Talk:Peer Trust Network Project

Stan, I have had no time yet to really follow what you are doing, though it seems interesting, and I can see now you have a lively discussion with Patrick, so I'm extremely happy that such an exchange and mutual learning can take place in our wiki. In my opinion, your project should be listed in the right column of the main page as a project, but also, if possible, announced in our blog as such. Could you eventually send me a one or two paragraph summary of both your page and the discussion page, to give our blog readers a sense of what it is about? sorry, I can't seem to find your email, so I'm posting my request here.

Michel--Mbauwens 08:17, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Michel, I do not think the idea is sufficiently explained for useful presentation yet, but I'll give you a summary as soon as it's in a solid draft form. I have added the project to the project list. Only in the first week of the new year (2008) did I stumble upon this structure, so I am still exploring the best ways to explain both this structure and the concepts within. Patrick's discussion here is helping immensely. Also, I'll send you another email.

--S Rhodes 20:21, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Each contributor should "tag" their response by name in bold before and a signature after so this page isn't one huge flowing text.

Patrick: The Non-rival aspects of any good must always be hosted by the Physical Sources of space/time, mass/energy. There is no exception to this rule.

Creation: A keyboard; a camera; paint and canvas

Storage: Paper and printer; a CD or Hard Drive; eggs, seeds, spores

Transmission: A telephone line; a satellite system; air, wind, water

Expression: A TV; a complete computer, soil

This list concentrates on the required mass, but implicitly includes the space (land), exclusion across time, and the energy required.

Use of anything is always limited, and always has some cost because of the finite nature of the goods required to 'host' the nonrival aspect. There is no exception to this rule.

My approach is to simply require all design and lifeforms types be put under the GNU General Public License - which I think will not conflict with your ideas of a service model.

Stan: It may be simple to say "require all design be put under the GNU GPL," but how does one actually do that? I don't think it can reasonably be done; not everything will be under it, just the majority, and eventually, that will be effectively everything. At that point the concept of sharing for mutual benefit may be as obviously moral as not murdering someone is today (to most, at least!). I have a small gripe with your use of "require" here, because I like to focus on the voluntary principle of it all. To be feasible, people must add to the GPL "pool" voluntarily, and for them to add to it voluntarily, it must be of obvious benefit them. I think the components of my system meet these requirements. --S Rhodes 00:16, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Patrick: I'm worried the banktrust will grow into an uncontrollable 'State'. What will we do to avoid that? Ownut

Stan: "banktrust" is a name for the design--the purpose--of the node, like "bank," or "fire department." The trusts (such as a banktrust) exist at a local level, run by local people, locally visible, and locally accountable. I am not sure how many members each would have, perhaps around 10,000. I'm taking this number from the villageforum group; I'm not sure how they arrived at it. These form a network, much like VISA was created from a network of banks. The overall network would basically be a democratic republic of these banktrusts, but with little governance of any sort at that level; committees would be assembled and dissolved as needed. Using the banks as nodes is beneficial because it decentralizes power, removes the inefficiencies of hierarchy by keeping local accountability, and ensures quite a bit of resiliency should natural disaster strike some part of the network. As for bank governance, they must follow the basic principles established as a framework. I've attempted to outline a start of those principles, and a code of conduct, as a sort of opt-in constitution honored by the banks. There is undoubtedly a ton of work to do here, but mechanism design theory is of great help in finding the optimal methods for agreement at this point in time (range voting versus instant run-off, for example). We have much of the knowledge we need to make far better systems, we're just not using them in our communities, corporations, and governments yet. --S Rhodes 00:16, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: All rival goods (property such as land, material resources, water, air, spectrum) are in a resource trust model. This model is bootstrapped into being voluntarily by the public because of demand for the benefits of the components and network; it comes into being with the full consent and effort of those who agree with its merits. --S Rhodes

Stan: Peers share control of the monetary transaction system through a network of trusts. --S Rhodes

Patrick: This sounds interesting, and I hope it is correct as struggle to understand how to fully implement the currency I call GNUrho.

Stan: The banktrusts are essentially local, accountable credit unions that only handle accounts: essentially, tracking and transferring credits. They can also be seen as nonprofit paypals that you can actually trust to do a good job. I think of currency, in my proposed system, as "credits." I think it's actually a good term, so I may use it from now on. Future money in science fiction is always credits anyway, right? I must admit I hadn't seen the concept of GNUrho before now. I do not understand how it would work in a practical sense, so I'm going to put the burden on my own view of money, which I think has the "spirit" of the GNUrho even though we might call it "stupid," or maybe "dumb" like a dumb-fire rocket.

