Author Topic: The gift economy vs "crowd sales": reciprocity based value exchanges  (Read 8461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I like the Cooperative and Points ideas. The Cooperative should run as a delegate. That would give it the necessary credibility in this sphere, plus it would provide income to encourage people to participate. I'm still not sure how the economics of the Points system would work, but that all can be hashed out in time.

Count me in. How can I help?

When people ask "who" is the cooperative, you're the cooperative.
The cooperative is whomever owns and operates Bitshares so that is like asking "who is Bitshares?". It's the owners and delegates. The cooperative however is based on reputation though while Bitshares is based on reputations for the delegates.

As far as who should start the cooperative? Any delegate can do that but it doesn't mean the cooperative is a delegate.

The best way to help is to add ideas of your own and perhaps explain the big picture to others. I'm not really good at explaining the big picture. Then after enough people understand it then someone from the community who has a legal background should offer to set it all up in exchange for becoming a delegate. Once it's all set up by the trusted delegate then we can take it from there and perhaps use the cooperative to form partnerships which can provide dividends to the members.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 01:51:38 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I like the Cooperative and Points ideas. The Cooperative should run as a delegate. That would give it the necessary credibility in this sphere, plus it would provide income to encourage people to participate. I'm still not sure how the economics of the Points system would work, but that all can be hashed out in time.

Count me in. How can I help?

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Patronage Points could work just fine and be distributed specifically by the cooperative. Patronage Points are not transferable but they represent reputation points you earn by giving gifts to others.
I'm intrigued, but still vague on mechanics. Who is the cooperative? How would the cooperative determine how to distribute Patronage Points in the case where gifts are not community based but between individuals or groups of individuals?

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Donkey you've connected the dots. Patronage Points could work just fine and be distributed specifically by the cooperative. Patronage Points are not transferable but they represent reputation points you earn by giving gifts to others.

No one is required to respect these points but if the cooperative decides to respect these points then there will be plenty of perks, rewards, revenue shares, and gifts, given to those who have these points.

Honestly you could do it in a number of ways but the general thing you need is some sort of reputation points to make it work. The one thing the vast majority of us care about is our reputation because that is what allows us to be a delegate, to be well received by our community, and only by giving can we expect to receive.

References
http://www.peoples.coop/cooperative-ownership/your-peopleshare-1/patronage-refund-system

Quote
How can I increase my dividend? Because you are receiving a portion of your spendings back, the more you shop at the co-op, the more you are eligible to earn in a dividend.   As an active Member-Owner, we track your purchases as patronage points to calculate your refund at the year's end.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 12:42:28 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
As gifts are voluntary, the only way to enforce them is with a community standard of expectation. We have that with open source software, etc., where a product or developer in some software fields is blackballed if they don't play the game by the community's rules.

We have seen how gifting can work to the advantage in a decentralized organization like this one. The current SuperDAC merger/airdrop allows them to take a snapshot for voluntary gifting purposes. Each time there is such a layer of voluntary goodness, it puts this beyond the reach of another set of regulations.

I love the gift economy. We must trust one another and expect the same standard from everyone. But we must have some recourse, through a ratings system perhaps, to maintain honesty. We've certainly seen a big chunk of dishonesty in the crypto sphere in general these last couple of years: proof positive that not everyone lives by the same moral code.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It would be very interesting to experiment with a network like this to see how it works and what could become of it. However, although a third-party DAC could do it and maybe should do it as an experiment from which to learn, I think it would be a huge economic risk for Bitshares to apply this generally at this stage, because it moves in the direction of obfuscating economic incentives.

For example, if somebody were trying to decide whether to contribute to somebody else, they will want to know how valuable that task is to the receiver, and how much they should contribute their scarce resources to it compared to other possible endeavours. Normally a price signal would help such calculation. In a gift economy, how would one get a signal as to how much other economic participants will value that contribution? Especially if it is made to particular parties, rather than to the community as a whole? Maybe some sort of voting system?

If the goal of forming a SuperDAC was "network effects" then you don't really benefit from that to the maximum unless you form a Bitshares Cooperative in the legal sense.

Am I the only one who see's this? We still expect Invictus to handle certain things when it could be handed over to the Bitshares Cooperative which we'd all work for and own.

You do know that I3 is going to be phased out right? After marketing funds etc are done they will be closed like BM has been saying. After which the people will be in power of funding etc etc.

I do know that. That is exactly why I'm having this discussion. Like I said if we want to form partnerships with corporations, governments, banks, non-profits, then we need a unified Bitshares Cooperative. That cooperative could also distribute the benefits of these relationships to its owners in the form of vouchers, discounts, special deals, gifts of any sort, donations, or whatever.

But if you don't have that cooperative then how do you take advantage of the supposed "network effects" the SuperDAC is supposed to bring? If it's all a bunch of scattered delegates distributed around the world without a legal organization for centralized institutions to partner with then how do we interact with those centralized institutions?

