Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: "Samuel Rose" <samuel.rose gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:17:40 -0400
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:13 AM, CTVN <coreteam vodes.net> wrote:
Hello Michel,
I thinking I'm slightly revising my notion of the role of money in peer
production, based on the actual evidence. So bear with me as I develop
this
argument.
thx for this posting. i agree with your main conclusions. money is just a
tool and it depends on what people do with it (how many people on this list
could effectively do "good" had they money?)
imv, the question is not whether or not "money" should be a part of open
movement projects, but how to successfully introduce money and money-like
"creation facilitators" with a view to maximise investment of time,
knowledge, creativity and capital. imv this requires an (i) objective
analysis of the benefits of the investment drivers "money" and
"selbstentfaltung" and its drawbacks, followed (ii) by creative solutions
combining the benefits of the two drivers. much what vn is about.
I like the view that seems to be emerging from the different perspectives
here, which I summarize as "pushing market/money exchanges out to the point
of consumption" so that it is up to other people if they should choose
whether to buy a finished product, or download the plans for free and make
it themselves, plus join the community/commons, etc. But this market does
not drive production, only in a diminished way. It is peripheral. At the
edges of the human ecosystem instead of in the center. Think of a company
like http://www.canonical.com/, which does not drive the production of
http://debian.org, but offers both a gift and for-pay service ecology at a
new point of consumption of linux that they have created. A different
organization might not need to offer the pay services. But never the less,
this shows an example of how market/money exchanges can be sustainably
coupled with a commons.
i perhaps disagree (if i understand your posting correctly) with the lack
of influence of financial contributors and with giving them no control what
happens to the money in order to have "independent maintainers". to me it
seems that - especially in a p2p world with lots of small individual
contributors - its actually very benefitial to let them directly decide what
happens with their money because (i) the influence of the individual is so
small, and (ii) it certainly will stimulate capital investment if the
donator, member, sponsor has some control and influence what happens to
his/her money. i think the danger that the project goes in a single,
community-adverse direction because of payments, simply doesnt exist in a
p2p world because of the numerous micro-investors. whats so bad if people
can distribute their membership fee or donations on specific projects (the
list can be prepared by maintainers)?
thx Franz for pointing me to Andrius by putting your quality on his work.
cheers,
--
CoreteamVN
Gartengasse 21
8010 Graz
AUSTRIA
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://openfarmtech.org
Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de