value in commons econ

value in commons econ.png

50 page pdf linked to image

Value in the Commons Economy: Developments in Open and Contributory Value Accounting By Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Niaros

commons.. common\ing.. et al


theory of value – graeber values law – et al

to subtitle – perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence

ie: ubi as temp placebo..


notes/quotes (yellow while re re reading on old ipad):



more significant experiments are modes for contributory/value accounting

we need to let go of any form of m\a\p

1\ theoretical framework

p 4 – s.

*can we imagine a value system that rewards generative instead of extractive activities and exchanges?

Its (**graeber’s value) main underlying thesis, if we understood it correctly, is that value is related to ‘making society’ and that we need value regimes which allow us to direct attention and energy to what we commonly value. Value comes into being through social practices. This stands in paradoxical contrast to the capitalist value regime, which seems to lead to avenues that no one in society, or perhaps only very few, really want. There is, of course, ***no consensus about what value is nor from where it is derived, neither cross-historically nor amongst analysts and commentators of contemporary capitalism. What human individuals and societies are willing to put their attention and energy toward, and the ‘rules of the game’ through which resources are allocated, varies amongst cultures, regions, ideological and social groups within a society, and throughout historical times.

*rather.. can we imagine a value systems that doesn’t reward.. aka: take account.. 

**theory of value

***so let’s try itch-in-the-soul ness.. because public consensus always oppresses someone(s)

ie: imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..

what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people

p 7

key to more fundamental change, however, will be the capacity to have this newly recognized value be recognized by the system as a whole.. 

? not about recognizing value..

new value measures may need to be developed and also a recognition that *many human activities are beyond value and cannot or should not be measured.. 

*rather..  all.. any form of m\a\p is killing us

bottom -Many of the new value-measures that are presently being developed and experimented with will be post-monetary ‘current-sees’ (seeing currents), as Arthur Brock of the MetaCurrency Project calls it – systems *that enable communities to see flow, and react to it. Michel Bauwens’ commons-centric interpretation is that human societies, through commons-based peer production and related modalities of creating value, are now able to exponentially increase use-value production outside of

*not about react ing

p 8 –

in these visions, markets and capitalism are seen as the inescapable horizon of societies and their economies for which greater commodification is the natural, inescapable answer.. of course, there are many other valuation proposals that do not proceed form a desire for marketization, but for the justified desire to create a flow of resources and income to the digital commons , the care econ, and people involved in managing and protecting natural resources.. 

aka: alt proposed is same song

key question here is, can efforts to valuation lead to any other reality than commodification

no.. not if we’re thinking someone has to valuate.. any form of m\a\p will lead to commodification/cancer et al

corporations and markets. However, because abundant, digitally reproduced immaterial use-value is generated outside of the commodity form, it moves to the periphery of market production, and therefore ever greater amounts of use-value production are no longer recognized through monetization. This is creating a crisis of capital accumulation (as it becomes harder for capital to discover reliable sources of return), but also of precarious livelihoods.

hector at debt at lse.. need money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence w/ubi as temp placebo.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring


on needing bi to perpetuate market/c..

that’s why needs to be planned obsolescence..

silvia.. on not recognizing/valuing love/care labor

same as david/astra..? yes.. just diff spellings

but valuing it creates 10 day care ness.. so not love/care.. so maintains unjust system at deeper/more-violent level..

steiner care to oppression law et al

an interesting idea is that some of the solutions invented by peer production communities could be of interest in the care econ as well and vice versa

.. nah.. both just perpetuating same song..

ina praetorius.. econ for human need..

yeah that.. but legit needs

p 10 – Moving towards a commons economy is moving to an economy centered around commoning, i.e. caring, where people can freely choose their object of care, be *recognized for it, and be *rewarded for it so that they can maintain fulfilling lives.

i don’t see *rec and **reward as a part of common ing.. i think it’s huge.. that we don’t assume this..

h     u     g     e

this goes to debt at lse.. and maka’s hector.. need: 1\ oikos  2\ via temp placebo till forget about measuruing/owning for fam security via debt..

federica again.. care work and the commons article.. creating new social commons.. solutions found important to p2p and care econ.. 


Perhaps as importantly, the *capacity for the ‘global scaling of small group dynamics’, one of the key characteristics of commons-based peer production (CBPP) brings back the community dynamics of our original hunter-gathering anthropological condition, but adds the logic of affinity to the original logic of kinship.

