"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago to The Gulch: General
"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
Consider for a moment the point system in this online Gulch.
What is it's purpose?
Does it's purpose support the ideals of objectivism, the free market, and value for value trade?
Be assured that my purpose of posting this is to encourage discussion so by all means feel free to disagree and to add your ideas, too. Everything here is open to discussion.
The existing point system appears to me to be a Gulch function similar to "likes" on another social networking site. That serves a social purpose as far as it goes, but it's not what I think of as particularly objectivist.
In my opinon, the Gulch point system should have a goal of encouraging discussion and encouraging rational thinking by digitally rewarding the members who make rational posts and comments, and other members of the Gulch should be able to do this of their own free will.
I think the existing point system does accomplish this to a certain degree.
BUT ...
I have been thinking for some time that the "point" system in this online Gulch has something in common with the current unstable western economic system: inflation.
The issuance of currency (points) has no cost, the supply is unlimited, and therefore the supply is growing. There is no value paid-in when we award points to others so the value of each of those points is diminishing. As the Gulch grows in population this effect will be even more pronounced.
I think the free market has shown one way to make this better.
(For purposes of discussion, I call the new points GaltsGold points.)
I think that every GaltsGold point that I award to another member should reduce the number of GaltsGold points that I have earned that appear in my Gulch account. I should give value for value. If a post is really valuable, I should be willing to acknowledge that via a digital payment of a point I have earned.
I think the Gulch experience could be improved with a more objectivist, value for value GaltsGold point system.
Here are some ideas for discussion:
- In a real Gulch those arriving would be able to bring some property they earned through production, and will have to earn any more to trade and survive.
- In any trading system there must be enough currency to enable and encourage free trade. Limiting the amount of currency stifles trade by giving the impression of scarcity.
- In the digital gulch I think new arrivals must be assumed as productive members unless they act otherwise.
- Therefore, in order to encourage valuable posts and encourage free trade, I think the Gulch should make a one time loan of GaltsGold points to every member. The loan can be revoked at any time by the Gulch, of course.
Suggestions on how GaltsGold points could be earned:
1) GaltsGold Points paid by other members to a topic or to a comment. (This is paid from the paying member's bank of GaltsGold points and reduces that balance.)
2) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member for a topic posted that earns at least 3 points paid by other members
3) Members are loaned 20 points for joining the Gulch
4) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member that has earned 5 GaltsGold points from other members in a month
5) Producers are awarded 1 point for each month they are paid producers
6) Any other value for value award that the owners of the Gulch site should choose.
Please consider that the above system might be gamed via collusion of members.
The current point system also allows down-votes. I don't think that will work fairly in a value for value point system. Points that have been earned (and paid for by another member) could be considered the property of the member. Taking away someone's earned property might be considered stealing.
Allowing uncontrolled down-voting could also make it possible for a terrorist troll to attack and destroy property in the Gulch. I think it is the duty of the very limited government in the Gulch (the site owners and designers) to protect property of the members. Recovering points correctly in such a case would be a complex problem programmatically.
The Gulch owners and marketplace vendors may consider offering discounted products as a reward to members who have earned specified GaltsGold point levels in the Gulch.
All of the above is just a suggestion.
I look forward to your rational comments, suggestions, improvements, and criticism.
Consider for a moment the point system in this online Gulch.
What is it's purpose?
Does it's purpose support the ideals of objectivism, the free market, and value for value trade?
Be assured that my purpose of posting this is to encourage discussion so by all means feel free to disagree and to add your ideas, too. Everything here is open to discussion.
The existing point system appears to me to be a Gulch function similar to "likes" on another social networking site. That serves a social purpose as far as it goes, but it's not what I think of as particularly objectivist.
In my opinon, the Gulch point system should have a goal of encouraging discussion and encouraging rational thinking by digitally rewarding the members who make rational posts and comments, and other members of the Gulch should be able to do this of their own free will.
I think the existing point system does accomplish this to a certain degree.
BUT ...
I have been thinking for some time that the "point" system in this online Gulch has something in common with the current unstable western economic system: inflation.
The issuance of currency (points) has no cost, the supply is unlimited, and therefore the supply is growing. There is no value paid-in when we award points to others so the value of each of those points is diminishing. As the Gulch grows in population this effect will be even more pronounced.
I think the free market has shown one way to make this better.
(For purposes of discussion, I call the new points GaltsGold points.)
I think that every GaltsGold point that I award to another member should reduce the number of GaltsGold points that I have earned that appear in my Gulch account. I should give value for value. If a post is really valuable, I should be willing to acknowledge that via a digital payment of a point I have earned.
I think the Gulch experience could be improved with a more objectivist, value for value GaltsGold point system.
Here are some ideas for discussion:
- In a real Gulch those arriving would be able to bring some property they earned through production, and will have to earn any more to trade and survive.
- In any trading system there must be enough currency to enable and encourage free trade. Limiting the amount of currency stifles trade by giving the impression of scarcity.
- In the digital gulch I think new arrivals must be assumed as productive members unless they act otherwise.
