Message 05288 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05287 Message: 2/15 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing as "equal exchange" - respect instead of money

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Dear Stefan,

a lot of work is being done, see below for some current entries in our wiki

However, I have a fundamental issue: can trust really be quantified, and
once however imperfectly quantified, doesn't it then automatically generate
self-interested behavior?

Peer to peer money generates less selfish behaviour than classic money, but
trust metrics generate more selfish behaviour than would naturally occus. I
think this is an important dilemma, and it makes me a sceptic.

For example, when Omydiar started the O-Net network, where people could give
each other trust points, the whole environment was contaminated by people
gaming the system, so they could have more trust points (and get the honey
pot of the Omydyar Foundation)


   1. P2P Trust <> (425 bytes)
   3: URL =
   7: ...a collection point for information on issues of [[Trust]] - in
   particular for peer to peer (p2p) systems....
   2. Trust-based Property
   1: '''Trust-based property rights''', an explanation by Peter...
   9: ...erty rights owned and managed by such trusts. The trusts would set
   steadily lower pollution levels and co...
   3. Spectrum Trust <> (387
   4: "'''A spectrum trust would charge commercial broadcasters and
   7: See the full explanation in the entry on [[Trusts]]
   4. Trust <> (16,132 bytes)
   4: See the [ entry in
   Wikipedia] for a descri...
   6: See also [], not recently updated
   but with some good lin...
   8: How different scientific domains define trust, see
   14: ==The Science of Trust==
   5. Attention Trust <> (3,247
   1: '''The Attention Trust'''
   5: URL =
   13: "AttentionTrust was recently established to promote the principle...
   15: Specifically, AttentionTrust believes that we all have the right 1)
   to own at ...
   16: (
   6. Ed Batista on Attention
   3: ...atista of the Attention Trust''' (,
   discussing the use of this technology for t...
   7. Trust vs. Sanctions in Digital
   7: ...du/audioberkman/2006/07/24/id-mashup-2006-day-two-trust
   8. Higgins Trust
   1: '''Higgins trust framework is an open source framework that enable...
   12: ...IBM and Novell. Higgins used to be called Eclipse trust framework,
   and is a project of the Eclipse Founda...
   13: (
   38: ... its recommendation engine, but most users do not trust Microsoft
   to build such a profile for their entir...
   9. Presence and the Design of
   14: ...cused on the design of presence and the design of trust in social
   interactions between people, in organiz...
   10. Trust Metrics <> (6,162
   1: ...metric is a measure of how a member of a group is trusted by the
   other members.'''
   6: See
   11: ...definition of trust and reputation, as well as of trust metrics
   and reputation systems is partially inter...
   13: ...d faith (i.e. who aim to abuse the presumption of trust).
   20: ...arol as 0.1", or more formally trust(A,C)=0.9 and trust(B,C)=0.1
   11. Presence and the Design of Trust
   6: =Presence and the Design of Trust=
   8: Presence and the Design of Trust, Caroline Nevejan, PhD. Dissertation,
   9: Link naar
   12. Karen Stephenson on Trust and Social Network
   6: ...ations. Diagramming the build-up and breakdown of trust networks
   gives insight for diagnosing management ...
   8: ...nds which promote the sharing of tacit knowledge. Trust-based
   networks often prove to be more robust than...
   10: ...s, which now demands an even greater capacity for trust and
   13. Trust Equation <> (1,725
   1: '''= says that trust is the multiplication of weighted expectations
   6: ...y the [
   Network Weaving] team:
   8: "1. In the case of trust between two people, each person lists their 5
   14: .... Then the differences are calculated for a total trust score."
   15: (
   14. Web of Trust <> (3,662
   10: ...uter networks, there are many independent webs of trust, and any
   user (through their identity certificate...
   12: The web of trust concept was first put forth by PGP creator Phil Z...
   13: (
   20: ...ashion on a genuinely large scale was the "web of trust" system
   introduced in Phil Zimmermann's Pretty Go...
   26: ...should" belong. PGP uses a system called a web of trust to combat
   this problem. Alice's key may have one ...
   15. Peer Trust Network
   7: ...he discussion on the discussion page: [[Talk:Peer Trust Network
   Project]].''' These three sources should...
   23: == Trust ==
   25: ...l the trusts, and the individuals maintaining the trust must honor
   the code of conduct.
   30: ... (trusts) and network (vested commons composed of trusts); it
   comes into being with the full consent and ...
   34: ... monetary transaction system through a network of trusts.
   16. Narrative on Discovering the Peer Trust Network
   3: I (Stan Rhodes) created the [[Peer Trust Network Project]] after
   nearly a year of research...
   45: ...ion while providing democratic oversight to their trustees. '''
   They could, if they got enough momentum, ...
   51: ...nging it if needed. I came to call this the "banktrust" concept.
   53: ...d the same properties as the banktrust: reliable, trustworthy,
   democratically-controlled, and non-profit....
   60: ...y all have a stake? If we all do, then we're all trustees of the
   Earth as well. We should be charging o...