*mech simple enough… facil’s hosted-life-bits

but too.. dawn of everything (book) and gillis on small scale ness et al

Bringing the commons back to the core of value creation and distribution, in the context of small group dynamics, brings care back at the center of production. While peer-based communities are starting to develop techniques that recognize all contributions within a peer network of common production, we need the same capacity at the level of much larger common territories for *recognizing care work as value creation.

*why do we need to recognize it..?

Let’s move now to what is perhaps an even more important and central issue of the current value crisis: our ‘survivability’, or *our connection to the natural world. We are embedded in this world and form a substantial, and not separate, part of it.

we all need to become *indigenous


p 11

Our monetary system must reflect reality. (Groome, 2016).

or perhaps it’s time to disengage from any measuring/validating/recognizing of transactions… any form of m\a\p

Therefore, the key underlying shift needed is one from extractive models, practices that enrich some at the expense of the others (communities, resources, nature), to *generative value models, practices that enrich the communities, resources etc., to which they are applied. This is what we could call the Value Shift.

imaging that will just happen.. (generation/regeneration) if we facil curiosities.. and trust.. us.. indigenous us… no need to call it a model or title it..

According to Kojin Karatani (2014) in, The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange, there are four fundamental modes of exchange. The first is Mode A, which is based on the reciprocity of the gift and on the ‘community’. The second is Mode B, which is related to ruling and protection, and based on the ‘state’. The third is Mode C, which involves commodity exchange mediated by the ‘market’. …The fourth is the hypothetical Mode D, which transcends all the other three.

well.. i wouldn’t even call it a mode of exchange (so not even mode d) ..too much attention to the exchange ness… think of the indigenous tribe that doesn’t say thank you… et al..

p 12

oi.. reciprocity.. scaling from bands.. more complex pooling/reciprocity.. oi oi oi 

If mode A is dominated by gift exchange and on the pooling of resources, then the digitized commons enable all kinds of pooling of physical and infrastructural resources, but at a global scale. In other words, mode D is an attempt to recreate a society based on mode A, but at a *higher level of complexity and integration.

i’d say not just higher (guessing you’re meaning zoom out..) but lower/smaller/whatever (zooming in).. has to be both.. and begs we let go of an exchange structure.. rather.. a stigmergic facilitation of curiosity/chaos

spending our energy/resources/techs listening to all the voices.. rather than maintaining any kind of checks and balances of exchange.. ie: reciprocity; obligation;..

need to let go of exchange ness.. of any form of m\a\p

p 13

It is important to stress the following point made by Karatani. To begin with, all systems are multimodal. The four modalities (or five according to our adaptation of Karatani’s scheme) exist in some form in all systems and it is only their mutual configuration which changes. This means that transitions depend on struggles for dominance among these modalities.

i think it’s important to stress the need to disengage from all modes.. i don’t think this is something we can go part\ial on .. i think it will end up like shirky’s day care center story.. we have to get back to trust.. which is 100%.. not shifting to diff modes depending on .. this seems like a non-negotiable.. (if we want equity.. obviously the modes exist..)

oikos, the giving tree,  et al.. shirky transaction law


The question then becomes, how can we think about a commons transition as a way for the commons to engage the other modalities? Just as the logic of capitalist markets attempts to commodify, the logic of the commons is an effort to commonify. There is *evidence of this type of value shift in the current practices of peer to peer based, commons-producing communities.

*and i think that’s why we haven’t yet… gotten to equity… we have to let go of measuring any transactions.. of any modes..

The underlying operating concept here is a quest for ‘value sovereignty’.

i think that smells of cancerous rna



The last question becomes, how one can move from seed forms, however complex, that operate within a capitalist dominated economy to a new overall system that is itself commons-centric and has *successfully incorporated market practices to serve the commons.

*or not.. unless you consider something like this.. where money used as a temp placebo in order to disengage from it.. market practices can never serve the commons.. rather.. cancer to legit common\ing


figure 1 – inter relationships between commons, state and market.. members obliged to engage w the market in order to create livelihoods

oi.. on maka’s hector in debt at lse 

need a means to get back to enough ness..

