Great mediation on the need for objective 3rd parties, and our hope that machines could fulfill that role. In one sense money also plays mechanistic "neutral 3rd party" within commitment pools, because USD or KS are commonly used to help provide a common language of value.
In contrast, asking people to perform the job of neutral 3rd party is often filled with strife, as your example of Judas explores. One reason for that is the failure of Plato's logic: the expert ("philosopher king") is not necessarily the least biased.
An alternative can be found in the wisdom of the crowd. A "jury of your peers" or a scientific journal "peer review" and democratic voting are all cases in which we hope that the wisdom of the crowd will act as that objective third party. And that's why Wikipedia has largely replaced Britannica.
In the broadest sense, commitment pool networks replace the expertise of billionaires ruling the economy -- philosopher kings like Elon Musk -- with an economy ruled by the wisdom of the crowd.
Oiyeee!! .... the tension between centralized expertise and collective discernment, especially in the context of economic coordination.
Money does (too) often play the role of an “objective third party,” but in commitment pools we can go deeper. Instead of assuming the objectivity of fiat currency, we track the promises themselves, alongside contributions of care, time, and shared memory. Money may help as a (current) shared reference, but it's the relational accounting that grounds value ... not just the medium.
And yes, history shows us that no individual, however wise or well-intentioned, is truly neutral. Even our Judas figures are often caught in systems too large to blame on one soul. That’s why the wisdom of the crowd, especially when distributed through layered, overlapping commitment pools, offers a more resilient and ethical foundation for coordination.
I love the Wikipedia analogy .... moving from top-down authority to a living, editable, participatory commons. That’s the spirit we’re cultivating: not perfect objectivity, but shared responsibility and regenerative reciprocity.
Let’s keep composting the dung of empire into the soil of collective wisdom.
" Instead of assuming the objectivity of fiat currency, we track the promises themselves, alongside contributions of care, time, and shared memory" -- yes I think those two layers are true in every case where a wisdom of the crowd is functioning. The final version of the published paper is fixed, but the underlying process of revisions was essentially a "relational accounting" about which epistemological promises can be trusted. Did you really show statistical significance? Does that citation really back up your claim in this sentence? The financial economy of the commitment pool and the epistemic economy of peer review, wikipedia, etc. have striking parallels.
Great mediation on the need for objective 3rd parties, and our hope that machines could fulfill that role. In one sense money also plays mechanistic "neutral 3rd party" within commitment pools, because USD or KS are commonly used to help provide a common language of value.
In contrast, asking people to perform the job of neutral 3rd party is often filled with strife, as your example of Judas explores. One reason for that is the failure of Plato's logic: the expert ("philosopher king") is not necessarily the least biased.
An alternative can be found in the wisdom of the crowd. A "jury of your peers" or a scientific journal "peer review" and democratic voting are all cases in which we hope that the wisdom of the crowd will act as that objective third party. And that's why Wikipedia has largely replaced Britannica.
In the broadest sense, commitment pool networks replace the expertise of billionaires ruling the economy -- philosopher kings like Elon Musk -- with an economy ruled by the wisdom of the crowd.
Oiyeee!! .... the tension between centralized expertise and collective discernment, especially in the context of economic coordination.
Money does (too) often play the role of an “objective third party,” but in commitment pools we can go deeper. Instead of assuming the objectivity of fiat currency, we track the promises themselves, alongside contributions of care, time, and shared memory. Money may help as a (current) shared reference, but it's the relational accounting that grounds value ... not just the medium.
And yes, history shows us that no individual, however wise or well-intentioned, is truly neutral. Even our Judas figures are often caught in systems too large to blame on one soul. That’s why the wisdom of the crowd, especially when distributed through layered, overlapping commitment pools, offers a more resilient and ethical foundation for coordination.
I love the Wikipedia analogy .... moving from top-down authority to a living, editable, participatory commons. That’s the spirit we’re cultivating: not perfect objectivity, but shared responsibility and regenerative reciprocity.
Let’s keep composting the dung of empire into the soil of collective wisdom.
" Instead of assuming the objectivity of fiat currency, we track the promises themselves, alongside contributions of care, time, and shared memory" -- yes I think those two layers are true in every case where a wisdom of the crowd is functioning. The final version of the published paper is fixed, but the underlying process of revisions was essentially a "relational accounting" about which epistemological promises can be trusted. Did you really show statistical significance? Does that citation really back up your claim in this sentence? The financial economy of the commitment pool and the epistemic economy of peer review, wikipedia, etc. have striking parallels.