03.01.08

open money

Posted in attentioneconomy, meaning as metrics at 12:55 am by kevindjones

An event in Mexico City next week put on by this guy sent to me by Melanie Swan.

Permalink 2 Comments

12.26.07

Gift Hub touches social exchange

Posted in Uncategorized, attentioneconomy, commonstradingfloor at 11:41 pm by kevindjones

Phil Cubeta’s gift hub blog has touched on the underlying thread I’ve been thinking about; user ownership of what is produced online, and how that value can be exchanged.

Permalink 1 Comment

12.16.07

More on user generated currency/brands

Posted in usergeneratedcurrency, attentioneconomy, usergeneratedbrands at 6:44 pm by kevindjones

Pure Verticals Aims To Monetize User-Generated Content

A California-based company called Pure Verticals is developing a product it calls MUGC — which stands for Monetizing User-Generated Content, and they’ve announced they’re seeking to have it patented. It also plans to showcase the tech by Q1 2008 with a new website says this blog
So what is it, exactly? It’s a platform, that much is clear from the announcement — and it promises to enable any virtual community or social network to offer its members control over how product placements and ads integrate with member content. As opposed to providing ad space alongside content for ads generated automatically or by a third party, users can select the products to promote and apparently tailor how the ads are displayed.

Permalink Comments

12.15.07

Consulting theologian

Posted in attentioneconomy, timeasvalue at 4:28 am by kevindjones

I asked a former business partner turned theologian if he’d consider being the consulting theologian on the Social Capital event we are holding in San Francisco in mid October next year. My work with this fellow earned both of us multiple millions, and changed our lives. He found my questions around the nature of value interesting but said he wasn’t sure if he had the time to be engaged. Here is my response about the nature of time, to my theologian, author and entrepeneurial friend.
Time as a scarce commodity is a cultural externality that comes to us thanks to markets. If we were just keeping time by the daily office rather than selling it we would not have this problem. Time as money is a problem of a monetary system that can eat anything, starting with the commons. We need a restrictive diet for the market some historically and theologically mediated form of shiboleths/ rules of market engagement/trading agreements and market regulations.

We need to create a space and value that space, which is not subject to purely numerical forms of value. Financial and narrative value need to both be on the balance sheet. I’m not suggesting a spiritual line item. I’m suggesting another system of accounting that incorporates a just Economia. The blessed community, do you buy a futures contract that says it’s going up? what’s the nature of that contract? how can theological and spiritual and economic language create some kind of useful rosetta stone?

Permalink 2 Comments

User generated currency

Posted in exchanges, producers, transparency, usergeneratedcurrency, attentioneconomy at 12:20 am by kevindjones

The power equations will be rewritten in the new version of social stock exchanges. It’s a merger of social value in a medium where the individual has asserted a new level of power. the intermediary’s role in an online exchange that treats people and the planet as of some intrinsic value will be different. Technology itself is one reason that new power dynamic will accompany transactions across these exchanges. User generated content becomes user generated value. This is an exchange that will attract a lot of liquidity from those most familiar with the web, and who want to play in this inherently liberating medium (TCP/IP matters; it sends power to the edge of the network).
Technology’s impact on this comes from the fact that the modern computer is an interactive device. The speed of communication inbound determines the pace of your response, if you are paying the attention (attention in kind and attention in quantity) that full productive use of the device demands. The tool demands, it doesn’t just give; the tool makes the user an extension of the tool, rather than a tool being an extension of our will or force, as previous, non interactive tools were.

The tool demands a certain kind of attention. You don’t give it attention. It snares you subtly into loops of attention, communication and response, like a tar baby who can dance.

I wonder if you can measure the level of attention demand a particular media has? It’s AIK and its AIQ. Of course there are probably consumption metrics to map against the attention matrix; dollar spend, against time, against durable vs. electronic vs. other goods, etc. how do you spend your depending on the kind of attention you pay when connected to an interactive device? Why would you want to give that information to any old vendor, though. Isn’t there a higher value you could place on it if you computed your attention index? Would that be the coin that would cause John Hegel’s original attention economy to trickle into being?

Permalink Comments