Been working with a bunch of people on a new version of SEA equations, to include things. Well beyond my interest or experience, however, it does have more traction in the current economic system. After deriving some equations, they are making moves.
Meanwhile, I returned to the original MTTP contract and have seen the potential for a new version that is not pure p2p, but is more like the ha-ha structure, and I’ve tentatively named it FTP. More of that later.
Here’s an animation of the MTTP in action with fake numbers. Each bar indicates a person who has been invited (or is attracted, bigger bars) to the entity using pure p2p MTTP. They appear, and when they leave, they leave with double their money (unless they were attracted). An attracted player is the equivalent of a government player, or charity, where the work that is co-created by participants is for social good alone with no monetary attraction. Co-created value that does attract money (ie selling stuff), is distributed by SEA. Since participants are covered by MTTP contracts, this is Surplus, and with enough surplus, players will want to plough that back into the system — this is the ‘attractors’. Alternatively, for the initial months of the entity, all surplus is ploughed back in to honour MTTP contracts without going through individuals, by default.
THE NUMBERS ARE NOT ACCURATE, they are representational only.
Notice the inverted pyramid effect. Those entering at longer time scales honour the payment of those who are exiting at shorter time-frames. The red figure is the amount of money that is static or fixed as the guaranteed part of the invitational protocol. That is, the red represents the people who are currently in the system at the NOW line. The green figure is the amount of money that honours the MTTP contracts. It shows the health of the entire entity. When the green hits zero, the entire entity dies, and whoever is left in the system NOW will only receive their half of the MTTP contract, that is the money they came with. That is, they don’t lose, they just don’t win. This is the failure state of the entity, and it is dependent on the number of people who are invited and at what values.
Of course, this is just the ‘boundary’ of the entity. The real stuff is what do people co-create? This is what is sold, or does social good, or both.
How would I go about building a house if I wanted to do so using ecosquared protocols? I will look at three conditions of social saturation:
- Red just starting with only you using the protocols
- Green with teams of people connected in a network using the protocols
- and Blue where a wide sector of people are sharing within ecosquared protocols
There are many factors to building a house and different ways to categorise its construction, let the following payments are estimates for building a three-bedroom house using traditional economics suffice:
- land cost, buying land, £100k
- labour, 40k
- materials, £120k
- selling of house £260k +/- whatever the ‘market’ price of such a thing is in the current market
Because you are the only person using the protocols, their use is rather limited. Land will be bought, as normal, though you may want to consider the land to be ‘commons’. The materials will also be bought. However, it may be possible to phrase the contracts with suppliers as an MTTP contract. Certain resources may be accessed again in the future, and rather than thinking the money is for the materials, it is more for the relationship to the materials supplier. They just happen to be giving you the bricks, cement, cables, etc.
Labour is conducted as MTTP, whether people understand it or not, it does not matter. It may be possible to open up the potential for a ‘crowd-funded’ house. That is, when the house if finished, the distribution of it worth (if it was sold) would be shared by the value attributed to people’s contribution.
When the house is built, it is ‘open-source’. It is nominally, legally owned by you, but in your mind it is simply the place where you happen to live. Neither the house or the land on which it is built is owned.
Building a house during Red Conditions, means this is more a mental exercise, a thought-experiment, than anything else. It does open up the necessary mentality for future growth however, both in terms of the people engaged to build it, as well as engaging others who have self-built.
A team gathering to build a house is a little like a ‘barn-building’ community, or a ‘building society’. People are aligning to create a house together, and if they can build one, they may help others as a team so that everyone who contributes ends up living in their own home.
The land is ‘owned’ but is shared in a collective sense. Again, not much meaning here unless the team actually build on mutual, shared ground.
The labour can be paid for via MTTP, and if within the team, it is volunteered. Subjective enumeration is the basic means of tracking people’s contributions. This should map in some way to the current market costs, for laying foundation, brickwork, panelling, flooring, electrical system etc. It should be possible to estimate the ‘return’ to each contributor via SEA should the house be sold.
Resources are bought off market. Again, this is a standard ‘trade’ exchange, money for resources, however it may also be clothed as an MTTP contract, to invite suppliers into the ecosquared supply chain.
