(clean elegant write-up would go here)

See Also


Sorry, radical ideas lately.

This idea is to formalize an economic system that seems to already be in use by several FLOSS projects.

You have people who are part of a circle of participation and interest. Figuring out the perimeter is an interesting problem in itself, connected with WebOfTrust issues, and stuff like that. But, assuming that is resolvable,-

Everyone in that circle has a ticket. They can assign that ticket to a person. That person, can, if they like, assign all their tickets to someone else. This is “LiquidDemocracy.”

Now, that builds your structure. Maybe you have 3 end-points, or whatever. This community of people collectively assigns allocations to 3 people.

And perhaps- you don’t take a vote. Perhaps it’s always there. Like a persistent server, vs. one that’s turned on and off all the time. If you see how the structure was shaped, and you didn’t like it, you could change your vote. Or whatever. It’s this dynamic, living tree of trust.

Now, someone, either from inside or outside of the structure, says, “Hey! I like y’alls project. Here’s $1,000, to help things move along.” This is entirely voluntary.

Then, by percent of vote assignments, the end-points receive the money. So A was assigned $243, B was assigned $351, and C was assigned $396, because the votes were roughly 24% for A, 35% for B, and 39% for C.

Oh, and yes: You can vote for yourself, and be the only one voting for yourself, and receive that $10, if you’re in a group of a hundred people. Again, this brings up the WebOfTrust, and how we figure out who’s in the circle who isn’t. Perhaps people don’t mind, though. <shrug>

Now A, B, and C each perform assignment: A says, “Okay, so so-and-so could really do with a RAM upgrade, so here’s your $50, and so-and-so’s been working really hard this last month, so lets give him $50 just out of recognition,” etc., etc., etc.,.

Remember, that the vote dynamic is live. Also remember that contributions are voluntary. If an outside observer looks at the tree, and think it looks pretty lame, they don’t have to contribute anything.

I need to draw a picture of how this might work.

Of course, this could turn out to be this totally evil and cruel system of allocation. But, I don’t think so.

Talking with BrandonCsSanders and several people at WikiSym made me realize:

  • We can fund ourselves.
  • There are people who want to fund us.
  • If we come up with a strategy and a plan, people will take note, and listen.

If it’s good, people will fund us.

I think the rational thing to do would be to persue all 3 of these.

I say “the rational thing to do” because we don’t always do the rational thing.

I like the HiveAllocation idea.

Yeah. Me too.

What does it depend on?




Heh. How’s that for some fast-and-loose-SemanticWeb-itizing.

heh heh

Coming out of RecentChangesCamp: (OGuild for the Nurture and Care of “Open Technology” Professionals)

Re: the omidyar thing - teams of at least 5 people come together and for ten days, hash out recommendations of no more than $5000 funding total to no more than 5 US 501c3 organizations. Then for the next 20 days, the entire community votes yes or no on each team’s proposal. Anyone that’s a member of o/net when this thing starts can vote, so if you want to participate, get there now! :-) Anyway, if a proposal gets 75% of at least 30 votes, it wins. If there are fewer than $50,000 in winners, they all get funded. If more than that, it goes by number of yes votes until the money runs out.

The very first link on this page – -- now seems to be up for sale. I am tempted to submit a bid. But I don’t want to bid against you all. (Besides, I already have and , and I certainly am not even using that to the fullest extent).


Define external redirect: CategoryHasTriples DependsOn

EditNearLinks: WebOfTrust