Re: [projectvrm] Re: The Needs of a broadly available micropayment capable Internet Wallet

[Tom Crowl < >]

Lots of good ideas here!

And re Andy's comment.... honestly I couldn't care less on a personal level between 1 and 2 so long as it allowed me to live somewhere other than my sister's living room.

And that brings me to some brief history and why I thing VRM is actually much bigger than VRM thinks it is.

I'll keep it brief but relevant... and its not about trying to gather sympathy.

In 1991 I bought a house. Shortly afterwards I found that there were fundamental structural flaws (cracked foundation, rotten plates and studs from water damage, grading issues, etc... and a problem of continual flooding with even small rains. This was all a result of the Sylmar quake in the early 70's. These flaws had been concealed via various cosmetic applications and a failure to disclose.

This non-disclosure by the owner and their R.E. agent were a product of a series of lectures to brokers being made by some "libertarian objectivists" (I'm serious about this)... that owners and agents didn't need to disclose (in this case) previous earthquake damage if they themselves didn't own the house at the time of the quake... and so could argue that they had no personal knowledge of the issue.

So they didn't disclose the previous quake damage.... As it turns out their interpretation was invalid even by the idiot objectivist's standards. SO... I had a lawsuit.

Now this took 5 years with my lawyer working for no money on contingency... and by this time I was also fairly desperate. And we settled the day before trial... (apparently this is a fairly common defense tactic... drag it out as long as possible hoping the plaintiff will either die or run out of money.... and my lawyer was pretty burned out working for no money and not ready to bear the expense of trial without some payment).

The settlement, after legal fees left me enough to re-grade but not enough to repair the fundamental structural issues.

Now we jump ahead to the early 2000's. I had bought a home... not a financial asset. And after a dozen years working to make the house as nice as possible.... and heading into my senior years... I decided that rather than try to sell it with these structural issues... I would build a guest house, move into it and rent out the house.

SO... I mortgaged and took out cash to build it... got tenants (which covered the mortgage).... and moved into my beautiful 500 square foot granny unit. All looked good!

Then we come to 2008.... simultaneously that summer.... my tenant had a motorcycle accident, lost his job, and couldn't pay the rent.... an untapped line of credit ($75,000) which I intended to have as a cushion while I pursued interest in my model and demo (I can no longer afford to maintain it but a couple of people here saw it at one time)  was suddenly taken away by BofA due to the financial crisis.... and my tenants moved out owing over $8,000 (P.S. it was a friendly dissolution since they had a place to go and understood that I was very dependent on that rent.)

Now what really pisses me off is that the Bank (now Wells Fargo which purchased the mortgage from Wachovia which was shut down due to its illegal practices)... wouldn't allow me time to replace the tenants and an opportunity to catch up. When I went into the bank after missing one payment... having scraped up the money for that... which would leave me one month behind but with some time to get some new tenants... they wouldn't accept anything but the full amount to bring me current. I didn't have enough for that.

This created a cascading situation with a rapidly increasing threshold for 'catching up' making it impossible to regain viability... and led to eventual eviction with a sale by the bank 2 years later to someone for half the price... I.e. they would have been better off letting me have some time to get new tenants rather than going 2 years and then selling it for half price.

Now to me that's a sad and stupid situation.... and a direct product of a government that couldn't (wouldn't) listen to the screams from the American public to put some heat on the banks to seriously try to avoid foreclosure where they could.... and the protected banks feeling no pressure to actually work with homeowners.

That's one huge VRM issue... not solvable by a piece of code... but necessitating political power. (and that's what the volume micropayment is all about for me)

The whole 2008 debacle is a perfect illustration of the problems that occur when "heat-from-the-bottom" can be ignored... and the repercussions continue across the Western world.... Greece has one hell of a VRM problem.

I finally got not one... but TWO... $500 payments from the fraudulent review process which was a product of agreement between the government and the banks. I suppose I should be grateful. This was a phony review process. I should have taken the money I borrowed to improve the home and put it under a pillow instead of spending two years designing and building that granny unit... since it made no difference in the end except giving some lucky investor a great deal.