The finished house is owned collectively, but is occupied by whoever is living there. The current inhabitants are stewards of the building. This should enable greater flexibility in terms of movement should people want to relocate to other parts of the city, country or the world, by swapping households.
The ‘market-value’ of the house is in terms of traditional economics. In terms of ecosquared, the building has no financial value whatsoever. We may attribute subjective enumeration, presumably by the inhabitants, but this relies on allowing SEA to apply to things. The principle, the practice, is that once the house is built, it is ‘free’. It is a resource to be tracked, to be used, but not to be tabulated with a monetary value.
Let’s assume that the ecosquared network has end-to-end chains of supply. This means that the build team are simply sharing their resources, as do the suppliers. There is no payment for anything. Materials are given. There may be MTTP contracts, and of course subjective enumeration, depending on the scale of the network.
If this is integrated with an end-to-end supply chain of food too, so that material suppliers and build teams are given food, then the system gets close to becoming fully self-sufficient. Of course, this is still within the current market place, with externalities like oil perhaps, or electricity from a central power grid, and so on, which need to be ‘paid for’. This is balanced by ‘income’ by the entire network as normal jobs. Some participants may take an income as ‘joiners’, ‘bricklayers’, ‘construction workers’, ‘farmers’, ‘teachers’ and so on. Such individuals sell to the current market, and this money is distributed via SEA to all participants within the network.
Because most of the daily resources are internally sourced, whether it happens to be the bricks for the newest buildings or the lettuce in the salad, there is no need for money, personally. Luxuries may be bought by individuals, but this kind of behaviour is frowned upon since the community is still paying for certain collectively required resources, such as electricity, petrol, etc. Once these collective requirements are covered, which is a calculation based on resource allocation and nothing more, the moneyflow which ends up with individuals is spent as each individual sees fit. Because of the way the system works, those who accrue the most money are those who produce the greatest value within the community. This may be related to jobs that people do not want to do, such as working in the sewars, or who happen to provide more invisible skills and services, self-development, social integration, educating kids, etc.
The point is, with the accumulation of material products, as houses, schools, farms, factories, enter into the ‘commons’, so there is no need to pay for these. These resources are shared. Their use is what is tracked using SEA as well as resource allocation economics. There are no owners, so no burgeoning externalities. People are being useful to one another, giving of their produce, whether it is planting a seed and then giving the resulting carrots to others, tutoring kids at math, or constructing bricks. Everything is given freely, and tracked with SEA. Money loses its internal necessity at the rate of which things are being produced within the ecosquared entity; money is no longer needed to ‘buy in’ resources.
You decide when these periods of time occur, when we shift from Red to Green to Blue conditions. The rate of social adoption depends on each one of us, individually and collectively, personally and globally.
At some stage, entire communities can become self-sufficient, where money is no longer needed to ‘buy-in’ resources, since they are all generated within ecosquared, food, materials, energy sources. This constitutes the Yellow Condition. Once these conditions apply to all communities globally, then we will have shifted from our current economic system to an economics based on giving, and GIFT will have been completed.
Could something like the Ha-ha’s be used to build a house? Current estimates are about 6 months to build a house. Would 1000 participants be willing to put in £100 to get a house built, using ecological designs, minimal electricity usage, etc — and that house be ‘owned’ by the collective? The current system for enabling ha-ha’s is not strong enough to support this kind of initiative because we can’t track SEA. However, one day the system will be more rigorous, and if participants put £100 per month into these initiatives rather than a mortgage, the world may look rather different in a decade or so.
Using a relative-value algorithm, SEA (similar to Google Page Rank), social accounting is simply a matter of tracking subjective enumeration. Value is enumerated by each person, and it is not ‘abstracted’ or ‘shared’ or ‘transacted’. Reading this article, for example, you evaluate it as 3 out of 10. This is just one evaluation out of all the evaluations the reader comes up with during a day’s living, whether it is enumerating the contribution of colleagues, foodstuffs, even the weather if they want. Thus, the reader accumulates a ratio of subjective enumerations. By applying the relative-value algorithm, a ‘priority list’ of evaluations is derived — without any external bias. In a pure p2p network, there is no ‘objective’ or ‘externalised’ enumeration, and thus no currency. It really is as simple as this; it worked for google, and made the internet navigable.
how do you go about evaluating?
