Does blood donation serve as an example of what you're talking about?

Hmmm, not exactly what I had in mind, but in some ways yes. So one might then ask, what can we do in the blood giving community to encourage what we need?

I guess I was thinking of Catalytic Communities or Inspired Legacies. Catalytic Communities has provided a space for exchange between local community’s leaders. Something that was difficult before became much easier. And, in doing so, there are all these great exchanges between community leaders, so that someone leading a day care can share with someone who leads art workshops to do a mural in the community. No money was exchanged, but everyone benefited--the community where the mural is placed, the artist for having something more on the resume, the kids for having an opportunity to see how they can be creative and make their community more beautiful.

With Inspired Legacies, it will be bringing together people from silos of practice to share ideas for the good of all. Information that had previously been all but quarantined can become a commons that benefits all.

But what can we do to help these things?

For example, what if the community leaders knew the location of other community leaders in their area--who is closest? Will they then be able to connect to people close to them that they may not have known?

And can we activate relationships through giving awards for the most integrated node or something? When we talk about currencies we are also talking about credentials and awards and stuff. The things that encourage people to do more (which of course depend on what motivates people). In some circles being degreed is highly respected and therefor highly sought after. In some circles money is highly respected and therefore sought after.

...what can we create to motivate communities to connect and share information?

Okay, these all sound great.

I'd like to explore blood donation a bit more, however, because as a community, we need blood for injured people or those in surgery. The market solution would be for a corporation to pay people to provide the blood and hospitals to pay this corporation. Money.

And yet the system we have isn't based on money. A non-profit collects blood donations and they then get to hospitals (not sure if there is a fee involved in that transaction).

Why does it work? Because of the sticker you get that says "Be nice to me. I gave blood today."? Because of the card you get to show your gallons? Because of the free juice and cookies you get afterwards?

Anyway, don't let me divert the topic if you're more talking about information rather than goods. I'm interested in that too! :-)

What is most important to me about this discussion is exploring the idea of currents beyond money.

I like your example. Drake and I were talking about our book on making a difference yesterday. And when it comes down to it, how do you know you are making a difference? Well what matters is that you feel it. And that feeling is uplifting (Jon Haidt cognitive psychology stuff). So if getting that sticker and card helps you to believe you made a difference, then this is very valuable to encouraging the flow.

Was the sticker difficult to obtain for the org that gives them out? No, I presume not. Yet, this small sticker may help them increase the blood donations they get. I find this fascinating!

What other small things make a big difference for flow? Perhaps if we collect a bunch of stories, we can look for patterns?

Interesting thread... ;D

One of the themes that FZ "studied" were significant financial flows that seemed to be nonsensical (to him) -- but also supported by government incentives (cf. e.g. church chat).

Flow appears to always be a "from - to" affair -- always a matter of changing from one thing to another. I'll bet there might be lot to learn from the I Ching ("Book of Changes")...

Norbert, I have no comment on your Frank Zappa statement. ;-) There are lots of monetary issues which appear nonsensical to me.

Flow is about change and directed movement. Things are flowing all the time all around us. What if you were more aware of the flow in your life? (Your in the general, not your specifically at Norbert.) What if you were intentional about the flows in your life? In your community? In your professional effort?

What if, not only could you see the flow and be intentional, but you could also create flows that encouraged people?

Jean, That DVD I'm sending you is all about flow. I hope it give us more shared language talk about this subject.

Meanwhile... I'd like to paste an excerpt in here from a discussion that I just posted to outside of O.net [in a complementary currency community of practice of sorts]. I think it applies to the flow questions and to the phenomenon of making gift economies (like blood donation). At least it's a spark for further discussion. :)

I think it’s great that so many of us have schooled ourselves in monetary theory, so that we can understand the dynamics at play in the existing national currencies. But why should we try to use currencies and accounting methods from the market economy to try to create a gift economy?

Thomas (Greco) and Hasan were both pointing to the gift economy aspect of what needs to happen. “Feed the network first.” I don’t believe we’ll get far in building the trust and partnership that we need to really create a powerful “movement” if we are starting from a place of “tit-for-tat” exchanges. “I’ll do something for you, if I know my credits will buy me something I want.” [I don’t mean that as something personal to Tom or Tom, because I know you both are actively contributing in a number of ways without pay. It’s just the way the discussion was framed.]

