Ripple monetary system

[Russell Kanning]

I would say that it should not be wrapped up in the tuath. There might be people in the group that you want to keep info from and have no interest in loaning to. We could have many databases, so that you go alone or with whoever you trust. There could be multiple filing cabinets.

[AlanM]

I would say that it should not be wrapped up in the tuath. There might be people in the group that you want to keep info from and have no interest in loaning to. We could have many databases, so that you go alone or with whoever you trust. There could be multiple filing cabinets.

There could be several different systems. One for the FF Tuath, for instance.
Definitely feel that some sort of registration is required, but it could be minimal info as it is all wrapped around knowing, and trusting each other.

[Lex]

It seems the relationships are far more important than any structure we put in place for jobs, loans .....

I had started doing that on the nhjobmarket app but everyone said that posting/searching jobs was priority so that's what I worked on.

Now that people can post jobs and we've only had 4 jobs posted in almost a month it's definitely time to try something new and different.

I totally agree that relationships should be the core of any system like this. To start off we can just allow people to register themselves (this part is already done). Then add the ability to add friends. One thing that I think would be a good idea is to not use real names or anything like that. For example, it would work like this:

1. You would go into the system, register as anarchist93 or something, optionally provide some personal info like your name.
2. You would tell your friends via phone, email or face to face what your screen name is, then you can add them and they can add you.
3. Once two people add each other a link is established.

This would work for online transactions (just like ebay works now with the feedback score). But it would be a little more difficult with physical transactions. In that case one thing that we can do is use PGP keys on a USB memory key or something. The website would have your public key attached to your username. When you make a transaction with a person they would encrypt a message using your public key, give you the message and ask you to decrypt it. If you were able to decrypt it then you are the same person as anarchist93. Basically the only purpose for this is to attach your reputation recorded online with your real life persona.

In the above case you never have to reveal your name, address or any other private information. All you did was show to the business that you are reputable in which case they shouldn't care what your name is since you are already determined to be trust worthy.

[Lex]

Another thing that we would have to figure out is how to do we "rate" friends?

At least for the first version, what would be the simplest way to say that a particular person is very trustworthy, just trustworthy or not trustworthy.

Would this be a free form type of thing where when you add your friend you would chose it from a dropdown or would it be based on transaction records that you enter into the system that you've made with this person. I think that initially most people would find it too tedious to have to eneter each transaction you've made with your friends. But at the same time having a drop down is too ambigious. For example, what is the different between "very trustworthy" and just "trustworthy" (or whatever naming/rating scheme we pick).

[Lex]

Or, we could forgo the rating system and simple say that if you have someone on your list of friends then they are trustworthy and if they screw something up then you delete them off your list or at least mark them as untrustworthy.

Basically making the rating system simple: You either are trustworthy or not.

ebay has three things though: positive, neutral, negative

I think I like ebays system more, what do you guys think?

That way when you add someone they stay neutral and when you make a successful transaction with them you can mark them positive and if they screw you over mark them negative.

[AlanM]

Or, we could forgo the rating system and simple say that if you have someone on your list of friends then they are trustworthy and if they screw something up then you delete them off your list or at least mark them as untrustworthy.

Just a simple list of friends I am willing to loan to is enough for me. Yes or no. I'm not a fan of rating systems.

[Lex]

Or, we could forgo the rating system and simple say that if you have someone on your list of friends then they are trustworthy and if they screw something up then you delete them off your list or at least mark them as untrustworthy.

Just a simple list of friends I am willing to loan to is enough for me. Yes or no. I'm not a fan of rating systems.

Well, what about the one ebay has, it's not really "rating" like: positive, neutral, negative

One thing about using this system is that it's proven to be very successful and it's always better to build on success. I could even layout it out similar to the way google does.

[Russell Kanning]

I like the idea of having set loan amounts tied to friends instead of ratings. Maybe they could be separate things.

[MaineShark]

Rating:
Assign a number between 0.00 and 1.00
1 is complete trust, 0 is complete distrust.

If the framework is set up that way, you can allow people to use it as a "yes/no" thing right now, then later add to the interface the ability to give someone a .5 rating.  Then maybe create five levels of rating (0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00)  Then you might make the rating dependant on anything from 0 to 100%.

It also gives you the ability to have an "average trust rating" for a given person, even when you're at the "yes/no" stage.  If 8 people trust you, and 3 do not, and 17 have no opinion (.500 score), your average rating is 58.93%, which might help someone else decide whether to risk a venture with you.

If the initial system is set up for three our four digits, you'll never run into issues at you want to increase functionality.  If the initial design is for a "yes/no" system, you're stuck with that until you feel the willingness to re-do your whole database.  In other words, this avoids the whole "y2k" type of mess, where something is set up in such a way that future increases in functionality are not possible.

My .02

Joe

[Lex]

Rating:
Assign a number between 0.00 and 1.00
1 is complete trust, 0 is complete distrust.

If the framework is set up that way, you can allow people to use it as a "yes/no" thing right now, then later add to the interface the ability to give someone a .5 rating.  Then maybe create five levels of rating (0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00)  Then you might make the rating dependant on anything from 0 to 100%.

It also gives you the ability to have an "average trust rating" for a given person, even when you're at the "yes/no" stage.  If 8 people trust you, and 3 do not, and 17 have no opinion (.500 score), your average rating is 58.93%, which might help someone else decide whether to risk a venture with you.

If the initial system is set up for three our four digits, you'll never run into issues at you want to increase functionality.  If the initial design is for a "yes/no" system, you're stuck with that until you feel the willingness to re-do your whole database.  In other words, this avoids the whole "y2k" type of mess, where something is set up in such a way that future increases in functionality are not possible.

My .02

Very good idea MaineShark. I might just do it this way.

[Michael Fisher]

We've been through this discussion before while founding the tuath.  We agreed strongly that it will remain ultraminimal and no database, rating system, money, or anything else should be involved with it - just people.

I don't like databases of people's information.  I don't want a tuath to turn into a voluntary version of Big Brother.  It could exist separate from the tuath, but I probably wouldn't participate in it.

I prefer a real-life, face-to-face tuath.  To me, the real world is preferable.

For banking, I prefer:
"Hey, I'm an investor.  Does your business need money?"
"I need an investor to fund my new equipment."

Call me old-fashioned but I like it this way.   

[AlanM]

We've been through this discussion before while founding the tuath.? We agreed strongly that it will remain ultraminimal and no database, rating system, money, or anything else should be involved with it - just people.

I don't like databases of people's information.? I don't want a tuath to turn into a voluntary version of Big Brother.? It could exist separate from the tuath, but I probably wouldn't participate in it.

I prefer a real-life, face-to-face tuath.? To me, the real world is preferable.

For banking, I prefer:
"Hey, I'm an investor.? Does your business need money?"
"I need an investor to fund my new equipment."

Call me old-fashioned but I like it this way.? ?

You're old-fashioned! 

[Michael Fisher]

You're old-fashioned!?

[Michael Fisher]

I knew getting a website for the tuath was a slippery slope.   

[Lex]

For banking, I prefer:
"Hey, I'm an investor.  Does your business need money?"
"I need an investor to fund my new equipment."

Call me old-fashioned but I like it this way.   

Old-fashioned, eh? You must be really really really old...

Even during Babylon, 2600 years ago, people expected either collateral or some other evidence that you are trust worthy and would repay your debt.

You're not going to make a lot of money by giving it out to any stranger who comes to you and asks for an investment to fund his new equipment. That's just reckless, plain and simple.