CP makes these startups / companies obsolete

  • Anything ad based (FB, GOOGL, TWTR) will vanish.
  • Markets that match __ with __ (Lyft, AirB&B, EBAY, stock markets, anything “Uber for __”) must change to mostly offering Certins, or vanish.
  • Bureaucracies, lawyers, and especially politicians, will vanish.

I can go on for days. I hope you get the point 🙂

Can’t resist — $64 million! Clutter: Transforming How We Manage Our Belongings. We’re excited to announce a $64 million Series C Good for them!! But seriously…

Taxes and the poor — Nature does not really have poverty because…

Q: “Sales taxes hurt poor people more than rich people. Does nature really have taxes?”

A: “Friction” is a tax on getting stuff done in the physical context. Biology: parasites can cull the weak.

In a correctly designed social system, “poor people” are seen as a very undervalued resource. People who are good at unlocking that value can do so, and both parties profit. Flipping houses it an example. Seller gets money fast; buyer puts in resources, then gets money; house is better. 3 wins.

When in a similar context as “poor people”, the non poor people are incented to help a poor person shine because that is low hanging fruit that can make that context better. (I wish San Francisco would tackle their homeless issue. It’s a disaster.)

If the system is actually designed like nature, nobody can be exploited. Exploitation means being able to buy low, then use force to sell high. (Guns, gov, shame, blackmail, etc.) That only happens in a fragmented market. Nature is an integrated, yet distributed, free market.

Specifically in this example, poor people can move to a relatively low tax municipality, and or, offer a royalty on their future earnings (or whatever). A (and others) place an order that starts with a high % royalty, but denotes a % royalty floor, and max duration. B (and others) offers a % ceiling, and min duration.

These orders iterate over time, from ideal, to acceptable. A meeting creates a win-win transaction where all interests are aligned.

Just like placing an order to buy 100 shares of AG at $10/share, with a max price of $10.50/share over a 5 hour time frame. The order price increases 10 cents per hour. No force, only pre specified agreement.

That is the most effective system I know of and is 100% grounded in physics. And then chemistry where the same thing is obvious via reaction rates, etc. Same then with biology. It’s just now entering psychology / sociology.

Why is the Castpoints so plain?

The initial use is for managing emergencies. Everything must be concise, clear, and in context.

Any browser so anyone can use whatever smartphone is handy without worry about apps, nor compatibilities.

html 5 is unreliable. How many times have you typed info into a html 5 text box, hit submit, and nothing happened? This happens to me frequently. Castpoints only uses html that works with any browser.

Low bandwidth is very important in real emergencies. In the Haiti earthquake, one of the very first things that happened was placing a portable cell phone tower in the middle of everything. 2 people on the phone can tie up 1 MB / 2 mins. Castpoints can use that same amount of bandwidth to manage hundreds of people.

Images are created by the browser via SVG so that they are always up to date, are resolution and browser independent, and use low bandwidth.

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 12.55.44 PM.png

There is not even a logo. When required, the logo is simply a “C” in text. The super complex and costly logo pic:

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 11.28.08 AM.png

 

Future versions will have fancy skin options for people who have big monitors, etc. And when html5 becomes robust, that will be available.

Ethereum vs Castpoints

  • I’m super biased.
  • Ethereum is pretty cool!
  • Competition is effective.

Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa’s 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year).

What’s decentralized about that? Ways of mitigating this are used, but still a flaw.

Checks and balances are often built in at the content level. In CP they are at the context level. That’s one reason there are almost no arbitrary variables in CP. There are many in blockchains.

Ethereum driving factors are

  • Trust
  • Transparency
  • “…confidence in the possible outcomes and how those outcomes might come about.”

CP creates those, but without all the complexity. There is a lot of math in that link! CP uses a bit of multiplication and division. And a smattering of statistics. But that’s it. 🙂 CP is not a tech advance. Like other timeless things, it’s an organizational advance.

Anyone can make a currency in “2 lines of code”. But how are they all organized? What are they backed by? In CP every event has a currency: shares backed by Joules.

Mining. I don’t fully understand it. But is seems that it uses a lot of energy as a way to introduce scarcity. Don’t Joules already do that? 😉

Where is the conflict resolution function? CP has this built in.

And overall, there is the same issue with Oracle saying, ~”We have a solution for every business aspect.” Where is the integration??? As Cyd Harell of Code4America said, “A typical city website today is ABOUT the city, but the site should BE the city, doing the people’s business online.” Almost nobody understands this directness, which is a huge competitive advantage.

What’s not really addressed is that all this crypto stuff is mostly to work around governments not doing what they said they would do. But in the end it’s still a fight and gov’s can just outlaw it. CP supersedes govs. In the end there is no fight. Effective choices are transparently available, often automatically implemented.

Social media is good at mobilizing, not at organizing because they have weak relationships

This great talk inspired me to explain things another way.“Participatory decision making at scale”, is great, but to make it effective, it must have trusted relationship patterns in order to allocate resources effectively and provide feedback pathways.

… movements today have to move beyond participation at great scale very fast and figure out how to think together collectively, develop strong policy proposals, create consensus, figure out the political steps and relate them to leverage, because all these good intentions and bravery and sacrifice by itself are not going to be enough … to update democracy, we are going to need to innovate at every level, from the organizational to the political to the social.

Powerful interests easily subvert movements because of those weak relationships. Social media is mostly typical “broadcast 1 to many”, just faster and easier. Like the fractal they are mobilizing to deal with, the loud, and or, many voices of a movement drown out the little voice. Emotions can trump reason. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. This manifestation of bureaucracy has not been solved because the initial conditions are pretty much the same as the bureaucracy being “fought” against. So once the extra emotional currency is spent, everything dissipates back toward the status quo.

Castpoints provides an autonomous decision and relationship best practices framework for getting stuff done. A little timid voice has just as much place and power as a well monied voice.

A decision in a vacuum fades (which is fortunate for poor decisions). Relationships without inspiration fade. We want inspired decisions and inspired relationships to implement and manage the inspired decisions.

Everyone understands that group decisions made by “voting” are terribly ineffective, if not often counter productive. Especially as a group grows.

People are well on the path to better decision making by associating some scarcity to how often they opine (idea futures, etc.). Logistics is also rather advanced in some cases, although not ubiquitously available. But nothing integrates human endeavors from A to Z, and so the very significant emergent properties that stem from massive integration are not realized.

Interesting emergent properties happen with that is done. For instance, the lower class and upper class fade away. With CP, almost anyone can make a good living, and they are not debt slaves. The upper class looses it’s allure because it’s more fun to manage a manageable amount of stuff and enjoy yourself. Amassing great wealth can still easily happen, but what’s the point? With Castpoints, the primary point is having fun, which rarely takes great wealth. We all have 24 hours in the day. Would you rather allocate your time to having fun, which results in money? Or focus on money which does not always result in fun?

Related
Real AI does not need a goal. Valuable stuff simply emerges from participation.