knowledgeable, experienced, and can teach, that is part of it. The other part of it is something a lot more simple where you have people who share a mission or set of moral or political principles which they want to act out through how they invest. So if a person is an environmentalist they might not want to invest in certain kinds of DACs.

In the real world when you have an economic allegiance between family members such as father and son then the father is expected to protect the son for a period of time until the son becomes strong enough to protect himself. In the world we live in where people expect the government to be their parents they have the instinct to seek protection from some other more experienced stronger individual.

In my opinion they must pay for this. Leadership should not be a free service. If someone feels they need the protection of another they should be willing to pay the price in the form of a commission, a fee, a percentage. Otherwise it is wild west and everyone for themselves.

Therefor, a mentor does not need to be paid or an apprentice does not need to pledge to give a % of his earnings to his assigned mentor. A mentor is simply someone that acts on behalf of the DAC/DACP, and by teaching the newcomer about what they exactly do, he and his DAC will benefit as they have a new participant that is working collectively with the others on creating a greater output for everyone involved.
But then it's not an economic allegiance. It's just a friendship. An economic allegiance is contractually binding where you pledge allegiance to a particular individual, guild, ideology or whatever.  If you pledge economic allegiance to anything then you're agreeing to pay the %. It is that due paying process which creates social structure in society on the most basic level. It can also be a donation to a particular non-profit, a commission, but in the code it would be described as paying the % to the (placeholder).

The direct compensation for the mentor could be points or a badge that indicates that he had taught people in the past.

But once again you're now making a mentor nothing more than a buddy. A buddy is not an economic allegiance and makes no real economic difference or social difference. Friendships without contractual allegiance cannot form a social entity or institution. A corporation or firm exists because of the contractual allegiances and without it there is no real loyalty.

So how do you have loyalty or allegiances? You use contracts. You pledge allegiance to a particular social order which could be whatever you choose. This is sealed economically into the blockchain. At any time you can break allegiance, but there would be some cost associated with breaking allegiance.

If we look in the real world we see allegiances all the time. Look at marriage for example where you have two adults forming a union and an economic tie to each other. This is a form of economic allegiance to the family structure. You also see economic allegiances in gangs when you have different gangs following their own form of order within the wider system. You see it in corporations as well when corporations form alliances. You see it with brokerage firm, where brokers get commissions. You see it in professional organizations where people pay dues for membership.

All of this becomes possible with an economic allegiance system and more. The power of the economic allegiance system is specifically in the ability to pledge allegiance to an entity, policies, or set of principles. In my opinion the ability to do so is critically important in society because it exists in nearly every culture on the earth in some form or another.

So it's not really about receiving the badge or symbolic medals. It's a way to form economically allied  groups and factions within DAC space. So for example say one group within the DAC ecosystem supports a certain political principle but then later on another group does not support that particular political principle. At this point they are going to want to form distinct political factions. This would mean certain DACs would be favored over other DACs based upon whether or not those DACs support the principles of each of these particular factions. A mentor would be someone who has been around long enough to have an understanding of the political factions within the larger DAC ecosystem.

To take it further, assume in the future that the demographics of DAC participants we have now isn't the norm anymore. Right now the demographic is majorly anarcho-capitalist and fairly radical. In a few years that won't be the case anymore and you will have some DACs which have anarcho-capitalist designs and some which don't. This is guaranteed to happen and by having the economic allegiance system you can set it up so that if someone arrives into the ecosystem from their particular political views they can connect with their guild which represents their political faction in the economic ecosystem.

They can then invest only in the DACs which the guide decides is in support of their principles. They can work only for the DACs which fit with their particular political principles. They would be able to find a mentor immediately who shares their concerns and their political principles. Because you have to remember that crowd funding DACs is about money and eventually its going to become a political debate as to which DACs to invest in and which not.

Now let me go into some details of the intricate possible features of the economic allegiance system.

1. If you're a mentor you can also be an apprentice to someone higher than you.
2. If you're an apprentice and you break allegiance with your mentor then anyone underneath you is also broken from your mentor. Your apprentices go with you.

