All

All right, now, there we go. Everybody sees that? Alright. So like I was saying beforehand, I kinda just kinda stumbled across this actually, I was talking with, Christine Lemmer, I believe, about this. And, at one point, we're talking about, you know, what we could do with the idea of, modernizing the idea of having to pay postage to send email. You see, back before there were any other spam solutions, people were considering, hey. Well, what if you just had to pay postage to send every email just so that, you know, sending spam be too expensive to do, essentially? So this is kind of that idea writ large, and it's it's just the idea that all of your incoming communications should have a certain amount of currency attached to them to encourage you to open them. So, anyhow, so that's that's the basic idea. Everybody understand what I'm talking about there? Alright. And, feel free. I'm gonna try and just leave space between my sentences every once in a while. And when I do, that's when you interrupt. I care nothing about interruption. You can't interrupt my thoughts. I don't have any. Alright. Next slide. Whoops. Too many. Looking a little crazy. Wow. Alright. One slot. Okay. I'm very having a hard time scrolling my tripod here. Alright. Scroll with my mouse. No. It's very delicate. Alright. So the first thing we have to do is we have to figure out how are we gonna price this attention for our income incoming communications. So the idea is that each user sets an indiscriminate price, and that's the amount of money that they'll take from someone to open any message at all. And when I'm saying you're opening a message, you're opening a message, you're kinda just seeing what it's about. It's just sort of a commitment to just see what it is. You don't have to stay on it. There's no kind of further requirements. It's just like if you want somebody to look at your ad or whatever, you should be able to pay them a price to just look at it. But then if you're hearing from your friends, your coworkers, or, I mean, you probably you might wanna set your price to zero. And then there could be various gradations all the way in between for, you know, essentially filtering how you receive content. Oh, what do you guys think of these ideas? Anything good? All good?

Oh, you're writing stuff in chat. I gotta get my chat up. That's what I should do. Alright. Thank you for the tip.

chat there. If I can get my mouse back on the right screen. I should be a saga prototype. Alright. Got it. Now I got the chat up. Okay. So now you could use any type of you could, you know, send Bitcoin to each other attached. I was thinking that the Lightning Network would be really good because they have low low gas fees, so you could, you know, send micro amounts to people to have them open messages and so on and so forth. But I think that online groups should issue their own coin. So I'm gonna go into more about that later. But the main idea is that if I had, if like Medigov, for example, had a coin and I want to support Medigov, what I'm essentially doing is creating value by the Medigov for the Medigov coin by pricing my incoming communications in the Medigov coin. So if I say, you gotta pay 10 Medigov coins if I don't know who the hell you are to talk to me, that's going to naturally, you know, give a use for and increase the value of the MediGov coin. That sound logical? Alright. Any other things and comments here? Nothing relevant. I'm gonna go on to the next slide then. Oh, I'm gonna fail at that because I gotta go back to the screen.

