Value - Revision history

TiberiusB at 19:39, 19 April 2026

2026-04-19T19:39:53Z

TiberiusB at 16:27, 10 March 2026

2026-03-10T16:27:10Z

TiberiusB at 16:26, 10 March 2026

2026-03-10T16:26:47Z

TiberiusB: /* Sensorica's working definitions */

2024-05-10T03:43:23Z

Sensorica's working definitions

TiberiusB: /* Processes and valuables */

2024-05-10T03:29:31Z

Processes and valuables

TiberiusB: /* See also */

2024-05-09T03:31:18Z

TiberiusB: /* Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy */

2024-05-08T19:12:38Z

Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy

TiberiusB: /* Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy */

2024-05-08T19:09:07Z

Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy

TiberiusB at 19:08, 8 May 2024

2024-05-08T19:08:15Z

TiberiusB: /* Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy */

2024-05-08T19:07:22Z

Towards a new formal theory of value and a new economy

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 '''Stigmergy''' in gregarious beings is efficient coordination and organization without the need for direct communication. This indirect form of communication allows individuals to respond to changes in their environment and the actions of others, leading to emergent collective behaviours. [[Stigmergy]] facilitates efficient, decentralized coordination and organization in gregarious beings, enabling them to achieve collective goals that would be difficult or impossible to accomplish through centralized control or direct communication alone. There are various advantages:
-* Efficient Task Allocation based on the cues left by others. For instance, in ant colonies, pheromone trails left by foragers guide others to food sources, optimizing resource gathering without the need for explicit instruction.
+* Efficient Task [[Allocation]] based on the cues left by others. For instance, in ant colonies, pheromone trails left by foragers guide others to food sources, optimizing resource gathering without the need for explicit instruction.
 * Self-Organization: Through stigmergic interactions, complex structures and behaviours emerge without centralized control. For example, termite colonies build intricate nests by responding to local cues such as the presence of building materials or the layout of existing structures.
 * Adaptability: Stigmergy allows for flexible responses to changing environmental conditions. Individuals can adjust their behaviours based on the cues left by others, facilitating rapid adaptation to new challenges or opportunities.
@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
 The principle here is who deserves it. The process rank or merit.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that security or effectiveness of economic processes is achieved when resource allocation follows those who know best, who are untitled to lead.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that security or effectiveness of economic processes is achieved when [[resource]] [[allocation]] follows those who know best, who are untitled to lead.
 describe transfer...
@@ Line 278: / Line 278: @@
 The principle here is who needs it now and can reciprocate later. People keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. The settlement can be differed in time, thus requires keeping information about past transactions/interactions.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone is entitled to decide in context how resources are allocated. In other words, everyone understands that individual well-being is achieved when transactions concern only the individuals involved, according to what's best for them. This makes the resource allocation process distributed, decided by every individual in context towards another individual, based on an arrangement that seems to be fair for the two parties, regardless of what other peers say or think, akin to contractual relations. This is seen in libertarian settings, also in the crypto domain.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone is entitled to decide in context how resources are allocated. In other words, everyone understands that individual well-being is achieved when transactions concern only the individuals involved, according to what's best for them. This makes the [[resource]] [[allocation]] process distributed, decided by every individual in context towards another individual, based on an arrangement that seems to be fair for the two parties, regardless of what other peers say or think, akin to contractual relations. This is seen in libertarian settings, also in the crypto domain.
 Works well in small settings, as it requires keeping track, and can be scaled with a ledger.
@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 The principle here is who needs it and can afford it. This process is competitive, based on supply and demand, assuming perfect competition. The settlement is immediate.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that economic efficiency is achieved when allocation of assets reaches a Pareto optimum, which is formally understood as market efficiency.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that economic efficiency is achieved when [[allocation]] of assets reaches a Pareto optimum, which is formally understood as market efficiency.
-: Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off.
+: Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or [[allocation]] is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off.
 Functions well when peers cannot keep track of past activities or cannot process a vast number of transactions at large scale.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 10 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In [[~~Open Value Network\|~~OVN]] and [[commons-based peer production\|p2p]] economics, ''value'' is understood as a ''subjective experience that moves people into action'', not a thing to be stored or transferred, and not equivalent to [[money]] or [[currency]]. It is modelled as a triadic relation between a ''valuable'' (a reality), a ''token'' (such as money or another symbol), and ''valuation'' (subjective and inter-subjective). In an [[OVN]], what counts as valuable is determined by the [[consumption]] or [[use]] of something in a [[process]], recorded and reciprocated through tools like the [[NRP-CAS]] and [[benefits distribution algorithm]], rather than by [[market]] price. [[Value system]]s in OVNs aim at ''value sovereignty'', the capacity of a community to define and protect its own ways of valuing, and at ''value synchronization'', the coordination of value experiences that allows these networks to self-organize.	+	In [[OVN]] and [[commons-based peer production\|p2p]] economics, ''value'' is understood as a ''subjective experience that moves people into action'', not a thing to be stored or transferred, and not equivalent to [[money]] or [[currency]]. It is modelled as a triadic relation between a ''valuable'' (a reality), a ''token'' (such as money or another symbol), and ''valuation'' (subjective and inter-subjective). In an [[OVN]], what counts as valuable is determined by the [[consumption]] or [[use]] of something in a [[process]], recorded and reciprocated through tools like the [[NRP-CAS]] and [[benefits distribution algorithm]], rather than by [[market]] price. [[Value system]]s in OVNs aim at ''value sovereignty'', the capacity of a community to define and protect its own ways of valuing, and at ''value synchronization'', the coordination of value experiences that allows these networks to self-organize.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, 10 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~For~~ [[~~Sensorica~~]]'s ~~working definition~~ of ''value'', ~~see below~~.	+	In [[Open Value Network\|OVN]] and [[commons-based peer production\|p2p]] economics, ''value'' is understood as a ''subjective experience that moves people into action'', not a thing to be stored or transferred, and not equivalent to [[money]] or [[currency]]. It is modelled as a triadic relation between a ''valuable'' (a reality), a ''token'' (such as money or another symbol), and ''valuation'' (subjective and inter-subjective). In an [[OVN]], what counts as valuable is determined by the [[consumption]] or [[use]] of something in a [[process]], recorded and reciprocated through tools like the [[NRP-CAS]] and [[benefits distribution algorithm]], rather than by [[market]] price. [[Value system]]s in OVNs aim at ''value sovereignty'', the capacity of a community to define and protect its own ways of valuing, and at ''value synchronization'', the coordination of value experiences that allows these networks to self-organize.