To put 2. into context, if you're a mentor with 100 apprentices in an allegiance to make you the apprentice of a mentor with 10 apprentices, then that mentor definitely wants you to keep your allegiance and will give you every possible incentive to keep allegiance to him because he will be receiving a % from 110 apprentices. But if you break allegiance then he goes back down to 10 apprentices, and if he's totally corrupt he could end up with 0 apprentices as they could all break allegiance with him to side with a better mentor.

That is the power of the economic allegiance system. You have non-coercive decentralized leadership. You have the incentive for people to want to be good leaders built in. Anyone can change their allegiance at any time and being a mentor is a privilege not a fixed status. You become a mentor with thousands of apprentices below you only if you're a great leader.


« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 09:10:24 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

One more note, the economic allegiance system can even scale up to a peer to peer delegate based democracy.

Assume for instance that the top 500 mentors get the right to vote.
Also assume that the power of their vote is proportional to the amount of apprentices they have.

You could then have an economic allegiance based leadership with voting power. Unlike what we have now where if the Senate and Congress are messing up you're stuck with them for four years under the economic allegiance system if they are corrupt or messing up you can break allegiance with them instantly and as easily as sending a transaction to the blockchain. If enough people break allegiance with them then they lose their right to vote and are ejected from the decision making process.

And there are several other ways to leverage the allegiance system as well to promote responsible leadership. We can reward people with medals and badges based on how long they stay in the top 500, based on how long they stay in the top 10 or the top 3.  So if someone is consistently making good decisions for their DAC or community of DACs then they'll stay up there for a long long time and win all kinds of rewards and bonuses which would encourage them to want to maintain the support of their apprentices. The only way they can maintain the loyalty and support of their apprentices is by giving the apprentices the incentives and protection they want or by voting the way they want.

------------edit-------------
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNwn49YuFa0
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 01:11:10 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline td services

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Very good video on p2p alternatives to hierarchy. Overall, I'd like to implement the idea of the Open Value Network, http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page , which tracks user participation and rewards accordingly. A DAC would be ideal for this.

Your proposal here includes a lot of the elements of proxy voting and extends it to proxy leadership and shadowing. This would be interesting to see in action.

Offline luckybit

Very good video on p2p alternatives to hierarchy. Overall, I'd like to implement the idea of the Open Value Network, http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page , which tracks user participation and rewards accordingly. A DAC would be ideal for this.

Your proposal here includes a lot of the elements of proxy voting and extends it to proxy leadership and shadowing. This would be interesting to see in action.

What the economic allegiance system leads to is a heterarchical economic order. Just as Bittorrent makes everyone a receiver and sender at once, and the user can determine how much or how little they want to be of either.  The mentor and apprentice system is the same and everyone involved is a bit of both, and is as much or as little of either as they choose or need to be at the time.

So you could be a mentor with 1000 peer apprentices and gain an economic incentive to try to maintain that, but you will have people mentoring you and will be an apprentice to many others. You can switch allegiance at any time and so can any of your peers so that there is no fixed hierarchy. It also promotes the same sort of distribution as Bittorrent making it very difficult for people from a non-related external/foreign hierarchy to gain control of it.

If you think of this model as an intelligent swarm of peers who form and break allegiances as necessary to survive, they can become as hierarchical as necessary to solve a temporary problem but break from it just as easily while maintaining distributed leadership the whole time.

If you look at traditional models they would not even be able to make sense of this. They would ask who the boss is of the circle, but a circle has no boss. In a circle every peer is connected to every peer and any peer can become any role. There is no edge, so the protruding nail gets hammered down cannot apply to these designs.

Hierarchy may exist in a limited extent but it would be camouflaged in the swarm because you would have no way to know who the leaders are. Just as there are probably Bittorrent super nodes which exist but it's harder to spot that when everyone is communicating in the exact same way and anyone is capable of rising to become a supernode in the place of anyone else. If an oppressive hierarchical organization were to try the "cut the head off" approach it would be like cutting the head off of a hydra, not only would several new heads grow in its place, but they'd now be aware of the methods of the oppressive hierarchical opposition and could become even more heterarchical and confusing to that opposition.

