Acknowledged peaks management within the flove network
Noone should never be forced to acknowledge any adding or interaction in the flovechain
WHY
Flove.org looks for a more precise ranking of love definitions and related actions because the more the more lovely actions could be acknowledged, the better for us and love itself.
Any use statistics, adding of data and or acknowledgements about that gets a rank within any system. Exposing data types ranks transparents design & analitics.
The more a user could access (display and share as wanted) his-her Activity statistics, the better.
The more that Top down analitcs and Bottom up (input) design tend to a 50-50 equilibrium, the better.
The more valueable (higher ranked) data added, the better.
The more the system could incentivate (reward) adding of valueable data, the better.
The more the rewards can also come in a material form, from the closer person to us and with the highest social impact too, the better.
= Let’s get to suggest the lovelier actions, the better ranked (and rewarded) by us, our closer friends and analisers.
WHAT: An oracle for users developing lovely personal, local and social actions to be acknowledged.
Flovechain wants to help in the transparenting of data rankings within the system, looking forward for incentivating a customize(d) favors chain or a smart jobs oracle (better than Universal Income…) model.
Untokened acknowledgements
Acknowledging transparents analitics, but not all is to be freely handed to analisers. There are some private messages we have received that we personally acknowledge more than any digital token we could have got.
The system acknowledging something to you is not better by design than allowing you to send a very private message which you can forget about quickly, because you are then trusting in it forming another new and better thing, although having less traceability. Why we overrate the acknowledging when we could be satisfied by a private action itself?
Tokens meritocracy
Tokens is a way to label some valueable adding to the system. Badges are useful for acknowledging a certain level of accomplished activity in the network, which the user can take benefit out of them within the platform or even with other outsiders, because such merits makes him-her more trusteable and or even wished to be related to by others.
Tokens for Maintenance
Network self maintenance and curating tasks are the basic interactions needed (higher ranked data types at the flove network), so they could be rewarded with tokens that could be valued even in project’s property rigthts as final backing value of them (See more: DAOs, free wages at free project standard, etc).
Tokens ranking: Likes
Beyond basic maintenance and adding of specific data through apps (which have their own ranking), there are the more basic way of interacting through the giving of Likes to contents (more low ranked). Likes could be infinitely given by the platform to its users, but like replies, they are finitely given by the user. Also, not all likes have the same ranking, for example: The less likes given to the more unrelated content to you, the more valueable they are…
Tokens fungibility
The more the more lovely content adding could be rewarded with the more fungible flovens, the better.
Tokens given to any user could be forwarded to other users (re-issueable token, here: flovens), while users transactions history about them would keep their meritocratic badge as is.
All promisory value (condition-property-fungible backing value) of a reissueable token (aka floven) finally relies in more or less trust (they are still fiduciary up to some extent) and can have further fungibility than the one formally estated.
Flovens could also be formally pre-conditioned, where anyway users will always be free to agree to ignore that and or condition it further through a personal debate, either formally and informally.
The forbidding of a private (informal) agreement to exchange legal tender per something else is as costy to enforce as strict it wants to be enforced.
The flovechain could be set up in a crypto token that is directly exchangeable by $ in whatever crypto exchange service. This has the good side of making flove activity valueable in $, but it also opens the door for users focusing in such numbers instead of another more important ones. Since flove.org ranks higher the network activity itself (unforwardable merit) than the ammount of flovens anyone could buy without interacting in the network, these bought flovens shouldn’t imply a risk for the system and it should be the users themselves the ones who give the value to them, in the top of what crypto exchanges would say. For example, it could have more merit for you within the system to accept some hours from someone to you than his-her $ converted in flovens to be given to you. Everyone is free to offer you any $ for anything you own.
Flovens as Hours
We could specify a flove tokens universal fungibility with (material) time (i.e. Hours). This token called Flove Hours can be further limited (a priori) to certain activities only, i.e. Essential Hours. More complexely speaking, it could be added to any keypair, i.e. TrueLove Hours, IdealistMaterialism Hours, etc.