2\ case studies

p 16

enspiral – Enspiral has successfully pioneered a funding process based on capped returns, in which capital is separated from decision-making, and the resulting resources can be donated to the commons after the agreed payments of the returns….Enspiral is a network of professionals and companies aiming to empower and support social entrepreneurship… also serves as the legal entity of the network as a whole.


enspiral able to create/present their own brand to clients..

oi.. graeber enough to stop law et al


memebership description..

flowery words, but same song.. ie: need leader/decision-maker.. people telling other people what to do.. people deciding who’s in/ al

p 19

Regardless of the formal structures, all the people that contribute to Enspiral effectively participate in the governance and day-to-day coordination of the network through a series of coordination tools, including (Enspiral, 2016a): • Loomio;Cobudget; Chalkle: a virtual space where all the Enspiral events are listed, ;Numerous communication channels,…

imagining hosted-life-bits via self-talk as data.. making much of this irrelevant.. because decision making is unmooring us

enspiral coord/govt tools: 1\ loomio: open source decision making; 2\ cobudget: investors vote on where to allocate; 3\ chalkle: events listed; 4\ communication channels ie: newsletter, slack fb group et al

flowery words not needed.. such a strong same song embed..


on enspiral pioneering new ‘ethical’ value regime..  in ways that do not endanger ethical orientation..

whoa.. huge red flag ensiprial/loomio.. et al .. same song..

enspiral.. shifts away from dominant form of shareholder driven command/control..

oh my.. but still decide who gets in/out.. still branding.. ie: commondifying.. because graeber stop at enough law.. have to or people would stop buying into it..

3 ways show enspiral appraoch to value:

1\ open source.. does not conform to artificial scarcity .. providing training et al

but just to members/community allowed in.. and  need training.. oi

2\ collab funding.. can propose project.. create standardized proposal called ‘bucket’.. using simplified online form.. on reg basis.. those who have contributed funds decide to which ‘bucket’ they invest

aka: graeber grant law.. oi


(still collab funding): furthermore.. people actively commit money as well as skills, knowledge and creative energy to the realisation of this vision..

not legit creative energy aka: graeber min\max law.. et al  oi..

3\ capped investor returns.. to ensure investors/money.. lined up w mission..

oh my.. enspiral

dmetri kleiner as ie author.. significantly.. once capped return contract has been fulfilled.. the resources are then *ceremoniously given to the commons.. 

*oh my

dmytri kleiner

p 22

sensorica experimenting w new ways of interaction between commons/market..  in enspiral no direct linkage.. there is a wall between commons/market.. In the case of Sensorica, however, they have created independent entrepreneurial entities that have the sole right to commercialize their products and services. the income is directly linked to the priori commons contributions as measured thru the open value accounting system

so sensorica is enspiral admitting to same song ness.. tragedy of non common from get go.. oi..

detailed description of (sensorica) experience.. to realize full human potential.. people of sensorica realized that open networks can work in synergy w traditional institutions.. to benefit both as well as society as a whole.. sensorica is partially commons based and partially market oriented.. 

oi .. part\ial ness is killing us

p 23

participation is open w very low barriers of entry..Sensorica identifies itself as a new type of organization tuned for P2P organization; an expanding type of open enterprise or, as it is referred, an Open Value Network (OVN) (Sensorica, 2016a). An OVN is a generic organizational and business model, apt to enhance and support commons-based peer production.. while keeping account of diff contributions in a common ledger system.. returns distributed to contributors in proportion to their contributions.. 

oi oi oi.. we need to let go of any form of m\a\p otherwise will always have barriers of entry.. (any level/kind barriers of entry are too much.. inhumane.. et al)


so that they can effectively capture, manage, and distribute fin rewards to the contributors; *deal w issues related to trust; retain and protect a formal legal structure and brand; and formulate and execute a business strategy

oi.. all the things: capture, manage, rewards, legal structure/brand, business strategy, .. are the reason *this even exists.. let go

to reinforce decentralized self org and render the network creative and productive.. the infra comprises 3 main interlocking systems: 1\ a value accounting system.. records/evals every member’s input and calcs revenues in proportion to each contribution

oh my


2\ a reputation system .. determines behavior and attributes merit in accordance.. 3\ a role system.. allocates arrangement of diff activities among the agents.. 

track and eval contributions and redistribute revenue..  

the vas (value accounting system) is a contribution based reward system which incentivizes interaction/collab by keeping permanent quantitative/qualitative record of all contributions.. contributions are evaluated, based on a metrics system.. as well as participatory evals of the members.. the vas integrates the reputation and tole systems.. keeps a permanent record of who is doing what (role) ; how well (reputation) and how much (value) in a particular project.. 


diff dimensions of vale made using a value equation system.. rep’d in form of a pie chart.. illustrating potential revenue related to project.. 

