[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9

[Tom Vest]

On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> Tom Vest wrote:
>> For goals that they ["members"] don't support, artificial incentives
>> have to be large, and penalties severe, and even so the compliance
>> rate is likely to be low.
>
> please reconcile this with the flags we salute and tout, bottom-up and
> self-regulation.

Sorry it wasn't obvious. I included this for contrast and  
completeness, but the implication was that if the community does not  
support it, then self-regulation cannot deliver it. That's why I  
closed the previous message this way:

On Mar 17, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Tom Vest wrote:

> If there were some way to leverage that unitary distribution model  
> to execute the same kind of incentive-driven redistribution  
> envisioned by 2008-02 and its counterparts, then perhaps we could  
> satisfy the transitional supply requirement without sacrificing  
> transparency or any of the information exchanges that help to keep  
> the central registry (at least) "good enough". But that means more/ 
> continued, not less, community-driven collective action -- so the  
> impact depends entirely on the perceptions of the members of the  
> community.
>
> What does the rest of the community think?
>
> TV



On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> being raised on the west side of the cascades and coast range, i kinda
> like models which expect water to flow downhill, and being lazy, i try
> to avoid designing systems where it needs to flow uphill.


That sounds like a pretty smart side. I hear they use a lot of dams  
and canals out there to make sure that water flows downhill -- e.g.,  
from the mountains to the deserts -- but in ways that are  
constructive and not harmful. They don't dig the canals a mile deep  
-- after all, laziness is perfectly natural -- so they tolerate some  
infrequent-to-rare flooding. But I guess they figure that long-term  
laziness is better served by doing at least a little advance work.

> what's the easy stuff here?  i keep saying, set up an ebay-like  
> system.
> run by a fourth party, not buyers and sellers or the registries.  make
> the product, bidding, and prices visible.  make it easy for buyers  
> to be
> sure sellers actually have the right to sell.  associate with an  
> escrow
> service.

A trusted fourth party could be designed on the "unitary distribution  
model". A trusted fourth party could provide the required  
transparency, including not only product, bidding, and prices but  
also the identity of buyers and sellers -- once again, without which  
gaming the system will be trivially easy. No escrow service would be  
able to stay in business without this information, and no central  
registry would be able to remain accurate without this, and no self- 
regulating body would be able to govern itself on market day +1  
without this.

The question is, how to assure that the "ebay" function reinforces  
rather than kills the central registry requirement and self- 
governance requirement?

TV