SO I have a real chip on my shoulder re the banks generally... and especially the ties between the financial sector and governance. I think the American public does too.... the grassroots in both Parties.

As for these other models which don't directly involve money... that's great! Let's go...

But I also no that there's an existing model that can work with real money... as a stand alone web-based and/or cash card system to offer a pathway for that "heat-from-the-bottom". I know that cause I built it and patented it (btw, the USPTO had access to the demo and reviewed it)

Finally... one last point for now regarding getting developers to work for free on something patented.

I don't think they should!

A non-profit and/or co-op structure should be created to work on creating a viable system for the volume micropayment... at least necessary in areas of advocacy, charity and journalism... (speech, governance and civic related areas)

And who should pay for it?

The Internet giants and identification silos though which it will eventually function!

But they should be separate from it.... just as C-Span is funded by Cable but independent from it.

P.S. RE the bazillion laws making endeavors in this area difficult.... these laws are part of the big bank monopoly protection racket and need to be changed... but that will require some serious understanding of the issues and heat-from-the-bottom.

I'm all about building tools to provide that heat. My core interest isn't the Internet per se... but problems in scaling the human group and avoiding the pitfalls that continuously drive it towards oligarchy and wealth/power concentration.... Especially as we inevitably head towards a more culturally homogenous globe... whether we like it or not.

Issues in Scaling Civilization: The Altruism Dilemma

Thoughts on the Biosocial Roots of Oligarchy

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, David Brin < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Kevin that's a shame about your micro-payments venture.  I do believe there is a way around that problem.  The mistake is treating the payments as money.  In which case a bazillion laws come into play.  If you explore the concept, it's not necessary for the micropayments intermediary to actually facilitate the transfer of actual money.

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:11 PM, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Tom,

In 2000 a group of us formed a company to create a micropayments system and we spent $2M building it.  We worked out how to do it without the transfer of interest bearing money but with the transfer of interest free money.  Essentially it consisted of an agreement that was shared "in the cloud". The agreement said that the value held by one party in an account was increased and the other party's account was decreased.  There was no actual money transferred.  This is the way mutual credit systems work and there are many examples of it around the world. (This would work well with your button).

The venture was a commercial failure because the rules and regulations around accounts holding value in the form of Australian Currency are written to make such systems illegal unless the holding party is a bank; the cost of becoming a bank at the time was $30M.  We were unable to get exemption nor were we able to persuade a bank to take up the idea because we had some patents on the idea and there was no way that any bank was going to go into an agreement to use a system with patents attached.  They also knew that other banks would not agree to interface to the system even if they purchased us and the patents.

The lessons learned were:

If there is an existing system in place then you must fit in with what already exists; particularly the dominant existing players.

If you attempt to get rent from ownership of ideas then others will not cooperate. However, you can provide services instead of collecting rent on ideas.

Accordingly in our current deployment of a way for a person to get access to their online information we fit in with the existing system of silos of information about people held by organisations. We are negotiating to build, with other large existing players, open source software which give individuals access to organisational information that is compatible with existing organisational responsibilities about keeping personal data private.

We will get our income for helping organisations deploy the infrastructure to provide individuals with access and from building and operating applications that use the infrastructure.

We have had to build an application that shows what we do in ways that people can understand in order to convince people that it is worth at least trying out the approach.

I put the chances of the broad approach being adopted at close to 100% because it is reduces costs and gives individuals access to their own data held in organisational silos.  (Giving individuals access has proven to be difficult with identity based systems.)  I put our chance of getting back the money we have already invested much lower than 100%; this is offset by the chance of getting back much much more than we have invested if we can sell services around the open source software systems.

The button idea is a good one but it is going to be a very difficult task to get it accepted without a sponsor to push it and without a working prototype.  If you have these then you may get a sponsor to hire you; but it is a risk you take.  I know it is frustrating and I feel for you.

