Peer Trust Network Project

Background

I (Stan Rhodes) created this project after nearly a year of researching issues affecting people all over the world. This model is built from the work of countless others, reassembled into the principles and structures of a new model, and built from within the current model. This model was created with the United States in mind, both because of its role in affecting the world, and my experience as an American. I think--and hope--it can be adapted elsewhere with few changes.

Overall Purpose

Create a framework on which to build and maintain a socioeconomic trust network that is beneficial, fair, and honest. All nonrival goods (digital media) are in a service model, and 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.

To Add: Specific aspects of examples, philosophy and principles, resources, site links, books, authors, advocates.

Framing the Problem

Root problem of global issues: inequity of knowledge and material wealth.

Unequal distribution of information. Information = nonrival goods.

Unequal distribution of material resources. Material resources = rival goods.

Explanation of rivalry in economics at Wikipedia.

Solving Nonrival Inequity: Principles for Information Equity

1. 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.
2. Creation of information must be treated as a service. The system must enable compensation for creation.
3. Information is not property.

Principle 1 creates optimizes economic efficiency, because it removes artificial scarcity. Principle 2 and 3 remove the dead-end view of information as property, which has been, and will continue to be, a losing battle against the reality of near-zero distribution cost for nonrival goods. These principles are interdependent.

Analysis of the Socioeconomic Argument for Restriction: Invaliding the Incentive Argument

The restriction of information is at best inefficient, and at worst, a form of coercive power. In all cases such restriction negatively impacts the public good. The only good reason to create a restriction, legally, would be because of some other factor affecting the public good. In this case, the concern of creator incentive. The origin of copyright and patent, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, addresses this economic concern, attempting to maximize public good by balancing the benefit of creator incentive and the resulting higher output (quantity and/or quality) of works with the detriment of restricting distribution among the public.

Today we can question, and I believe invalidate, the very basis of the incentive argument, for three main reasons:

1. Distribution of information--nonrival goods--is continually approaching zero cost. Attempting to raise the cost of distribution (artificially, particularly through the fallacy of "property") fights against this technological reality, requiring restriction of technology through stifling technological innovation and restricting individual freedom. This is the "losing battle" reason.
2. The benefit of the the works created by the incentive must be greater than the societal detriment the restrictions cause. As distribution costs become trivial, the amount of detriment caused by reducing cumulative knowledge production increases rapidly. The benefit cannot outweigh the stunting of growth. This is the "stifles progress (of science and the useful arts)" reason.
3. Technology currently provides, and will continue to provide and improve upon, methods of direct compensation, means of creation, decentralized risk-sharing. Technology enables direct exchange of value between parties. Technology increases availability of means of production (from digital media to fabrication using design information). Technology enables a near-zero middlemen cost (distribution and risk cost) between users and creators, enabling risk to be efficiently spread widely and in small amounts. This is the "service model" reason.

Components

Each component is a trust node, composed of members that voluntarily joined with full knowledge of the intents and purposes of the trust network.

Component, Network, and Node Principles

The following are derived, in whole or in part, from Dee Hock's principles for chaordic organizations, as outlined in One from Many.

Trustbank / Value Exchange Trust

Purpose

I can exchange money with someone instantly and without fees.

Real world examples:

• Paypal.
• QQ and QQ coins.
• Currency transfer in most MMOs.

Benefits of trust over corporate / private model:

• Lowest price: not seeking profit, only best service possible. For-profit competition impossible.
• Peer-to-peer value transfer is optimal, at near-zero distribution cost.
• Value transfer established as a public right enabled by members, system is accountable and transparent.
• Members retain control, cannot be coerced or manipulated through institutional constraints.

Additional details:

• Credits can be saved, but no protected "banks" that charge or pay interest.

Credentialbank / Identity Trust

Purpose:

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

Real world examples:

• ??? These examples are particularly weak.
• Sxip
• Steam

Benefits of trust over corporate / private model:

• Lowest price: not seeking profit, only best service possible. For-profit competition impossible.
• Privacy established as public right enabled by members, system is accountable and transparent.
• Members control their private information.
• Methods are open for criticism and improvement, no hiding of weaknesses that are ripe for exploitation.
• Peer-to-peer credential exchange is near-zero distribution cost.

Mediabank / Cultural Trust (has profilebank aspect with voluntary use and contribution tracking)

Purpose:

Cultural agora providing models of exchange between creators and users and improving availability and findability of digital media. I can see what my friends are listening to and try anything I'm interested in, I can join a game with friends or a trusted group. I can contribute to projects and people that created media I enjoy, build reputations for supporting and collaborating, and participate in communities.

Real world examples:

• Archive.org
• Gutenberg.org
• Amazon.com
• IMDB.com
• Audioscrobbler
• Steam
• Youtube
• Facebook
• Planets and news / media aggregators
• Torrent sites

Benefits of trust over corporate / private model:

• Lowest price: not seeking profit, only best service possible. For-profit competition impossible.
• Privacy established as public right enabled by members, system is accountable and transparent.
• Members control their private information.
• Methods are open for criticism and improvement, no hiding of weaknesses that are ripe for exploitation.
• Peer-to-peer media exchange and use is near-zero distribution cost.
• Long-tail fully accessible.
• Information wants to be free, and it is.

Additional details:

• Media in the trust is either public domain, or is GPL-ish.
• Many models possible for creators to receive compensation if not working on project others have requested:

Pledge, loans/microloans, digital auction, barter, donation, free as in beer.

• Reputation can be tracked as contribution / use, similar to a share ratio on bittorrent. This allows communities to have opt-in tracking so they can boot those don't contribute enough or at all. Game clans already do this in some aspects, for example, CS:S or DoD servers with reserved slots for community members.

Propertybank / Property Trust

Purpose:

Trust protects interests of all members, who each have equal stake in the property. The trust acquires resources, valuates resources, sets use fees dependent on sustainability of use, and distributes collected use fees equally to all members.

Real world examples:

• Nature Conservancy
• Marin Argicultural Land Trust (MALT) http://www.malt.org/
• Flexcar

Benefits of trust over corporate / private model:

• Corruption harder, system is accountable and transparent.
• Resources not sold to highest bidder.
• Provides real incentive for efficient use: waste most, pay most; waste least, pay least.
• Begins to restore land, reclaim farmland, generally improve human damage to environment.
• Methods used are open for criticism and improvement.
• Increases value of sustainable habitation and use.

Additional details:

The trust can be seen as a human-created mind of gaia that charges those who waste resources the most, selects for most efficient and ecologically-sound use, and redistributes wealth in the process. Considering we are all on the earth, and should all be considered joint owners of earth, those who are most wasteful should be charged most, and those that are least wasteful should be charged least.