Let us look more closely at how a person evaluates. In the example above, the reader gives the article a value of 3 out of 10. What are they estimating to have a value of 3?
- the reader is rating the article
- the reader is rating the article’s author
- the reader is rating their reading of the article
These three interpretations derive the quality of economics. In the first, the reader is evaluating a thing, in the second a person, in the third, their own experience. The first interpretation encourages the thinking that all subjective enumerations of the article can be totalled up and an average value derived, much like the totals for eg Amazon seller. The second interpretation is the operating interpretation of ecosquared, which emphasises the importance of a pure p2p evaluation system; things like articles and foodstuffs and so on conform to a resource economy primary based on sharing. The third interpretation essentially tracks gratitude.
All three are valid, and books will be written to share how one goes about evaluating one’s subjective enumeration. After all, some evaluations will lead us to saving this planet from environmental disaster, and other evaluations will continue the degradation. As a pure value-game, it is left up to each and every individual, as it should be for a p2p system.
where does money fit in?
To shift from our current system of an externalised unidimensional accounting system, that is money, to a multi-dimensional social accounting in a pure p2p system, we need to examine the parameters of our current economics. Money has evolved from a basic coupling of number-thing, and yet it is only functional in time, eg using the £10 I received yesterday to pay for something today. Because the basic application of number to social accountancy in money does not contain ‘time’, various ‘add-ons’ have evolved such as interest and compound interest, and with the application of negative number, our current economics is unstable. MTTP, or Money-Time-Trust-Protocol, decouples money-thing and replaces it with money-time, eg £10 is roughly equivalent to an hour. Money thus becomes “well behaved” in a mathematical sense.
Thus, we can invite people to co-create value using the MTTP social contract whether £10 for an hour or £100 for a day or £1000 for a week and so on. It performs the same function as ’employment’: participants have a guaranteed source of income. Notice, there is no bounded entity, no company or government or organisation; MTTP is a purely p2p protocol. The relationships of dyadic p2p contracts constitutes the economic structure of the network. Once the value is produced, and if this attracts money (ie is ‘sold’ using traditional economic parlance), the money attracted is distributed by the ratio of subjective enumeration of each participant member, via the Subjective-Enumeration-Algorithm described above.
The actual algorithm for tracking subjective enumeration looks something like this:
(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 Pj at time t)
Check out the math in this document, for both MTTP and SEA.
current p2p foundation engagement
These two protocols/algorithms establish a pure p2p economics, social accountancy with no organisational boundary, no centralised or abstracted authority, and it works for small groups or an entire planet of co-creation. Inherent in this system is the subtlety to educate people to evaluate ‘correctly’ if we wish to engender a sustainable global situation.
Having engaged Tiberius Brastaviceanu of Sensorica, the solutions presented here undercut the level of complexity his community is dealing with. Tiberius is employing a characteristically engineering methodology to the problem of social accounting, attempting to specify all the factors to evaluate an objectively fair % distribution of ‘value exchange’. Who determines the right factors and their evaluations? If there is any ‘externalised’ or ‘authoritative group’, then it is not a pure p2p system and politics rears its ugly head, which is why Sensorica are still struggling with deriving their accounting system that everyone is happy with. Imagine this expanded to the global level. No, the accounting system must be a pure p2p system, as efficient — and perhaps more so — than our current p2p system that is purely based on the unidimensional currency that is money.
The word ‘iteration’ has been used to describe the different attempts to put the financial protocols into practice, the fourth of which is the happening-hangout. Let’s reformulate this language.
iterative experiences relative to self
I, David Pinto, have been using the term iteration in relation to my own personal experience. After the first attempt, the birthing of the economic entity in 2012, the team wanted to continue with regular meetings at the Hub. I did not see much future in these, but attended a few. I am not into community building just for the sake of community building. I see this as one of the errors of how we self-organise; before you know it, we are supporting the continuance of social entities that have long-ago surpassed their use-by-date. Most of our social institutions, and indeed cities, suffer from this.
From birthing, I went ahead alone by approaching advertising agencies, and when personal issues intervened later in the year, I delimited my efforts to writing a book, which I have termed the third iteration. As you can tell, this is a personally relative sequence. However, what becomes clear is that different scales of social niche emerge, and it is these that may constitute our collective self-organised strategy.
