I am working on a proposal and is expecting to proto it probably this weekend. It technically doesn't do any of those things, but I think it is a better starting point for interacting with the economy.
天火狐 On 25 October 2017 at 12:47, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi all, I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran > economies function, and where we're not quite there yet. These are just > observations from watching systems go by. > > - To get trading, you need SPECIALIZATION and DIVERSE GOODS. For > trading to work, you need the Cost of Specialization (in time or funds) > to be much greater than the cost of a specialist producing those codes. > Otherwise people just rotate through specialties to get the goods they > need. (This is Econ 101 for Free Trade between nations). > > - Our current system has none of this. What the current system is is > an abstracted and volatile stock market. We can invest stamps or > proposals when price is low to sell high. It's basically each player > against "the system" (where the "system" is our collective behavior) > and it's kind of interesting. But it doesn't, at all, promote cross- > person economic activity. > > There's nothing wrong with an "abstract stock market" game. But we > shouldn't > mistake it for a trading system. > > So the way I see it, we should do one of two things: > > 1. Embrace the current system as a stock market/gambling system, and > increase the Stamps and aspects of gambling, and make more ways that > speculation can happen. But not try too hard to make this a "trading > economy". > > 2. Scrap the volatile aspects entirely (fix FV, mint more shinies than > we'll ever need). Instead, create a system of Specialization. We can > use things like Land as a vehicle - either by making Land *one* limited > specialty (limited supply) but creating other specialty directions... > OR by making Land a basic low-level commodity (lots of supply) but with > customization (Farms and so forth). > > I think *either* system could be fun. I do enjoy the "buy low/sell high" > simple gaming we've got now, and (in past history) we've done (2) much > more often than (1). > > But we should really not try to go in both directions, because this hybrid > is just a *bit* of a mess. [Once we've answered this basic question - > what are we trying to do - then we can talk about details like incomes, > supply level, etc. etc.] > > > > > > > > > > > >
