A good can be placed along a continuum ranging from rivalrous (rival) to non-rival. The same characteristic is sometimes referred to as subtractable or non-subtractable. A rival (subtractable) good is a good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers.


from public good:

wikipedia small

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others. Gravelle and Rees: “The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual”.

Public goods include fresh air, knowledge, public infrastructure, national security, education, common language(s),widespread and high public literacy levels, potable water, flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting. Public goods that are available everywhere are sometimes referred to as global public goods.[1] There is an important conceptual difference between the sense of ‘a’ public good, or public ‘goods’ in economics, and the more generalized idea of ‘the public good’ (or common good, or public interest),”‘the’ public good is a shorthand signal for shared benefit at a societal level [this] (philosophical/political) sense should not be reduced to the established specific (economic) sense of ‘a’ public good.”


intro’d to the term via Jordan‘s talk here:

(1600s) notion that there is no better system.. i don’t know.. but probably (was) true.. (but) no longer the case.. no longer in a circumstance where we have to use a system that we know is designed to create winners and losers.. because ..

we are in a circumstance where simultaneously we can create a system where there are no losers. and we must.

..the constant process of competition/development/struggle that was implicit in the genius of the previous system has led us to where we are now. that doesn’t work anymore.

trying to accomplish some system where we can provision individual well-being that is generative via our collectable.. while not inhibiting

short answer – take into account of really powerful fundamental of what happened in late 60s early 70s….up till then primary problem extraction and distribution of scarce – depletable goods.. information is not rivalrous in nature.. we can make it feel rivalrous.. by using patent and copyright and shit like that.. et al.. we have an economic model that can deal with rivalrous goods..

movement toward non rivalrous – hp, yahoo, google

creativity not motivated by carrots and sticks actually destroyed by carrots and sticks.. creativity enabled by mastery/meaning/autonomy – personal and collective because that’s the way human beings are wired..optimal for generating non rivalrous goods..

ni ness – re:wire

things necessary for human beings to achieve fulfillment turn out to be precisely the source of things that max our generation of non rivalrous phenomenon also max our ability to coordinate with each other.. with exponential growth rate

let’s do this first – for maxenergy 


and now reading about it again in Yochai‘s wealth of networks:

p48 –

When economists speak of information, they usually say that it is “nonrival.” We consider a good to be nonrival when its consumption by one person does not make it any less available for consumption by another. Once such a good is produced, no more social resources need be invested in creating more of it to satisfy the next consumer. Apples are rival. If I eat this apple, you cannot eat it. If you nonetheless want to eat an apple, more resources (trees, labor) need to be diverted from, say, building chairs, to growing apples, to satisfy you. The social cost of your consuming the second apple is the cost of not using the resources needed to grow the second apple (the wood from the tree) in their next best use. In other words, it is the cost to society of not having the additional chairs that could have been made from the tree. Information is nonrival. Once a scientist has established a fact, or once Tolstoy has written War and Peace, neither the scientist nor Tolstoy need spend a single second on producing additional War and Peace manu- scripts or studies for the one-hundredth, one-thousandth, or one-millionth user of what they wrote. The physical paper for the book or journal costs something, but the information itself need only be created once. Economists call such goods “public” because a market will not produce them if priced at their marginal cost—zero.





1 yr to try commons

ie: radical econ and short bp toward a nother way


Jordan again.. now in feb 2018

[Deep Code Experiment] Episode 2: The Rivalrous and the Anti-Rivalrous

nonrivalrous ness


think this may be most important one out there

rivalrous: not shareable.. do we most effectively generate and distribute rivalrous goods

anti rivalrous: can all have it.. w/o taking away from others.. and more that have it.. increases its value

1\ a lot of deep concepts we apply and use in rivalrous.. don’t work at all in anti rivalrous.. ie: supply/demand..

price function ends up being appropriate for individual deciding where to focus *attention.. also serves as great **motivation.. orthodox econ..

*attention ness and **incentive ness

doesn’t work at all in anti rivalrous.. we’ve tried to shoe horn rivalrous into anit rivalrous.. ie: intellectual property

intellectual property

ie: calculus.. the more that know it the greater it’s value.. so makes sense for you to pay me to learn calc


so anti rivalrous is how we create new innovative regimes

why is this (anti-riv) the crown jewel..? it is the thing that causes the exponential to show up at all.. ie: once one person has developed the calc curric.. others can use it.. combine this with .. today entire framework is designed for rivalrous.. so if could design new framework designed for anti rivalrous.. should expect to see a dramatic increase in anti riv generation.. expo/massive..

infra: 2 convos

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

so an appropriately designed.. anti rivalrous civilization toolkit reaches escape velocity.. via sum total of all rivalrous civilizations..

