I love the yin/yang metaphors here and nods to permaculture! As I’m reading this, I can’t help but reflect on some ideas that have been percolating around the interplay between attestation, value signaling and capital allocation. For context, I recently started a new gig where most of my job is trying to figure out how communities can efficiently distribute large sums of money towards things they find valuable, as well as how they can trust each other while doing this.
Let’s start with capital allocation. It’s interesting to me that in web3 there’s an abundance of capital thanks to Big DAO Money yet a terrible track record of being able to allocate it well or to the right people. So naturally, people building around this problem tend to focus entirely on how to tweak where the money goes. Hence the almost prolific interest in pluralistic grants and all things public goods. (I sometimes wonder how helpful these terms really are. It’s hard to critique something if it’s very name is synonymous with being very smart and very good at the same time – but then again, hasn’t Effective Altruism enjoyed this privilege for the longest time?) Anyway, the point here is that the discourse then becomes entirely about “get money in” rather than “seed value within”, which is what I think you are proposing.
Next, let’s look at attestation. This is where I think the RPGF nerds make a good point - none of this actually works if you don’t have solid mechanisms for attestation. How do I know that you are who you say you are? How do I know that you will make good on your production loan? To be very honest, I love the Commitment Pooling concept and have been following it for a long time but I’m yet to see this component get the attention it deserves.
Finally, on value signaling. I actually think this could be the most interesting and exciting part about Commitment Pooling! Right now I’m asking people to complete surveys that ask them about their time commitments, desired contributions, etc. but under the model you propose, this is really just the voucher creation process (right?)
If the big theme here is just getting people rewarded for the value they provide, then I see people approaching the various pieces from vastly different angles. It’s interesting to observe what gets prioritized and deprioritized along the way. One thing that really draws me to the concept of Commitment Pooling is that, to use your own analogy, in makes place for the “yin” in economic design. The container always matters! Everything is only valuable in relation to other things, and the great tragedy of our current economic paradigm is that it has blinded us to the inherent relational value that exists between human beings.
As I’ve followed this idea from inception, I often ask myself this: what would it take to create a Kickstarter built on Commitment Pooling? What pieces would need to be in place for this to work anywhere, for anyone?
I love the yin/yang metaphors here and nods to permaculture! As I’m reading this, I can’t help but reflect on some ideas that have been percolating around the interplay between attestation, value signaling and capital allocation. For context, I recently started a new gig where most of my job is trying to figure out how communities can efficiently distribute large sums of money towards things they find valuable, as well as how they can trust each other while doing this.
Let’s start with capital allocation. It’s interesting to me that in web3 there’s an abundance of capital thanks to Big DAO Money yet a terrible track record of being able to allocate it well or to the right people. So naturally, people building around this problem tend to focus entirely on how to tweak where the money goes. Hence the almost prolific interest in pluralistic grants and all things public goods. (I sometimes wonder how helpful these terms really are. It’s hard to critique something if it’s very name is synonymous with being very smart and very good at the same time – but then again, hasn’t Effective Altruism enjoyed this privilege for the longest time?) Anyway, the point here is that the discourse then becomes entirely about “get money in” rather than “seed value within”, which is what I think you are proposing.
Next, let’s look at attestation. This is where I think the RPGF nerds make a good point - none of this actually works if you don’t have solid mechanisms for attestation. How do I know that you are who you say you are? How do I know that you will make good on your production loan? To be very honest, I love the Commitment Pooling concept and have been following it for a long time but I’m yet to see this component get the attention it deserves.
Finally, on value signaling. I actually think this could be the most interesting and exciting part about Commitment Pooling! Right now I’m asking people to complete surveys that ask them about their time commitments, desired contributions, etc. but under the model you propose, this is really just the voucher creation process (right?)
If the big theme here is just getting people rewarded for the value they provide, then I see people approaching the various pieces from vastly different angles. It’s interesting to observe what gets prioritized and deprioritized along the way. One thing that really draws me to the concept of Commitment Pooling is that, to use your own analogy, in makes place for the “yin” in economic design. The container always matters! Everything is only valuable in relation to other things, and the great tragedy of our current economic paradigm is that it has blinded us to the inherent relational value that exists between human beings.
As I’ve followed this idea from inception, I often ask myself this: what would it take to create a Kickstarter built on Commitment Pooling? What pieces would need to be in place for this to work anywhere, for anyone?
I want to see this where i live.