The following modes of social experience, or social niches, may help map out the self-organised strategy involved:
- information: this website, blog, explanatory videos and prezi’s, the book
- synchronous pairing: tango, textango, MTTP, gems
- dynamic network alignment: action-cycle, happening-hangouts, SEA
There is a tendency for all initial business engagements to collapse back into an information-exchange. As we know, MTTP departs from the notion of exchange at source and is primarily based on setting up a scalable, synchronous, social experience: money-flow and co-creation first, then evaluation, information etc based on shared experience. MTTP is a financial protocol which embodies the new methodology.
The new methodology is based on social risk, on play, on not-knowing, on trust. By aligning to a future goal, even if it is as short as an hour or a week, we have something concrete to talk about: to iterate experientially, socially. Otherwise, we fall back into the attractor of what we know, what we can reason, what we think is possible, and so our current system of social paralysis continues.
alone, paired, and collectively
We will go into some detail regarding these three in subsequent posts, suffice to delineate the various scaled ‘projections’ in our ecological economy, as they map to the ‘social niches’ described above, from individual, paired, to small teams:
- writing fictional narratives (to embody ecosquared financial protocols and their underlying methodology based on giving)
- engaging the front-line of business (gifting companies, advertising or otherwise, with ‘gems’)
- opportunistic and receptive meetings (the ‘water-cooler’ effect expanded into all social spheres, to realise social serendipity)
- birthing the ecosquared entity (attracting a seed fund of around £10k per person in order to play at the ‘organisational’ level)
- hosting happening-hangouts (monetising social media by actuating the latent potential in our networked relationships)
- conducting action-cycles (to increase permeability across businesses, government, educational boundaries)
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.
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.
Very simply, I’ve invited Joachim Stroh and John Kellden to separate hangouts using MTTP. We’ll record how the conversation goes, evaluate via SEA, and then put up the video. Viewers can then evaluate it again using SEA, and if they think it is valuable, they go ahead and invite one of us or anyone else to further conversations.
Not sure why I hadn’t noticed this earlier. It is such an obvious application, much easier than writing this fictional narrative book. It is a way to start moneyflow at the conversational level. Must have been primed by John’s curated ‘epic’ hangout the other day. So simple.
The idea came up between me and Ian Merrifield on a well-meaning commentary on a post on facebook, about a whale, loneliness and the state of the world. Of course, he’s a tango man, so genuinely I must say the idea appeared between us. I’ve also invited him to a conversation, and we will see what additional value arises between us.
Whatever the result may be, it is a good start.
This constitutes the primary boundary that constitutes the entity. It is purely an interaction of money. A good way to think about it is, money left on the outside, and value on the inside. For people inside, money is plastered up along the outside, so that internally, people are free to collaborate without concern about money. For people outside, they see the money that the entity is surrounded by, and are attracted to it.
How does this work? The basic mechanism is “double your money”. When you are invited to the entity, the person who invites guarantees the invitee will return with double what they bring. So, if I am invited to visit for £10, I bring £10, leave it at the door, do whatever is required for an hour, and when I leave, the person who invited me gives me £20. This money guaranteed. It is all black. In fact, they match the initial £10 at the beginning of the hour.
Imagine a glass plate. People on the inside plaster money to the inside. People on the outside see the money and plaster money to the outside. There is a matching of inner and outer money. Once a person enters, they leave this money there, and only when they return to they pick it up if they have been invited in. Otherwise, money floats around on the inside to match up with more money from outside.
The generalised transaction is simple:
(where x is the base value of the invitation, p is the time period)
“double your money”
Money is tagged to time. Since our time, each of us being human, is the same (at least in this first proposal, since it may be varied by intensity, wrt children and so on). The amounts and periods are given below.
Note: this has been subsequently described as MTTP, the Money-Time-Trust-Protocol, the two simple conditions of which can be found in the ‘Social Contract’ tab above.