Those institutions instead would approach each of our delegates individually and pull them in all different directions. Additionally the rest of the community might not benefit at all from this process. Having a Bitshares Cooperative will mean the Cooperative itself could receive government funding, or funding from corporations in the form of partnerships in a way which would benefit every member.

Quote
The chief hurdle for any good or service which uses the network effect is to get enough users initially so that the network effects take hold. The amount of users required for significant network effects is often referred to as critical mass. After the critical mass is attained, the good or service should be able to obtain many new users since its network offers utility.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/network-effect.asp

My take on this quote is that it's not just about getting "enough users" to expect some magical network effects to take hold. The secret to success is to have a network which can actually form partnerships with other networks. Centralized networks need a way to form partnerships with DACs in a mutually beneficial relationship so why not make it easy for them?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 12:28:14 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
It would be very interesting to experiment with a network like this to see how it works and what could become of it. However, although a third-party DAC could do it and maybe should do it as an experiment from which to learn, I think it would be a huge economic risk for Bitshares to apply this generally at this stage, because it moves in the direction of obfuscating economic incentives.

For example, if somebody were trying to decide whether to contribute to somebody else, they will want to know how valuable that task is to the receiver, and how much they should contribute their scarce resources to it compared to other possible endeavours. Normally a price signal would help such calculation. In a gift economy, how would one get a signal as to how much other economic participants will value that contribution? Especially if it is made to particular parties, rather than to the community as a whole? Maybe some sort of voting system?

If the goal of forming a SuperDAC was "network effects" then you don't really benefit from that to the maximum unless you form a Bitshares Cooperative in the legal sense.

Am I the only one who see's this? We still expect Invictus to handle certain things when it could be handed over to the Bitshares Cooperative which we'd all work for and own.

You do know that I3 is going to be phased out right? After marketing funds etc are done they will be closed like BM has been saying. After which the people will be in power of funding etc etc.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It would be very interesting to experiment with a network like this to see how it works and what could become of it. However, although a third-party DAC could do it and maybe should do it as an experiment from which to learn, I think it would be a huge economic risk for Bitshares to apply this generally at this stage, because it moves in the direction of obfuscating economic incentives.

For example, if somebody were trying to decide whether to contribute to somebody else, they will want to know how valuable that task is to the receiver, and how much they should contribute their scarce resources to it compared to other possible endeavours. Normally a price signal would help such calculation. In a gift economy, how would one get a signal as to how much other economic participants will value that contribution? Especially if it is made to particular parties, rather than to the community as a whole? Maybe some sort of voting system?

If the goal of forming a SuperDAC was "network effects" then you don't really benefit from that to the maximum unless you form a Bitshares Cooperative in the legal sense. This way you get even more network effects because the Bitshares Cooperative could form partnerships with all sorts of corporate, government, NGO and other entities while individual delegates running separate DACs cannot do this.

Am I the only one who see's this? We still expect Invictus to handle certain things when it could be handed over to the Bitshares Cooperative which we'd all work for and own.

So it cannot be done for a third party DAC. It has to be for the Bitshares ecosystem which means the Bitshares SuperDAC because a Bitshares Cooperative amplifies network effects. Imagine if Facebook existed but was owned by a cooperative of it's users who also worked or it.

Having a Bitshares Cooperative would allow us to build a decentralized social network if we want or anything else. Anything it would build we would own and get revenue shares from. That means income for all of us.

Do you see any problems with this Bitshares Cooperative idea or is it just too novel?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 12:19:35 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
It would be very interesting to experiment with a network like this to see how it works and what could become of it. However, although a third-party DAC could do it and maybe should do it as an experiment from which to learn, I think it would be a huge economic risk for Bitshares to apply this generally at this stage, because it moves in the direction of obfuscating economic incentives.

For example, if somebody were trying to decide whether to contribute to somebody else, they will want to know how valuable that task is to the receiver, and how much they should contribute their scarce resources to it compared to other possible endeavours. Normally a price signal would help such calculation. In a gift economy, how would one get a signal as to how much other economic participants will value that contribution? Especially if it is made to particular parties, rather than to the community as a whole? Maybe some sort of voting system?

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I believe aslong as its not a company issuing shares its all good.. since companies have monetary agendas and a blockchain doesnt.

Some of the ideas are kinda highlighted in this proposal.. was written fairly well: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.0;topicseen

So id say there is a way to raise funds and develop tech without needlessly inflating the supply.. infact there is some burning in this proposal.

But it uses the words "investor" and still uses the "investor" model. That is a sign that it is flawed and needs revision. Investor should be renamed to patron. A patron is just someone who donates to a cause without any expectation of a certain reward.

Whether it is burned or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we drop the words like "investors". Once you use the words "investors" then people buying the token expect something and can sue, call the SEC or whatever. People who donate don't have these expectations.

Now if you design the reputation system to reinforce reciprocity then you don't even need legal contracts. BitTorrent has no legal contracts.