I think we (and people in community in general) want to give. But we want it to be safe to give. By that I mean, that we want to know that we’re not being taken advantage of. That we’re not being conned, subsidizing freeloaders, or throwing our time/money/energy into a black hole that in no way gives back. In the open source software community, people can see concrete return benefit because they’re using other people’s software other than their own. They give to the commons and the commons gives back, forward, across, up & down. There are formal and informal ways that peoples contribution and reputation is registered.

In the CC community, it is a little more difficult for us to see the ways the value comes back and how contribution and reputation is registered. Group Commons is a big step toward providing tools for working productively with each other and have a way that contribution is registered (submissions for acknowledgement, tracking of time, tasks completed, etc.). But maybe these things are not best understood as money in an account, but as part of the components of reputation and trust-building.

I’m concerned that we’ve so focused on money and money-substitutes that we fail to see the scores of currencies that we come in contact with every day. The tools for catalyzing and shaping currents of flow – flows of information, participation, gifts, goods, services, reputation, trust, relationship, use of reusable items, etc. Currencies that are issued, transacted, converted or redeemed without our notice.

Think of schools. What if a university tried to manage its students the way a business tries to manage its employees? It would be impossible. Instead they’ve set up a series of non-monetary currencies let the students manage themselves. Degrees are a token of status currency – a kind of reputation currency that is supposed to help you get a better job and earn more money. Credits are a unit of account currency – students can sign up for whatever classes they want to, but to get the degree, the credits have to tally up in the right categories defined by the degree requirements. Grades are a performance metric currency – they are an attempt to measure how well the student is learning the content of a course. Students spend money to get grades and credits which they redeem for a degree.

If you think I’m crazy about this, just look at how effectively grades alter student participation. Does a student engage the same way when they’re auditing a course vs. taking it pass/fail vs. getting a grade? There’s a lot more about how these actually work as currencies, but they do. So do postage stamps, movie tickets, Olympic medals, designer labels, eBay ratings, “Buy 9 get 10th free” punch cards, USDA Grade A, Certified Organic, UL Listed, four star ratings, Zagat survey numbers, shares of stock, frequent-flier miles, etc. We’re awash in these well-targeted currencies and talking like we’re still waiting for success cases.

So then the question becomes what kinds of currencies would facilitate the gift economy flows that we need as a currency community. The needs for solid theory and ideas, support with design and application for specific communities and needs, the tools and technology to support the implementation of such designs, documentation of the tools and technology, user education and documentation for each implementation, general publishing and evangelizing for how these help communities, leadership in communities to step forward and be willing to bring this home, fundraising for the general protocol/infrastructure and to support various specific implementations, etc. What if we started thinking in terms of designing contribution metrics, a community citizenship rating, a generosity index, promoter points, or such things – and ways to briefly and informatively reference that information about a person?

For me, this is where the big difference between what Andy is talking about and what I (and I think Eric) envision for currencies protocols – currencies where “balances” are sometimes averages (like your grade point), or percentiles rankings, or ratios. We need an infrastructure to manage the diverse (but finite) rules of issuance, transaction, redemption, conversion, exchange. Not all currencies act like money. Many of the success stories that we share in this community should show us this: Curitiba Trash Tokens, D.C. Youth Courts, Chicago Peer Tutoring, Bali “Temple” currency, etc.

So... I’ve proposed a session at the Open Collective (BALLE pre-pre-conference) in Burlington, VT in June about using currencies to create gift economies. Why don’t we use our own community as a practicum for the discussion about how we might do so?

Ah, thank you for bringing that up Arthur (I think I may have actually read something like that before?).

Let me reiterate and underscore how I feel that a reputation currency should use FIFO [1] accounting.

While old stuff may no longer be relevant in time sensitive issues, Norbert, that doesn't mean that the stuff isn't valuable as information. Can that be a done with a different rating?

Arthur, can you explain more about the difference between gift economies and market economies and how gift economies promote relationship?