Alright. I guess I didn't see. Oh, is it oh, maybe I missed some of the other. You you might alright. I must have missed your thing. I gotta make my chat window bigger. But, anyway, okay. I'm having a little problem with my scrolling. Alright. So right now, there's also another cofactor going on here. That AI is eroding the advertiser model that they currently have, which is that they, you know, have a lot of ads kinda interjected into, you know, the results that you get or the, you know, the scroll or the feed that you see. But there's not gonna be space for those ads when content is delivered conversationally. So, generally, AI is gonna start now to compete over correctness, and any perception of being distorted by commercial interests will make users flock to the alternatives. So in other words, advertising or anything where the AI redirects you towards, you know, this site over here because it wants to sell you something is going to be, you know, considered less desirable. In fact, I think that people will prefer to use a more trustworthy open source AI to make virtual assistants to live on their own machines, which, like, rewind.ai, you can already do this on a Mac, for example. It it has it's sort of, you know, sort of a self sovereign AI that lives on your machine and can, as far as I know, do a number of functions, mostly controlling your own data and and dealing with it and always having the ability to sort of, you know, hey. Do you remember the time AI when I was doing this? But it also has this, beginning to have this sort of virtual assistant quality where it interacts with the world. And any case, so that will that kinda brings us to the next thing here, which is that I think we're going to have to have a sort of, unified universal feed, where we get all our stuff. Right? Hassan Minaj said, I have a 100 apps to stay in contact with the same eight people. So, you know, that we're gonna have to have some sort of application, which, you know, takes all these different streams of content and then will allow us to, choose through this pricing structure which stuff that we wanna open. And as a result, I don't think that people are going to even be going to, you know, traditional social media sites or Discord slides. You know? It's all gonna happen within this universal feed. And, you know, I know, for example, we're building that over at dazzle.town. That's one project I I'm involved in is the, the universal feed, construction that we have as part of our data palace infrastructure that we're building over there. So all right. And, you could see so you take some time to read the rest of that slide, but the, I'm not gonna talk too much about the social graph stuff because I think you guys would get that if you thought about it. And I wanna get into discussion as soon as possible since that doesn't seem to be happening as yet. So I will flip to my next slide. Yeah. So the end of this is that the customer is essentially gonna be paid to open ads. You're gonna essentially wanna share your data with companies so that they are then incentivized to pay you to open their ads. So if you can prove that you're a big, you know, ski buyer or something like that, then you're gonna be able to get the the, you know, the companies that sell ski stuff to pay you to look at their ski ads. But the because companies no longer have to split their ad revenue with the platforms anymore, they're actually going to be able to sort of reinvest this, you know, energy and and funds into providing, essentially, portals to, like, an online experience. So you may be able to, for example, click on an ad and then go and, you know, customize your own shoe, your ski, or whatever that we're talking about. And there's gonna be sort of a more, I think, honest interaction between companies because you'll be soliciting advertising for for particular companies and actually people be seeking relationships with companies. And companies will, you know, in the future, want to treat those customers well so that they lower their ad prices towards them and so on and so forth. And so I think it will generally improve the relationships of businesses, with customers. Alright. Okay. Now we get into some kind of interesting stuff. So going back to our meta gov point or whatever we call it. What you can do is if someone is a member of a number of different groups, each of which has their own coin, each of those groups can essentially do a redistribution scheme in their own coin. And what I'm suggesting is that you just take approximately 1% of daily accounts and then redistribute that as a as a UBI. So let's say I had 10,000 Medigov coins in my account. That means 1% of that a 100 coins would be removed from my account that day and then go towards a sort of UBI fund for distribution that day to all the different members. So say there's a 100 members in the group, that 100 coins that would be taken out of my account, 1 coin would go back to each member of that group, including myself. So this will sort of make it so there's not sort of a runaway leader problem too much with the communication because within any group, you're gonna have some people who are higher status than others, and therefore, the higher status people are gonna be tend to have to pay more coins to communicate. Okay? And will be paid more coins when people communicate to them. So this sort of makes things more egalitarian, and you can change this rate of the UBI within the group to change the feel of of how you want the group to be, whether you want it to have sort of a more hierarchical, you know and now it could be a hierarchy based upon, you know, actual merit. But the point is that I would probably have this this this rate of demurrage, as I call it, controlled by the group as a whole. Alright. And now and I call it a reliable UBI because the problem is that if we get a government UBI, right, they can sort of hold that over our heads. Like, oh, watch out. We we can always we'll take away the UBI if you misbehave by having UBIs come from our own social capital. So in other words, we're essentially getting paid funds. And remember, I could sell these these these points for real money for anyone who wants to advertise to my group. Right? So essentially, for real money. You know, by by by being included in a number of exclusive groups, I essentially have an income that comes from many sources and therefore can be more reliable over time. Okay. Any any disputes as yet from anyone? Alright. Not much longer. Alright. What? Two more slides. Come on. Alright. Use the mouse wheel. One click. One click, baby. Alright. Alright. Also, groups can self monetize for expenses. So not all that money that's taken away in this daily tax on accounts needs to go as a UBI. Some of it can be used by the group itself to directly, once you get sell to advertisers or other people who wanna talk to people in the group. And then use that fund to actually, you know, pay the costs of running the group. There's also uses of CC within the group, and I think I have a couple more in my main paper. But the main one is that you can moderate group conversation without moderators. So whenever you have a post thread, people can essentially burn a cc to prioritize a post. So, you know, if you burn a 100 cc, that'll put you above posts that only burned, you know, 99 cc and less than posts that burned a 150 cc. And then that that cc that you burned just goes right back, you know, to fund the UBI more. So it actually can actually increase the native rate of the UBI, or you can have it where if people do a lot of posting, then there's less taxation to the accounts automatically. You could set it up so it's a steady state or variable as you like. The last thing is that this kind of goes into this whole idea that I think in the future, rather than looking at so many posts by individuals, we're gonna be much more interested in posts that have been curated by a certain group. That is a group has looked at a post. They've all contributed to it. They've all said, okay. This is representation of what we want our group to be communicating, and we think it's really high quality, entertaining, whatever else. Okay. So the idea is this collective curation of posts and making them into group posts even when it's just retweets. Like, you know, okay. At least the whole group, you know, agrees this is a misinformation or whatever else. So and, ultimately, this might accumulate really, you know, having a subscription model essentially to the now individuals can also have a subscription model. You know, I can subscribe to your content. This is all And instead of every time I receive something from you, you pay me, I can pay you. They I mean, it can work both ways. Alright. Okay. So this is the last slide. So why we wanna do this? Because I don't know. But I think when people communicate asynchronously, you know, there can be all sorts of problems, where people talking by each other that can happen in real life too. But the main thing is we're just, you know, got too much head time heads down time trying to react to each other in this weird, you know, way. So by having a prioritized, unified feed, hopefully, we can all just be less nuts in the attention economy that we're in, and we can tame it just a little bit.

Okay. So the problem with asynchronous communication So that rather synchronous communication. For too many channels is that once again, we don't have any way to prioritize it over all those different channels. So even if you like asynchronous communication, you still wanna prioritize your asynchronous communication, and that's gonna make you be able to endure it perhaps even longer if you do like it. So, I think that, you know, it is an incredible opportunity for people to, you know, control their in feed too and not have their scrolls or social media feeds or whatever dictated by the filtration of the platforms. Alright.