Let me make one thing clear though, the economic allegiance system as I envision it is fully transparent and open. If it were to become attacked however it's very easy to see that this kind of system could become completely anonymous using the same mechanism which would make Bitcoin transactions anonymous. The way I envision it is pseudo-anonymous and transparent so that any sociologist can study the blockchain to see different allegiances forming because that kind of research is valuable for a lot of good purposes, but if attacked it could easily adapt with the level of anonymity and sophistication of the user.



« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 08:05:33 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

My suggestion is the economic allegiance system is something to be bundled into Keyhotee as a plugin or extension. Keyhotee seems like it would be the ideal platform for a trial of it provided that Keyhotee works as intended and is extensible enough. Then the next platforms would be Mastercoin and Ethereum.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 08:11:58 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline td services

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
This would work well for a distributed university, maybe another level or two:

student - learning material
teaching assistant - mastered material, assists students in learning
instructor - mastered material, experience assisting students in learning, presents material to students
professor - creates course material presented by instructors
dean - manages course group in subject area, marketing

These would be heterarchal, with students in one area potentially being experts creating and teaching in other areas. A fee split might be 20% each for DAC university, dean, professor, instructor, teaching assistant.

Given the critical shortage of Bitcoin/crypto experienced developers at the moment and an expected surge in demand to build new DACs, a training program would be useful. It should also expand to other areas, like entrepreneurship, business economics , and management adapted to the DAC and crypto asset environment. The training may be built on top of an upcoming Turing Complete programming platform.

bitbro

  • Guest
Have you guys checked out Coursera.org?  This type of thing is kind of already happening although it's a non profit.  I took an excellent course on financial accounting through Wharton b-school here only a few months ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline td services

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Looked at it, haven't used it yet. There was a really interesting computational finance course from Georgia and an advanced statistics course from MIT. I like Udacity a lot, have tried its programming courses. This is a good model to follow. I'm doing a Reliability Engineering certification now the old fashioned way with a book and exam CD questions. I think autodidact with proficiency exams is a great way to go.

Theer's Bitcoin U at Udemy as well, https://www.udemy.com/bitcoin-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-crypto/ .
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 03:21:33 AM by td services »

Offline luckybit

This would work well for a distributed university, maybe another level or two:

student - learning material
teaching assistant - mastered material, assists students in learning
instructor - mastered material, experience assisting students in learning, presents material to students
professor - creates course material presented by instructors
dean - manages course group in subject area, marketing

But there are only two primary roles in the system with the rest being merely sub-roles. You have mentor and you have apprentice (1 or 0) participants usually exist somewhere on that spectrum of these two states. I don't use student but in any open system you can adapt it to your purposes so if you want to create a distributed peer to peer university you could easily do so but it would still have to follow a heterarchical design. The required level of hierarchy will emerge on its own and people will designate their own roles. We should stay away from taking the roles that exist in existing organizations and implanting them into a heterarchical system. Ideally a DAC will be self managing, which means you'll select some algorithm with parameters and participants through their interaction with the DAC will emerge naturally into whatever social structures work best to operate the DAC.

Hierarchy should be considered the last resort as a means of solving a problem rather than the first. The reason for this is that if you have it set up where there is a hierarchy then it's very easy to shut down. So if you use these names for roles to distinguish required processes the risk is that the same hierarchy that exists in academia could find its way into the DACs and this may not in fact be necessary in a distributed university.

These would be heterarchical, with students in one area potentially being experts creating and teaching in other areas. A fee split might be 20% each for DAC university, dean, professor, instructor, teaching assistant.
It has a potential to be heterarchical but you have to be very careful when you design the DAC not to accidentally put hierarchy in. Just as the goal for a DAC is to be distributed because of all the benefits associated with that, the goal should also be to maintain heterarchy as a way of maintaining the structural integrity of the DAC. It's easier for a heterarchical DAC to remain distributed than for a hierarchical DAC.

Bittorrent is distributed and heterarchical and that is the reason why it's seemingly an unstoppable technology. Bitcoin unfortunately is heirarchically organized and as a result the mining pool operators and ASIC manufacturers at the top of the hierarchy will eventually gain absolute control of the production of Bitcoins. The whole reason for moving to Proof of Stake is to avoid that scenario repeating itself.
Given the critical shortage of Bitcoin/crypto experienced developers at the moment and an expected surge in demand to build new DACs, a training program would be useful. It should also expand to other areas, like entrepreneurship, business economics , and management adapted to the DAC and crypto asset environment. The training may be built on top of an upcoming Turing Complete programming platform.

