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


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

ie: ubi as temp placebo..



1\ theoretical framework

p 4 – s. 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.

p 7 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

p 8 – 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.

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


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

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


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

or perhaps it’s time to disengage from any measuring/validating/recognizing of transactions…

p 11

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

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;..

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..

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.

p 19

Regardless of the formal structures, all the people that contribute to Enspiral effectively participate in the governance and dayto-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..

p 22

In the case of Sensorica, however, they have created independent entrepreneurial entities that have the sole right to commercialize their products and services.

p 23

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.

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.

p 28

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.

what mech would do.. via  self-talk as data.. 2 convos

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.

imagine all the energy\ness .. if we considered.. manage/reward/proof/tokens/reputation/… irrelevant.. if we just facil’d daily curiosities..

p 30

not the kind of equity we need.. disengage

p 33

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.

imagine we don’t need to negotiate interaction.. just facil it.. disengage from market

3\ policy recommendations

p 36 – econ infrastructure

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

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

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