The Tokenomy

Social Inclusion

Collective Strength | Varied Ecosystem | Open Knowledge | To the Moon

Collective Strength

a. the one

The role of social inclusion is described by Hayek in his last argument:

an essential part of the phenomena with which we have to deal: the unavoidable imperfection of man's knowledge and the consequent need for a process by which knowledge is constantly communicated and acquired.

A single change of mind taking action, moves prices.
Knowledge imperfections adjust automatically without inefficiency:
deliberation, compromise or groupthink.
The particular time and place where I am freely contradict yours.
Our knowledge and preferences differ openly in the economy.
We disagree on today's circumstances to contribute to each other later.
When we recognize what we need and don't have, one of us can be wrong.
While I'm busy with my own affairs, you're involved with other resources.
I will need them once my context of tomorrow resembles yours of today.
Wealth distribution finances a society's disagreements.
At any point in time, in any area, there will be someone who is right;
when all others are wrong.
Thus, advances are made in front of constant change.
We could be threatened by conformity.
The seeding venture capitalist understands it very well.
We simply don't know what is going to work.
The central economic problem of resource allocation is distributed.
It is solved by people's differences and their independent actions.
The consensus synthesis combines subjective views in multiple prices.
Be they goods, instruments or services.
No trade-off is made to safeguard the individual with the right knowledge.
Immersed in particular circumstances, this individual should not sell.
Society needs to afford to express preferences for its own sake.

Varied Ecosystem

b. robust production

The social process of consensual knowledge forms prices.
We derive the quality of the most productive ecosystem in the long run.
It is an environment where actors do not fight for resources.
Sustainability ensures that they can freely afford to disagree.
That is how society can maximize the number of seeds for the future.
It is the spread and variety of production that matters for resilience.
A single absolute number completely misses out the wealth of diversity.
The productive quality of an ecosystem differs from that of a subsystem.
An objective measure would hinder the pursuit of several concurrent goals.
All activities must be maintained when they profit a desired market.
An economic actor facing a dire uncertainty might choose to prioritize it.
A chosen contingency over a return would be reflected in the price.
The goal does not need to be stated among independent actors.

Trade is over-optimized for growth at the expense of everything else.
We do not treat the economy as an ecosystem.
Similarly, a Formula One car is too optimized for speed.
A single bump on the road can break it apart.
In a 4x4, however, the driver can go anywhere.
It is the road rather than the race that must be overcome.
The economy is not a sport.
It is first a livelihood.
For anyone to reach any objective, an economic ecosystem is the approach.
When growth is going up, something which isn't measured is going down.
We will focus on growth the day when everything we care about is included.
Global growth is needed to absorb the inflation's cost of central money.
Decentralized currencies can be deflationary by design.
If no one stands above issuance, holders do not have to get poorer.

Open Knowledge

c. collaboration limits

Even if the economy was a sports arena, the Olympics have taught us.
Fair play is breaking world records.

As Deming puts it:

Who would wish to do business with a loser?

We do not need to treat the economy like a competitive battlefield;
and expect chances to lose before the finish line.
Two similar competitors spend efforts to catch up with each other.
They sometimes only spend their last 10% of capital to differentiate.
From the viewpoint of a knowledge economy, that is 45% waste.
Competitors could have pooled their common offering for half the cost;
get to the same results;
and invest 4 times more into what makes them better.
Free knowledge would lead companies relying on IP to bankruptcy, though.
It would hold if all had started on a level playing field of open IP.
It is not only about the global efficiency of resource utilization.
Confrontational environments orient participants towards short-term moves.
Under survival stress, they put their own company at unsustainable risk.
Increased regulatory scrutiny must kick in to prevent escalation.

The core issue is private intellectual property.
In theory, its abolition would publicly enable without required scrutiny.
Anyone could make a difference in an efficient environment;
again, getting more for less as a whole.
In practice, no reason could legitimize a rule over private information.
Privacy is the safe zone which we don't share with the untrustable public.
Outside state-managed fundamental rights:
collective rules should not apply to private individuals and entities.
We are still responsible for the consequences of our private thinking.
Liability should not be forcefully engaged to safeguard creativity.
The right to know cannot be observed; we have more to lose.
We'd lose safety, freedom and innovative mistakes in the loss of privacy.
But knowledge still always grows in the nature of public domain:
watered collaboratively and sunned with critical feedback.
Private knowledge dies as dinosaurs and only leaves curious fossils.

To the Moon

d. imagination fuels rockets

A society bigotry fails to take different perspectives into account.
It is reflected in the Lorenz curve, representing wealth distribution.
It has the shape of an inverted slide.
The steeper it is, the harder it is to climb up.
One can be stuck at the bottom of indifference.
A liberating framework would make gravity work for everyone.
Contextual preferences of a group add up to a different curve of riches.
Luna Park does not always boast the same attractions on Coney Island.
Diverse marginal rates of substitution play in exchanges.
The horizon shapes other things than rollercoasters.
Political focus on economic factors may be a lack of alternatives.
How to assess and monitor a population's well-being, otherwise?
One may then ask how to provide means of measurable variety.
Financial equality does not capture a coherent and self-directed society.
A policy impact quantifies its results to hold enactors responsible.
Measures are all the more powerful to inform contingency plans.
Yet, a small proportion of what actually matters has been quantified.
Financial markets do not reflect people's aspirations.
In fact, cats and dogs, pet figures, made cryptocurrency breakthroughs.
Expensive cartoon animals testify to the progress of monetization.
Imagination, not marketing; innovation or prospects, reached new heights.
Between corners of a metaverse and the real world, one finds a new galaxy.
There, projects shine to discover their own rules for prosperity.