And I am really interested in happiness, fulfillment, and satisfaction...the way it is being explained and studied in psychology right now. And I wonder if there is some link between those states and being a contribution (making a gift).

[edit--typos]

Jean ~ Omidizens ~ Chicago ~ July ~ Russell said:

While old stuff may not lnger be relevant in time sensitive issues, Norbert, that doesn't mean that the stuff isn't valuable as information. Can that be a done with a different rating?

I don't understand your question.

I also don't understand why someone's reputation from long ago would be important today. When I meet someone, I want to learn about their life right now. Who cares what they did 20 years ago? (well, maybe insofar as it might still be related to who they are now -- but otherwise it really doesn't matter to me).

To take Ted's example: having given blood 5 minutes ago may be "worthy" of some orange juice, or maybe also yesterday -- but if someone came up to you and said "I gave blood in the summer of 1998", would that be important now?

It might be relevant in a "Hall of Fame" of all time contributors sort of context.

But that's why the reputation currencies that I was proposing for O.net disply only results the past 6 month window (unless you go visit hall of fame or drill into the details of the users profile).

I see what you mean about a person's reputation. I was also thinking about a comment or a thread. Here thread points decay, but what if it is a really valuable conversation that simply doesn't have current comments. Can't that have a value assigned for archiving? So that if I want all the historical record of currency conversations in order to build on it, I can look at the ones most highly rated first?

Well, actually I was focusing more on personal reputation (which I do not use very much as a guide, but I guess others do). Zooming in and out from the past week to the past year to the past decade might be neat-o.

For content, I really don't care about time at all -- what matters here is relevance (and my gut feeling is that the thread owner should be the primary judge of that -- see also Linking Comments).

With flow I'm wondering whether you're thinking of storing anything (as in: "stocks")? Otherwise, how important is showing "both sides of the coin"? (gain/loss -- note how "weight loss" shows that either of these can be desired outcomes)

:) nmw

I care about time relevance for content. To have the ratings decay means that old content that was AWESOME looks just the same as old content that was JUNK. That doesn't help you weed for historically valuable conversations.

I also think it is possible to have a newness/freshness factor that has to do with activity levels for a "what's hot" listings, that is disting from the quality ratings.

If I understand you correctly, then I guess we agree agree that time and relevance are independant of one another -- for example: wheras pythagoras' theorem (a²+b²=c²) is still as valid today as when he first described it thousands of years ago, the stuff some politicians say will always be utter nonsense.

I think new/fresh may be very significant in some contexts -- e.g. art, design, etc. ...?

Yes, I think we agree. Now how to keep them as distinct factors, that is the challenge is it not?

And while I agree that all this is relevant as one form or facet of flow, I want to continue to open to other forms and facets of flow as well.

The current scholarship fundraising is another flow. It does involve money on some level, but the money is exchanged for something far more valuable...the ability to bring a member from Africa to a gathering of members in Chicago. So looking for ways to incentivize the flow of money that will allow for a face to face conversation (not to mention the way having a member from Africa will impact the open space board of sessions...) So, how to incentivize giving. And Mark has done so by offering shirts. We need $750 member $ (matched by the LLC to total the $1500 needed). So if ten members each contribute $75, then we reach that goal. Mark incentivized that by giving re-psycho shirts to people who gave at the $75 level. Some people will be motivated by that. Hopefully 10 of them ;-) But understanding people's motivations for different things and understanding the make-up of the users, helps to develop an incentive to help the flow of resources.

Note: Sometimes what we think motivates people is not what actually motivates them. I highly doubt that most of the users over 500 pts are motivated to get more points. They are connected to the people here and the actions they are working on. So giving them more points is more of a pat on the back than a motivating carrot. Ted is explicit about wanting points to go to content instead of to him. He is transparent that points don't motivate him. :-) I explain this because I think we need to think through time as well as what makes initial motivations. It is one thing to get someone to give blood once, it is another to have them commit to a lifetime of sharing lifeblood. And for me, I would rather work to motivate something enduring (if endurance is relevant to the topic) than something fleeting.