Having met Alan Raynor through Leon (who wrote this post) on an email engagement only a few days ago, and getting a fortuitous recommendation from John Wood of Metadesign to learn about Alan’s Inclusionality theories, Alan kindly shared his ideas on relativity which, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to include consciousness in the frame of reference.
an aside on alan’s article on “place-time”
As I write this, I have got as far as reading Newton’s famous equation, which Alan uses as a natural culmination of Parmenides’s discrete world view:
F = ma
This time when I came across it, my mind simply translated this to terms of money rates as defined by mttp. That is, acceleration, rate of change of distance over a duration, as rate of change of money over a duration, for example, £100-day per week. Think of a bundle of people who are engaged with these different rates of moneyflow, multiply them by the number of people, and you get some notion of the force of a social movement. A relatively simple translation we might be able to mathematise were we to be conducting such experiments.
(Why movement? Because my mind has just got off the back of engaging Indy with respect to Jeremy’s work with Purpose.com, who happens to be co-founder of avaaz. This video is a rather good example of the level of self-disclosure required for our new global “leaders”.)
Of course, the math of real cases is more complex than F=ma, and so is one where eg 50 people were working at different rates. F, in this case, would still give some idea of the “force” or “momentuum” of the movement. So far, the momentuum for ecological economics is around £10-hour per week, and it ends in a season. That’s barely a pulse. We were almost close to £100-day per week for a season, which starts to become reasonable, and ideally, and healthy, when it is five £100-day’s per week — for one individual.
And this is to talk about money. If we shift to subjective enumeration, where people are giving values for each other’s contributions, what kind of calculations can we derive regarding the “force” or “health” of a movement? Will increases and decreases of subjective enumeration derive patterns that we can study with standard mathematical tools? Will new laws emerge that capture how realistic a movement (or a project) is, the required “energy” to manifest results? Undoubtedly, in my mind.
(John, as you can see from his metadesign article based on our event, has been considering the required parameters for synergy to occur, but I feel he is jumping the gun slightly. I need to have more obvious palpable results, like the results that Jeremy has produced. Or, more like action cycles that derive some numbers in terms of moneyflow and subjective enumeration. That is, I would rather base analysis on what works, John having conducted many more social experiments with adults than myself. Nevertheless, may I make my customary call to ensure we have moneyflow while we examine these equations, rather than attempt to derive them sui generis.)
concluding alan’s article
I have now finished reading the article, and it ends with with a rather loud statement:
Space is an intangible presence, with qualities vital to the very possibility of cosmic evolution. SPACE HAS
INFLUENCE, which INDUCES ENERGETIC FORM INTO CIRCULATORY FLOW.
I am looking forward to reading Alan’s rather longer paper written with others, where I hope there are attempts to mathematise his thinking. I expect to find some material which relates to what I have dubbed XQ, observations on how math needs to change to capture the kind of thinking he is demonstrating.
And just in case anyone reading this thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky thinking, Alan has conducted courses at Bath University where the effects on his students have been quite remarkable; here’s a video of some “results”. That is, his engagement with real people is the proof of his thinking, much like my experience with kids has influenced my thinking. It is grounded in inter-subjective reality.
real world application?
The application of this thinking may prove to be substantial in terms of global movements, ala Jeremy’s Avaaz organisation, but I am personally interested in getting proof of process not only in classes (something we have achieved already), but in business. I am specifically interested in getting proof at the bleeding edge of business, in sales, marketing and advertising. I have met with some remarkable people, like Ken Dixon from Newhaven Agency, and if we get proof there, not only will we unlock a source of moneyflow from companies, we will provide companies with a new business methodology which will greatly accelerate all the good work being conducted by theorists, educationalists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and everyone attempting to avert the very real ecological disaster we are facing.
If I had a wish in my life, right now I’d use it. I wish that all the players mentioned in this post aligned sufficiently strongly to be able to… if we were mountain climbing, it would be putting in the effort to reach the next camp, higher than any of us have so far been. A stable point which may enable others to reach without too much difficulty. A vantage point that allows a clearer view of the terrain around, the socio-economic and historical-political position we are in. And a point from which we may progress onwards. It is as if this point is the first above the cloud-line. What might this mean in the real world? An algorithm? An operational model which enables a group of people to achieve something remarkable, the first manifestation of the “confluence model”? I do not know. This is what my wish might be.
