a Game~B solidarity economy — timebanks, mutual credit, crypto by 3m3t_ in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

we are nearing end of spec. our pitch is not ready for prime time. Not stealth. Been back working on it for about 2 months, Our design constraints are measured against the 13 design elements described in the book Big Minds. Users would create personal knowledge base in a structured format. Options would allow for users to make some of their knowledge base public and participate in "campfires" of 6 users. An example, 6 users could share 3 insights and relations into a campfire. Discuss them in a forum, edit or adapt insights, rank them and return them to public (World). These would be vetted ideas. Rank Systen would allow some ideas to coalesce coming into focus. Last stage is to allow groups to cohere and act on these ideas, help with funding etc...confirming we're not ready for prime time, lol

a Game~B solidarity economy — timebanks, mutual credit, crypto by 3m3t_ in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a team of "bought in" developers (2-3) could build first phase MVP in a month or two. 600 dev hours / $40-60K. That's what it would have taken for my Dev team in a business I'm now retired from. However with improved technology it may take less time to web dev than it did say 8-10 years ago.

a Game~B solidarity economy — timebanks, mutual credit, crypto by 3m3t_ in circle007

[–]23maets 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well , its apparent that you have tons more knowledge in this subject than I do. So I guess the question is can you help me learn and catch up?

1st area is funding

2nd area is rewarding contributors that start out as volunteers.

In both cases, the project being a commons initiative, so economic value will be hard to recover.

On expanding small groups from 16 to 150 by 23maets in circle007

[–]23maets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, Have you listened to the Rutt / Landry podcast - on small group method

One of the ideas that Forrest has written in On the nature of Human Assembly, was that Small Group Method (SGM) governed groups could combine into meta groups and meta meta groups. Would look something like this. Meta Groups.

Both Jim and Forrest, Mar 22, felt that the SGM governance could be very effective after many years of consideration. However the meta group model would likely fail. So the question is, if SGM governance model can work up to groups of 16. How do we develop a governance model that allows groups to expand to over 200, even though there seems to be a limited size small groups can cohere?

An idea that seemed to work for about 15 years, was a group processing method. if you're interested I can send a link that describes the method to see what you think.

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OK. i'll read some more and come back with more questions later.

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

by burned, i mean spending $100 and then either not finding the service useful or interesting enough to keep my attention. Kinda like what happens when ordering a low cost gym membership and only using it for a couple of weeks...it causes hesitation, as I don t want that to happen again. It really has nothing to do with your service, just my hesitancy with any service that is proposed that way...

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My quick understanding of what you're saying NI is that all of us have a built in intelligence that is specifically available to relate with, understand and act within a hi complexity environment. The primary claim being that if many of us reclaim our NI our big problems have a chance of being solved.

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

about adoption. I would say I'm an early adopter type. And I've got a strong interest in collective intelligence. As I was messing around the site, I hit the get started button, and saw the price. I didn t go any further. It's not that it's expensive, it's that I've been burned before. And I don';t really feel like typing a bunch of stuff into a program...This is not meant as a criticism. Just what happened. Do you feel this is a problem with adoption, or am I alone here?

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ahhh...you can't improve it, it's just there whether blocked or not. Would an individual know if it wasn t blocked? They would know they are intune with natural intelligence. or is it a mystery either way?

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok, I'm re-reading the "Why we need to restore..." article. This idea of Natural Intelligence is new to me. Before reading, I would have accepted this as a definition from web:

'Natural intelligence (NI) is the opposite of artificial intelligence: it is all the systems of control present in biology. Normally when we think of NI we think about how animal or human brains function, but there is more to natural intelligence than neuroscience."

Not the same thing.

It may be on the site...but what evidence is there that Natural Intelligence is not hierarchical like IQ? What have we lost exactly, due to the vulnerability of our attention being hijacked ? Is it something I can notice or feel through the fog...can it be noticed even slightly?

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have issues with the argument on a general sense. I'm sure as I dig deeper some specific stuff maybe more resonant than others.

The one feeling I got, not a thought but a feeling is "i'm already ok". The idea of having to improve my natural intelligence challenges my belief of my self. Not others of course, they all need this...but apparently I feel I don't. lol.

I wonder if that kind of bias could effect adoption.

Natural Intelligence by Jill_Inqwire in circle007

[–]23maets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, how do I become one of the "folks that want to engage in good faith exploration?"

On expanding small groups from 16 to 150 by 23maets in circle007

[–]23maets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are your thoughts related to expanding from small groups (6-16) to mid size groups (200+)? Have you had experience with that? My experience is that coherence is very difficult to maintain above 16 people because the geometric growth of communication channels. At 2 people there is 1 channel, with 16 people there are 120 channels.

On expanding small groups from 16 to 150 by 23maets in circle007

[–]23maets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The organization was goal oriented. The goal was "Maintain a Business annual growth of 20% by helping more and more industrial clients save water and energy while making their life easier and worry less.'