Kevin

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

Kevin... There's an important distinction between swiping a credit card to pay for a bag of groceries... and responding to a volume solicitation for a web/phone related  50 cent contribution... both as it relates to the fixed charges burden... as well as curation issues.

But I appreciate the point re the rapid expansion of one-click (or whatever simple signaling method is used) capabilities... and its implications for payments generally.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

Doc,

I very much appreciate your ideas and suggestions. And I also understand the rationale regarding patents and intellectual property rights. But I would hope there would be consideration that at least occasionally 'the exception makes the rule"

Here's Why:

The capability I've described (a one-click payment capability across multiple identification systems) MUST at some point... funnel into that final signaling stage (i.e. a button, swipe, whatever).

And for the very small transaction at least... it moreover must be connected to a payment source that addresses the fixed transaction charges that are attached to individual payments by the wide variety of payment sources used... and that make the micropayment impracticable.

Moreover, when one begins to consider the potentials of even very small payments at scale... one must begin to consider issues related to curation and potentials for misuse.

That, to me at least suggests that the curation, TOS, etc. around that function are of considerable importance... ( shall we let a "Help send a kid to Syria" donation button show up in a browser ad?)... and that there is a very significant public interest in its operation and boundaries around it usage.

I'm not trying to be "the king of the button"... what I am suggesting is that at least one significant Internet capability should be under some other form of governance than via a private corporate... or banking interest.

This is a design consideration particularly applicable for the volume micropayment... and I believe is of importance for the future of the web... and the individual's relationship to it...  in ways that extend beyond the micropayment itself.

W/o any intellectual property protection this almost certainly will become dominated by the banking giants and/or the Internet giants... as an additional source of revenue and control. I'm suggesting that this is not the right way to go and will do what I can to prevent it.

This is not because I'm opposed to profit or the Internet giants... which are natural concentrations.  As for the banks that's a different story.

(I'm going to take some time in a separate email to address why they should be separated from this functionality... at least for the volume micropayment and for an Internet wallet)

As for my own interest... I don't apologize for it.... and am happy to find a way to accommodate this being done via some public (e.g. non-profit, co-op foundation, etc.) But they damn well better hire me as a long term consultant... I should be dead within 15 or 20 years so its not really such a long term commitment.

Kevin... my question is this... Are Australian banks inter-operating in order to accomplish the volume micropayment? What are they doing about the fixed transaction charges making it impracticable?

Finally, I'm going to give a bit of personal history in a separate email which may provide some understanding for my view on this. Which has both personal and public roots. Again its not about being Left or Right... nor is it about opposing private businesses or even banks... but its about good design for a developing landscape.

Is it possible that by ensuring that a volume micropayment vehicle is NOT dominated by banks or private corporations that there would be MORE opportunity for various open source, publicly oriented development to be done?

This is a time of very important evolution in the Internet landscape... and just letting it develop haphazardly is not a good idea. We are creating structures which very well may last for millennia. And mistakes will have very significant consequences.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

I’ll second everything Andy says. More inline below...

On Aug 18, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

Thanks Andy.... and Yes... I very much understand that in moving from suggesting a framework (sort of a battleplan)... to implementation (the first shot).... things may not go as expected.... and so I don't mean to suggest exactly how it should be done in every detail... but it may be the root to begin an evolution. What's important is to have some idea of where you're going (just as in the evolution of hypertext).

So I have a couple of ideas too.

One is that free customers are more valuable (to themselves and to the marketplace) than captive ones. (Kinda for the same reason that we are worth more in freedom than in slavery, or in lesser forms of captivity.)

Another is that lots of market problems are best worked out from the customers’ side — by equipping customers with tools for both independence and engagement. 

For both those reasons I started ProjectVRM. I knew, mostly by covering free software, open source and Linux as a journalist, that the best chance of seeing either of those ideas prove out was having lots of developers working on lots of different projects, some of which might have a chance of succeeding — and none of which would be exactly what I would develop if, for example, I pursued proof with my own start-up. (Though I’ve often been tempted.)