Second iteration has gone relatively well. Though connection to Gerald Walker at Bloomberg Ventures has been lost (and he was the first person I met after 25th April’s birthing), and Robert Bennet at Haringey Adult Education seems to be a little lacklustre, I have had a series of engagements with people which have been rather exciting. Consequently I feel I am getting better at articulating what I am up to across a range of sectors and framing the particular aspects of ecological economics.
high quality engagements
The primary vector is in the marketing and advertising industry. Spoke to The Future Factory, who appear to be playing around with similar business methodologies — they broker the relationship between agencies and new clients. They approach new clients to find out more accurately what problems they face, and they then translate this to their agency in order to produce a bespoke campaign. That is, they occupy the boundary between these companies. Dan at the Future Factory couldn’t quite see what ecological economics was, and did not see the benefit of my observation that they should not be attached to particular agencies, but instead broker relationships between clients and agencies, suiting up appropriate parties responsively — that is, strategically occupying the middle ground rather than as an extension of a specific agency. The reason for their current set-up, of course, is that they are paid by the agency thus deriving financial security.
Had two points of contact with Z/Yen, a financial sector think tank and consultancy. Michael Mainelli was generous and warm, and we mostly focussed on his book The Price of Fish which had some remarkable insights around the financial mensuration of environmental responsibility, something they call Long Finance, and many interesting if not awkward questions eg how government should start thinking about deriving tax from internet traffic, ie tax? In the end, I was only able to hint at ecological economics, and I really wanted to pass on Pam’s observation of mttp as a time-machine — what happens to relationships and money at the “top end” of mttp when we are dealing with eg £100m for a millennium — surely this was Long Finance at its finest? But I am not practiced with standard freelance work practices, which essentially boils down to “look out for your own”, and so his offer to keep me in the loop by inviting me to events is nice but does not further things directly. One day I shall be faced with the problem Michael faced with me, which manifests as a reluctance to actually examine new things; this takes time and effort, and essentially, is a complex task if done responsibly.
The conversation with Nick from Z/Yen was totally different, with an argument ensuing towards the end. It came down to a straight confrontation — what do you do when faced with something you do not understand? Dismiss it, or examine it? I said I required people to seriously engage with it, for the first people who do will be ahead of the game. They will be trend-setters, the first in a new field of economics. Nick said he would look at it in August with the potential — should the subjective-enumeration-
In Edinburgh, I had a second engagement with Ken Dixon from Newhaven, a creative agency, and it went very well. We talked a little about where I was with ecological economics, more specifically about the state of virals, and then offered a specific idea which he liked a lot. We talked about money and he said he would talk to his partners the following day. If the idea generates significant moneyflow, it shall be the first, and how appropriate since the idea emerged between Harriet and myself when we were considering Amber — the inspiration for ecological economics in the first place! One can’t write this material — it’s got to be lived! But… he has not got back to me over the following week, but I put this down to crap virtual engagement — our real world engagement is strong. I also spoke to a couple of other agencies, one of whom was willing to meet without even an email or site visit; the words that caught him were “shifting from company push to client pull”. Another very interesting, high quality engagement, even though I admit I am only a visitor to their industry and I do not wish to take over a position in their company or compete against them as another creative company. I feel confident I can do this with London ad agencies in September, if there is a need.
Also had a very high quality engagement with Sarah Deas, chairperson of Co-operative Development Scotland. Framing this conversation was quite a trick, and I think we did pretty well. I made it plain that the problem with the entrepreneurial scene is noise, and the tendency for the money to follow the “talkers” and those who can fit the tender-commissioning process best. All that I asked for was that what I presented and who I was had enough quality to justify further engagement, specifically an invitation to meet with others to test the protocols and algorithms. I feel confident about speaking to executives, individuals in positions elevated enough to be able to see the bigger picture. Usually such people can not bring themselves to look at small scale investments and projects, because they are essentially employed to make decisions about the whole organisation, which involves millions of pounds. The scalability of traditional business is built into the hierarchical structure which is static (at least people hold positions for years, and roles often last for decades), which means that sensitivity to present conditions, receptivity and responsivity is sluggish.
