The example of the Farm is truly inspiring. The intentional communities movement in general has provided a laboratory for trying out different, more collaborative and compassionate ways of living. Communities Magazine continues to report on those ways of living, their successes and failures and future prospects. Commitment Pooling covers a lot of ground from governance to economics to cohabitation. Within communities material exchanges can be informally managed; between communities the process needs to be formalized to assure reciprocity, that's where private and community currencies and credit clearing networks come in..
Well spotted Thomas. I'm dubious at our ability to informally manage things (or manage things at all). Often the lack of formalization, even in the very simple form of appreciation and acknowledgement causes breakdowns within families. But yes -the more people don't need to measure reciprocity because inequality and imbalance are handled in other ways - the more we can focus on potential trust vs kinetic (measurement) of trust - the farther we can see ahead and thrive.
I see formalization with Commitment Pooling as a way of defining and making aware reciprocity - that might be handled in many processes. As a Protocol it may be broken into several functions that it are left to the users to implement how they see fit.
Relative Value - Can be expressed (implemented as an interface) as a price vector, a scalar, a algorithm an oracle and so on.
Curation and Limitation - Can be expressed as a portfolio of many kinds of assets with various forms of capacity, balance and limitation.
Peering - Fair Exchange can be defined in many ways and can include the costs of curation
Commitment (~Yang) Pooling (~Yin) is a frame of looking at resource coordination from the perspective if holding a space for our intentions to flow.
Regarding informal management of commitments, claims, and obligations I see a dimension I call "interpersonal distance;" it's not physical, its emotional and relational and can be divided from near to distant going from, nuclear family, extended family, clan, tribe, various kinds of community, bio-region, nation, etc.. The greater the interpersonal distance, the greater the need for formal arrangements for reciprocity. I have an unpublished paper on that which I may include in my updated book.
Regarding value relativity, each thing is valued in relation to every other thing. There is individual value and market value. Markets to me are the economic heart of communities in which the interplay of values, products, and competition work out to everyone's advantage IF the market can be maintained as a commons without any player being able to dominate. The great disasters of modern civilization have been the aggregation of power and wealth in few hands that have been able to dominate via control of fiat money and corporations.
- hopping from one pool to another has a cost - staying local has it's benefits.
- on relative value - we've been implementing this part of the protocol using a price vector - so each item in a pool is not valued against every other item (as there could be arbitrage as such within the pool) - but rather each asset is given a relative weight against ALL others. It is worth understanding how this is working about groups issuing vouchers in Kenya: https://sarafu.network/pools/0x48a953cA5cf5298bc6f6Af3C608351f537AAcb9e
Each Voucher is listed along with a relative value and a current holding and limit
The example of the Farm is truly inspiring. The intentional communities movement in general has provided a laboratory for trying out different, more collaborative and compassionate ways of living. Communities Magazine continues to report on those ways of living, their successes and failures and future prospects. Commitment Pooling covers a lot of ground from governance to economics to cohabitation. Within communities material exchanges can be informally managed; between communities the process needs to be formalized to assure reciprocity, that's where private and community currencies and credit clearing networks come in..
Well spotted Thomas. I'm dubious at our ability to informally manage things (or manage things at all). Often the lack of formalization, even in the very simple form of appreciation and acknowledgement causes breakdowns within families. But yes -the more people don't need to measure reciprocity because inequality and imbalance are handled in other ways - the more we can focus on potential trust vs kinetic (measurement) of trust - the farther we can see ahead and thrive.
I see formalization with Commitment Pooling as a way of defining and making aware reciprocity - that might be handled in many processes. As a Protocol it may be broken into several functions that it are left to the users to implement how they see fit.
Relative Value - Can be expressed (implemented as an interface) as a price vector, a scalar, a algorithm an oracle and so on.
Curation and Limitation - Can be expressed as a portfolio of many kinds of assets with various forms of capacity, balance and limitation.
Peering - Fair Exchange can be defined in many ways and can include the costs of curation
Commitment (~Yang) Pooling (~Yin) is a frame of looking at resource coordination from the perspective if holding a space for our intentions to flow.
Paper draft (soon to be published on IJCCR) here at bottom https://grassecon.org/commitment-pooling
Regarding informal management of commitments, claims, and obligations I see a dimension I call "interpersonal distance;" it's not physical, its emotional and relational and can be divided from near to distant going from, nuclear family, extended family, clan, tribe, various kinds of community, bio-region, nation, etc.. The greater the interpersonal distance, the greater the need for formal arrangements for reciprocity. I have an unpublished paper on that which I may include in my updated book.
Regarding value relativity, each thing is valued in relation to every other thing. There is individual value and market value. Markets to me are the economic heart of communities in which the interplay of values, products, and competition work out to everyone's advantage IF the market can be maintained as a commons without any player being able to dominate. The great disasters of modern civilization have been the aggregation of power and wealth in few hands that have been able to dominate via control of fiat money and corporations.
- hopping from one pool to another has a cost - staying local has it's benefits.
- on relative value - we've been implementing this part of the protocol using a price vector - so each item in a pool is not valued against every other item (as there could be arbitrage as such within the pool) - but rather each asset is given a relative weight against ALL others. It is worth understanding how this is working about groups issuing vouchers in Kenya: https://sarafu.network/pools/0x48a953cA5cf5298bc6f6Af3C608351f537AAcb9e
Each Voucher is listed along with a relative value and a current holding and limit