Fundamentally, "money" is no more than a representation of value for the sake of exchange. I do not see money as a problem, so I don't see any need for a solution; I see the current system as the problem. In particular, inequity. The problem of monetary inequity seemed threefold: first, wealth needed to be redistributed regularly; second, wealth needed to be redistributed in a way that was "fair;" third, wealth needed to grow through effort. The missing piece is now the forth concept: use of material (rival) goods must have a proportional cost. This is accomplished through making all exchange occur within a service economy that charges for use of resources, and then evenly distributes that wealth to all members. With those mechanics in place, money becomes an expression of value. The customer and service-provider attempt to reach an optimal exchange. Money beyond the "optimal price" is an investment, and that investment is actually the person or group of people receiving the money. From the customer's perspective, that investment is likely toward something the service-provider does, or will do, or is considering doing. However, no additional regulations are needed. The market is actually a free market, but with key differences in selective pressure: wealth is redistributed; use of material goods reduces wealth. Wealth and property dominance are decentralized.

Money "working" is a happy side effect of these other changes. Originally, I thought maybe I could incorporate the concept of local currencies, but given what I see as their poor track record, I considered money too hard a problem to solve. Local currencies didn't sit right with me for additional reasons too, because they seemed to impose control where people wanted liquidity and freedom. After concentrating on other problems, the money problem disappeared; so, in retrospect I think it wasn't a problem to begin with, and no solution was needed.

To go back to the GNUrho, does my claim that money works implicitly in the spirit of the GNUrho--but can remain simple and stupid--seem valid? I'm afraid I may be misrepresenting the facets of the GNUrho. --S Rhodes 00:16, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: Peers control their own private information, and release only that which is needed as a credential.--S Rhodes

Patrick: Could you tell me more specifically what you mean here?Ownut

Stan: I think this is close to the "Identity 2.0" concept, however that seems to include references to "single signon." I think in a proper system, single signon is irrelevant. I control my credentials, which are basically sets of metadata about me created from what we might think of as my master profile. I only release the credential needed for a particular transaction or interaction. Perhaps I get onto a subway and students of Future State University ride free. They do not need to know precisely who I am, they only need to know I am a student of FSU. Or, perhaps I go to a bar and the bartender has a device that displays to him who is volunteering the credential of being 21+. He doesn't need to know precisely how old I am, or who I am, just that I'm old enough to serve. In another instance, I may want to give an person I met and like the next day's schedule so that we can possibly meet for a drink. As a final example, I may need to transfer a large sum of credits to someone, so our identities would both need to be confirmed with "deeper" credentials. I think the credential system should be seen and operated separate from the banktrust system because the credential system is identity, and can be used in many situations other than value transfer. --S Rhodes 00:16, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: All information released to the public is free to use, and remains free to use. --S Rhodes

Patrick: This is important, though I want to stress that the Public domain (if that is what you mean by 'public') does not give the protection we need; the GNU GPL (which also has 'Public' in it's name) insures all work built upon that information will also be free (cannot become proprietary). Ownut

Stan: First, there are works that are public domain, and will never conceivably be GPL. Second, all future information, when released in the system, is GPL to ensure what you say above. --S Rhodes 00:16, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Patrick: Actually, copies of public domain work can be captured by the GUN GPL, or (sadly) can be captured by those who would build upon it and lock the chages closed (proprietary). Ownut

Stan: Derivatives can be made from a public domain work, and be closed, but I don't think that's of such a huge concern. Even with good intentions, we can't expect to trick or force anyone to release their works until they're ready and see a reason to. The situation is much like the parable of the sun and the wind; the harder the force, the tighter the clinging, even if it seems irrational. As more and more works are GPL-ized, there's a threshold, past where it won't make sense to keep anything closed; a point of open, or be left far behind, holding something that's no longer worth much. To offer compensation, whether well deserved or not, I think a "pot" system can work well. I'll attempt to detail this more later, but in any digital media you can track well-known or used media like Amazon does with books it does not actually own. If these are accumulating a pot of credits, there is a further incentive to release the works. To claim the pot, you have to release the work under the appropriate GPL-ish license. --S Rhodes 19:32, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: Creators of works in science and useful arts are fairly compensated for the service they provide. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I have some ideas about how to do this with 'promisory' system that helps consumers commit to paying creators before the work is accomplished. Ownut

