Curiosumé + Bitshares = Intrinsic Coin

[ingenesist]

I'd have to see your definition of a persona to be able to judge this claim. However, fake personas in the digital world are an industry in their own right.
[/quote]

Have you watched the Curiosumé videos? 

Craigslist seems to work OK for a lot of things.  If I say I have a boat for sale and I don't have a boat for sale, I just get spammed with inquiries.  The problems occur is when the asset has no intrinsic value - like digital media.    Intrinsic, by definition, is hard to spoof.

[monsterer]

Sybil attack is not practical because it takes a fair amount of effort to create a viable persona; All personas more than a few levels deep will be unique to an individual, duplicates are easy to spot and randoms are not matchable to anything valuable, and outliers are truncated.  If you lie, you'll just be spamming yourself as irrelevant inquiries flood your inbox.  Personas are not costless.

I'd have to see your definition of a persona to be able to judge this claim. However, fake personas in the digital world are an industry in their own right.

[fuzzy]

Reputation is an odd thing - I'm not sure I'm sold on it. Reminds me of the saying "judging a fish by it's ability to climb trees".  My reputation on a basketball court would be very bad, but perhaps I enjoy it,  I would be thwarted quite early in that endeavor by someone who's expectations I failed to meet even if my business and analytical experience could bring great advancement to the sport. Things like credit scores measure only negative events because those are easy to measure and verify - reification comes to mind. 

Anyway, my biggest complaint with the current "productivity system" is that so many people are mis-allocated by the system that demands compliant workers in silo jobs and silo college degrees rather than truly creative people who are self actualized in diverse combinations of knowledge and experience.  Reputation currency falters accordingly.   Something like prediction markets are better served by identifying people with an interest in a subject, not necessarily an expertise in biases.  Curiosumé would supply superior data to prediction markets.

Curiosumé would supply superior data to prediction markets.  <-------this

Hey dan.  Are you familiar with "webs of trust"?  and how do you feel about them?  ultimately will this be the social "glue" that holds curiosumé together?

[ingenesist]

Reputation is an odd thing - I'm not sure I'm sold on it. Reminds me of the saying "judging a fish by it's ability to climb trees".  My reputation on a basketball court would be very bad, but perhaps I enjoy it,  I would be thwarted quite early in that endeavor by someone who's expectations I failed to meet even if my business and analytical experience could bring great advancement to the sport. Things like credit scores measure only negative events because those are easy to measure and verify - reification comes to mind. 

Anyway, my biggest complaint with the current "productivity system" is that so many people are mis-allocated by the system that demands compliant workers in silo jobs and silo college degrees rather than truly creative people who are self actualized in diverse combinations of knowledge and experience.  Reputation currency falters accordingly.   Something like prediction markets are better served by identifying people with an interest in a subject, not necessarily an expertise in biases.  Curiosumé would supply superior data to prediction markets.

[luckybit]

How can you verify quality?

Collaborative filtering could do this right?

I don't see how this wouldn't be subject to the perennial problem in crypto-currencies:  sybil attack

Shareholder collaborative filtering is how voting works. So if you don't have any shares you can't vote.

Augur has Rep tokens, so I suppose you can do it.

[ingenesist]

How can you verify quality?

Remember that Quality and variance are two different things.  Indeed collaborative filtering will be extremely important.  Where knowledge assets are abundant, the constraints are on proximity and time.  Sybil attack is not practical because it takes a fair amount of effort to create a viable persona; All personas more than a few levels deep will be unique to an individual, duplicates are easy to spot and randoms are not matchable to anything valuable, and outliers are truncated.  If you lie, you'll just be spamming yourself as irrelevant inquiries flood your inbox.  Personas are not costless.   

[monsterer]

How can you verify quality?

Collaborative filtering could do this right?

I don't see how this wouldn't be subject to the perennial problem in crypto-currencies:  sybil attack

[luckybit]

How can you verify quality?

Collaborative filtering could do this right?

[monsterer]

How can you verify quality?

[ingenesist]

Luckybit - automation has been with us for a long time.  Horses are machines that require food and maintenance and capital investment, etc.  A bridge over a river increases human productivity for 100 years after the engineers die. Any B-school spends chapter or two on the Land/Labor/Capital balance between man and machinery. My work on NAFTA was central to that discussion.  Artificial intelligence pays dividends while you collect wages, so who gets the money?

What makers are coming to realize is what artists figured out a long time ago.  The creator needs to collect royalties on their intrinsic works.  This is one of the concerns (and motivations) of the professional engineering societies (please watch the video - I apologize for its length).  If there were a public ledger about who does what - instead of a corporate silo that DOES collect royalties - then makers could receive an equity position in an invention. Have you ever seen the names scroll at the end of a movie way too fast for you to read?  The 'creits" are not their for your benefit - they are their for hollywood's benefit.  It is their Knowledge Asset management system.

C+B=I goes farther.  Curiosumé allows a teacher to take an equity position in their students and forego tuition altogether.  This would be hugely disruptive to the university system, corporate silos, and of course, insurance.   

There is more to it - as C+B=I unfolds, nothing is sacred. 

[ingenesist]

You need simply to pool similar risk exposures.  1. Identify risk exposure, 2. determine the probability that the peril will manifest, 3. price the consequences in the event that the peril does manifest.  The requisite ability to calculate the probability that the exposure will manifest is essential - must be a real number.  Only then can the pooling arrangements be made to diversify the risk away.  Unfortunately, Insurance and banks are very satisfied with current state of affairs - as long as the risk is priced correctly, they are agnostic.  It will take a person of exceptional vision, or greed, to exploit an arbitrage opportunity in the portfolio against the real vs. market value of risk.  Curiosumé reduces the incentive to cheat, therefore the vetting mechanisms are greatly minimized which reduces transaction friction while improving speed, liquidity, etc.  Intelligence is high because one can test scenarios with a proxy of the persona(s) not the actual person outside of the veil of security.  Anonymity is preserved until point of transaction.       