Let's not focus on semantics.. wording can be easily changed once we figure out the right way fwd. I do get what you mean by relating BitTorrent and how it transformed the file sharing community using a gift economy but that would essentially turn us away from the business on the blockchain to more of a ... think about business in new light and hope it sticks. It is an interesting thought. I fail to see economic incentives for file sharing mechanisms like bittorrent other than ad revenue?
See what Pheeva Wallet creators and founders of the Cog Cooperative Lafe Taylor and Lamar Wilson are doing. They are going about it using gift economy methods, where the users of the app are the owners, but it's done in a much smarter way than I see anyone else doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7qKzuQve-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtohgM7G_Q

They even have partnerships with companies like Gyft through the Cog Cooperative. If you can understand that Gyft cards can be traded easily over something like Bitshares X then you don't have to worry about monetary incentives but just incentives. Incentives exist in a cooperative but they are non-monetary incentives sometimes and other times direct revenue share. In either case you have a decentralized exchange in Bitshares X so money is the least of our problems really when we can create our own and the real question is just a question of incentive.

Not everything of value to people is money even if everything can be priced in or exchanged for money. So if you're in a gift economy you can accept gifts of any sort and those gifts have value. So for example suppose it's a gift card network where everyone trades them? Incentives will exist and money would go to whomever trades their gift cards for money such as BitUSD.




« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 11:04:50 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I believe aslong as its not a company issuing shares its all good.. since companies have monetary agendas and a blockchain doesnt.

Some of the ideas are kinda highlighted in this proposal.. was written fairly well: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.0;topicseen

So id say there is a way to raise funds and develop tech without needlessly inflating the supply.. infact there is some burning in this proposal.

But it uses the words "investor" and still uses the "investor" model. That is a sign that it is flawed and needs revision. Investor should be renamed to patron. A patron is just someone who donates to a cause without any expectation of a certain reward.

Whether it is burned or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we drop the words like "investors". Once you use the words "investors" then people buying the token expect something and can sue, call the SEC or whatever. People who donate don't have these expectations.

Now if you design the reputation system to reinforce reciprocity then you don't even need legal contracts. BitTorrent has no legal contracts.

Let's not focus on semantics.. wording can be easily changed once we figure out the right way fwd. I do get what you mean by relating BitTorrent and how it transformed the file sharing community using a gift economy but that would essentially turn us away from the business on the blockchain to more of a ... think about business in new light and hope it sticks. It is an interesting thought. I fail to see economic incentives for file sharing mechanisms like bittorrent other than ad revenue?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 06:15:30 pm by jsidhu »
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I met a wise older man at a crypto meetup the other month that introduced me to the concept of a gift economy. He recommended a book to me called Sacred Economics: http://sacred-economics.com/

I haven't read it myself, so I can't personally recommend it, but perhaps it may be of interest to someone reading this thread. He spoke very highly of it.

The interesting thing you can do with smart contracts and blockchains is that you can have a gift economy where people voluntarily compete to give more because that's how they'll get more back from the system.

Give to receive basically. Although I would say study African tribes to get a better idea of how it can work while also using the tools we have. It's very easy to set up a DAC which funds it's construction  from charitable giving and then pays it forward. The people who gave would have the reputation so it wouldn't be any different from what happened for Keyhotee founders.

If you were a Keyhotee founder you gave a gift donation and received a gift back.

Here are some videos:
+Gift Economy: A Disruptive Business Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvpVrTVdS14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udvChk2KOZk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUp1WJmVFQ

Sacred economics seems to be more of an anti-money book but it probably does have some knowledge in it. In my opinion a gift economy can include gifts of money. It's actually just about reciprocity.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 05:43:42 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline edilliam

I met a wise older man at a crypto meetup the other month that introduced me to the concept of a gift economy. He recommended a book to me called Sacred Economics: http://sacred-economics.com/

I haven't read it myself, so I can't personally recommend it, but perhaps it may be of interest to someone reading this thread. He spoke very highly of it.

 

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I believe aslong as its not a company issuing shares its all good.. since companies have monetary agendas and a blockchain doesnt.

Some of the ideas are kinda highlighted in this proposal.. was written fairly well: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.0;topicseen

So id say there is a way to raise funds and develop tech without needlessly inflating the supply.. infact there is some burning in this proposal.

But it uses the words "investor" and still uses the "investor" model. That is a sign that it is flawed and needs revision. Investor should be renamed to patron. A patron is just someone who donates to a cause without any expectation of a certain reward.

Whether it is burned or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we drop the words like "investors". Once you use the words "investors" then people buying the token expect something and can sue, call the SEC or whatever. People who donate don't have these expectations.

Now if you design the reputation system to reinforce reciprocity then you don't even need legal contracts. BitTorrent has no legal contracts.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I believe aslong as its not a company issuing shares its all good.. since companies have monetary agendas and a blockchain doesnt.

Some of the ideas are kinda highlighted in this proposal.. was written fairly well: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.0;topicseen

So id say there is a way to raise funds and develop tech without needlessly inflating the supply.. infact there is some burning in this proposal.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag