Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions

:Never rely on cryptography exclusively.  The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...  

----

==Red, Yellow and Green Lights==

: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)

: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).

----

==Attack Methods and Countermeasures==

::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?  

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.

:Corruption cannot be weeded out, but it's effects can be subdued.

----

It is not strange.  The entire global economy runs on this principle.  And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself.   

::Everyone has capital.  Some have [[instructional capital]].  Some have [[social capital]].  Sometimes this is convertible to [[financial capital]].  Sometimes not.  If you realize everyone has capital, then everyone is a player.

:::Involving money is unegalitarian

A bet.  This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc.  Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond.  If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps.  If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.   

::All information is distorted by money, as much as motion is distorted by the presence of more mass, which creates what we call "gravity".  So I am talking about the economic law of gravity here - it all comes down to money.  You can deal with it directly, or be manipulated by those who deal with it directly.

:::Better arguments and better facts to back them up is your capital here. And reputation

:::Getting accredited as a source of not-so-good information will cause you to look bad in other information which will make everyone just ignore your future "information". Providing good, reliable information in the long run will increase the value of your information and future information. If you want to bet with your drinking buddies about how [[Company X]] will be looking in 6 months then _that is your problem_ and The Control Freak in Charge of Irrigation Systems cannot/doesnotcareto do anything about such behaviour, except perhaps hope that you don't take out a bank loan to support your filthy habit and in case you do here is a link to help you out http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/

:::Yes, I've played poker and it's a wretching feeling when you have a royal flush and have to fold due to running out of money while someone else raises till you have no money.

:The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]]

::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I *must* do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead.  Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices.  So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices.  Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do!  ;-)).

: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?!?!

:So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora?

==Reading sessions of strange papers==

:Having almost read it half way through I got this idea that it might be interesting to have sort of "Futures" in the exchange. No monetary bets I guarantee, but more of a chance to gain prestige as having the gift of foresight or an educated guess in seeing what kind of support different things will aqcuire once voting gets onway.

::See http://longbets.org - maybe we can make a close cooperation with them, as they are doing this now, and betting money that goes to charity?  I think without money it makes little sense, as there must be some real pain for placing wrong bets, and a way to prevent someone from hedging too much.