The same freedom for negotiating the value of the exchange remains. For example, one can say my 2 TrueLove Hours you ask me for would cost you 4 Hours of whatever i would want from you (that you agree to, obviously…)
Cases
- Informal interaction with $. I didn’t add any data to the TrueLove Concept but i privately exchanged an Hour of it per 10$ to a user i liked what (s)he already posted there… (that will do it my username and password tomorrow from my computer)
2. Reputational purgatory tactics.
I accepted the bot offer: I added 2 new offers and it gave me 1 LoyalHour. The deal interested me because i am being very criticized (by people i accepted them to do so) as NotLoyal (so i have DarkLoyal tokens-hours to redeem)… . But besides getting that 1 LoyalHour won´t delete my unloyal records while i don’t want myself to spend Hours in adding about Loyalty, i could make someone to post Loyal stuff (that will count as part of me adding Loyal related content).
3. Limited likes and Incentivation of dislikes
Do for the network (commons), for the network do better for you later
0- Curate content (example)
Get 1 Love
1- Add a definition (of a keypair)
(If getting approved with two curators… Get 3 Loves and 2 Dislikes).
2- Add an Opposite keypair
(If getting approved with two likes, get 2 Loves and 1 Dislike)
3- Add a Dislike
Get 3 loves
Steemit is a cryptocurrency that you get by creating and curating content.
JOURNALISTIC ARTICLE
This is a post valueing and criticizing the centralization focus trend put on acknowledgement for developing decentralized technologies. See the more proposal, here.
P2P technologies rely in users that are active in the network to become servers of the network, this way the platform has a lesser point-of-failure (no central servers or administrators).
Nowadays there is a lot of P2P development focused in the blockchains (P2P networks focused on acknowledging interactivities). The p2pcrypto vs central fiat is a false dilemma. The p2pcrypto is a new fiduaciary layer for the fiduciary central fiat (legal tenders). Cryptocurrencies exchanges are just updated Stock Exchanges. They are a more seeable output of the decentralizing pole of things. They are new technical channels (currencies) for exchanging the same centralized value (fiat $).
Blockchains aren’t decreasing centralization on legal tenders reliance and interactions. Blockchains didn’t cause a less use and care of legal tenders overall, they do the opposite because in a way, they coped most of the P2p development willingness (which was more looking forward to improve pure communication) and applied it to endure fiat money mostly. It is a very real fact that development which is incentivated by $ gets more quickly fuelled than other developments that don’t take that into account. Do crypto$ expansion helps promoting p2p development besides the blockchains?
Yes, because once one uses a p2p system for using $ more comfortably can better appreciate the value of decentralisation… AND…
No, because it blinds the communicational networks designs with the overvalueing of $. So promoters and developers tend to forget that code is first for communication, and there are further important communications to improve beyond the more material ones, remark that is being progresively overseen because the $ gets more trendy by actual p2p developments based in $, precisely.
Bitcoin is a very old technology compared with XYZ but leads the CryptoMarket by far, and doesn’t look like this regularity is going to shift over some other better designed cryptos.
Cryptocurrencies Exchangers and or Entushiastic users are giving a lot of their subtle energy to legal tenders and bitcoin. They are giving a lot of their finite trust (caring time) to both of these centralization trends. Numbers popping in your mind in your limited time can refer to $, or to more rich number theories. And this is important because when we focus the ranking of the content by its Money$ value, we forget to focus in the ranking of other (some more valueable) contents we daily also interact with.
Regardless of cryptofans argumenting that many CryptoCurrencies are technically better than a legal tender or Bitcoin, much of their subtle and macro energy is given to the hope that his-her CryptoCurrency will be better as more fungible it will be with a legal tender (more «price in $ and or Bitcoin» MyCoin has).
Bitcoin is an old technology, and a centralized one within the decentralized cryptoworld. Many people get to know P2P decentralization thanks to the Bitcoin implementation. But by centralizing your hopes and doings for decentralization in bitcoin raising its marketprice, you are putting a big part of such decentralization intention into a yet more centrali$ation.
As a result, network stability and thriving is paired – equivaled with $ fungibility. There could be other values to advertise the fungibility of Coins in CryptoExchanges. This may sound ridiculous to any CoinsEnthusiast because (s)he thinks the fungibility with legal tender outstands any other possible backing value of the Coin, saying (sarcasm): Money$ (or Bitcoin) (the value that is more centralised) is the easiest and more robust channel to convey our distinct values. Money$ is the best offer we can give to anyone for exchanging anything we will like from him-her. In our exchanges with Coins we don’t directly touch Money$, Money$ rather follow us… we are more stable than banks. The more money a Coin costs, the more secure the Coin will be (and the better for the decentralized world overall too).
P2P acknowledgements features are centralizing the P2P decentralizing development world. One resulting flaw here is that with proof-of-work blockchains (i.e. Bitcoin) rise an overloaded competition with waste of energy and mining elitism out of it. Example: Sarcasm: If the system needs 100 Watts, we only need 100 Watts, but we want to incentivize uncountable Watts more because that is what assures us to reach our 100 maintenance need better.
This is not only a waste a thermodynamic energy, one wonders here how much this is affecting the environtmental ground, because everything we wish vibrates the mesh from below we live in above. Wouldn’t such supplementary Watts be better used for another reason that creates another type of valueable ouput? Wouldn’t that make us more smart (less stupid) in front of the review of nature?.
There are hundreds of developed p2p blockchained networks, all having the foundational stand of: «Tokenization secures the network«. But such «p2p tokenization» is mostly given because of brute force mining (bitcoin case). Many lighter proof ofs (crypto mining standard mechanism) have arisen, and they are the key standard that should give value to the network. But it has to be a mixed combination of technical ability and content types design. So here comes ethereum (crypto 2.0) to allow you to create your own value for interactive platforms (smart contracts), although backed by its brute mining and reliant in $ fungibility design. There is a further generation of crypto$ (3.0) trying to tackle this issue, some of them could be a good base to think on implementing flovens there.
Too much focus on getting money by brute inputs or speculative strategies don´t let you care about evolving other more lovely inputs. Crypto brute inputs needed to maintain their decentralized networks are overflooded, while other (more) lovely P2P features for our livings are underflown.
Brute maintenance is a need, we could have a x10 assurance of it, but the rest of worry should go into evolving better inputs further than rather getting more of the brute ones.
The safety and the overrating of the consensus the legal tenders give us is a distracting euphemism for not facing the reality of such consensus being based in a «cool wasteful display» and in a «shared lazyness of developing further decentralized (channels of) values and features for improving our livings beyond what $ could do». There is more euphemism giving to this contradictions as more trust and enthusiasm is given to the Crypto$.
Nowadays, it looks like it is worth for every good idea to have a networkable value in a p2p blockchain. But we need to focus more on contents that should make our livings with materialities more sustainable for all, because by putting our decentralization entushiasm in communities that are quite monothematically focused (distracted-stressed) in the thread of increasing their relation with money$, we aren’t really decentralizing very smartly as we rather could.
Mining competition for adding more loveliness in the form of further structured (more rewarded) content is worthier than competition for more brute force tech for getting more money$.
There are a few popular P2P tools for daily life, while there is an increasing ammount of P2P blockchains. Blockchains are P2P tools that will probably never feature a rich social network, because crypto$ overrating acknowledgements standard design brings a lot of coding load complications when willing to feature a rich social network.