−	But first, here's what we think ''value'' is not. ''Value'' is not a thing. As such, ''value'' cannot be stored or transferred, contrary to the conventional wisdom, which eventually leads to ''value fetishism''.

−	''Value'' is not a property of a thing, like ~~colour~~ or weight.	+	So to be clear, ''value'' is not a thing that can be stored or transferred, contrary to the conventional wisdom, which eventually leads to ''value fetishism''. ''Value'' is not a property of a thing, like color or weight. Moreover, [[money]] is not ''value'' and [[currency]] is not ''value''.
−
−	Moreover, [[money]] is not ''value'' and [[currency]] is not ''value''.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 : ''Value rests on a subjective experience that moves human beings into action''. -proposed by [[Tibi]]
-Think of ''value'' as a triadic relation between a ''valuable'' (a reality, a desired object), a ''token'' (can be money, but also a symbol that doesn't represent a monetary [[currency]]) that stands for it, and a ''valuation'', which is in part subjective and in part inter-subjective, i.e. shared, through culture and socialization.
+Think of ''value'' as a triadic relation between a ''valuable'' (a reality), a ''token'' (can be money, but also a symbol that doesn't represent a monetary [[currency]]) that stands for it, and a ''valuation'', which is in part subjective and in part inter-subjective, i.e. shared, through culture and socialization.
 This follows the same pattern as Peirce's theory of semiotics, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_reference ''triangle of reference'' or ''semiotic triangle'']. In this case, the ''token'' is a representation of a desire/need that can be matched with a representation of anther desire/need. This definition can model non-monetary transactions like [[barter]], as well as exchanges mediated by a monetary currency, like a purchase.
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 '''Valuation''' of something is an imaginary process by which an individual projects him/herself into the future trying to imagine how moved he or she would be by that same thing, or into the past, trying to remember an experience where he/she as moved by the same thing, modulated by present predispositions towards the same thing. The result of this process is circumstantial and characteristic to that specific individual.
 =Other opinions on value=