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Stefan Noack

Hi all,

I further researched on the topic of "peer to peer money" which led me
into thinking about money in general. The thing that bugged me most is
the definition of "value" - I found that the concept of "value" is
actually just the outcome of the concept of "equal exchange". But
equal exchange is - at least for me - nothing that is necessary. For
me it is okay to give without direct exchange - neither real stuff nor
paper that has a "value" on it that gives me the illusion of security
that i can exchange that paper later. so clearly for me peer to peer
money has the same egoistic flaw that it follows the principle of
giving only for direct exchange. however, it still has some advantages
over the current system and _might_ be a step in the right direction.
however, i have something more interesting:

What just came to my mind was the idea of another - i think new -
concept. what if we replace money and value by "respect"? let's assume
that person A provided goods or services to person B. In our current
economy as well as in what i saw in p2p money implementations there
would be the need for a "value" expressed in some currency that is now
transferred from B to A. However i failed in finding a good way how A
and B could decide on that value in a way that A could do an equal
exchange with person C based on what he got from B, just because C
could have completely different ideas of what's valuable and what not.
So my idea is to drop the idea of immediate and equal exchange. The
only thing that A gets from B is a signed certificate that states what
goods or services he provided. Collecting those certificates can
create respect. Respect has no defined value and is anything but a
guarantee for something. However, C can now decide to support A just
because he thinks that what A did was good, and can now get a
certificate from (the highly respected) A. seeing C'scertifiate from A
could now animate D to help C. This would be a highly democratic
system because people could directly support good actions. If someone
does something he gets nothing but the certificate that he did that.
But if he does something that many people think is good this is
everything he needs to get something back.

So imagine - I am a programmer. Let's assume i coded some useful
plugin for mozilla firefox and people who like what i did start
signing me certificates. Now i go to the bakery. The baker of course
cannot directly evaluate what i did but he sees my certificates that i
got from people who liked what i did and gives me some bread. so i
give him a certificate of mine and he has gained respect, too.
but a larger impediment is that _everyone_ needs food. every day. so
the baker cannot check everyone's respect - this would take too much
time. so what if i were a baker? i would do the following: i'd start
the initiative myself. i'd start baking bread and giving it to others,
accepting certificates from everyone. theoretically feeding a person
should give me respect independent of who this person is. problem
solved. i could now use my gained respect for some extraordinary

hm.. still no one could stop me from requesting much stuff from
different people or from spoiling goods, the system cannot prevent
this because we already dropped the illusion of "equal exchange".
acting selfish would be easy - but dangerous! if someone discovers my
bad behaviour, people would not like to accept certificates from me
-which would be very bad for me.

this idea seems quite solid. what do you think?

Best Regards,

Contact: projekt

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05287 Message: 2/15 L1 [In index]
Message 05288 [Homepage] [Navigation]