So this is something I’ve just tripped over that tickles a certain part of my mind, that I also think a whole bunch of you would be interested in & probably have not heard of – it seems like it might be useful in mapping out the distributed functions and institutions of a local #solidarityeconomy or #circulareconomy. http://valueflo.ws
@adamgreenfield totally, @bonfire implements a good chunk of the valueflows vocabulary, we also experimented with a couple of extensions such as (federated) kanban, offers/needs and shared inventory (all in pre-alpha stage atm)
@adamgreenfield
sure :) we at @bonfire are big fan of valueflows and we've been working with @bhaugen and @lynn since several years to implement VF in decentralised platforms and experiment with UI for economic coordination.
With Bonfire we're currently prioritizing the release of the core social functionalities (bonfire 1.0) , before building extensions that span towards organising works, track & trace how resources flows, are produced, exchanged or consumed in networks, etc.
( We've decided to build a microblogging first because it will anyway force us to develop a wide set of core features that will be needed in any other context as well: permissions, roles, circles, threads, moderation)
@bhaugen@lynnfoster btw reading conversational UI and smart sentences these days makes me think at how it could be implemented now with AI text recognition models, that could be much simpler 😄
@bhaugen@lynnfoster@bernini@bonfire Myself, I believe in building robust systems, on what I call “technologies of permanent recourse” – so no AI for me, thanks. : . )
I need to break for awhile because I'm making bread that needs some attention, but I felt the need to cycle back to this question.
I agree with @bernini that we could use some AI techniques but also I agree with @adamgreenfield (if I understand what he is hinting at) that accountability is necessary.
So maybe IA (intelligent assistance) where humans are always making the decisions and understanding what is happening and why?
@lynnfoster@bernini@bonfire@bhaugen A question that occurs to me – which you are under absolutely no obligation to answer or attempt answering, unless you find it of interest – is whether you’ve ever encountered a project based on flows of value inscribed in a DAO that couldn’t be accomplished in some more conventional way? Advocates for the form keep trying to convince me it’s an important toolset, but my perennial skepticism that it opens up any kind of space remains strong.
@bonfire@bernini@lynnfoster@bhaugen To be clear: I love the idea of a framework that yokes human and nonhuman actors toward some sort of shared purpose, that accommodates flows of value between them toward this end, that does so without engaging the state, that can arise and dissolve as needed, and (ideally) has very low barriers to entry. Such a thing could well be transformative. I just have a hard time seeing that blockchains are the way to go about instantiating them.
@adamgreenfield
We don't use blockchains. Too heavy, too slow, and a centralizing force (one chain that must rule them all). They lie about being decentralized.
We think that a shared ledger is possible using either Holochain or Bonfire or some other distributed network using Valueflows or something like it.
If you need something like a global digital currency, then unfortunately you need something like a blockhain, which we do not oppose using if need be.
Agree with bob, and I'd add that trust is a property that we prefer to keep within the community governance, rather than outsourcing to an algorithm (as in most of the so called trust less chains)
@bernini@bonfire@lynnfoster@bhaugen This, along with the thermodynamics of calculational tools at scale, constitutes my primary objection to blockchains. And it’s not like it’s working out well for the zealots either: just as I predicted six or seven years ago, the most salient decisions for crypto – the ones that fundamentally condition the space – all seem to be playing out in the very terrestrial courts code was supposed to supplant.
@adamgreenfield
I have to say, though, that the original blockchain design was brilliant. Whovever Satoshi is.
I worked in distributed consensus algos between 1998 and maybe 2001 and they were hard. Blcckchain was the first practical distributed global consensus method.
There are a few aspects of Valueflows I stumble over as presented, and – as a veteran of many eventually futile discussions about the Semantic Web – wonder about the utility of developing a controlled vocabulary or ontology for a globally distributed community of people working in the domain this work is intended to speak to, most of whom will not be (and will likely never become) aware of it. I can, however, see some terribly interesting applications for it. Let me know what you think.
@adamgreenfield I'm getting a similar impression. The specific cases I experienced first-hand of such economic experiments have been local currencies, sometimes circumscribed to a particular quarter or area in a city; a good way to make sure that value circulates locally and is not hosed away to some offshore location by your friendly neighbourhood multinational.
This local emphasis means that the metadata would also be very much tied to the location, and sometimes fairly idiosyncratic (say, the "puma" "coin" in the Seville quarter of El Pumarejo during the 2008-2023 financial crunch).
I can see the need for a higher level of abstraction in semantic mapping of such experiences, but I'm not sure it will be possible to easily do that.
@acousticmirror “Interoperability” is both a word & concept that makes my heart beat faster, and a big ol’ DANGER sign, flashing red. Some things want to be, and to remain, local: that is their meaning and their value. (I think we’re seeing the consequences of misunderstanding this play out on Mastodon rn, with regard to the Meta drama.) Federation ought to be able to accommodate loose or partial couplings, as a way of enabling such desires, but boy howdy is that not easy.
Add comment