Well, that was a learning experience for us all :)
Money seems to have collected @evangineer, with second @hannah_lewis, third @olasofia, and @happyseaurchin has 30cents.
With only three people actively involved, it could only work if these three were actively working together physically or virtually. There is little contact between hannah and sofia in london, and I am in the middle and I am up in edinburgh.
The main problem has been mamading has taken himself out of the loop, and the money has gone with him. He hasn't taken the money out, I would have thought, but he is just not playing. If this is to happen, where a player is going into hibernation, then they should make it clear to the community, while at the same time getting rid of all his cash so it is still flowing around the rest of us.
Of course, with more people, in closer connection with one another like working together or living together or sharing a space of any kind, the opportunity to tip will increase.
Tuesday 17 February 2009
Monday 9 February 2009
trust_hive progress report
Since we don't have a technical support system, I just sent round an email to everyone in the trust. Because it took a day to go round the houses, there was a little more money flow and so the end figures were out somewhat.
Still, at the time of this posting, it looks like the trust is currently playing around with $70.55. Small discrepancy due to a tip going to someone outside of the trust (perhaps), or this figure is out of date. No idea. If things get more significant, then we will no doubt have to have some kind of tracking system, but for now this will do.
I am living in edinburgh and thus I am not really in an ideal position to tip much. That leaves a linear relationship with mamading central between hannah and sofia. That means that the system should tend for the money to collect at mamading. Interesting stuff.
I will see if there are people in edinburgh I can trust to usefully be part of the trust. Most of my friends are plugged into the system, working in university or within the council, so their efforts are almost entirely outwith my feedback loop. I can't tip them because I have no idea what they are up to. I played tron last night ;(we lost) and I spoke with my fellow teammates a little. I might trust one of them enough to invite them in, but that just creates another little line off me, making me central between two distinct networks. Interesting. I think there is something about critical masses in closed networks, eg the hive. An equivalent might be the tron team. I might actually start another trust, with eg tron team, but I have no idea whether I should put in another $25, or not. No idea, hehehe.
Still, at the time of this posting, it looks like the trust is currently playing around with $70.55. Small discrepancy due to a tip going to someone outside of the trust (perhaps), or this figure is out of date. No idea. If things get more significant, then we will no doubt have to have some kind of tracking system, but for now this will do.
I am living in edinburgh and thus I am not really in an ideal position to tip much. That leaves a linear relationship with mamading central between hannah and sofia. That means that the system should tend for the money to collect at mamading. Interesting stuff.
I will see if there are people in edinburgh I can trust to usefully be part of the trust. Most of my friends are plugged into the system, working in university or within the council, so their efforts are almost entirely outwith my feedback loop. I can't tip them because I have no idea what they are up to. I played tron last night ;(we lost) and I spoke with my fellow teammates a little. I might trust one of them enough to invite them in, but that just creates another little line off me, making me central between two distinct networks. Interesting. I think there is something about critical masses in closed networks, eg the hive. An equivalent might be the tron team. I might actually start another trust, with eg tron team, but I have no idea whether I should put in another $25, or not. No idea, hehehe.
Thursday 5 February 2009
create your own trust
If you're invited into a trust, then it will be explained in person. After all, you already have a real trust relationship. The money is just a game, for us to learn how to play with it, to actually use it to enumerate things we actually really value, like good intentions, great ideas, beautiful acts of generosity.
If you are not invited, don't bother thinking you need to join. Just start your own. Find a friend you trust, and start tip-tweeting each other for things you do for one another. If you or your friend trust other people, then invite them, but remember they have full access to the shared money you have between you.
Interesting things might start happening when trusts connect through mutually trusted people. That means that a trust of say 7 people, suddenly merge with a trust of say 4 people, through one mutual individual. That changes the dynamics. If we have several hundred small trusts, we might find them suddenly coallescing into one large trust, naturally just because of the 6 degrees of separation and the more significant trust relationships which we forge between us as we grow.
The trust_hive was started between evangineer and happyseaurchin. We agreed on an entry contribution of $25. At the time of writing, there are four in the trust which means we are playing with $100 collectively. If we were to map our relationships it would be a square with one diagonal line from corner to corner. This means that two people know the other three, and two people only know two. Every time someone is invited, the shape of the trust will change, and so will the flow of value.