- Therefore, in order to encourage valuable posts and encourage free trade, I think the Gulch should make a one time loan of GaltsGold points to every member. The loan can be revoked at any time by the Gulch, of course.
Suggestions on how GaltsGold points could be earned:
1) GaltsGold Points paid by other members to a topic or to a comment. (This is paid from the paying member's bank of GaltsGold points and reduces that balance.)
2) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member for a topic posted that earns at least 3 points paid by other members
3) Members are loaned 20 points for joining the Gulch
4) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member that has earned 5 GaltsGold points from other members in a month
5) Producers are awarded 1 point for each month they are paid producers
6) Any other value for value award that the owners of the Gulch site should choose.
Please consider that the above system might be gamed via collusion of members.
The current point system also allows down-votes. I don't think that will work fairly in a value for value point system. Points that have been earned (and paid for by another member) could be considered the property of the member. Taking away someone's earned property might be considered stealing.
Allowing uncontrolled down-voting could also make it possible for a terrorist troll to attack and destroy property in the Gulch. I think it is the duty of the very limited government in the Gulch (the site owners and designers) to protect property of the members. Recovering points correctly in such a case would be a complex problem programmatically.
The Gulch owners and marketplace vendors may consider offering discounted products as a reward to members who have earned specified GaltsGold point levels in the Gulch.
All of the above is just a suggestion.
I look forward to your rational comments, suggestions, improvements, and criticism.
KISS is a concept that would help here. Several proposals are just too complicated.
Maybe I am just plain tired. Puzzle Lady's point #10 suits me to a T
I suppose we could normalize point counts to a less intimidating fixed range possibly using a Logarithmic scale.
But perhaps what we are groping for here is a notion of "depreciation" since we can regard past earned points as previous contributions of intellectual capital that loose value if associated with dated, closed, or otherwise non-productive topics.
Points associated with active topics and "best of" gems could have reduced depreciation rates and the rate of depreciation could also be accelerated by down votes and retarded by up votes. That way points "earned" through more substantive content would outlive those arising from transitory chatter.
Another way to make mega point balances be less intimidating to recent arrivals would be if, as in a real economy, "rich" members could spend some of their points in direct payment to other members.
For example, posit two members, an old timer named HereFromTheStart with 17,000 points and a recent arrival named LateToTheParty with 17 points.
If HereFromTheStart needed help sifting through 30 pages of Google results on some topic, she could compensate LateToTheParty 200 points to summarize them for her.
Or if LateToTheParty was making an apparently well intended but missguided series of collectivist sounding comments about "Income Inequality" as a problem, for the purely selfish reason of wanting to end the madness, HereFromTheStart might offer the newcomer some of her points for reading and explaining the meaning of relevant sections of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
1. It's much too complicated. It takes all the fun out of perusing others' ideas and interacting with them.
2. The time I invest in reading comments is worth a lot to me. That alone should be rewarded, not penalize me for agreeing with someone's comments by giving them a thumbs up. Is that supposed to be like leaving a tip on the table?
3. The numbers of votes are not a zero-sum proposition. In the real world, more resources are always coming into currency from the environment. A plus vote given is an acknowledgment of value received. It need not be like Monopoly moey spendable in turn.
4. The whole thing smacks too much of wanting the approval of others and thus writing comments catering to or fawning upon the known preferences of others.
5. Making the system so complicated that I need a professional accountant to sort out my assets is a turn-off.
6. I like to be able to express my responses based purely on the concepts under discussion, not keep an ulterior or alternate agenda in mind to seek approval as more important than promulgating truth.
7. The time spent reading and the time spent thinking and writing comments are the highest value I have: pieces of my irreplaceable life. For me to spend that here in the Gulch with people whose exchanges I value is already a transaction paid for. No artificial points and fictional coinage required. And when comments some people write here bore me or offend against reason and truth, how can I be reimbursed for loss of time with nothing gained? Can I demand reparations?
8. I engage in these exchanges of my own volition. The pay-off is that truth is discovered and strengthened, that the greatest values of our existence are stated and promulgated. In brief, the memes we hold dearest are given a chance to live and spread and make the world better and a greater source of happiness.
9. If there are no conflicts of interest among rational individuals, then the discussions are for the purpose of discovering our mutualities, of sharing pleasures, of identifying premises and disposing of contradictions. Those new to Objectivism and with a genuine interest in finding rational answers can gain much from the oldtimers who have much experience with vocalizing explanations of the philosophy. This process should not engender acrimony between participants if everyone maintains intellectual honesty rather than defending faulty premises and irrational principles, such as faith-based beliefs.
10. Productive conversations are their own reward. If the Gulch wants a point system to recognize the most active and intelligent contributors, like a report card or merit badges, that's fine. But I basically ignore the whole point system. I am more interested in the substance of the conversations, and we all know who are the brightest lights with the most interesting and worthwhile comments.
11. It would be helpful if the thumbs-ups given showed who gave them, like Facebook's "like" button. A thumbs-up generally means "I agree" or "well said", and I am happy to click one after reading without necessarily adding a written comment, yet let the writer know it came from me.