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 =Processes and valuables=
-''Valuables'' can be material or immaterial, tangible or intangible. They can be created, transformed, exchanged, shared, consumed and destroyed. Individuals invest different types of [[assets]] (also valuables) during these [[processes]]. On this wiki, we consider material ''valuables'' as [[resources]].
+''Valuables'' can be material or immaterial, tangible or intangible. They can be created, transformed, exchanged, shared, consumed and destroyed, according to their [[property]] regime, or to the rights an obligations of agents associated with them. In production [[processes]], individuals contribute with different types of [[assets]] (also valuables). On this wiki, we consider material ''valuables'' as [[resources]].
 =Properties of valuables=

@@ Line 319: / Line 319: @@
 =See also=
-* [[value stream]]
+* [[Value stream]]
 =External links=
 * [https://sites.google.com/view/tiberiusbrastaviceanu/philosophy/economic-action/scale-of-social-structures?authuser=0 Tibi's conception of value.]
 * [https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=865073071082094101108103076105086123118075037049086025106123093112115000098115091103020013021100008051030006121117082098016109051055054015028086064013028000013076102046052011093064096084002110123095125110071114022094111068007076006101126087110004111072&EXT=pdf Translating Commons-Based Peer Production Values into Metrics: Toward Commons-Based Cryptocurrencies; Primavera De Filippi]

@@ Line 260: / Line 260: @@
 This requires mechanisms to avoid free riding or over-exploitation of the shared capacity.
@@ Line 266: / Line 267: @@
 The principle here is who deserves it. The process rank or merit.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that '''security''' or '''effectiveness''' of economic processes is achieved when resource allocation follows those who know best, who are untitled to lead.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that security or effectiveness of economic processes is achieved when resource allocation follows those who know best, who are untitled to lead.
@@ Line 273: / Line 276: @@
 The principle here is who needs it now and can reciprocate later. People keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. The settlement can be differed in time, thus requires keeping information about past transactions/interactions.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone is entitled to decide in context how resources are allocated. In other words, everyone understands that '''well-being''' is achieved when transactions concern only the individuals involved, according to what's best for them. This makes the resource allocation process distributed, decided by every individual in context towards another individual, based on an arrangement that seems to be fair for the two parties, regardless of what other peers say or think, akin to contractual relations. This is seen in libertarian settings, also in the crypto domain.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone is entitled to decide in context how resources are allocated. In other words, everyone understands that individual well-being is achieved when transactions concern only the individuals involved, according to what's best for them. This makes the resource allocation process distributed, decided by every individual in context towards another individual, based on an arrangement that seems to be fair for the two parties, regardless of what other peers say or think, akin to contractual relations. This is seen in libertarian settings, also in the crypto domain.
 Works well in small settings, as it requires keeping track, and can be scaled with a ledger.
@@ Line 282: / Line 286: @@
 The principle here is who needs it and can afford it. This process is competitive, based on supply and demand, assuming perfect competition. The settlement is immediate.
-A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that economic '''efficiency''' is achieved when allocation of assets reaches a Pareto optimum, which is formally understood as market efficiency.
+A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that economic efficiency is achieved when allocation of assets reaches a Pareto optimum, which is formally understood as market efficiency.
 : Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off.
 Functions well when peers cannot keep track of past activities or cannot process a vast number of transactions at large scale.
@@ Line 293: / Line 299: @@
 A sense of fairness is achieved when everyone understands that resources must be allocated wherever they are needed, based on what those who are involved in the process require. The emphasis is put on immediate need and priority.
 Requires an asynchronous signalling system, which itself requires some type of support to keep memory.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 8 May 2024
Line 297:		Line 297:


−	In P2P economics we find a mix of all these relational modes. Market pricing is applied to scarce resources. Stigmergy relates to production processes, communal sharing relates to conditions for production, as in shared capacity, infrastructure. Authority ranking relates to redistribution of benefits and equality matching relates to small transactions, which fill the gaps of everything else. We need to understand that p2p is fundamentally non adversarial and recognizes that these relational modes have their place in an economy. Modern adversarial societies has produced ideologies around these modes because social governance is seen as an equilibrium of interests between different factions - through the mechanism of '''competitive''' representative democracy.	+	:In P2P economics we find a mix of all these relational modes. Market pricing is applied to scarce resources. Stigmergy relates to production processes, communal sharing relates to conditions for production, as in shared capacity, infrastructure. Authority ranking relates to redistribution of benefits and equality matching relates to small transactions, which fill the gaps of everything else. We need to understand that p2p is fundamentally non adversarial and recognizes that these relational modes have their place in an economy. Modern adversarial societies has produced ideologies around these modes because social governance is seen as an equilibrium of interests between different factions - through the mechanism of '''competitive''' representative democracy.

	Question: How can we formally compute all that to generate a sense of fairness in a p2p economy?		Question: How can we formally compute all that to generate a sense of fairness in a p2p economy?

@@ Line 225: / Line 225: @@
 ''Authority Ranking'' is the mechanism for allocating according to status, either by birth as in the feudal mode, or through meritocratic selection. Authority Ranking emerges as organisms cope with loss of shared attention: Whose breach of shared attention is most important to follow? (This is why Authority Ranking carries forward temporal precedence; there is a serial ordering of events.)
-''Equality Ranking'' is what is known as the gift economy, whereby individuals or groups give to others, creating a need to re-gift. People keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. It is mainly about equal-status peer-group behaviour. Equality Matching emerges as organisms coordinate attention through meaningful gestures and dances and perceive affordances of objects in their environments. (This is why Equality Matching carries forward oscillatory movements with cycles of reciprocal exchange, turn taking, and playful pauses.)
+''Equality Matching'' is what is known as the gift economy, whereby individuals or groups give to others, creating a need to re-gift. People keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. It is mainly about equal-status peer-group behaviour. Equality Matching emerges as organisms coordinate attention through meaningful gestures and dances and perceive affordances of objects in their environments. (This is why Equality Matching carries forward oscillatory movements with cycles of reciprocal exchange, turn taking, and playful pauses.)
 In capitalism, prices are the mechanism for guiding choices and behavior, this Fiske calls ''Market Pricing''.
@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
-'''Equality ranking'''
+'''Equality matching'''
 The principle here is who needs it now and can reciprocate later. People keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. The settlement can be differed in time, thus requires keeping information about past transactions/interactions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 8 May 2024
Line 211:		Line 211:


−	One thought that comes to mind, after considering ''value'' as a triadic relation between an ''object'' of desire, a ''token'' and ''valuation'', is that we may use something like the formalism developed by Peirce for his theory of truth to "reason" about ''value'' in a social setting. Thus, we can model Fiske's four ways of relating, which are also ways of allocating [[resources]], [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske more on the P2P Foundation]. "According to Fiske, there are four basic types of inter-subjective dynamics, valid across time and space, in his own words: "People use just four fundamental models for organizing most aspects of sociality most of the time in all cultures. These models are:	+	One thought that comes to mind, after considering ''value'' as a triadic relation between an ''object'' of desire, a ''token'' and ''valuation'', is that we may use something like the formalism developed by Peirce for his theory of truth to "reason" about ''value'' in a social setting. Thus, we can model Fiske's four ways of relating, which are also ways of allocating [[resources]], [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske more on the P2P Foundation], '''something that traditional economic theories cannot do'''. "According to Fiske, there are four basic types of inter-subjective dynamics, valid across time and space, in his own words: "People use just four fundamental models for organizing most aspects of sociality most of the time in all cultures. These models are:

	* Communal Sharing		* Communal Sharing