I have had (or co-had) a number of ideas for products, services, UI elements and code bases. Examples are the r-button, Intentcasting and EmanciPay. I’ve also believed that the chances any of them would have of succeeding would be maximized if I did not assert any kind of intellectual property rights over them, or try to extract income from them. I looked instead for what JP Rangaswami and I years ago began to call “because effects.” You make money because of the ideas, rather than with them.

The jury is still out on VRM. But the jury is growing, and the number and variety of developers working on making individuals free, independent and better able to engage is also growing. Eventually one or more projects will succeed or my founding ideas will prove false. I doubt the latter will happen, but I also have to assume that it’s possible. Theories require that.

I bring all this up because it’s kind of a corollary to the old saying (on which there are many variants), “There’s no telling to how much success you can have if you don’t insist on the credit.” Which brings me to this:

But in my small way... I want to be at the party... and deserve a seat. All I started with is an idea that very small payments would be useful in a few areas especially.... and then started looking at its needs and implications. My patent is an early iteration of an idea... but contains a core element re account design.... and I can't afford any more patents.

I agree that you deserve a seat at the party. I also agree with Andy and others here that the party is not likely to be exactly what you would have designed. And that there may be many parties.

And, much as I deeply respect the work and money you have put into your patents, I know that the existence of those patents is a turn-off for at least some of the developers it would be good for you and your ideas to have on your side. Patents are like that. They cut a number of ways, and not always in the hands of the patent holder.

All that said, I am glad you keep pushing. Your work and your ideas are important, and I for one value your seat at the VRM table, and your contributions here.

Doc

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andy Oram < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

I'll make a high-level comment. What I see of radical proposals for new systems is that they need to play a balancing game. The idea you present is interesting and should live on, but you can't predict exactly how it will be done. Look at Ted Nelson and hypertext--it all came to pass, but not the way he expected. (Actually, Tom, you're filling in some of the infrastructure that Nelson wanted and never got.) 

It's nice to see that certain aspects of an implementation (such as the browsers you brought in) will work in theory, but I would avoid trying to get a whole implementation worked out from soup to nuts. It probably won't happen the way you think it will. The core idea is the thing to hit on over and over.

Andy

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Tom Crowl < " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> > wrote:

Andy... et al,

Let me know if this adds clarity to what I'm talking about...

Let's assume:

1. A broadly available micropayment would be useful for various purposes across the web (advocacy, charity, journalism, etc.)
2. A one-click capability is necessary for micropayment viability (as size of payment decreases... ease of execution must increase)
3. Hence secure user identification is important for making that payment viable
4. The pooled-user-determined account design is a useful "wallet" design for addressing the fixed transaction charges attached to the large variety of various payment sources used for deposit into that wallet
5. Broad availability requires an ability to operate across multiple browsers and Internet-based identification sources
   

Hence: Just as Microsoft browser can interact with google gmail... and various other identity sources interact... SO must a wallet necessary for this type of payment.

Moreover while such a system could be formed by agreement via the various "identification sources"... the "wallet" itself should be its own separate entity... and I strongly feel (not for technical but for socio/political reasons) that it should not be formed as a part of any bank or even the banking system itself... but separate from it... though obviously it would receive deposits via them.... just as payment would go out via various browsers and/or identification systems. 

That's what I'm talking about... not a stand-alone website or wallet. I've long felt... and it hasn't changed... that the micropayment is the key to a very important Internet institution.

I'm not a programmer... I'm not a businessman... I'm a hodad (an old term for someone trying to pretend they're a surfer but are faking it all the way). I just think I'm a hodad who's on to something important. Its not only about the Future of  Work, gov 2.0.. or anything else... its about the design of the net... and its future.

P.S. As a hodad... I'm naturally interested in where my fraud is inadequate so that I might improve the illusion. SO... if anyone wants to let me know what I'm missing... I'm listening.

Tom Crowl

http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

--

Andy Oram

Editor, O'Reilly Media

Boston, MA, USA 617-499-7479

@praxagora, plus.google.com/+AndyOram/, linkedin.com/profile/view?id=32803

--

Contact 0413961090