Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(oop - browser glitch) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST) | :This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST) | ||
:Yes, there are [[correlation]]s potentially between any industry, company, product, resource or method and any other. These can be quite strong or so weak as to be irrelevant. Best to think of it as a general map of all to all... | |||
:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed). | :The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed). | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
::This is not allowed by definition. But [[TCE]] having no legistlative support to maintain it's integrity, unlike gov't moderated commodity and equity markets, will have to rely mostly on social control to limit this kind of behaviour. Carefully using FOAF techniques to map out the field and then placing higher value on untainted grounds should make hedgers degrade to just noise eventually? | ::This is not allowed by definition. But [[TCE]] having no legistlative support to maintain it's integrity, unlike gov't moderated commodity and equity markets, will have to rely mostly on social control to limit this kind of behaviour. Carefully using FOAF techniques to map out the field and then placing higher value on untainted grounds should make hedgers degrade to just noise eventually? | ||
:::It is not relevant what is "allowed" only what is technically possible. You are designing a high security system here. | :::No, you can't count on your FOAF map to actually reflect the hidden power and money relations. Look at http://disinfopedia.org for a futile attempt at that. This is far too fragile, [[reputation]] is over-estimated as a way to determine who provides accurate [[instructional capital]] - the [[prediction market]] does a better job, a [[proxy market]] for votes can enhance but not replace it. There is also no [[social control]] that will hold world wide - because there is no [[social capital]] on such a large scale. It is not relevant what is "allowed" only what is technically possible. You are designing a high security system here. | ||
Now the opinion that X is good gets attacked and I lose reputation for that identity, the opinion that X is bad gets reinforced and I see by who. Third identity exploits the fact that it is taking a "moderate" position, and uses all the arguments launched on either side to bolster its own reputation. Now I have one spam identity that everyone knows is just saying X is good, I discard that, leaving me with two identities with good reputations: one that is seemingly opposed, one that is seemingly a moderate critic, of X, which I secretly own... if anyone has been foolish enough to publish their own opinion as themselves, I know who they are and can work out their motivations and other opinions, and attack their reputations selectively. However, you cannot trace MY three identities back to one body even if you force me to provide my DNA, because I can just pay others to front for me and pretend the opinion I pay them to have, is theirs. The only thing you can do is make it cost me money to do this, in proportion to the impact my opinions have, and that at least forces overall accountability back to the same wallet, if not the same body. See the point? This is exactly why the global economy is built on a casino model. | Now the opinion that X is good gets attacked and I lose reputation for that identity, the opinion that X is bad gets reinforced and I see by who. Third identity exploits the fact that it is taking a "moderate" position, and uses all the arguments launched on either side to bolster its own reputation. Now I have one spam identity that everyone knows is just saying X is good, I discard that, leaving me with two identities with good reputations: one that is seemingly opposed, one that is seemingly a moderate critic, of X, which I secretly own... if anyone has been foolish enough to publish their own opinion as themselves, I know who they are and can work out their motivations and other opinions, and attack their reputations selectively. However, you cannot trace MY three identities back to one body even if you force me to provide my DNA, because I can just pay others to front for me and pretend the opinion I pay them to have, is theirs. The only thing you can do is make it cost me money to do this, in proportion to the impact my opinions have, and that at least forces overall accountability back to the same wallet, if not the same body. See the point? This is exactly why the global economy is built on a casino model. | ||
| Line 102: | Line 104: | ||
:I thought it had fun analogies, but perhaps it is a bit misleading. The analogies being the ability to IPO new [[campaign]]s, the ability to "buy" and "sell" "share(s)" on the campaigns. The ability to [[merge]] and [[split]] and [[Nullify|Bankrupt (Nullify)]] campaigns. The ability to aggregate information to form all sorts of [[indices]] that can be used as reference points when evaluating stuff. The ability to plot long term performance of different instruments and composites. _If_ the implementation has a proper signal-noise-ratio and enough volume then it could be an another source of information for people trading in real equity markets. Megalomaniac, me?!?! | :I thought it had fun analogies, but perhaps it is a bit misleading. The analogies being the ability to IPO new [[campaign]]s, the ability to "buy" and "sell" "share(s)" on the campaigns. The ability to [[merge]] and [[split]] and [[Nullify|Bankrupt (Nullify)]] campaigns. The ability to aggregate information to form all sorts of [[indices]] that can be used as reference points when evaluating stuff. The ability to plot long term performance of different instruments and composites. _If_ the implementation has a proper signal-noise-ratio and enough volume then it could be an another source of information for people trading in real equity markets. Megalomaniac, me?!?! | ||
::OK, so the [[campaign]] in this model is an analogy to the [[stock]] in the market? That at least lets you treat campaigns as [[option]]s of a sort, a [[pure play]] on the success or failure of the campaign itself. I think you should work this out in detail, but do read the Adler paper when you have time. It's a good balance to Hanson. Also you need to understand [[portfolio management]] basics, see http://mark-to-future.com for [[Ron Dembo]]'s model of [[regret]] as actually being the only way to objectively measure [[risk]]. Then you might see how [[financial capital]] is built from [[social capital]], [[instructional capital]] (the [[future]]s we believe in stated each as a [[scenario]], combined in a weighted way, the process and comprehensive outcome knowledge itself). Then it may be more obvious how this stuff must fit together. | |||
:So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora? | :So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora? | ||