12. A thumbs-down is a stronger response and probably should be accompanied by a rebuttal or explanation of the reason for disagreement. There is the meat of the discussion. After all, if we all agreed about everything all the time, we'd have not much to say. Perhaps there should not even be a thumbs-down (Facebook has no "don't like" button), since it invites nastiness, especially if the individual giving the thumbs-down is anonymous. Without a substantiated reason, a thumbs-down is just a slap in the face.
13. In sum, I would not like to see comments and posts monetized. Our time and attention is payment enough. If such a system were instituted, I would cease my participation and go elsewhere for stimulating, unconstrained, rational conversations.
The other major rationality site I belong to is LessWrong.com, and they use a similar point system. The biggest difference being that you have to get your total to at least 20 before you're allowed to post top level articles (and of course, political argument there will make you unpopular).
Perhaps it could also be based on a high point total for a specific topic, indicating higher interest by members?
Gaming almost any system is possible through collusion and ingenuity. Perhaps a method to limit use of such "earnings" for upvoting can be devised, while allowing them to be spent on services of other members.
The chart legend shows the member point stats categorized by range of points earned followed by the number of members that make up that range.
I estimated the number of members in the 0 to 1 point range at 20,000.
Chart is shown on this new Gulch topic:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2b...
Here is an example of 3 posts together that got 17 points:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1f...
(I have nothing against saying "well done" or making a funny remark or applauding that remark.)
That profusion/inflation of points is caused by not having a limit to points. If you allow negatives, you are still allowing unlimited points to be created. There would be nothing to encourage members to use points to indicate superior posting. I already said I saw the attraction in your creative suggestion on the mouse-over 'member quotient', but they are of little value if the points are unlimited.
My original proposal uses a value backed limited point system, your proposal still has unlimited points created from nothing. The former gives objective value to post quality; as the example demonstrates, the latter does not.
I do agree that currently we have huge "point inflation" in the sense of getting an arbitrary point for any post or reply. High activity members accrue points for just being active. That content may be considered valuable by members, or it may not. The current points are not a reflection of value-added content. If that was changed and the posts/replies all started at zero, then points awarded by other members would better reflect value added in the exchange of ideas.
We currently don't have a way to see a member's total post/reply count. I think that is a valuable piece of information, if viewed in conjunction with a point total. If a member's current post/reply total was subtracted from their current total points, then we could have a rough baseline for any new changes. It's not flawless, it's not 'play money', but it would provide a better gauge of valued commentary.
At this point, we may just be discussing how many trolls are dancing on the head of a pin. ;)
I think if you review post counts you will see the effect of inflation is far greater than that, and that means that the comparison you mention would be inflated and biased.
In your example, hopefully your comments and post garner offsetting up-vote points, at a minimum. Additional up-votes would show that you've written something of additional value to the site. I think that typically appreciation posts are reciprocally up-voted anyway, so they would not be a huge drain on anyone's point total.
Up-voting a post/reply costs nothing. That may not have been clear in my original proposal.
You are right that I did assume the intent of a point system was to better reflect the quality of a member's comments in a more objective display. Thanks again, for the topic.
Regarding applying a point cost to each post or reply, if posts or replies have a cost, people will be discouraged from posting/expressing thoughts, and in currency terms will be deflationary which will in turn reduce economic activity(thoughtful participation by members.) That is not the effect that benefits the Gulch, imo.
Activity is a good thing; it should not be rewarded in and of itself, but neither should it be discouraged (also imo.)
For the same reason, I proposed a larger number of initial points to encourage others to spend thoughtfully but not to suppress activity due to perceived scarcity of currency. Scarcity of currency imposed by the banking cartel has been the cause of many business failures and steep drops in economic activity. I don't have the experience to stipulate the currency level or expansion needed. Your suggested level of 5 original points may be exactly right, but subjectively I think it should be higher;^) This is an area that a free market can best define but if anyone has more ideas I would enjoy hearing them.
(I haven't programmed mouseovers recently but if there is a way to turn them off or lengthen the activation time I would prefer it. The web is full of mouseovers that occur unintentionally and interrupt reading/thinking. Some 'features' are only features in the programmer's dreams of glory;^)
Taking some previously mentioned ideas into consideration, these are my thoughts on a revised point system.
You earn 5 points when you join Galt's Gulch.
I agree all posts/replies should start at Zero.
Any Post or Reply you make costs you (subtracts) a point. (Production cost, in a sense.)
Only up-votes allowed. (One up-vote offsets your cost.)
Unless I'm missing something, a system like this would better reflect a member's value added to The Gulch. Posts/replies that are not considered 'valuable' will not earn as many up-votes, and could just stay at the original zero with the original point cost. If a member continues to make similar comments, then he will languish in a low or Negative point total that is self-induced.
To distinguish low participation members from those commenting with little value, a new feature that allows you to see a member's total posts/replies next to their point total (when 'hovering over' their name) would be very useful. If someone doesn't comment much, the low post/reply count would explain a low point total. If someone makes valuable comments regularly, then their point total will well exceed their post/reply count. If a member is consistently making comments with little value, then their post/reply count will be high with a low point total.
Anyway, I've probably given way too much thought to this, but it's my two copper coins worth. :)
Load more comments...