Subjective-enumeration-algorithm (sea) adds a qualitative step to dmp. When each participant receives their equal share of the surplus (as per dmp), it is immediately redistributed to co-creators by the personal ratio each individual determines.
Basically, this is weighted money, where money is distributed according to the subjective evaluation of each individual. sea enables each individual to influence the flow of surplus money through them to reflect their personal values.
If Anna distributed her value as 7 to Barney and 3 to Charlie, and she received a surplus of £100 from dmp, £70 goes to Barney and £30 to Charlie. In turn, if Barney has distributed his evaluation as 5 to Anna and 5 to Charlie, his £100 surplus would be split £50 to Anna and £50 to Charlie. And if Charlie distributed his value as 2 to Anna and 8 to Barney, his dmp surplus would be split £20 to Anna and £80 to Barney. In the end, although each should get an equal £100, the distribution has been filtered through each individual’s sea values; in this case Anne gets £70, Barney gets £150 and Charlie gets £80.
There are several ways that people could monitor their subjective evaluation. A useful one is to evaluate each and everyone’s contribution as they happen. One easy procedure at the end of a meeting is to simply think of a number (0 to10) to express the value of that meeting. The running total and distribution of these subjective enumerations can be recorded as a numerical expression. When surplus is allocated, it is immediately distributed in the accumulated ratios with no extra thought applied.
The central benefit of sea is that the process of allocating money is divorced from the evaluation of value, much like mttp, freeing people to honestly evaluate others’ contributions relative to their own values. No argument, no fighting over who deserves what. In the above example, perhaps Barney was recognised for the greater input in the production of their picture. In this way, money finds itself arriving at people who exhibit the most value.
Check out this working sea sandpit on gdocs:
note: google page rank algorithm
If we wish to track subjective enumeration, google page rank algorithm may be a near-perfect off-the-shelf calculation, complete with arrays of adjacency functions as individuals rate one another. Consider the initial starting position:
(where V is the value of any person i at time 0, N the total number of people)
And the iterative equation which tends to a relative value of any person to any other person in the entity, much like google’s algorithm with a little minor tweaking, namely ∑V(Pj) :
(where V is the value of any person i, d is the “damping factor”, N the total number of people, M the set of people who evaluate person i, the value of person j at time t)
A fair starting point, and one which may not only interest google, but may also give some credence to the insight that mttp and eco^2 may provide a better economic structure than their current legal “incorporated company” since it is designed for networks. We may one day see google transform its entire operation through eco^2 protocols.
Invitational-protocol (ip) is a variation of mttp, used specifically to outreach to new participants. When Anna meets Barry at a conference, they conduct ip by Anna inviting Barry to come to the next in-person gathering, and offering £10 to be matched by Barry. The conditions are very similar to mttp:
- bring both £10 to the meeting
- optionally invite others to the meeting
If Barry turns up to the weekly meeting, he is welcomed warmly. He brings with him £10 and has invited Chuck, who himself turns up with £20.
In this way, trust becomes transitive, and new participants are genuinely welcomed for turning up for the first time having been attracted to the person who engaged them, the value that was seen in them, or the financial protocol that beckons a completely new economic social contract.
Money can be traced through the trust relationships formed through ip before the meeting has even occurred. Mathematically, the money that is brought to the meeting is at the fringes of the network of trust that has cascaded through ip relationships. There is no money at the centre: the “regulars” have given away their money, and in this process it doubles as ip propagates through a population. (For those interested in the detail, mttp can create equity cycles where a chain of invitations create a closed loop as the initiating inviter is finally invited; this is linear, whereas ip takes this into a two-dimensional radial pattern.)
This is not a straight linear relationship, variations evolve. For example, Dave, Charlie and Barney “nominate” Anna, a particularly effervescent and active member who has time to talent scout over the week. They invite her at £10 each to the next meeting, so Anna starts the week with £40 which she can use to invite four people using ip. If she fails to invite anyone, she can return with £40. Perhaps she invites four people and none turn up, perhaps eight do with £80 in total.
Seen in this way, invitational-protocol is a kind of test for the strength of the social fabric. Not only a social bond between regular participants who attend weekly, but a test of the environment “out there” as new people are approached with eco^2 protocols of trust.
Let us simplify things. Let us say that buddhism is radical subjectivism and science is radical objectivism, occupying the two extremes of the psycho-social continuum. In between these two extremes, are the rest of us, with our jobs and families and politics and shops and football and coffee and whatever else we dream and do. Where in this maelstrom of happening can there be a third extreme? And this is where I would like to locate it: directly between us. In the case of this book, it is between me the writer and you the reader. In tango, it is between the two dancers. In a family, it is between each member during every engagement. On a football pitch, it is between the players as they play. It is precisely the point between us, embodied by our actual, fully-immersed engagement, this book, a dance, a game. It is the social edge, as soon as we enter the social contract of talk-listen, as soon as we act together.