Tagged: financial protocol

animation of EDP and SEA

So, people have adopted MTTP and co-created something. What happens if money is attracted to this?

For example, a team have invited one another through a web of peer-to-peer MTTP social contracts, and they produce a book. Traditionally, they would try to “sell” the book. However, with ecological economics, the book is given. Of course, in order for the participants to continue writing or doing other things, it would help if they were given money in return. Thus, the value that the team produce attracts money. We call this surplus.

The money that is attracted to the value co-created is divided equally to all participants. This is EDP — Equal-Distribution-Protocol. (On this website, this used to be called dmp, the distributed-money-protocol.)

For added flavour, to capture the quality of different people’s contributions, they can use the Subjective-Enumeration-Algorithm.

animation of mttp social contract

OK, this is rough, but it is amusing to think that I have actually done this — walked into businesses and presented ideas framed in the MTTP (Money-Time-Trust-Protocol) contract.

At the end of the meeting, the person is usually amazed. They have received a new idea they may use in their business, have had a super-interesting discussion, and they end up with more money than they came with.

I tried this with advertising companies and got very close to money-flow. Nobody I spoke to, however, saw the potential for using this methodology when approaching their potential new clients. Not yet at least. The idea of giving away your ideas seems to go counter ‘pitching’ and competing and owning. Once people get it though, it may turn the business world upside down, just like open-source half-did on the internet. This time, it is in the real world with anything.

subjective-enumeration-algorithm

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:

Screen Shot 2013-07-02 at 00.22.38

 

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

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:

  1. bring both £10 to the meeting
  2. 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.

30% eco-time

Google has 20% Google time, where employees are encouraged to work on their own projects for 20% of their paid time. This fosters an incubation process within the company itself, generating a sense of genuine co-working and has given rise to several in-house developments.

Looking at social business hubs, whose business plans are usually based on renting out of desks or space or membership, there is a tendency for such spaces to become like hot-desking, no matter the social engineering techniques employed. Hence the need to introduce 30% eco-time, where participants are invited to give 30% of their time to others.

If people are working at 70% capacity as a norm, then there is always an openness to conditions, to opportunity. It means the collective is capable of dealing with extenuating social conditions, can respond more quickly to surprise events, and suitably structured with social ligaments can co-ordinate themselves to achieve objectives that are collectively more pressing.

The economics for this depends on the conditions. At the Hub Westminster, for example, members are charged £95 for 30 hours of use over a month. Hub Westminster could ask for 10 of those hours to be given to other members, or to add an additional 10 hours for this purpose. In fact, if eco^2 is healthy enough, these additional 10 hours could be paid for at £10-hour, which means members could make back their membership fee by being paid to offer their services for free. Members could then evaluate both economic models: the traditional model where they pay for space and services to further their own objectives, or they are paid to create value for others. The second may appear to be like a company, and indeed it offers the security and working conditions for productive output, but the combination of mttp and dmp have already established that eco^2 is not a company.

In terms of eco^2, 30% is a round figure. Participants may scale themselves on how much “free time” they are working on, from 0 to 10: simply square this number to determine the percentage of their time is eco^2. David Pinto, aka happyseaurchin, is currently 10 as all his time is devoted to eco-time.