Lets refrain from calling it a training program. We should be calling it a training system or process. A system is something which is built around successful processes which replace unsuccessful processes. Emergence is something we should embrace. We don't know who is talented or what DACs there will be so we should find more generic words to describe things.

In the case of a distributed university you will have teachers and students but everyone is a teacher and student to others so we don't need to use the word university because it implies that this is something exclusive. The idea you present would be potentially heterarchical.

But you're looking at it as if the problem is that we merely lack people with skills and it's not as simple as that. There are elements such as reputation, politics, and many other factors which go into who you would choose as your mentor or teacher.

So for this reason it cannot be compared to a distributed university because in a university while you can choose your professor to some limited degree a professor cannot choose her students.

The mentor on the other hand has to accept the apprentice. If the apprentice does not share the same values as the mentor then the mentor can reject the apprentice. If the apprentice does not trust the mentor then the apprentice can reject the mentor. Eventually people who share similar values will economically link to each other.

For example a fraternity could form among a group of apprentices without any mentor. They could decide to share a percentage of their profits with that fraternity. This percentage could be considered a fee or a "tax" for membership. As long as they pay for membership in the fraternity then the fraternity can fund itself to protect and provide for it's members. This would allow for fraternities to form within the context of a distributed university or not.

Some fraternities could become prestigious and allow for exclusive access to certain websites and information. This would allow people who share similar values to organize their social networks potentially using the blockchain itself so that it's distributed.

So in the fraternity you would have no mentors and everyone in it would be equals. Any of these ideas would be possible because the user would be able to use a slider and set the percentages beyond a minimum level that they would like to donate or contribute to any participants or members of any group. Of course any participant could be a member of many fraternities at a time.

So if the minimum fee is 1%, all fellowships would start at 1%. But just like with transaction fees if you want to join the more exclusive club you'd have to pay a higher percentage fee.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:28:06 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Have you guys checked out Coursera.org?  This type of thing is kind of already happening although it's a non profit.  I took an excellent course on financial accounting through Wharton b-school here only a few months ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coursera is useful and if anyone wants to learn programming they can learn that without an economic allegiance system. If you're trying to learn to be a good investor or day trader you're not going to learn that in school because that kind of knowledge isn't going to be taught by professors in academia. You can only learn some things by doing it.

Sure you can go to school to learn technical analysis, you can learn to read candlesticks, you can study the books from Warren Buffet, none of this will make you into a good day trader or investor. The only way to become a good investor is either through trial and error or by being mentored by someone who is a good investor.

The same can apply to knowledge about DACs. You can learn how to program all you want but that wont help you to make sense of the entire DAC ecosystem once it becomes so large and complex that everyone has found their niches. Coursera will be completely worthless just like you cannot use Coursera to understand the intimate details and culture of the banking system. You have to be a part of the banking system to understand the banking system.

But if your goal is to build a distributed peer to peer university DAC then you could build that and put the economic allegiance system layer as a critical layer on top of it to enable it. Just make note that the economic allegiance system is not a peer to peer distributed university DAC, it's not limited to that purpose even if it can facilitate that.



« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:18:41 AM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline td services

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Online learning is an application of economic allegiance systems. Economic allegiance systems can do a lot more. They can be used to crowd source investing as you suggest, similar to what Marketocracy is doing, http://www.marketocracy.com/ , but in a decentralized and much more flexible manner.

Having just mentor-apprentice simplifies to a simple binary recursion with two distinct roles. I used 4 distinct roles in the university example with different functions but still meant to combine recursively throughout the network. In both cases, each level has a distinct function. The selection of number and function of roles is like specifying a template to form a fractal pattern generator across the network.

I would expect the p2p economic allegiance network to assume a clumpy, fractal topology with self similarity across a range of scales as opposed to a pure mesh or decentralized network shown in the video. It would be a hybrid of the two. This starts to act more like a neural network.

 

Google+