3 ms·

You didn't remove money. You only removed the appearance of an exchange of value. The gym wanted the revenue downstream from the review. The Cafe wanted the rev

by ggm 1y ago

You didn't remove money. You only removed the appearance of an exchange of value. The gym wanted the revenue downstream from the review. The Cafe wanted the revenue downstream from the review. All you did is remove payment from a customer, but now the value proposition shifts from a sale from party A to customer B to a service of value to party A provided by customer B, but the actual value is .. what? What evidence? What recourse? Is it worth more or less than the food or the gym session? If all that happens is floods of insta princesses consume chai latte at the cafes expense for shit reviews, you poisoned the well. And a real world cost in milk and spice was consumed. This is not a money free situation, you just ignored some externalities to your model.

vibenex 1y ago
That's the point! Money is just a symbolic intermediary for value. "Content is the new Currency" The traded asset is narrative. A party gives something tangible and in return gets visibility, context and social proof. You're right in asking the evidence of value in such transactions and we're exploring just that. In our case, the exchange stays simple, social media content in return for experiences or services. A business describes what they want to offer and people apply if they're interested. The business then chooses whom to invite. No matching algorithm or enforced pairing, entirely self-selected. The café still spends milk and spice, but now the transaction feedback loop runs through social proofing, not accounting. If visibility offsets material cost, is it measurable? Or just disguise it under a different incentive structure?
- ggm 1y ago
  > "Money is just a symbolic intermediary for value." I suggest you say this often at the counter, when asked to pay for services you are seeking without payment of money, in all its diverse forms.
  - vibenex 1y ago
    :D, nobody's escaping the counter without paying. Interesting thing is we're asking the same question, only I'm exploring if value can exist without money while you're arguing that without money there's no value. > "You only removed the appearance of an exchange of value." We're discovering where the value is. And are we conditioned to think that money is the only signal of value?

by ggm 1y ago

vibenex 1y ago

That's the point! Money is just a symbolic intermediary for value. "Content is the new Currency" The traded asset is narrative. A party gives something tangible and in return gets visibility, context and social proof. You're right in asking the evidence of value in such transactions and we're exploring just that. In our case, the exchange stays simple, social media content in return for experiences or services. A business describes what they want to offer and people apply if they're interested. The business then chooses whom to invite. No matching algorithm or enforced pairing, entirely self-selected. The café still spends milk and spice, but now the transaction feedback loop runs through social proofing, not accounting. If visibility offsets material cost, is it measurable? Or just disguise it under a different incentive structure?

ggm 1y ago
> "Money is just a symbolic intermediary for value." I suggest you say this often at the counter, when asked to pay for services you are seeking without payment of money, in all its diverse forms.
- vibenex 1y ago
  :D, nobody's escaping the counter without paying. Interesting thing is we're asking the same question, only I'm exploring if value can exist without money while you're arguing that without money there's no value. > "You only removed the appearance of an exchange of value." We're discovering where the value is. And are we conditioned to think that money is the only signal of value?