Had useful engagements with Dug, a lawyer who is diving into the entrepreneurial world after just conducting an mba, Lynne and her friend’s children who are graduates, and Sofia and Mamading of London Creative Labs — who actually use action cycles in their programme. The potential for graduate “training” in ecological economics, generating revenue as they go along, is high. A good way forwards is to anchor it to some council service, eg Haringey or Lambeth, offer a scalable accreditation system of collaborative entrepreneurialism, employing Mozilla Open Badges technology. The money comes not from the council, but from the companies we produce value for, which results in greater revenue for them. I’ve touched base with Darius of the Spring Project, and we hope to connect at the end of August.
five strategic fronts
So, there are five fronts to ecological economics right now. First and foremost is the engagement with the ad and marketing industry by way of selling ideas or “adverts”, the potential methodology of aligning to genuine social viral movements to be mutually beneficial for social artists, companies, and social services, and leading to macropatronage, a real game changer. This hangs on my engagement with Ken, Craig, and any other ad agency guru that can make use of my services. Objective: sell a couple of ideas, see them being implemented, and accumulating value in terms of the agency itself, specifically quality product/service improvement and new revenue generation; this translates as mttp contract of £100-day per week or £1k-week per season.
Second is the grounding of the financial protocols by professionals, especially getting the stamp of approval from Michael with respect to his Long Finance enterprise. This mostly hangs on my engagement with Nick and Michael and their connections. I have also started to connect with Michael from Nesta. Objective: serious examination, feasibility funding, introduction to high level players; this translates as mttp contract of £100-day per week or £1k-week per season.
Third is the graduate program, which involves attracting switched on people to actively pick up the ecological economics business methodology and implementing it directly. That is, a few people coallesce around specific gems, and turn them into revenue in ludicrously short periods of time. This hangs on Lynne, a genuine entrepreneur rather than a book-read or theory-driven one, and London Creative Labs, and perhaps Robert at Harringey, and Darius of the Spring graduate programme. I’ve tentatively named this the “Up-Grad”. Objective: scalable accreditation program implemented in council and at entrepreneurial hubs, attracting graduates and otherwise who are trying to find jobs; this translates as £100-day per week depending on third party investment.
Fourth is executive engagement. It is important I get meetings with individuals with high enough elevation to get the ideas and myself on the radar; as far as I can tell, they are in a position of being able to see the global landscape currently and over the next decade or so. Thinking of chairs of organisations like Nesta, Unltd, Boris the Mayor, Richard Branson, Jamie Oliver, Tesco Head, etc. Objective: initial meeting facilitated by results in the field, followed up by high level action cycle with a final long term objective of seeing sea and mttp implemented by google; this translates as £100-day per week by locating the various ecological economics initiatives in their respective geolocations.
Fifth, is the actual network, which we can call confluence collective, of everyone participating to generate moneyflow. This includes the graduates, unemployed, self-employed, adult-learners, hub-members, and everyone who is starting to adopt mttp and dmp financial protocols as a collective. This means that the tracking of money flow must be sorted out, something a little better than the google docs I have set up so far. Objective: revenue generation from converting ecosquared gems ploughed into people who can improve the actual logistics of ecological economics; translated as dmp in the order of £100 per week.
I need to secure moneyflow. From any one of the fronts mentioned above. This is imperative. The value is obvious now, money should start to flow, which means a corresponding increase in implementation so we can make some headway towards some of the more lofty ecological economics mechanisms such as macropatronage — which promises to be a real game changer in social media and business. But we need evidence now.
These current iterations follow from the birthing event on the 25th April 2012, since I am working on ecosquared full time. I can see a third iteration which needs to generate moneyflow and palpable value during september. Whether this works or not, I do intend to write up ecological economics as a book. I had hoped to write up a descriptive account during August but an environment with children is not conducive to considered thinking and contemplative writing. I then wanted to embark upon a more narrative account, a partial fictionalisation of what has happened and projecting the ideas as they may manifest over the next few years. I am setting myself a year to write this.
And a parting thought. I met Gerald from ball of dirt during the birthing period of ecosquared back in April, and he re-entered my mind recently. I had created a website in 2009 called takingthestand.org which was an attempt to seed the idea of going to eg Maldives and offering our futurist processes — if there is a need for solutions anywhere in the world, it is on islands which are threatened by flooding due to global glacial melt. It is the first time I have revisited the idea, and now equipped with financial protocols, I’d like to see if Gerald can see the potential for this. Anyone fancy a working holiday on the Maldives for a year…?