Agent - Revision history

TiberiusB at 07:18, 13 July 2026

2026-07-13T07:18:54Z

TiberiusB at 01:17, 8 July 2026

2026-07-08T01:17:59Z

TiberiusB: /* Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters */

2026-07-08T01:13:17Z

Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters

TiberiusB: /* Agents across domains */

2026-07-07T23:58:41Z

Agents across domains

TiberiusB: /* Related to REA / NRP-CAS / NDO */

2026-07-07T23:55:23Z

Related to REA / NRP-CAS / NDO

TiberiusB: /* Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters */

2026-07-07T23:11:01Z

Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters

TiberiusB: /* The Long Tail of Agent Engagement */

2026-07-07T23:09:33Z

The Long Tail of Agent Engagement

TiberiusB: /* Agent as Network Node: Social Capital and Interconnection */

2026-07-07T23:08:38Z

Agent as Network Node: Social Capital and Interconnection

TiberiusB: /* Individual vs Person */

2026-07-07T23:07:13Z

Individual vs Person

TiberiusB: /* Related to REA / NRP-CAS / NDO */

2026-07-07T23:03:31Z

Related to REA / NRP-CAS / NDO

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:18, 13 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	An ''agent'' is not the same thing as an ''individual'' human being. An ''individual'' can be an ''agent'', but an ''agent'' can also be something else. This is similar to the distinction between ''individual'' and ''person''. An ''individual'' is the physical being ~~and~~ an ''agent'' ~~is this same physical being~~ in an organizational or societal context, meaning an ''individual'' who has incorporated some values and norms, who has a reputation (a standing based on specific characteristics), who has [[roles]], who makes [[commitments]] to other ''agents'', can perform ''actions'' that are defined within this organizational context, which are subject to rules ([[governance]]), who has responsibilities.	+	An ''agent'' is not the same thing as an ''individual'' human being. An ''individual'' can be an ''agent'', but an ''agent'' can also be something else. This is similar to the distinction between ''individual'' and ''person''.
−	''Agency'' is shaped by the organizational context. The same ''individual'' can now be a father (social context), later an engineer (in a work environment), and a citizen (when voting or discussing politics or societal issues). The ''individual'' is the substrate of the ''agent'', the complex being, living in a complex reality. The ''agent'' is a set of ~~relations~~ that this ''individual'' maintains with other ''individuals'' in an organizational context. See also distinction between [[organization]] (seen as process and structure) and a ''group of individuals'' (the physical substrate of an organization). These distinctions takes into consideration or incorporate [[complexity]] into the OVN model. Thus, whatever is physical is considered a complex reality, everything formal, i.e. ''reputation'', ''roles'', rules, relations is considered as boundary conditions or constraints/affordances that shape individuals and groups of individuals.	+
		+	An ''individual'' is the physical being, which cam be considered an ''agent'' in an organizational or societal context, meaning an ''individual'' who has incorporated some values and norms, who has a reputation (a standing based on specific characteristics), who has [[roles]], who makes [[commitments]] to other ''agents'', can perform ''actions'' that are defined within this organizational context, which are subject to rules ([[governance]]), who has responsibilities, etc.
		+	''Agency'' is shaped by the organizational context (in the larger sense of ''organization'', which could mean a human organization or the organization of a natural environment). The same ''individual'' can now act like a father (social context), later like an engineer (in a work environment), and like a citizen (when voting or discussing politics or societal issues). The ''individual'' is the substrate of the ''agent'', the complex being, living in a complex reality. The ''agent'' is a set of affordances that this ''individual'' maintains with other ''individuals'' in an organizational context. See also distinction between [[organization]] (seen as process and structure) and a ''group of individuals'' (the physical substrate of an organization). These distinctions takes into consideration or incorporate [[complexity]] into the OVN model. Thus, whatever is physical is considered a complex reality, everything formal, i.e. ''reputation'', ''roles'', rules, relations is considered as boundary conditions or constraints/affordances that shape individuals and groups of individuals.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-An ''agent'' is not the same thing as an ''individual'' human being. An ''individual'' can be an ''agent'', but an ''agent'' can also be something else. This is similar to the distinction between ''individual'' and ''person''. An ''individual'' is the physical being and an ''agent'' is this same physical being in an organizational or societal context, meaning an individual who has incorporates some norms, who has a reputation (a standing based on specific characteristics), who has roles, who makes commitments to other agents, can perform ''actions'' that are defined within this organizational context, which are subject to rules ([[governance]]), who has responsibilities. ''Agency'' is shaped by the organizational context. The same individual can now be a father (social context), be an engineer later (in a work environment), and a citizen (when voting or discussing politics or societal issues). The individual is the substrate of the ''agent'', the complex being, living in a complex reality. The agent is a set of relations that this individual maintains with other individual in organizational context. See also distinction between [[organization]] (seen as process and structure) and a group of individuals (the physical substrate of an organization). These distinctions takes into consideration or incorporate [[complexity]] into the OVN model. Thus, whatever is physical is considered a complex reality, everything formal, i.e. reputation, roles, rules, relations is considered as boundary conditions or constraints/affordances that shape individuals and groups of individuals.
+An ''agent'' is not the same thing as an ''individual'' human being. An ''individual'' can be an ''agent'', but an ''agent'' can also be something else. This is similar to the distinction between ''individual'' and ''person''. An ''individual'' is the physical being and an ''agent'' is this same physical being in an organizational or societal context, meaning an ''individual'' who has incorporated some values and norms, who has a reputation (a standing based on specific characteristics), who has [[roles]], who makes [[commitments]] to other ''agents'', can perform ''actions'' that are defined within this organizational context, which are subject to rules ([[governance]]), who has responsibilities.
@@ Line 18: / Line 19: @@
 In a p2p context it is not advised to reduce ''agents'' or ''affiliates'' to ''users''. The term ''user'' is appropriate for centralized platforms (Facebook, Uber) where participants have no control over the platform, interact on terms set by the owner, and provide data in exchange for access. They are provided the platform as a service, in exchange of user data produced through interactions within the platform, which can be monetized elsewhere by the platform owners. An ''agent'', by contrast, is an entity with agency, i.e. capacity to plan and take actions, to own its own data, and to participate in defining the rules of the system it operates within.
-This is not merely semantic. The data model follows the ontology: a "user" has an account on a server that another party controls. On p2p infrastruture (ex. [[Holochain]]), an ''agent'' has a cryptographic key pair that they control, a source chain of their own actions that only they can append to, and relationships with other ''agents'' that are maintained on a shared DHT, not a shared database controlled by an operator. [[Holochain]] is the first infrastructure naively designed for ''agent-centric'' data models.
+This is not merely semantic. The data model follows the ontology: a "user" has an account on a server that another party controls. On p2p infrastructure (ex. [[Holochain]]), an ''agent'' has a cryptographic key pair that they control, a source chain of their own actions that only they can append to, and relationships with other ''agents'' that are maintained on a shared DHT, not a shared database controlled by an operator. [[Holochain]] is the first infrastructure naively designed for ''agent-centric'' data models.

