Mon 27 Jun 2016 8:29PM

Consensus about how to evaluate system proposals

JM Julio Moros Public Seen by 325

Based on a set of facts and criterias the evaluation of a model is proposed to be done through specific and objective description of feasible scenarios, taking care of definitions and terms of the model.

These facts are:

• Fact #1: Many people, very smart are proposing new and interesting ideas as models for new monetary systems.
• Fact #2: From the diversity and competition of new ideas, we have the possibility of optimize and achieve a better model, from a continuous improvement.
• Fact #3: These proposed models, are system models, and can be evaluated in a sistematic fashion (According to a given procedure, algorithm or mathematic models), avoiding any political or philosophical controversy or similar discussions.
• Fact #4: Monetary system proposals are models for social systems, and have an intrinsic complexity. Usually a proposal must be based on long expositions and hard to grasp concepts. (Hard to grasp, not because they are difficult, but because they take us out of the box of conventional thinking).
• Fact #5: Money systems usually describe cycles of social activities. Regarding the complexity of a proposal, a possible way to assess a model is describing concrete, concise, objective and feasible scenarios to simulate these social activity cycles. Objective simulations let us compare the same scenario under different proposed systems, and enables us to list pros and cons.
• Fact #6: Regarding Systems. Systems can be physical, mechanical, biological, social, they even can be of an abstract order (i.e. natural numbers, algebraic rings and groups, etc, are mathematical systems).
• Fact #7: Generally speaking, systems imply the presence of a set of elements which compose the structure of the system, which are related intrinsically by maps, logical functions or processes. And over this set of elements there are rules under which the system works.
• Fact #8: Usually the rules of a system may be seen as the rules of a game. Specially regarding social systems, the “game” rules are related to a goal to be acheived to “win” the game.


• #1: As social system, a monetary system model should specify the “game goals”; i.e. what it takes to win the game.
• #2: The elements in a money system are people and “benefits” (Benefit: any thing that a living being can grab and enjoy).
• #3: The intrinsic function or process which relates the elements of a money system, i.e. people and benefits, are all the set of self interest of people. Is an intrinsic function that can not be removed from human nature. Any system requiring the denial of the self interest is under this criteria unsuitable/rejectable.
• #4: There is a particular outcome of the intrinsic process of social systems which strongly indicates a very serious failure: The unsolved conflict of interest. If a given scenario (evaluating a proposed model) conduct us to any unsolvable conflict of interest, it is a flag indicating that the design has a serious flaw.
• #5: In order to be functional, it is required for any proposed model, that the intrinsic game of the system, defined by its goals, to be won by each participant in the game. The scenario where everyone is a winner, must be not only possible but highly probable, the most likely possible.

The goal of this thread is:

1°.- Express our opinion and how we agree or disagree with each fact/criterion described, and if needed to add some more. If it is suitable, we may create additional threads (I'm new on this, so don't know exactly how) to make better discussions.
2°.- Create a procedure to evaluate proposals in a systematic fashion, and vote on it

Let’s the game begin!!!


Poll Created Tue 28 Jun 2016 5:29AM

Procedure to Evaluate System Model Proposals Closed Sun 30 Oct 2016 11:01PM

Regarding the facts and criteria shown in the thread a first procedure to evaluate / compare a money system model is as follows:

1.- Describe a specific scenario which evolves according the rules and system structure of the model under evaluation.
2.- Describe a possible set of outcomes in the scenario.
3.- If the pursuit of the private interest enable or encourages procedures or behaviours that create system instabilities, we have a red flag over the model.
4.- Each outcome in which arise an unresolved conflict of interest, is a red flag over the model.
5.- If the model specifies goals for the implicit game of the system, try to create a general scenario in which every participant is a winner, and observe:

5.a.- If there are possible outcomes which threaten to the system stability. How likely are these "attacks".
5.b.- If there are possible outcomes with unsolved conflict of interests.

6.- Compare the red flags detected with the ones detected in other systems to conclude in which points a model is stronger or better than others.


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 0% 0  
Abstain 0% 0  
Disagree 0% 0  
Block 0% 0  
Undecided 0% 3 OO JM CHS

0 of 3 people have voted (0%)