Now, Daniel Daniel, you have you wrote something there. I do have, like I said, just just one moment, sort of, technologies that I have in co development with this. One of them is this is called talk time. And it essentially is when you have a meeting, you split up the time that people have to talk in the meeting between those people, and they can use their time either to talk or to give their time to other people if they wanna hear more from them. Or if they just like, oh, I really like what you just said there. Here's a little talk time. So, you know, like I said, I think the tools the Zoom tool is an absolute piece of, you know, version zero point o one garbage. And I have no idea who the product developers are, but they don't have I I don't know who they I think they're monkey flipping switches as far as I could tell. So, yeah. No. I agree. People really, you know, claim case secrets because I agree most online meeting experiences are terrible. Sent, you were you saying something?

Right. AB testing.

Well, like I said, if you have, like, a work group, you just set their incoming price to zero. If you have to hear everybody's communications, then, you know, there's no impediment to to them sending it to you if you're not charging them anything. Same thing with any of your friends or anybody else. So the indiscriminate price is really about giving a communication channel. Let's say, you know, someone is trying to build a, you know, you you wanna subscribe to a to an email list, but you only wanna get the most important emails. What you wanna do then is you don't wanna set, that list price to zero. You wanna set it a little bit higher so that they'll only send you the stuff that they think is is most relevant to you that they actually wanna pay to send to you, for example. Mhmm. So it also allows us, you know, strangers to contact other strangers by just paying their indiscriminate price. They're sure people will perhaps do things like pool their funds together to contact celebrities. Okay? But when you really want to contact somebody, you know, you've got something good to say to them, and you don't want to deal with a bunch of intermediaries to to get the message to them because everyone's attention is flying in 12,000 different directions. What you do is you have, essentially, you have your virtual assistant contact their virtual assistant and negotiate a price that's gonna put your message at the top of their inbox. And it's going to keep putting it there until they say, oh, I don't want this anymore. In which case the funds get sent back to you. If someone refuses to open something, you know, they're like, oh, this guy looks like a jerk. They can just send the funds back to you. And they, and, and then, you know, you know that that happened.

Oh, yeah. So the I I

I had a thought. Maybe this is, like, off topic or better for later, but, you know, I I feel like there's this often I see these, like, this push and pull in this conversation forwards more system systematization. And then there's, like, a counter pull to, like, less and to say, actually, it should be more real relational. And I I just I'm curious because it seems like you're clearly saying, like, I think that more systemization and and more measurement and accounting to solve social problems in a large society is the move. But I I feel like the conversation will often go one way or then the other, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts on that or or or what motivated I mean, this is, I think, too broad, but I think if you have any thoughts on that, the the idea of there's a sort of dual conversation that I see occurring, I think is my question. How you feel like you fit into

that? Well, I think it's dual modes. I think what what I'm doing here is I'm trying to create a sort of formal first layer filter that then allows more spontaneous, you know, follow-up conversations to happen. In other words, like, the first time I communicate to you, I'm gonna pay your full indiscriminate price. But then if you like what I said to you, you're you're going to lower your price and be like, oh, this guy, let's say if he sends me something else, I'm not going to charge him so much for it. Maybe the third time you lower your price to zero and we're actually quote unquote friends now. So the idea is by actually formalizing it into this sort of just little bar that you can drag instead of being like friend or not friend and introducing that granularity, I'm actually providing personal expressiveness.

Stop sharing a bit.

Okay.

I'm

Are are you

speaking of things like actually governing physical cities, you know, in an in an egalitarian manner? Because I do have equivalent stuff that I'm working on that has that's like the layered cooperativism, but within the physical context. In other words, my actual apartment buildings are cooperatives. And then I really don't have the block structure, but I sort of have the cluster, the superblock. In other words, in in my universal urban planning platform, my structures are my superblocks are the same size as the superblocks in Barcelona, which is to say a quarter mile on a stop.

I was wondering, yeah, too, why you use

Of cluster instead of super block because I do find super block to be a good term.

I did have another I I I had one kind of casual thought and then another question. In terms of the spatial governance is, what if your voting power dropped off as a function of distance from your house to, like, the the actual, like like, schools, like, five blocks away versus, like, schools across town? You just have, like, a Gaussian over your residence, and, like, your vote would actually just be scaled down based on how far it was. I don't know. I just thought of that. I had I had another thought or question rather, like, in your sort of, like, a governance development arc, you had duocracy as sort of, like, a it's, like, a semi primitive stage and, like, more, like, complete unstructured inner interface as being, like, a higher stage. Like, I kinda wanna interrogate that or push back on that because

many ways, duocracy represents, like, a very high functioning form in that you're actually able to get by with much less process. Mhmm. And you have people that are inherently motivated, the ones that are taking and and have power. So I I I'm curious, like, can we even say that duarch represents, in some ways, like, a very advanced form compared to these others, which I assume involve more structure and process.

for that.

Will. Bye.