oi – of math and men – we need to stop measuring things.. any form of m\a\p


it thus effectively succeeds in avoiding rent seeking behavior.. the system allows the id and eval of diff qualities of contributions thru combo of self logging and peer review..  the infra supports distribution of rewards according to the recorded econ activity.. reps a common sense of fairness

oi.. rather .. this is ie rent seeking behavior.. ie: who decides common sense? who evals? why econ activity? oi.. any form of m\a\p

p 27

Unlike our two previous examples, Backfeed is not a really operating peer production community, but we believe its innovative and integrated design features warrants a special discussion. Backfeed is a system based on the use of the blockchain ledger, which imagines itself as a full infrastructure for decentralized production, which comes with sophisticated capabilities to develop incentives and express them through cryptocurrencies.

host life bits on blockchain.. no need for incentives/cryptocurrencies.. value sovereignty..

By doing this, they address the capacity to more easily create ‘value sovereign’ communities, and make technical tools available for their management of value. If Enspiral has a full wall between the market and the commons, which Sensorica aims to bridge through its open value accounting system, then Backfeed is even more directed towards the market polarity, by an intensive use of ‘incentives’ for the commons-based production.

oi.. all the red flags

p 28

a blockchain is a distributed ledger/database of transaction recorded in a distributed manner by a decentralized network of computers.. as name implies.. org’d in a linear sequence.. each block contains ref to precedent block and an answer to a complex math puzzle which serve to validate the transaction s it contains.. serves as means to record in a secure/verifiable manner.. a particular state of affairs which has been *agreed upon by the network..

lots of oi’s.. but this is enough: *public consensus always oppresses someone(s)

blockchain ness et al.. of math and men.. and what tech could be

as such blockchain can be used in any system that comprises valuable info: money, titles, deeds, intellectual property, rights and even votes or id register data.. (tapscott)

oi.. valuable to who? for what? – whalespeak

don tapscott – radical openness – not radical.. not open.. oi

increasing interest to explore potential of blockchain tech in other fields of *human activity including digital currencies, self executing smart contracts platforms.. fin and non fin services.. de filipppi 

oi.. rather *whale activity.. smart contracts.. et al.. primavera de filippi et al

most of these applications implement a specific protocol for the issuance of tokens.. providing incentives for users to commit resources to the network in order to secure transaction w/o the need of a trusted intermediary..


As long as people trust the underlying technological infrastructure, it is possible for them to engage in direct peer-to-peer transactions. But, how can people use blockchain technology to engage in *complex social relationships that do actually require some kind of trusted interactions?

*like all of them.. like with 100% (otherwise.. isn’t it just judgment.. not trust..)


Backfeed develops a trust layer, enabling people to engage in secure and decentralized trusted interactions on top of the trustless blockchain technology. The blockchain is regarded as a technological infrastructure that could allow for the establishment of a new organisational structure, called ‘Decentralized Cooperation’ (DC). In this context, autonomous agents collaborate to achieve a common goal, *making spontaneous contributions to a network, with no central coordinating or ruling authority.

*yeah.. not spontaneous ness.. which is a huge mistake (aka: cancer leak) .. graeber unpredictability/surprise law et al

but we could do that.. ie: what mech would do.. via  self-talk as data.. 2 convos

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..

p 29

this makes it possible for people to effectively *manage, coordinate and reward contributions, while they collectively develop and deploy applications on the blockchain.

*reasons why spontaneity ref’d in 28 is non legit

imagine all the energy\ness .. if we considered.. manage/reward/proof/tokens/reputation/… as irrelevants.. as red flags that we’re doing life wrong

imagine if instead if we just facil’d daily curiosities..

p 30

not the kind of equity we need.. disengage


however.. the value system encoded in the bitcoin protocol is indeed not much different from the conventional market system.. main diff of pov protocol is that instead of relying on predefined measures of value.. it aims to encapsulate a multiplicity of measures of value.. so backfeed model includes much wider variety of contributions: *anything perceived by others as bringing value to community/org.. the pov protocol shifts focus from algos to human judgement.. since individuals get rewarded for active participation/contribution to community values.. as perceived by the community

so.. same song.. still *people telling other people what to do

p 33

this could lead over time to formation of a multilateral market for dc tokens.. making it possible for people to bypass fiat currency altogether

maybe.. though doubt it.. either way still form of m\a\p.. so wilde not-us ness.. so non legit us/energy/data et al..

econ model exemplified by backfeed thus .. deploys one of arguably most promising functions of blockchain.. as a system of tracking and managing value w the ability to encapsulate a variety of qualitative diff contributions.. 1\ support objectively subjective perception of value attached to collab goal.. 2\ provide qualitative measure.. thus emancipating contributions from commodification and enclosure.. allowing more egal distribution of rewards and meritocratic governance.. 3\ issued via contributors .. rather than external parters/shareholders.. thus provide nominal rep of value while being intrinsic to production process and attached to underlying relations..

oi.. 1\ if attached to goal.. not objective  2\ if rewards and metrics/govt.. not emancipating from commodity/enclosure  3\ nothing intrinsic about them if any form of m\a\p..

