Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
reorganizing for readability and distinction of subjects + RE
(no escape) |
(reorganizing for readability and distinction of subjects + RE) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity. | This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
==Red, Yellow and Green Lights== | |||
The Consumerium Exchange does not necessarily determine whether the "red light" or "green light" goes off. In fact only those cases where a "yellow light" (caution) goes off, should really require anyone to read anything. --[[142.177.X.X]] | The Consumerium Exchange does not necessarily determine whether the "red light" or "green light" goes off. In fact only those cases where a "yellow light" (caution) goes off, should really require anyone to read anything. --[[142.177.X.X]] | ||
| Line 32: | Line 33: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
==Attack Methods and Countermeasures== | |||
===Facading=== | |||
It is also unclear how to prevent abusive companies from acquiring multiple direct votes by creating many identities, or from creating their own nonprofit entities to do nothing but say the right things, and vote against their competitors, regardless of anyone's behaviour. | It is also unclear how to prevent abusive companies from acquiring multiple direct votes by creating many identities, or from creating their own nonprofit entities to do nothing but say the right things, and vote against their competitors, regardless of anyone's behaviour. | ||
:Isn't that just the thing they are doing right now? | :Isn't that just the thing they are doing right now? | ||
::Yes, but not right here right now. ;-) They will eventually try it here, too, and we have to anticipate all their [[exploits]], [[worst cases]], [[threats]]. | ::Yes, but not right here right now. ;-) They will eventually try it here, too, and we have to anticipate all their [[exploits]], [[worst cases]], [[threats]]. | ||
===Hedging=== | |||
Hedging? Now you will have to explain that. How can there be hedging? | |||
:I publish three opinions with three different identities - one says X is good, one says X is bad, one says X is mostly good with a few problems that can be solved. | |||
::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. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
==The Exchange as a Gamlbling Grounds== | |||
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. | |||
: | :pls. See [[Advertisement Video]]s | ||
:You're right it's not strange, it's plain silly. They did invent this thing called a [[w:Stock market|Stock market]] a little while back. If you got capital, go play there. If you think some price is going up buy shares. If you think it is going down buy reverse instruments on it. Simple, eh? | |||
::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. | |||
*By keeping the bets visible here, we make the conflicts of interest visible too, rather than hidden as people move money in the background (which they will anyway). It's also clear who has the most to lose if a company is about to lose status, and, more of the debate will become visible, and more of it can thus be passed on to the company or stockholders, whose interests are exactly aligned with the bet-maker | |||
*The money held in trust funds the whole Consumerium process and rollout, since it can be invested in various ways - ideally in ethical investing funds or sustainable forest product funds or something. This may require a backer or insurer to cover catastropic losses. No investment in any one company should be allowed for risk management purposes. | |||
:And for the millionth time: NO MONEY, just information. | |||
::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/ | ||
: | ::The global economy does not run on gambling for no reason. Have you ever played poker? The game literally does not work without real money, you cannot play for "reputation", you must play for some strict quantity that represents combined reputation, skill, and luck - money. You must at least make it very easy to bet for or against the given information being accurate. It is simply not possible to run a system like this with no betting: without it, anyone can provide so much information of all kinds under so many identities that reputation for providing it becomes meaningless. The only check on this is the amount of money it costs - if that cost is nothing, well, then there is no check, and no limit to the amount of [[propaganda]] that will be dumped into the system, hoping that some of it gets through. Any system above a certain scale needs betting to make it work properly. If there is global economy then there must be a simple bet-real-money-on-it way to send reliable information signals around. If all the ways to send signals cost nothing, then so many signals pile in that the system collapses. | ||
: | |||
::: | :::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]] | :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]] | ||
| Line 76: | Line 86: | ||
::This of course is micro-betting, which is, for any given purchase, deciding whether the extra money you pay for a morally superior product (and make no mistake, it will ALWAYS cost more, because a retailer will eventually figure out that they CAN charge more) is better spent giving profits to this moral vendor to expand and succeed and pay off those who bet on a moral process by investing in the company itself, OR better spent saved in your own wallet and giving you leverage to influence a moral vendor of another product OR better donated directly to those who actively work to expand the information and product range available to you. In any case one can always IGNORE THE ADVICE if it's seemingly not advancing your values by very much, which means, you are again making a bet, this time against the degree to which Consumerium's advice affects your own body and those you care about. You can't escape betting wherever you go! | ::This of course is micro-betting, which is, for any given purchase, deciding whether the extra money you pay for a morally superior product (and make no mistake, it will ALWAYS cost more, because a retailer will eventually figure out that they CAN charge more) is better spent giving profits to this moral vendor to expand and succeed and pay off those who bet on a moral process by investing in the company itself, OR better spent saved in your own wallet and giving you leverage to influence a moral vendor of another product OR better donated directly to those who actively work to expand the information and product range available to you. In any case one can always IGNORE THE ADVICE if it's seemingly not advancing your values by very much, which means, you are again making a bet, this time against the degree to which Consumerium's advice affects your own body and those you care about. You can't escape betting wherever you go! | ||
==So why is it called an "Exchange"== | |||
Hey, it was YOU who called it an "exchange". If what is going on is voting, it is a "forum". So pick the correct name. | |||
: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== | |||
You should google around for [[Robin Hanson]]'s paper "Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs?" It will explain a great deal to you! | |||
:Thanks, I did. The latest rewrite of the paper can be found at http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf . It looks interesting and I'll try and read it through when I've had some sleep. Though there was this part in the abstract that either is not English or I'm just too stupid to understand what it is supposed to mean. Terrible English allover. Perhaps Robin is a troll? | |||
::Oh, yes, without question. Moin moin moin... neh neh neh... | |||
:Robin Hanson is a nutter. I'm only half way through, but this fact is apparent. He does have an interesting research methodology though. "Engineering approach", heh. Usually these papers are boring as hell, but this guy is out to make a difference. In academia it is usually common to use descriptions like "a priori" and "a posteriori" without hesitation, but Robin is out to write his thing in so that it's readable even to the layman, except of course where he soooo [[troll]]s. | |||
: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. | |||