"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
Posted by freedomforall 10 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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Those two choices have seemed ok, but there's no mouseover equivalents for anything at a lower level when 'voting' on a response comment.
So, again, what's the purpose of voting, again?
I'd be happy with "I agree/I disagree" voting if the viewer doesn't want to add a reply...
I'm sure Midas had a vetting process in the Gulch for new residents but imo this Gulch must make an initial loan assuming each member has something to offer. Those initial loans establish enough currency for the economy to start trading.
This Gulch doesn't require invitations.
My goals for the value point system have been stated in these posts, and the Gulch members may cause them to expand with their input and actions in the free marketplace.
Just noodling...
"I'd hoped that there might be a +10 to -10 rating scale for "how much did this comment CONTRIBUTE to The Valley's Discussions?"
Spammers or "gee, that's a dumb idea" posts might get a lot of negative scores, while real 'contributions' to debates and intellectual interchange would garner more positive votes. "
But how did the gold coins in The Valley come into being? Did Midas give everyone a 'starter kit'?
How did _I_ 'get my first gold'? My parents gave me theirs until I could sell my services to someone or some ones who'd pay me for my services... called 'getting your first job.'
So if someone is invited to the Valley, what's the Process followed after they've arrived?
And as for 'confidence in the GaltsGold Point System,' where does 'confidence' come from? Is the system effective and efficient and does it achieve its intended goals? What, exactly ARE the 'goals'?
Damn you, Socrates! Damn you! :)
I don't really have any objections with the current system. Although how it is used or abused can occasionally be a problem, but over the years between producers and administrators the worst offenses have been policed adequately. It is not a currency that we can really do anything with, but it does reflect a level of dedication, productivity, support for those that exhibit reason as well as add value to the site. Even pleasure received from entertaining or funny comments though they may add little to knowledge are a value. If there is a notable downside it is the same as we regularly rail against in the form of envy. Some will place too much value on the points of others and be resentful. This is not-objecivist. I think if people think of it/liken it to money in the way described in Francisco's money speech there is no problem. "Having money is not the measure of a man. What matters is how he got it. If he produced it by creating value, then his money is a token of honor." Francisco Points are in a way the Gulch's currency...
Naturally being imperfect humans we must always work at keeping these principles in the forefront. It is within each member's capacity to produce more... to strive to create without envy towards those that have worked longer and harder to produce value and be recognized for it.
Respectfully,
O.A.
It would also make things more positive because most comments I agree with and just upvote. If I disagree, I don't downvote but rather I write a response, making most of my comments seem negative. If others do this, it makes us look and feel less united around the Objectivism and more like nasty people bickering.
The numberical "scores" as they are are not useful because a comment with ten upvotes and ten downvotes looks the same as a post no one cares to comment on.
The whole notion of a button to express ideas is questionable b/c it discourages actual discussion. If someone says something I think is anti-Objectivist, I can simply click a button to express disapproval and forgo digging into the issue. We all know when you go out and do anything, some people are going to disapprove; so my saying "I disapprove" isn't very useful. All the value comes when we dig into something in a way that would be impolite or contentious with people we know and learns something from someone else's perspective.
I post here more than most and under the current system I get a point for every post regardless of objective value. I will not get GaltsGold points for that, or for just cracking a joke, or just saying LOL, or for saying that I agree with another member. None of those posts have value until another member decides they have value and gives the post one of the GaltsGold points that he/she has produced. That will help level the field for the occasional member who posts in Quality instead of Quantity.
I'm sure you have noticed that a lot of members post favorite quotes from historical figures. Those are the gems of history and the Gems of the Gulch will be recognized by members through spending of their own free will the GaltsGold they have produced.
I agree with your ideas on the "rules" for points but the rules are as only effective if they are followed. When people have no incentive to follow rules they are "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" and other interests often take priority. Along with unlimited supply of points, that has resulted in a system that does not represent the value of each comment/contribution; it greatly inflates some and simultaneously reduces the value of others. If the supply of points is limited to those earned, then self interest has the effect that Rand so eloquently wrote about and value grows with productive actions.
You also pointed out that the GaltsGold product selection would be limited to spending on upvoting.
Under the GaltsGold point system there is nothing to prevent me from offering my services (programming, recipes, gardening tips, etc) in exchange for GaltsGold points. Nothing prevents you from doing the same, assuming that you and I agree that we have confidence in using the GaltsGold currency.
At the same time, someone who posted Real Gems but could only spend a few hours on the site might bring large nuggets and precious stones to the party, but not in large volume.
How could/should a Marketplace For Ideas be structured to reward them? Maybe my post, above?
GG is a place for discussion of IDEAS. Ideas have value (allegedly) to the person posting them. They're a bit like Landing In The Valley and offering to do some work for anyone who needs work done so that you can be 'employed' and earn rewards (the gold currency) that you can trade for tangible goods in the marketplace.
But the only 'buying' we can do here is to support (buy) the idea someone posts or discard it (toss it in the dustbin.)
From that point of view, I support the 'voting system' that's here already, but maybe tweaking it to make it a better gauge of 'market feedback.'
Unless the 'rules' have changed, the upvotes were supposed to indicate "added to the discussion" and downvotes indicated "I think that was spam."
Sort of carrot or stick with no shades of gray.
I'd hoped that there might be a +10 to -10 rating scale for "how much did this comment CONTRIBUTE to The Valley's Discussions?"
Spammers or "gee, that's a dumb idea" posts might get a lot of negative scores, while real 'contributions' to debates and intellectual interchange would garner more positive votes.
And "Meh" comments would get 'zeroes.'
That's my two rubles (or kopeks or whatever) for the discussion.
Cheers!
I didn't see this as a replacement for the existing points but an additional feature. In Galt's Gulch when you have no GaltsGold currency you have to produce something of value (or use fiat points.)
Please excuse the lateness but with Easter, etc...
To answer your question- It was not my intention to suggest that there was a cost to posting but rather a possible deterrent to participating overall for those who had a low "value rating" or had no "currency" to participate. Just a thought.
Thanks for the interesting post.
Load more comments...