In conclusion of the three case studies, we can see how they present three options for *negotiating the interaction and boundary between the commons and the market, as illustrated below (Figure 4). In Enspiral, the commons and the market are clearly delineated and there is no direct interaction. In the case of Sensorica, the open value accounting system represents the social contract that any subsequent value realization in the market will be rewarded fairly. In the Backfeed case, through the creation of tradeable crypto-currencies, it is possible to directly ‘marketize’ the contributions. This *could be problematic as the market incentives could ‘crowd out’ the commons-based contributory logic, so experimentations with Backfeed are of great interest.

oi.. *problematic from the get go.. any time we start to measure/observe/eval/inspect.. problematic.. aka: cancerous/deadly

imagine we don’t need to negotiate interaction.. just facil it.. disengage from market.. from any form of m\a\p

34 – graphic of 3 inrelations to commons and market.. ie: enspiral ..wall between commons and market; sensorica ..over lap of market on commons; backfeed .. market embedded in commons

1\ enspiral: beginnings of sea world (rat cage).. where there are beings and cancer 2\ sensorica: getting/voluntary compliance-ing cancer 3\ backfeed: whales with cancer embed


3\ policy recommendations

aka: whalespeak

p 36 – econ infrastructure

i rec: short bp.. as temp placebo to make econ infrastructure..irrelevant


we therefore propose: 1\ mutualizing and pooling (for competitive/coop advantage).. or in other words ‘the commons’ should be at the heart of the productive and societal system..

oi oi oi .. saying mutualizing and pooling is same as commons

2\ no new value regime is possible w/o new ways of accounting..

oi.. let go of any form of m\a\p.. a for accounting..

and oi to regime ness.. value regime.. ha

3\ vital to develop new coop forms in which creation of open commons is constitutive of goals/activities.. this is why we propose ‘open coop’ an entity that would be *legally and statutorily bound to creating commons and shared resources..

*another ha..

4\ open coops should use commons based reciprocity licensing ie: copyfair..

oi.. dang

p 38 – political infra

i rec: two convos.. be\cause 1\ now we can (facil 7 bn daily whimsies) 2\ public consensus always oppresses someone (s)

p 39 – much on chart on this page.. will happen.. if we just trust it to happen..

4\ conclusions

p 41

we have attempted to develop a new way to envisage a broad societal transition by proposing an integrative strategy *that arguably differs from the classic left narratives of 19th and 20th centuries.. 

*nah.. same song guys

left off here.. top 41

Why would this proposed strategy be effective?

First, it is *consistent with the historical record

we have no idea what we’re capable of.. looking at any *history.. is not our potential.. ie: science of people ness… begs a do-over. . fresh dna.. everyone indigenous.. for (blank)’s sake

2\ very important in our minds are the changing cultural expectations of millennial and post-millennial generations, and their requirements for *meaningful engagements and work, which are hardly met by the current regime

*agreed.. story about people grokking what matters

but ..

3\ The precarization of work under neoliberalism drives the search for *alternatives, and the cultural force of P2P self-organizing and corresponding mentalities fuels the growth of commons-oriented networks and communities

.. begs we go all out.. global do-over .. alternative.. otherwise.. self org ness is killed/compromised.. we have no idea how much the raised eye-brow (compromised rna) is killing us

4\ truly *sustainable **production.

the everyone *indigenous part.. and.. less **production ness more living/being ness..

5\ ..vital need of renewing the strategic thinking of the forces that aim for *human emancipation and a sustainable life-world

let’s not try to fit what we already have.. ie: fake people.. into makerspaces..

let’s do this firstfree art-ists.

The commoners are already here and so are the commons, and *the prefigurative forms of a new value regime.

perhaps no common ing.. unless we disengage from value regime ness

The time has come


a nother way



theory of value

re imagine value report

value in commons econ

generative value