One thing that would be interesting to try, but for a fixed period of time would be getting rid of officers and implementing IP restrictions to force people to specialize as officers. Then anyone who payed a certain fee for a license could act as an officer. Additionally, privatizing proposals and justice could be an interesting experiment.
On 10/25/2017 02:51 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/25/17 11:47, Kerim Aydin 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. > In a way, the fact that each person's stamps are different makes > everyone a fixed specialist. This was by design. Trading is intended to > happen for win conditions, but I agree that it's become clear that we > need more routine reasons to trade. > >> 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.] >> > I think a middle ground can exist, but only if the trading focuses on > the speculative aspects. I propose that we make stamps even more unique, > in a way that makes their trading more worthwhile. My proto: > > * Create a Bonus Stamp Value, at 1/5th the FV, with a minimum of 1. > > * When a player destroys a stamp that they did not create, the receive > Stamp Value + (BSV / # of instances of that stamp that exist). > > Thus, your stamps are always more valuable to someone else, and vice > versa. This should encourage trading. Additionally rarer stamps are more > valuable, which gives new players a bit of an indirect advantage. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