Make sense? I feel like I am touching on too many factors without enough explanation of each.

Well, I also think we all agree is that allowing points to content to decay is a disincentive, so the way omidyar.net is set up, people will feel / recognize that their contributions (of points) are more "long-lasting" if given to persona (or comments, but not discussions or workspaces). Therefore, the present result is unfortunately rather stifling.

I think to really make something happen that we consider to be good without reservation, it might need to be built from the ground up and not ontop of some platform. For example, one of the flows that I think "ShortNews" makes really good use of is "pageviews" (whether unique or non-unique). Here is a datapoint that is useful: it shows interest. In order to build on this, we would need access to such data -- and this may simply not be possible when utilizing such a complex platform as omidyar.net -- but I really don't know.

Jean, what do you think would be cool?

:) nmw

I think coolaborations is cool, of course. :-)

I think you are still working within the framework of Onet, Norbert. And I want to talk in a larger sense of inciting flow in a community. Onet is one community. Http://www.catcomm.org in another. http://www.Phoenixvoyage.com is/will be another. http://www.superviva.com is yet another. These are all online communities. There are also offline communities.

And points are one currency. There are other currencies. I don't think points function as effectively as motivators as some other currencies, however, they are easier to set up in online systems and be scalable.

Well, again: pageviews are interesting flows -- also stats that sites like downloads.com track -- oh, yes: ebay, shopping, ...

But what you're after, I think is, um, meatspace? ... -- in the flesh? ;P

Yes, offline can be cool -- or it can be mashed up with online... -- which is, of course what webcams are all about. I love the idea of webcams on open squares: waving "hi, hello" ;D

These are flows: kind of "pushing meatspace" into cyberspace. Then there is pull -- would be interesting to invite Andy Carvin to talk about this....

Food for fantasy...

;D nmw

Back to the original topic - Jean said:

Arthur, can you explain more about the difference between gift economies and market economies and how gift economies promote relationship?

To make the following characteristics more concrete, picture these two scenarios:

• Market Economy: I go to Home Depot and buy a box of nails.
• Gift Economy I go to a neighbor across the street and "borrow" a handful of nails.

Some Characteristics of (Modern) Market Economies

• The market is mediated by a medium of exchange currency: Cash, of some kind, serves as a marker of the value of the exchange. It flows one direction, while the goods/services flow back the other way.
• The currency is designed to be scarce: Fiat currencies ensure their value by ensuring scarcity in their means of issuance. Many possible exchanges don’t occur because of no cash available to do them. How many businesses/communities/projects do you know that are “waiting for funding.”
• Transactions are balanced: I give them $4.00 they give me a box of nails. You do "tit-for-tat" exchanges.
• Transactions require no relationship: Anybody with $4.00 can go buy a box of nails
• Transactions build no relationship: There’s nothing inherent about a market transaction that creates new relationship. I am not likely to end up with any profound connection with the nail manufacturers, cashier or shareholders of Home Depot.

Some Characteristics of Gift Economies

• The market is mediated by reputation and trust: Sometimes these are formalized into measurement and feedback currencies; sometimes they are informal. If my neighbor has had bad experiences with me, doesn’t like me or trust me, I may not get any nails. My loud all night parties which tie up all the parking in front of their houses may not work in my favor either.
• The currency is always in sufficient supply: Nobody ever says “I’m sorry, I just can’t relate to you as a good neighbor because I already spent all my ‘good neighborliness’ on Bob two doors down.”
• Transactions are imbalanced: If my neighbor gives me a handful of nails (or a cup of sugar, or loans me their lawn mower) it is weird for me to try to pay them for it or bring them nails back next week to ‘pay them back.’ I don’t owe them something for it. They’re not giving to put me in their debt, but because they’d want me to do the same thing for whatever neighbor needed it. In other words, they are investing in people giving forward and across, not just giving back.
• Transactions may require relationship: People are more likely to feel comfortable giving in this way when there is some level of relationship or experience of shared interest. Plenty of people won't give something to the homeless person on the corner, but would do it for a neighbor or member of their church just by virtue of that connection.
• Transactions build relationship: What is left hanging in the “imbalanced” exchange is a new relationship. The new relationship makes it that much more likely that giving will occur again (either direction) and it becomes the foundation for knowing, trusting and appreciating one another.