? not sure what you mean here.. but.. leaping would expo us to the max..  for (blank)’s sake


anti rivalrous

intro’d via Josh interview Jordan Greenhall – march 2018


jordan is a member of the daostack advisory team

Jordan is one of the leaders of the movement known as Deep Code, which contemplates, among other things, some of the great challenges facing humanity and what it will take to solve them,

jordan (all quotes from here will be jordan unless noted): rivalrous vs nonrivalrous econ.. all of econ for *all of civilization driven by question: how do we most effectively produce/distribute rivalrous goods


*you mean since agri..?

3 min – i think if you push nonrivalrous to limit (ie: more people) they just collapse down to the rivalrous.. but then there’s a completely diff concept.. anti rivalrous.. ie: calculus; the english language; idea/practive of blockchain; .. more valuable more people who have it.. even simple things like law of supply/demand don’t apply and can’t help make sense of the anti rivalrous domain


4 min – we are moving into environ where anti rivalrous is increasingly dominant

5 min – so the dao as a concept.. takes place in the context of the necessity for the invention development of a truly anti rivalrous econ system.. both at conceptual/physical level..

6 min – problem of open source.. create things more valuable more shared.. so should make them be open source.. but open source lacks mech for 1\ rewarding people for doing that.. in any way other than intrinsic.. because can’t make a living in open world.. dao is positioned to do this.. 2\ how orienting toward highest kind of value we could contribute

* perhaps if need incentives.. doing it wrong

**assuming your #1.. negates your #2..  if you want highest value/art/whatever.. begs we go sans incentive/money/whatever

7 min – *what is paying me the most.. is the most valuable thing i can contribute to the commons.. we try to shoehorn anti rivalrous into that by inventing intellectual property.. but whole point is that patents et al limit sharability



8 min – the anti rivalrous has this.. building on the shoulder of giants.. don’t have to re invent calc.. just build on it.. changes slope of curve..

10 min – first econ of any meaningful size that figures out *how to actually/fully orient optimum attention to the most valuable anti rivalrous contribution.. and then to motivate them.. by fully incentivize them has a decisive strategic advantage.. over all rivalrous economists.. the metaphorical equiv of homo sapiens learning how to speak vs other primates.. it is that level of dissemination.. escape velocity ship..

so.. 2 convos.. but/and.. no need for incentives..

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

11 min – it is a *novel/hard/good problem.. if you solve that problem.. you have won.. the entirety of the rivalrous game.. the game civilization has been playing for past 10 000 years.. you get to win that game.. and then you get to play a completely new game.. answer to the question: where should i in anti rival econ..most fully attend.. where is my genius most fully best applied for the acceleration of the whole.. and then also.. **how does the whole most appropriately/effectively reward me for doing that.. so that i’m fully/appropriately incentivized.. that’s the problem.. the acceleration of that problem is what moves people into what many people call the society of the abundant .. the australia project is exactly this

*deep enough..? if winners.. we have to all be the winners.. at the game of one (organism as fractal)

**luxury to do whatever you want.. everyday.. trust that

12 min – so the problem.. we can’t use supply/demand to garner people’s attention or to reward their contributions in the anti rival domain.. and if could figure out how to solve that.. qualitative shift in group capacity.. this is what attracted me to space

13 min – Matan Field..(daostack yodfat israel) @MatanField.. gathering the people who can solve this.. daostack intuitively gets this .. and has the capacity to do it

17 min – we need to think about the problem in the purest sense.. (ethereum).. and the dao is of that same order.. cannot get to dao thru organic development thru ethererum platform.. just as couldn’t get to ethereum thru bitcoin.. so important to step back..  get down to conceptual clarity.. then instantiate as tech architecture.. then move back in space of organic development.. distinctive between high design (ethereum) and organic development (bitcoin).. if that makes sense to you.. have a good change of jumping into this space

ethereum.. bitcoin..

21 min – josh: rise of decent collab reps the third major movement in evolution of blockchain

this may in fact be the reason.. if crack ant rivalrous.. will have done what this was all for

22 min – design.. simultaneously both top down and bottom up

23 min – the kinds of people gathering around it.. have capability and consciousness.. although they are continually struggling w how to articulate it

are we sure..? is this deep enough..?

25 min – josh: daostack is providing not so much a fixed offering in decentralized governance..or a fixed set of software tools even.. but rather a kind of sandbox for ongoing experimentation in decentralized governance.. and as such provides the sandbox infra.. like the sand.. as well as maybe a set of initial toys/tools to play with

26 min – it’s the combo..  ie: sahara desert isn’t a sandbox.. need parameters like that of sandbox..