Contact us somehow, tweet us perhaps, so you can contribute to this blog, write up your trust name, and so on. We might not be in the same trust, for now, but if the world is connected the way we think it is (and I don't mean just virtual connections), then it might only be a matter of time before we end up sharing our trust.
If you are not invited, don't bother thinking you need to join. Just start your own. Find a friend you trust, and start tip-tweeting each other for things you do for one another. If you or your friend trust other people, then invite them, but remember they have full access to the shared money you have between you.
Interesting things might start happening when trusts connect through mutually trusted people. That means that a trust of say 7 people, suddenly merge with a trust of say 4 people, through one mutual individual. That changes the dynamics. If we have several hundred small trusts, we might find them suddenly coallescing into one large trust, naturally just because of the 6 degrees of separation and the more significant trust relationships which we forge between us as we grow.
The trust_hive was started between evangineer and happyseaurchin. We agreed on an entry contribution of $25. At the time of writing, there are four in the trust which means we are playing with $100 collectively. If we were to map our relationships it would be a square with one diagonal line from corner to corner. This means that two people know the other three, and two people only know two. Every time someone is invited, the shape of the trust will change, and so will the flow of value.
Contact us somehow, tweet us perhaps, so you can contribute to this blog, write up your trust name, and so on. We might not be in the same trust, for now, but if the world is connected the way we think it is (and I don't mean just virtual connections), then it might only be a matter of time before we end up sharing our trust.
Wednesday 4 February 2009
Pay what you like restaurant deal
This reminded me a little of the TTT:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090203/tuk-london-eatery-lets-customer-decide-b-a7ad41d.html
Liked the quote from the owner: "It's entirely up to each customer whether they give 100 pounds or a penny... All I'm asking is they pay me what they think the food and service is worth."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090203/tuk-london-eatery-lets-customer-decide-b-a7ad41d.html
Liked the quote from the owner: "It's entirely up to each customer whether they give 100 pounds or a penny... All I'm asking is they pay me what they think the food and service is worth."
Tuesday 3 February 2009
Why I like TTT... and musings on an alternative model
I like Tweet Tip Trusts because they are a way of showing how much you value the things other people do. And the Trust being a closed system there is a sense of safety, that you won't "lose" what you are giving away because, as long as you do something other people value, it will come back to you further along the line. Of course they could store up what's been given them, but as they can't use it outside the Trust, there's not much incentive for this. There's more incentive to be generous and show that you are paying attention to other people's actions, because then (you'd expect) they're more likely to do the same for yours.
The incentive is the simple "hit" of pleasure from knowing that somebody agrees that what you thought was worth doing, really was worth doing. And the extent of their agreement is shown by the size of the tip.
This set me thinking about other models. In the current system there's a limit to how much you can tip – which is how much you have in your account. So you might think that what someone did was the most amazing thing ever, but if you've only got a few quid left in your account, you won't be able to tip in proportion to this. This means, in effect, you have to "earn the right" to tip – once your initial investment in the system has been distributed, you have to keep getting tipped in order to be able to tip back.
What if there was a system where you could create new value and add it to the system (but still could not remove it)? I guess this would mean not using "real money", which is an important feature of the current system in terms of encouraging people to take it seriously. But it would allow for the decision on how much to tip to be made entirely in response to how much you value someone's action, rather than how much money you have at your disposal.
I wonder how the dynamics of the two systems would differ?
The incentive is the simple "hit" of pleasure from knowing that somebody agrees that what you thought was worth doing, really was worth doing. And the extent of their agreement is shown by the size of the tip.
This set me thinking about other models. In the current system there's a limit to how much you can tip – which is how much you have in your account. So you might think that what someone did was the most amazing thing ever, but if you've only got a few quid left in your account, you won't be able to tip in proportion to this. This means, in effect, you have to "earn the right" to tip – once your initial investment in the system has been distributed, you have to keep getting tipped in order to be able to tip back.
What if there was a system where you could create new value and add it to the system (but still could not remove it)? I guess this would mean not using "real money", which is an important feature of the current system in terms of encouraging people to take it seriously. But it would allow for the decision on how much to tip to be made entirely in response to how much you value someone's action, rather than how much money you have at your disposal.
I wonder how the dynamics of the two systems would differ?
Monday 2 February 2009
different explanations
It is an experiment, after all. So, we use this blog to record our experiences, as well as our ideas about what it is.
