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.
This is all correct. Online learning or perhaps I should call it distributed education is an application of economic allegiance systems. In fact it's probably one of the primary applications because if you go back to hunter gathering as an example, and we assume every human being has both a mother and father, and every human being is taught to be both a hunter and a gatherer, this would be a sort of application too but on the family allegiance level.
The people who do the gathering bring a portion of food back to the family and the people who do the hunting bring a portion of food back to the family, and everyone is taught to do both and anyone can choose how much of each role to be according to their niche. Maybe that is not the best example but it's just the best I could think up to describe at the moment.
I don't know a lot about marketocracy, can you tell me more about how it works?
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.
You're correct, It's a binary tree. Each node can be between 1.0-0.1. This would allow for the quantification of how much of a mentor and apprentice a particular node is.
So node A is constrained to being within 1 or 0 at any given point in time at different locations on the spectrum between 1 and 0. Because every kind of hierarchy, heterarchy or any other style of organization can ultimately recursively be brought back to 1.0-0.1 of the nodes.
I never thought it could be compared to fractals, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Maybe you'd like to elaborate further on this so that I can learn something?
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.
This is what I expect intuitively but I do not have the math to describe my intuition. If you have the formula or math background to explain it to me that would be helpful, I'm always looking to learn a new thing. Network topology is something which can be simulated if we have the right inputs.
Here is a thought experiment,
1. Let's say node a (Alice) loves node b (Bob) putting them in economic union.
2. They each pledge 1% of their profit as an expression of their economic union and that goes into a shared savings address spendable only by multi-signature transaction so they both have to sign to spend it.
3. The longer (Alice) stays in love with (Bob) the tighter the economic union becomes. This can be expressed by increasing the pledge after a certain time period elapses. So it would go from 1%, to 2%, to 3%, until it reaches a limit they both agreed upon when they formed their economic union.
Wouldn't this allow for a sort of blockchain marriage to be secured mathematically between both nodes?
If they are a couple in the real world and dating one another then it might make sense if they do this. They'd work together to create a shared account and the longer they are committed to each other the greater the size of their pledge becomes. I think this would give incentive for both to stay loyal to each other because in some instances in the same way a shared account would work for a bank.
Certain DACs could also recognize the nodes in economic union and give them special benefits based on how long they have stayed in union. Anyway this is intended to be a thought experiment, what do you think?