Stan: I need to detail this far more, but there already exist many models of compensation. Grants, pledges, auctions, milestone-based-funding, donations, and so on. Everything that's needed already exists in some form or another. There are new models to be created, and new ways to tweak the old models, for sure. That's a place for the users and creators to innovate. I've brainstormed many ways to do this, and I need to clean up those notes and publish them as examples. However, just by looking at sites like Amazon, imdb, Innocentive, and products like Steam, we can see the potential. The key is making a base of easy, reliable, and honorable value exchange (banktrust network), then building communication/community layers on top of it. What if you could make a Facebook + Amazon that used Paypal almost seamlessly? The recent announcement of Steamworks by Valve is an example of where companies are trying to evolve. We need to beat them to the punch, across all media and information types. --S Rhodes 19:32, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: All material resources are recognized as scarce, and wasteful use is higher cost. --S Rhodes

Patrick: Hopefully this will be a result of the policy we discover. Ownut

Stan: Wealth is redistributed through charging for use of material resources; those who waste most pay most. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I think what you are saying aligns with my notion that all cooperation has costs (freedom isn't free).

For instance, sharing a rototiller would require the current user pay the collective others for the extra wear he is inflicting upon the machine and for the fact that his use during that time neccessarily excludes others from simultaneously using it.

If two people want to use the rototiller at the same time, they can bid against each other until the one willing to pay the most is found. This payment of Price above cost would then be understood to be that user's investment toward yet another tiller - as he has proven that the current number of tillers for the community cannot meet peak demand. The new tiller would be a divisible resource under full control *only* of the collective owners of *that* tiller. If a user own 100% of the tiller's 'stock', he has the option of holding the machine 'personal' (not using the word 'private' here because of the misuse by those who 'privatize' natural resources such as water)... (there are some things missing here about what happens when he starts sharing or renting that machine, but I'm running out of time for now.) Ownut

Stan: This is an interesting approach, but it also seems complex enough to be incredibly hard to implement. My perspective is that the "bookkeeping" needs to be no more complex than it is now (granted, can be pretty nuts now), both for usability and to decrease gaming of the system. The more complex the system, the more loopholes are likely, and the easier cheaters can hide. I wrestled a lot with the problem of ownership, and I decided to flip the problem on its head: what is good about ownership? Can those aspects be blended with a notion of communal living? Can we take the strengths of individual control and accountability and blend them with the strengths of sharing and the reality of shared, limited resources? I think so.

Again, let me put the burden on my approach to the "problem" of shared resources. I'm suggesting that all resources have a constant "use" or "rent" fee. A person is, essentially, renting the resource from the public, represented by the propertytrust network. Since the economy can be seen as entirely a service economy, when you "buy" resources you're actually paying for the transfer of them to your "guardianship." It can be thought of as "owning," too; it's a matter of perspective. I would classify the old guard property system as ownership of property, and this system as guardianship of property. The shift is one of responsibility and accountability. Rather than "I own it, I can do what I want," the perspective is "I am responsible for this, I'm accountable for what I do."

Land is already assessed, as is other types of property for insurance reasons. It's reasonable to assume that a network of propertytrusts could assess using other criteria, such as sustainability. So the rent/use cost of land becomes almost the reverse of the current situation in the United States: the closer to wilderness the land is, the lower the rent. For other more mobile resources, air and water trusts, for example, would manage assessment and fees. We already have many of the tools needed for this, methods to measure pollution of soil, water, and air, and measure their use. Quick, important nod: the concepts of air (sky) and other resource trusts were proposed by Peter Barnes in Capitalism 3.0, and probably elsewhere as well.

For smaller pieces of property, such as a rototiller, I think only fees based on air pollution, for example, would be needed at first, and would be included in the use fee. Items that emit emissions could be tagged, as vehicles are today. The owner/guardian could share the rototiller, or they could sell it ("transferring guardianship" for a price), just as they do today. The use costs are always tied to the resources.