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 ''CoreAffiliate'' is algorithmically determined: an ''active affiliate'' whose PPR (private participation receipts) [[contribution]] rate in the past N days exceeds a configurable threshold becomes a ''core affiliate''. This implements the [[OVN]] [[governance equation]]: governance access as benefit derived from contribution activity.
-=Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters=
+=Complexity economics justification: why each ''agent'' concept matters=
 '''Agent type taxonomy''' matters because economic models must faithfully represent ''economic actors''. In [[Sensorica]]'s actual operations, the entities performing actions are [[networks]], [[ventures]], and partner organisations, not just ''individuals''. Flattening these to individual-human agents produces systematically inaccurate economic accounting. Benkler's P2P advantage, that P2P systems can process more information and model more finely-grained reality, is lost when the ''agent model'' is coarser than the actual social structure.
@@ Line 137: / Line 139: @@
-The '''composable individual profile''' matters because an agent's full profile, their [[roles]], [[contributions]], social relations, [[affiliations]], capabilities, is the information substrate for most [[governance]] and economic decisions in the [[commons]]. If this information is scattered across disconnected entries with no composable view, the information cost of making well-informed decisions is high. Bar-Yam's ''complexity matching principle'': the [[governance]] system's access to information about participants must match the complexity of the participation patterns it is trying to govern.
+The '''composable [[individual profile]]''' matters because an ''agent'''s full profile, their [[roles]], [[contributions]], social relations, [[affiliations]], capabilities, is the information substrate for most [[governance]] and economic decisions in the [[commons]]. If this information is scattered across disconnected entries with no composable view, the information cost of making well-informed decisions is high. Bar-Yam's ''complexity matching principle'': the [[governance]] system's access to information about participants must match the complexity of the participation patterns it is trying to govern.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 An ''affiliate'' is linked to an account, it is credentials to access the [[NRP-CAS]], a user in web2 jargon.
-==Agents across domains==
+===Agents across domains===
 The above is about''economic agent'', which can be extended to ''civic agent''. From a philosophical point of view, one can define an ''agent'' as a thing that has ''agency'', i.e. is able to act coherently within its environment, process information, project into the future and make decisions that are theologically sound. One could argue that animals have agency, which is a tenable thesis. The problem arises when we want to extend ''agency'' in that sense to ''economic agency'' and to ''civil agency''. ''Economic agency'' entails reading economic reality and making economic decisions that are coherent with our economic institutions, and ''civic agency'' entails reading political reality and making political decisions that are coherent with our political institutions. Currently, animals cannot fully and autonomously participate in our economic and political systems. They require human agencies that act on their behalf, and there's a problem with that, because as long as animals can't speak for themselves, we can make them "say" whatever we want, for good as well as for bad.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 7 July 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:

	An ''affiliate'' is linked to an account, it is credentials to access the [[NRP-CAS]], a user in web2 jargon.		An ''affiliate'' is linked to an account, it is credentials to access the [[NRP-CAS]], a user in web2 jargon.
		+
		+	==Agents across domains==
		+
		+	The above is about''economic agent'', which can be extended to ''civic agent''. From a philosophical point of view, one can define an ''agent'' as a thing that has ''agency'', i.e. is able to act coherently within its environment, process information, project into the future and make decisions that are theologically sound. One could argue that animals have agency, which is a tenable thesis. The problem arises when we want to extend ''agency'' in that sense to ''economic agency'' and to ''civil agency''. ''Economic agency'' entails reading economic reality and making economic decisions that are coherent with our economic institutions, and ''civic agency'' entails reading political reality and making political decisions that are coherent with our political institutions. Currently, animals cannot fully and autonomously participate in our economic and political systems. They require human agencies that act on their behalf, and there's a problem with that, because as long as animals can't speak for themselves, we can make them "say" whatever we want, for good as well as for bad.
		+

	An ''economic agent'' can represent an ''individual'', a ''[[project]]'' / ''[[venture]]'', another ''network'' or even a ''traditional [[organization]]''. ''Economic agents'' (or simply ''agents'') can be of various types: ''agent type''.		An ''economic agent'' can represent an ''individual'', a ''[[project]]'' / ''[[venture]]'', another ''network'' or even a ''traditional [[organization]]''. ''Economic agents'' (or simply ''agents'') can be of various types: ''agent type''.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 7 July 2026
Line 120:		Line 120:
	=Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters=		=Complexity economics justification: why each agent concept matters=

−	'''Agent type taxonomy''' matters because economic models must faithfully represent economic actors. In [[Sensorica]]'s actual operations, the entities performing actions are [[networks]], [[ventures]], and partner organisations, not just individuals. Flattening these to individual-human agents produces systematically inaccurate economic accounting. Benkler's P2P advantage, that P2P systems can process more information and model more finely-grained reality, is lost when the agent model is coarser than the actual social structure.	+	'''Agent type taxonomy''' matters because economic models must faithfully represent ''economic actors''. In [[Sensorica]]'s actual operations, the entities performing actions are [[networks]], [[ventures]], and partner organisations, not just ''individuals''. Flattening these to individual-human agents produces systematically inaccurate economic accounting. Benkler's P2P advantage, that P2P systems can process more information and model more finely-grained reality, is lost when the ''agent model'' is coarser than the actual social structure.

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 From the [[governance]] archive, the OVN operates with a 1-9-90 engagement distribution: 1% core (entrepreneurial, high commitment), 9% active contributors, 90% occasional participants. This is not a design flaw, it is universal in [[open networks]].
-An agent system designed only for the 1% (assuming high engagement, rich profiles, continuous participation) will exclude the 99% who should still be able to participate meaningfully at their actual engagement level. The affiliation model (unaffiliated → close → active → core) is the OVN's answer to this: design for the full spectrum, not just the core.
+An ''agent system'' designed only for the 1% (assuming high engagement, rich profiles, continuous participation) will exclude the 99% who should still be able to participate meaningfully at their actual engagement level. The ''affiliation'' model (unaffiliated → close → active → core) is the OVN's answer to this: design for the full spectrum, not just the core.
 ==The affiliation spectrum==