[luckybit]

Value = productivity = data; dv/dt = rate of change of productivity with respect to time = information, d^2v/dt = knowledge, d^3v/dt = innovation, d^4v/dt = wisdom.  These are the derivatives of productivity.  A derivative is something whose value is derived from something else.

What about automated labor? Productivity can be measured but money doesn't seem to require human labor to be based on value. Machines can do work and produce money too and where do they fit?

How does Curiosume and your solution factor in the fact that AI is likely going to be the most productive entity in the room. If AI is factored into it then perhaps it might work. It's worthy of an experiment to find out.

https://medium.com/@geraldhuff/the-labor-content-fallacy-96b8ddadf5cd
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/09/us-income-inequality-has-risen-because-us-productivity-inequality-has-risen/

[luckybit]

How do you quantify a person in order to insure them? Is that the purpose of Curiosume?

What algorithm or formula will be used for this process? Does the process include reputation?

Here is what I could find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_person_insurance

[ingenesist]

I don't want to get long-winded on any particular aspect because my experience is that most people don't have the slightest idea what we are trying to accomplish ... until they do.  It's like trying to explain how to ride a bicycle, but once you "get it" your brain will start innovating at an astonishing rate.  So it is a matter of delivering people to that threshold and watching genius unfold.

The best place to start is the 19 minute video here: https://youtu.be/m_-JkUI5ATE

Next, I gave a lecture recently at the US National Society of Professional Engineers Annual Conference where we are trying to re-organizing the engineering profession and insurance industry and the financial industry around a Curiosumé + Blockchain scenario.  That is 52 minutes and can be found here: https://youtu.be/CMeQ_rNkGKU

We are working with people in the insurance industry.  Their plan is to move away from insuring each physical asset and to insure the complete human instead - the physical assets that they interact with such as car, home, health, etc would be covered automatically through the person.  Curiosumé is essential in developing these innovations. 

If this conversation interests people please watch those two videos,  that will keep things rolling.   There are some very specific requirements for adjudicated smart contracts that will lead into the blockchain integration discussion.  We suspect that DPOS is the best consensus vehicle although we may need to model on Ethereum - well, anyway, these are the questions that we are trying to bring to this group.  We also want to form a team to build it. 

 

[Troglodactyl]

Thanks for the great comments - I didn't even know you had been discussing earlier.  The best thing to do is keep this really really simple and try not to get biased by what we have been told is or is not money, or value, or productivity, engineers, federal reserve, debt, gold, derivatives, etc,- these are distractions.  We are trained to be confused so that we can't see the vulnerability of the system we are trying to replace.  Don't try to power-think, you need to trust the calculus. 

First - an "asset" is a very important term that should not be tossed around like some sort of emotion.  An asset must be described in terms of a quantity and a quality [Asset = F(Q,q)].  So, to say that "water" is and asset, is to be confused. Is it 3 oz of water or 300 acre ft of water (Quantity)?  Is it drinking water or is it process water to keep solar panels cool (Quality)? "quality does NOT mean best to worst, greater or lesser, winner or loser, etc - this is the "competition" virus that causes us to hate, fear, and fight each other. Quality is entirely dependent on the productivity of the water - drinking water does not compete with process water.  Therefore an Asset, by definition is intrinsic. 

Second, long before colleges and universities - all hugely centralized institutions -  and engineer was someone who makes useful things for other people - the engineer increased the productivity of a person by inventing say, wheel, wedge, and pulley.  That is what I mean by Engineer.  Again, this is intrinsic by definition.  "Ingenesist" is derived from the latin term for engineer.

Here's a mind bender "Money MUST represent productivity otherwise nobody would work (do productive stuff) in exchange for it" - dwell on that for a moment. To test this idea, every time you hear the word "money" replace that with the word "productivity" if it still makes sense, believe what you hear. If it does not, you are being lied to. 

Value = productivity = data; dv/dt = rate of change of productivity with respect to time = information, d^2v/dt = knowledge, d^3v/dt = innovation, d^4v/dt = wisdom.  These are the derivatives of productivity.  A derivative is something whose value is derived from something else.

Next; we are trained to believe that productivity is the manufacture of tangible goods like cars, coal, and ipods.  However, "motherhood" is not counted in the GDP yet is responsible for every taxpayer on earth.  Benevolence, empathy, creativity, leadership, nurturing, etc., are all forms of productivity for which there is no accounting system.  These are called Intangibles on a balance sheet.  They don't weant you to know this because this is the source of all value.

Curiosumé is that accounting system. 
 
It takes a little bit of untraining before we can move forward.

Perhaps I've already untrained too much.  You're saying a lot of things with which I agree, but I don't see how they're applicable exclusively to Curiosumé and not gold, BTC, BTS, or U.S. dollars.  All currencies ultimately represent the productivity of the people who accept them, whether that acceptance is coerced or voluntary.  Intangibles are clearly valued and accounted for in the economic activity of individuals, and so their value is reflected in any economy to the degree to which individuals are free to make economic decisions.

I like to view currencies as languages for communicating about value.  Value is subjective in that different people want different things to differing degrees, but a market allows a group of people to bridge that gap and understand each other's values relative to a common standard.  Since money has no direct value, only exchange value, in an ideal currency in which no one had the power to distort distribution, having money is evidence that you have created value for someone else who uses the currency, and that real compensation for that productivity is still pending.

How is Curiosumé supposed to account for intangibles more tangibly than any current system does?