Overall possessions could be assessed on some time frame (annually?), and a tax could be paid. We're used to paying taxes, although it's disliked, but if it was equitable the public would probably not find them so distasteful. Obviously, little stuff would slip through the cracks, and the system could be exploited to some extent. However, since tax-dodging is hiding wealth from everyone, it would be more taboo, and the public would probably be more watchful. Taking it from "the man" is one thing, but not paying me what I'm owed for your use of resources is quite another. Also, propertytrusts may want to include items made out of rare materials, or small items that have a big environmental impact. There may be other models propertytrusts could use for valuating and collecting use fees.

This will all need to scale. From big when the system first starts, gradually down to smaller stuff. Use fees will need to raise gradually over time to select for more efficient use of resources. However, just increasing air, water, and land fees over time would have an incredibly beneficial effect; those are the "big ones," where inefficiency usually means pollution and destruction. The propertytrust network doesn't have to account for everything to be effective; something that's feasible that targets an ideal is preferred over something that has to start as an ideal realized, and can never start. I think my system proposal creates selective pressure toward the ideal, but can be started within the reality of today. --S Rhodes 00:58, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: Wealth feedback loop ensures continual push toward base equity; additional wealth determined by effort and lifestyle of individual. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I wonder what you mean here. Ownut

Stan: The more use, the higher the use cost paid to the propertytrust; all members are trustees. This fee is then equally distributed among all members. A person that guardians/owns a lot of land or possessions pays a lot. Maintaining that sort of lifestyle is very expensive, and it "pays" those who live lower impact; the wasteful person is actually using resources at everyone's expense, and the system models that mechanic. If the person can continually earn enough to live expensively, they can do it. However, I don't think this "work hard, play hard" potential is a problem. The biggest wasters are not people who had to work hard to earn their wealth, but quite the opposite: people who have little work ethic or understanding of value at all. They are, essentially, the cheaters of society, and in a system that selects against waste and redistributes wealth, they're quite literally at a loss.

I say live "expensively" rather than "well," because I think it's pretty clear in this day and age that one can live quite well without being incredibly wasteful. As technology advances, this will become even more obvious to others. We don't need to "rough it" to live in a responsible, ecologically sound way. I would speculate, as I'm sure most who are familiar with the power of open source and innovation would too, that innovation and advancement will accelerate proportional to the amount of equity and openness in the world. Quality of life will get better for everyone, from the "bottom" up. --S Rhodes 00:58, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: Overall system is democratic, through direct participation, transparency, and shared accountability. --S Rhodes

Patrick: This sounds like a good goal, and should be a 'result' of policy, right? (I'm trying to differentiate between what we can meaningfully write into a contract, and what we hope to achieve as a result of those written constraints.) Ownut

Stan: The principles of organization and the code of conduct are the start. I don't like to think of them as constraints, but as opt-in responsibilities. Constraints are made to be broken, principles are meant to be acted on. This may seem like some semantic shell-game, but I think there are important perceptions at play. Humans love gaming systems. Humans also treat concepts of entitlement and rights differently than senses of responsibility and shared principles. I think the Framers of the Constitution might have phrased the Bill of Rights and the Constitution quite differently had they known what psychologists know now about cognition, language, and behavior. I hope that, by creating a framework of principles and basic moral conduct, we can avoid initial rules-mongering. The code of conduct is for the people to opt-into, the principles are for the organizations (their structures) to opt-into. Variation beyond those is fine, and expected. This really gets into notions of peer governance, deliberative democracy, ad hoc assembly, etc. I don't think the two of us can solve this, nor should we, but I think we can build a base that is enough of a starting point to get nodes going, and conversations started. The next Constitution will likely be a peer-deliberated one. I hope this does not seem like a cop-out, but I think trying to make up rules beyond basic principles is actually self-defeating. We can never come up with a ruleset that cannot be broken, but we don't need to. This is a huge ball of wax, but I'll leave it at this for now. --S Rhodes 00:58, 31 January 2008 (PST)

Stan: All released information must be available to all. Distribution of information must not be restricted; information must not be treated as a rival good. The system must enable and favor full and free distribution of information. --S Rhodes

Patrick: You say must be available to all, but earlier you said we couldn't require the use of the GNU GPL.

I agree there shouldn't be coercion, and we should use the voluntary principle as you say, but then what do you mean by must? Ownut

Stan: Creation of information must be treated as a service. The system must enable compensation for creation.