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 The [[individual profile]] description captures a dimension of ''agents'' often overlooked in technical implementations: an ''agent's profile'' includes "social relations (connections with other agents), which can be seen as ''social capital'', may be shared in context / [[processes]], part of the wealth structure of a network" and "network affiliations."
-[[Social capital]]: the value embedded in relationships and network position, is an ''intangible'' [[resource]] that the [[NDO]] system should make legible, not obscure. In [[complexity economics]], information flows through social networks, and an agent's connectivity is a measure of their access to [[collective intelligence]]. The [[individual profile]] should capture relational wealth, not just transactional history.
+[[Social capital]]: the value embedded in relationships and network position, is an ''intangible [[resource]]'' that the [[NDO]] makes legible, not obscure. In [[complexity economics]], information flows through social networks, and an ''agent'''s connectivity is a measure of their access to [[collective intelligence]]. The [[individual profile]] should capture relational wealth, not just transactional history.
 ==The Long Tail of Agent Engagement==

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
-In practical terms:
+In web3, in practical terms, we can make a slightly different distinction between ''individual'' and ''agent'':
-* '''Individual-type [[identity]]''': exists by virtue of holding a cryptographic key pair. [[Permissionless]] access. No disclosure required. Like Bitcoin: you only need keys to transact. This is the foundation of the NDO's permissionless entry model.
+* '''Individual-type [[identity]]''': exists by virtue of holding a cryptographic key pair. [[Permissionless]] access. No disclosure required. Like Bitcoin: you only need keys to transact. This is the foundation of the [[NDO]]'s [[permissionless]] entry model.
-* '''Person-type identity''': requires reputation, credentials, or demonstrated capabilities earned through participation. Required for sensitive processes: governance participation, custodianship, specialized service provision.
+* '''Person-type identity''': requires reputation, credentials, or demonstrated capabilities earned through participation. Required for sensitive processes: [[governance]] participation, custodianship, specialized service provision.
-This two-layer model is not bureaucratic gate-keeping, it is a precise answer to the information-theoretic question: "what does this process require to function well?"
+This two-layer model is not bureaucratic gate-keeping, it is a precise answer to the information-theoretic question: "what does this [[process]] require to function well?"
-Taking the bus requires a ticket, not identification. Performing surgery requires credentials. The [[NDO]] must distinguish which processes are ticket-level (individual-type) and which require person-type identity, and build the appropriate mechanisms for each.
+Taking the bus requires a ticket, not identification. Performing surgery requires credentials. The [[NDO]] distinguishes which processes are ticket-level (individual-type) and which require person-type identity, and build the appropriate mechanisms for each.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Related to REA / NRP-CAS / NDO==
-===Agent / Affiliate vs User===
+Agent is a primitive in the REA ontology.
 In a p2p context it is not advised to reduce ''agents'' or ''affiliates'' to ''users''. The term ''user'' is appropriate for centralized platforms (Facebook, Uber) where participants have no control over the platform, interact on terms set by the owner, and provide data in exchange for access. They are provided the platform as a service, in exchange of user data produced through interactions within the platform, which can be monetized elsewhere by the platform owners. An ''agent'', by contrast, is an entity with agency, i.e. capacity to plan and take actions, to own its own data, and to participate in defining the rules of the system it operates within.
@@ Line 15: / Line 21: @@
-In the old REA / [[NRP-CAS]] language we have ''users'' and ''economic agents''.
+In the old REA / [[NRP-CAS]] language we have ''affiliates'' as ''economic agents''.
-A ''user'' is linked to an account, it is credentials to access the [[NRP-CAS]].
+An ''affiliate'' is linked to an account, it is credentials to access the [[NRP-CAS]], a user in web2 jargon.
-An ''economic agent'' can represent an individual, a [[project]] / [[venture]], another network or even a traditional [[organization]]. ''Economic agents'' (or simply agents) ca  be of various types: ''agent type''.
+An ''economic agent'' can represent an ''individual'', a ''[[project]]'' / ''[[venture]]'', another ''network'' or even a ''traditional [[organization]]''. ''Economic agents'' (or simply ''agents'') can be of various types: ''agent type''.
-''Agent'' that [[contribute]] to [[processes]] are [[affiliates]]. Furthermore, [[affiliates]] have [[profiles]], can form a digital [[identity]], and that in the case of a [[NRP-CAS]] as a platform (server-client architecture) ''user'' is the credentials to access the platform.
+''Agent'' that [[contribute]] to [[processes]] are [[affiliates]]. Furthermore, [[affiliates]] have [[profiles]], can form a digital [[identity]], and that in the case of a [[NRP-CAS]] as a web2 platform (server-client architecture) ''user'' is the credentials to access the platform.
 We can say that [[resources]] are used in [[events]] by ''agents'' (hence [[REA]]).
 ''User'' also has a local connotation, as an ''agent'' within a specific application. ''Agent'' is used in a more generic sense that can transcend the local contexts.
 =The Agent Type Spectrum=