There are efforts in making blockchains scalable to get to feature whatever computing, but they are still attached to the dubious thought of: «I want a facebook in my wallet» (the wallet-as-a-network architecture thinking), instead of the more logical reasoning of: «p2p crowdthessaurus, with an integrated multicryptocurrencies wallet in it«, altough the more popular architecture approach today is probably the chat-as-a-network (whatsup, wechat, etc)…
Why we don’t have a rich p2p social network yet
Note: I don’t want to deprecate efforts like status or akasha projects within ethereum in favor of other more pure p2p based like holochain, secushare or retroshare. I just don’t get their technicalities well enough myself (and haven´t found anyone wanting to implement the flove standards there).
There is not p2p social network (more careless about featuring acknowledgements) very ready to use because there are not enough developers commited to do so. (again: most of the decentralizing developments heat is put on acknowledgment features…).
Many decentralizing features can be done (evolved) with the 1% of the overflood of enthusiasm there is in the p2p currencies, but we don’t seem to care about this flaw, yet.
There are many geeks that have got rich with the cryptocurrencies. There are thousands of programmers doing p2p blockchains, but not even a suffered dozen of people commited to develop an alternative to facebook in p2p.
What seems to be happening here is that we don’t care about p2p if there is not dollars-in-the-middle because have a comfortable life with the combination of (sarcasm):
I like Twitter more than Facebook. We don’t really need yet a better place for our free data to thrive. BigData companies will do that job of improving my networking options by developing more features for me-us. I see the value on storing Money in my CryptoWallet, i consider social networking data store much less valueable, so i don’t care that much about decentralizing that store. …We just need to challenge legal tenders hegemony…
Other more «cryptoactivists» could even say or believe that if central money fail, we will have their tokens to be able to exchange things with, without foreeseing that if classical money fails, soon there will be so much chaos, that possibly there won’t be technical networks to exchange CryptoCurrencies with. Or there will be a new CryptoLegal tender with a high Surveillance and Vendor Lock-in design.
The blockchains are a beautiful breakthru for letting anyone to choose which global currency (s)he is more comfortable with for exchanging $ value. It also make the Stock Exchanges more safe in the technical side of things. We also have to see their lesser predictability (more ups & downs in their value$) as an advantatge for the common Joe. DEFI isn’t dangerous either, it is a yet more consolidating step for crypto being a better currency (channel) than private bank notes and balances.
There is an environtmental pressure for us having to be more caring about what network represents more our personal values.
We need blockchained currencies to exchange daily things with, while we haven’t developed economic alternatives (really smart contracts…) to make the need for exchanging not that much valueable in our lifes (receiving something borrowed or gifted is a better offer than exchange, like more abstract matchy interactions too).
Exchange is the less rational evolutive option between all the posible ones for the transfer of the use of a thing (See it last at floves taxonomy). Apparently paradoxically, exchange being the lowest realm where to pump love from implies that Lovely exchanges should be the most sophisticated actions (because of their higher difficulty to achieve so, that is why we probably give some much attention to it overall…).
So we need a p2p network that offers a certain usability focused in developing our more varied inputs of different loveliness(es), where exchanging to be considered one of the lowest (lovely, less need to acknowledge) action there.
Curating content
We need curating (moderating) content to avoid sybil attacks and spamming in an environtment that is censorship resistant as any p2p tool by design is.
P2P Networks such as OpenBazaar propose to solve this problem with their own Ethereum-based (OB)Tokens manually distributed among trusted parties-persons. While that could be a decent patch (as moderated and premined tools like faircoin are), we can and have to keep thinking about better ways to decentralize the «curating of content» in P2P networks without having to come to the thought of: «Spammers won’t spam us because it will cost them too much money (in our tokens) to do so«. Some ideas:
-Register/Log in per invitation (looks centralizing, but a web of trust graph could be enough)
-Do some task for registering (seeing this as slavery is a posh appeal to pitty fallacy)
-Curate affinities contents only (As in XS identities in RetroShare…)
-See only content that is curated up to certain ammount
-Watch x time a page, and then is validated as curation
My 2 cents, let’s keep the heat on about the free network we wish to have.
SEE MORE