Patrick: Could you tell me more specifically what you mean here? What if I created some 'art' as a computer program that nobody appreciated but me? Would the faceless 'trust' be required to pay me? Ownut

Stan: Information is not property. --S Rhodes

Patrick: This is definitely correct. Ownut

Stan: Membership is the irrevocable right of participation acquired through application for, and acceptance of, membership. --S Rhodes

Patrick: We need to differentiate between Instances of Physical Sources. I will explain through an example based on my dreams of how this might come about:

Imagine you and I buy (or even rent at first) a little land and a building to open a restaurant that will operate under this new ruleset.

(I've tried many times to write the follwing, but it always comes out so clumsy. Please push against this and help me understand what is not clear.)

When a customer buys a meal and willingly pays Profit (Price above cost), he is making an investment which will become (after that investment 'vests', though I'm not sure how to determine when 'vesting' should happen) - it then becomes an "irrevocable right of participation", but not neccessarily in that exact restaurant.

Trying to be more clear: The profit being treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it will be spent by the current owners to payoff the debt they are under for the *current* restaurant, or it will be spent toward *more* Physical Sources if those owners are not offering any control over *that* restaurant up for sale. In the case of external investment, those funds would target *another* restaurant - hopefully closer to where that user lives, while the current owners will have choosen to shoulder the burden of debt for themselves for *that* restaurant with respect to that consumer.

This attempts to maximize divisiblity while the contract itself would somehow tie each of these autonomous Physical Sources together through the GNUrho currency.... Ownut

Stan: The network is self-organizing: participants can self-organize at any time, for any reason, at any scale, with irrevocable rights of participation in governance at any greater scale. --S Rhodes

Patrick: Yes, but again, we need divisiblity to minimize decision granularity. Ownut

Stan: Power and function are distributive and decentralized. No power is vested in, or function performed by, any part that could not be reasonably exercised by any more peripheral part. --S Rhodes

Patrick: Ah yes, I think you are also talking about divisiblity? Ownut

Stan: Governance is distributive, with no individual, institution, or combination of either or both (such as management), able to dominate deliberations or control decisions at any scale. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I think of this as the percentage of ownership any one person has in any divisible physical thing. If you have only 3.4% ownership in a rototiller, you have exactly that vote weight. Ownut

Stan: Competition is between the fitness of ideas, not individuals or groups. Ideas are evaluated within cooperative and collaborative deliberations of groups and individuals, for the good of the whole--the sum of self-interests. --S Rhodes

Patrick: The good of the whole between the owners of that *specific* instance right? Ownut

Stan: Essential purposes and principles guide form and function. Form and function are infinitely malleable, and as durable as needed. All parts are capable of constant, self-generated, modification of form or function without sacrificing their essential purpose, or embodied principle. --S Rhodes

Patrick: Wow. That sounds good, but I'm not sure what you mean. Ownut

Stan: Lowest price: not seeking profit, only best service possible. For-profit competition impossible. --S Rhodes

Patrick: My view is that we should actually charge as high a price possible (maximize profit), but by treating that profit as an investment from that user, we are getting him to fund his own growth of the organization at exactly the pace that they "can bear". While this policy is somewhat 'parental', when the ownership finally 'vests' to that user, it will also eventually very appreciated.

This approach also happens to cause profit to taper toward zero since, when an Object consumer (say of an apple) is also the owner of the Physical Sources (the apple tree, land, water rights, etc.), he cannot pay profit unless he were to pay it to himself. Profit becomes 'undefined' in the fleeting perfect case. Ownut

Stan: Value transfer established as a public right enabled by members, system is accountable and transparent. --S Rhodes

Patrick: Are you talking about currency here? Money confuses me until my head swims. Please tell me more about what you think. Ownut

Stan: Credits can be saved, but no protected "banks" that charge or pay interest. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I guess so. What do you envision the currency (or credits) being 'backed' by? Who will issue it, and how will that be constrained? Ownut

Stan: Anyone or anyplace I interact with only knows the bare minimum needed to identify me for my purpose of use. --S Rhodes

Patrick: I've thought about this alot, and thought it would also be fun to allow the user the option of recording and/or those activities for himself and/or for anyone willing to pay for them. Although the video would be required to be under the GNU GPL (or similar Copylefting license), people may still be willing to pay for "early access"... or even to be present while the activity is taking place.

For instance, an auto mechanic or baker or shoemaker or even a computer programmer could record his activities while talking about what he is doing as an instructional video. Ownut