The P2P Energy Economy fuses the latest advances in SmartGrid technology, P2P trading and lending, and P2P energy production (from renewables) into an abundance-sustaining economy, including a new kind of currency designed to work with a small but growing category of goods and services that can be produced on abundant basis.
For full model: http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Energy_Economy
[...] Join us to discuss whether this is a desirable and/or feasible propostion. The proposal was also published on his blog. [...]
[...] Join us to discuss whether this is a desirable and/or feasible propostion. The proposal was also published on his blog. [...]
Fantastic post. The limitations of one-dimensional markets can be overcome through this concept of programmable currency.
Will write a post about your ideas soon.
The “no interest” idea is great – also to base a credit rating on credit extended and time given to the borrower to pay back, is a neat thing.
Yes, maybe experimenting in an on line social network would be a good first step. Some of those already have their own money, so it is definitely a thing people would be using.
It’s a very interesting idea. I like the fresh new view on value, one thing the model doesn’t handle well is a lack of people who need to borrow. If I’m a sucessful business and I have extra $, but no one to lend it to I can’t grow. Also, how does a buisness/collaberation work? Would they be a peer? What about community issues, like teaching. Is every parent required to spend for their child or will the community support them (taxing?)
Your views are valuable and valid.
Certain things about this model may only work in practice (as opposed to “in theory”) as there is no proven theory for this model at this time (that’s what I’m working on)
For example, while I don’t believe the potential “lack of borrowers” will come up in practice, if it does (i.e. during actual game play) then this model will evolve to resolve that.
In the P2P economy of the future, which this model is designed for, the concept Prosumer (peers as both producers and consumers) replaces the concept of a Business, so everyone is a business, everyone is a lender, everyone is a borrower. This is what free-market economy has failed to create. You can think of the model as ushering in a fractal economy where every part reflects the whole (see comment in essay on Holographic paradigm.) So every role in an economy is acted out by every peer. There is no more Business owner vs. consumer. In a peer production economy everyone is a producer.
You can have a collection of peers collaborating as one producer but this gets us into the self-organization domain, which this model, as it is now (Dec 5th, 2008) has not touched upon but that’s definitely a big part of it. I’m getting there, and I’m preferring to put practice before theory, in the sense that I’m interested in developing the game first and seeing how that works before continuing with building the theory for the model.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
I have no concept of taxes in this model yet, and that maybe a good thing as I’m hoping to solve the problem you posed in a different way, i.e. something better than “taxes”
Xaskei,
I just added updated the section “Lender and Borrower Credits” to answer your question.
Marc
We have discovered your article yesterday and we believe it is absolutely great! Your philosophy is our philosophy! We are developing a mathematical model in the Help 2.0 market.
Alessandro,
I just read your latest revision to GCredit and it seems to me that you’re working with chaos theory (those parts I understand, e.g. event attractor) and a computational interpretation of consciousness (or I think you mean “computational intelligence” since “consciousness” is not computationally defined, i.e. “what is conscious and what is not?” is not the subject of science but spirituality) which you seem to be basing on certain ideas from theoretical physics.
Interesting stuff, I’m sure, but I’d like to see specific/real examples, e.g. see “Model’s Use Cases” in this article.
Marc
Appears this project is quite complex. I realize we are all within the “matrix” and questioning the validity of money at all is a leap of consciousness but , seems we are developing the tools to communicate without having to use tokens. All it requires is a sufficiently scaled tracking and accountability means that facilitates mutually rewarding decisions in a sustainable and comprehensive manner rather than the zero-sum game nature of monetary systems where for some to win, others must lose.
I’m surprised as far as P2P goes, you didn’t mention digital file sharing. That is going on to the extent of possibly involving most internet traffic, I understand. I’ve seen statistics of P2P file sharing comprising from 60 to 80 percent of web data flow. Goods are transferred with no money involved. Why can’t that gravitate to other things also? Maybe I missed any reference to P2P file sharing as I read most of the above but not all.
I think it was one of Christianity’s founders, Paul, that said “The love of money is the root of all evil,” Bob Dylan said “Money doesn’t talk, It swears,” Pink Floyd: “Money, It’s a crime,” Steve Miller: “You’re cash aint nothin’ but trash.” I mean, I know we have all been brought up with it in our lives and we have had to use it but it is basically the board play pieces of the game called society. Check out this site and in particular “A Game Called Countries” http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-cona.htm
Heck, tokens is tokens no matter how you create or exchange them. Seems we have the means to leave behind token representations of data and harmoniously manage human communications so that we get closer to being real. I do think the information explosion is forcing us to “get real” or, essentially, die, perhaps a long and protracted great suffering demise.
Still, I see this project is in infancy and wanting to adhere to a scientific perspective, I hope you come to something workable and successful, maybe even prove me wrong in my poor opinion of money in general. Best of luck.
Tom,
A few things about this P2P currency model:
1. It’s a “currency” model
2. The currency is designed to function as a “better kind of money” (not as “un-money”).
3. This “better kind of money” is created and used differently than today’s money, so it behaves better and is bound to change society for the better, but it’s still “money” or as you say “tokens” not air.
4. This “better kind of money” is backed by an abundance-based value creation mechanism (that does not involve creation of money from money, i.e. does not give power to money itself, but simply makes it a neutral carrier of energy)
5. This “better kind of money” lends itself to more intelligent use with respect to society’s social, ecological and environmental values.
It is really “better money” not “un-money” or some out-of-this-world paradigm.
As to your comment on “for some to win, others have to lose,” I should clarify that this model is predicated on the concepts of collaboration and competition and not winning and losing. There’s a difference. But in order for people to see the difference they have to get out of the narrow view of winners and losers and start thinking in terms of collaboration and competition in a game where the only winner/loser is society itself. I think this model leads people in that direction, but the game will let us see how it works.
Hmmm, yes, the proof will be in the tasting of the pudding.
I think you should perhaps attempt to congeal your concept of competition a bit if you are open to suggestion. Basically i see us all in competition with the second law of thermodynamics, if I got that right, classical entropy. We struggle against it every day and it is our common enemy. Crystalize what is to be compared and given greater stature in the competition you envision. If it can be clear that it is a competition for a ranking that is in everybody’s self interest, then it will probably be more appealing and successful. I suppose being appealing and successful is something to be pursued. Seems you don’t see a very quick or large scale adoption of this thing.
I liked the reference to an affinity matrix. I suspect that it might be fruitful to include geological proximity besides willingness to work with certain others or to find more value in the company of certain folks but I’ve never thought of using those two words together and, as before, conversation with you is clearing up my understanding. Thanks.
I fixed the set of axioms to be simpler (along with related parts of the argument) and I also fixed the model for Peer Bank (and the creation of new money) to be a lot simpler, and clearer.
So the overall model tries to stick to very basic patterns and is less ambitious in its assumptions, yet even more effective than before.
See R 0.39.0
This model is truly fascinating. If I understand this correctly, goods and services are valued according to the energy required to produce them. Is there a way to assign social value to a service, based perhaps on the energy a service might save a system, or based on how a community assigns and weights certain social values? For example, I run a community-based crisis team that saves a great deal of money in preventing ER visits for kids with behavioral problems (inner-city schools tend to call 911 when a child acts up). There is a great demand by schools and families for such services; however, I can’t really quantify how much money I save the system, or how the societal value of helping a family in crisis (e.g. what is the value of facilitating better well-being for a child and family? How does one approach such a question?).
Hi Andy,
I’ve added the answer to your question (and an example) to the Cost Registry section.
Marc