Ted: Yes - Blood drives are another give-forward, give-across, and hopefully-I’ll-never-need-somebody-to-be-giving-back investment.

The book "Nonzero" talks about win-win transactions becoming ever more common, partly because people seem to naturally seek benefits, but also because groups who don't do this tend to get eaten by ones who do.

I usually like to focus on the positive, and cooperative, as opposed to negative reinforcement and competition, but this may be a useful background for discussing flow.

For instance, look at all the businesses and NGOs and charities that die. What didn't they do? My guess is they didn't reach out to the person(s) or group(s) who could have saved them, and ask for that crucial favor or barter or exchange.

So then, think of all the times you've been reached out to and said yes. How did they reach you?

I can divide up my big YESs into two categories. Either (A) I was looking for an excuse to do it anyway (like when someone asks me to sign a petition that I'm in favor of) or else (B) the person is someone I feel related to and want to support and invest in.

Sometimes it's a combination. To increase type (A) YESs, a good index of everything you can do is called for (including "1 million simple things you can do to save the planet" and "where is a good place to take vegetarian kids in Baltimore".)

To increase type (B) YESs, o/net-like communities are well-suited. I would be much more likely to click on a drop-cash campaign here than in a place like match.com, even for the same worthy cause, because while you can get to know people on match.com, there isn't any group feedback loop, so you don't benefit from all the other people they are getting to know. They don't filter others for you and match you up, only the database does that. Whereas on o/net people match others up, increasing the target people's confidence in their relationship.

What would be really awesome is to combine all three of those things into one turbocharged o/net: the community discussions already here, match.com-like matching based on location, personality, diet, characteristics, etc., and finally, a combination encyclopedia of what to do and calendar of when you can do it in a certain venue.

Wow, that would inspire me!

Working on it...that awesome idea David. But what I have seen doesn't match people by personality or diet usually, it will connect them/us by talent/expertise and what we have a passion about. I have lately heard some people chatting about an encyclopedia of actions. And my friend Theresa has such a thing with Catalytic Communities which catalogs successful community projects to share them globally. I have also seen people expressing interest in a calendar here on Onet. I would be interested to see a calendar like they use at Onebrick

Arthur, I think I understand better about market economies and gift economies. Though I think customer loyalty is a type of relationship, perhaps one-sided, and there is trust in the market economy. However, I agree that there isn't much person to person.

People and companies thrive, most often, by cooperation. That may mean who you can partner with to sell a product, deliver the product, service the product, what have you... And it can also mean partnering together through a commons. Something that bugs me about business plans is that all too often there is tons of focus on competition and way too little focus on cooperation and partnership (the real driving force behind success).

I am interested in cognitive science stuff that I think is beginning to show the value generated in feeling like you are a contribution. Jon Haidt's work has shown that people are elevated by watching someone do a good deed. And doing a good deed or remembering a good deed sends out uplifting chemicals in the brain even much after the fact. It is as if we are hardwired to be a contribution.

What I find so valuable about this currency conversation is how it lifts the veil on the flows between people. It can reveal what is working and how to do more of it. It isn't about putting a band-aid on a problem. It is about getting a deep understanding of systems and of people in all our complexity, then helping us, I hope, create a better world and lead more satisfying lives.

How can gift economies flourish online?

Arthur I disagree with (at least) the following point you make.

Arthur Brock said:

Some Characteristics of (Modern) Market Economies

• Transactions build no relationship: There’s nothing inherent about a market transaction that creates new relationship. I am not likely to end up with any profound connection with the nail manufacturers, cashier or shareholders of Home Depot.

If I were to go to Home Depot and buy a GE lightbulb, then I would very well do to acknowledge the support I am giving both of these organizations in doing so.

Indeed, many "consumers" are aware of the relationships they have. For example, in the United States during the civil rights movements of the 1960's, many african-americans refused to use the services of public transportation organizations, because they felt they were not being treated fairly. As a result, the organizations changed (as in: flow).