For example, last friday I met up with Hannah and her partner and Robert after a poetry session. Hannah accepted my invitation to join our little collective, our trust which we might call the Hive Trust. Robert was interested but there was no way I could invite him in because I did not know him. If he sets up his own trust network, and if after a month we are happy with our one trusts, and if we have grown a relationship by then, then perhaps our trusts will conflate, like two drops of water that touch. This could happen all over the place, with millions of little trust collectives started between two people or three, they grow a little, and suddenly one little trust merges with another, and so on.
Might be useful to get a social scientist, or maths bod, or programmer, who could keep a track of the money flows. We could then see what happens, how the money collects, how much is still in the trust, check if there is any leakage, that kind of thing.
The objective is to tip people in our trust with subjective values. For me, I think I tip for people coming up with a good idea, a useful link, and best of all, an enriching experience. I also like the idea of spending $25 a day on these things.
For example, last friday I met up with Hannah and her partner and Robert after a poetry session. Hannah accepted my invitation to join our little collective, our trust which we might call the Hive Trust. Robert was interested but there was no way I could invite him in because I did not know him. If he sets up his own trust network, and if after a month we are happy with our one trusts, and if we have grown a relationship by then, then perhaps our trusts will conflate, like two drops of water that touch. This could happen all over the place, with millions of little trust collectives started between two people or three, they grow a little, and suddenly one little trust merges with another, and so on.
Might be useful to get a social scientist, or maths bod, or programmer, who could keep a track of the money flows. We could then see what happens, how the money collects, how much is still in the trust, check if there is any leakage, that kind of thing.
The objective is to tip people in our trust with subjective values. For me, I think I tip for people coming up with a good idea, a useful link, and best of all, an enriching experience. I also like the idea of spending $25 a day on these things.
original definition
Tipjoy have arranged to use twitter as a means of encouraging money flow. Tav suggests that it is illegal, however, there is a possibility that it does work legally. The idea of tipjoy is we can tip anything we see on the net, or anyone. Combined with twitter, we have an opportunity of tipping anyone. If someone comes up with a good idea, then we can tip them through twitter. We can then collect our money by accessing our tipjoy account.
This system is very interesting in that for it to work, there is no real flow of money. If A tips B for $1 and B tips A for $1 there is no cost to the "transaction". In fact, there is actually no flow of money, and hence tipjoy are not acting like a bank and there is actually no flow of official currency. Only when someone takes money out is there a fee, since there is a transaction of real money, or at least with paypal for example.
Can we use this system to encourage a flow of money amoungst ourselves? Perhaps we should be encouraged to put say $25 into the tipjoy account, and we go around tipping each other. Anyone we tip personally should be invited in to this flow of money. There might be an interesting consequence. Perhaps we can tip if we hear a good idea, or if we receive some help. We may also suggest that our tips are based on future ideas, projections. The idea is to spend however much we have in our account on a daily basis. The emphasis is on giving.
What is essential for people to comprehend is that the $25 stays in the collective trust. I have started a trust with mamading, and we invited hannah to take part. The trick is to only invite people we are sure, absolutely sure, will not take the money out. Once we have enough practical trust in one another, once we have played for a month say, and we have noticed how the money seems to flow around, then we may attempt to realise the idea fully, allowing us to take money out the trust. Before this point, we might have to develop some kind of tracking software so we can keep track of the money flow.
This system is very interesting in that for it to work, there is no real flow of money. If A tips B for $1 and B tips A for $1 there is no cost to the "transaction". In fact, there is actually no flow of money, and hence tipjoy are not acting like a bank and there is actually no flow of official currency. Only when someone takes money out is there a fee, since there is a transaction of real money, or at least with paypal for example.
Can we use this system to encourage a flow of money amoungst ourselves? Perhaps we should be encouraged to put say $25 into the tipjoy account, and we go around tipping each other. Anyone we tip personally should be invited in to this flow of money. There might be an interesting consequence. Perhaps we can tip if we hear a good idea, or if we receive some help. We may also suggest that our tips are based on future ideas, projections. The idea is to spend however much we have in our account on a daily basis. The emphasis is on giving.
What is essential for people to comprehend is that the $25 stays in the collective trust. I have started a trust with mamading, and we invited hannah to take part. The trick is to only invite people we are sure, absolutely sure, will not take the money out. Once we have enough practical trust in one another, once we have played for a month say, and we have noticed how the money seems to flow around, then we may attempt to realise the idea fully, allowing us to take money out the trust. Before this point, we might have to develop some kind of tracking software so we can keep track of the money flow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
