Imagine the potential when we have personal preference swarms. We could program our swarms to populate a stock portfolio for example based on the most attractive stock. Our attention wouldn’t have to be given to the process at all as all trades would be initiated by our swarms of bots.
These bots could scan for opportunity, handle risk reward ratios, and even invest according to whether or not certain performance measures are met or principles.
Of course you could do a lot more but that is an obvious example.
Interesting. So, ideally we would all have these personal swarms managing our personalized stock portfolios without any need on our side to allocate any attention to the process after it’s set up. Yeah, that sounds like a really great vision. And I can see that there’s so much money in this idea.
What’s your plan for moving forward with this idea?
So, your plan it to act as idea generator and spreader. That might be good enough. Personally, my hope is that creating ideas and sharing them will be sufficient for them to get enough traction to be realized. Unfortunately, that’s often not sufficient. But that’s why we have this platform: To get people to come up with ideas and more people to take them further.
Lots of ideas get generated.
Few get wide distribution.
Even fewer get adopted generally.
A selected few of high quality and long development get imbedded persistently.
Nice comment, Mark. This made me bookmark this topic. It’s certainly an idea with big potential, so we should revisit it regularly. I would hate if such ideas get lost and forgotten over time.
If I had a government grant or some sponsor which allowed me to do all of this stuff I would do it. It’s a matter of lack of resources and I’m sure you know how that is.
Since I don’t have resources what I can do is share my knowledge with people who do.
It’s actually not hard to get your ideas realized. The key is to make your ideas valuable to enough people, profitable to the developers of the idea, and to focus on the needs or wants of the initial stakeholders. If you look you’ll see all sorts of wild ideas being tested as altcoins, as projects, most of which aren’t as well thought out as some of mine.
As for what I’m able to do if I have to do it all by myself? I’ll be limited. But if I have a blog, with ideas, example code, then that helps out the next person who has the time and money but doesn’t want to do the research part.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that this approach actually works? It seems like this separation of idea creation and idea implementation is hard to achieve, because usually people are most motivated to implement their own ideas. Now you might object that there are those copycats who steal the ideas of others for their own profit. But you have to consider that what gets copied are usually things that already have proven themselves to be viable in the real world markets!
Your approach sounds like it could work, but I fear that human psychology does make it a lot more difficult than you think it is.
I don’t find that statement reassuring in the least. I think we need a much better idea implementation strategy than just “putting the idea onto a blog or forum and see what happens”. If we want to bring ideas to fruition we need to attract the people that can make things happen. Meaning, we need to attract entrepreneurs and people who want to become entrepreneurs. Or at least talk with such people. Do you know of any good online platform for that?
I don’t have any problem with idea diffusion. Enough people follow my blog posts.
If you’re having a problem finding people receptive to your ideas you have to leave the forum and go to communities of people who are thinking about what you’re thinking about. Example: http://cyber.fund/
Good that you mention visiting communities of interested people. This is a crucial part of any solid strategy to disseminate and implement ideas.
The next logical step would be beginning of the implementation phase on an idea. Do you have any strategy for that, or do you rely on other people to take care of that part?
You’re still thinking about it wrong. This isn’t a top down engineering process. It’s an emergent process. You don’t direct the swarm. You present an idea which attracts the swarm to the concepts. What is the central concept?
If you want to know how this process works look at how Protoshares became Bitshares.
Sharedrops, stigmergy, emergent self organization, swarm intelligence. You don’t need to implement everything yourself. You do need to produce good ideas and properly drop them. Everyone who is in position to do implementing will become an implementer, everyone in a position to research and formulate ideas will do so, everyone who is in a position to do marketing will do that. Play your position.
Create “stakeholders” in an idea by using the sharedrop to give shares in the idea itself.
Stakeholder analysis can allow you to determine who to give future ideas to.
A multi-stakeholder network is formed over time as certain people have a stake in many different ideas.
The multi-stakeholder network if it is diverse enough and motivated enough by the shared vision for the future will become a “swarm” which will implement the best ideas they have a stake in.
All of this is swarm behavior, and sharedrops create stigmergy.
It has been proven by the Protoshares to Bitshares experiment. Stigmergy has been seen in various communities already and has been shown to create swarm behavior in the participants. The area where you have to be precise is in where you sharedrop. You have to sharedrop to the people who have a similar vision for the future that you have with your idea.
So for this reason if you sharedrop to certain radical futurists you can be pretty sure they’d be interested in certain ideas like Life Extension or even a cure for aging. So if you have an idea which cures aging you would want to make the people who care the most about it into stakeholders. After that everyone shares a stake in the same outcome and a swarm emerges based on that.
Thanks for sharing these ideas and resources. This looks like a very promising basis for an overall framework on how to implement ideas. Let me try to put this together in a chronological order:
Get some inspiration for an idea.
Have an idea.
Explain the idea somewhere.
Identify potential stakeholders for the idea.
Share the idea on the stakeholder networks that already exist. Use attractor patterns to frame the idea in an attractive way that helps to recruit people into supporters of the idea.
Allow stigmergy to happen and take the idea to completion. Use sharedrops for that purpose.
Now, the last point probably needs to be subdivided into multiple points. i’m not really familiar with the sharedropping concept and wonder whether and how it can be applied outside of the creation of DACs and DApps. Ideally, we should discuss this in a separate topic (you can use the “+ Reply as linked Topic” feature that pops up to the top right of a post to do so).
Do you think this is a good simplified representation of the general process you have in mind, or do you think I’ve missed something?
The stigmergic operation is required. In the case of Protoshares it was the tokenization of the shared vision. They turned the shared vision into a token which could be purchased or mined. Next they created a social consensus around that shared vision.
I suggest you study step by step how Protoshares became Bitshares to learn how stigmergy works in a practical experiment. It was a huge success proven by Bitshares community which currently has developers who get paid by the DAC itself. People work directly for the DAC which is not all that different from bee hives or ant colonies.
What surprises me is that tokenisation happened before creating a social consensus. Somehow that feels intuitively backwards. What are the reasons for that to have happened? Is that necessarily the right/best order of events?
You have to create the attractor pattern first. People rally behind the idea if the idea is pretty good. The attractor pattern in most cases requires tokenization so that there can be a price. We tend to look at price instead of duration of a dance.
For example prior to Bitcoin having a price a lot fewer people were interested in it. Once it had a price on an exchange and everyone saw the price going up it was the attractor pattern which caught a lot of attention.
BitCOIN is the attractor token. Blockchain is the idea behind Bitcoin which could be the general attractor pattern. People who are really into technology are attracted to the blockchain but people who see Bitcoin as a currency are attracted to currencies because for most humans the currency is the attractor pattern universally recognized.
But you can use anything. You can use shares, you can use a mailing list, you can use citizenship or membership in a club.
I’m very frustrated by this insistence that there is no aspect of creating and promoting an attractor pattern that is within the traditional term ‘leadership’ .
There has to be some person or organization that takes action to create the seed and nurture it until it takes root.
I realize some of this is just terminology, but it comes across as ideological.
As far as I am concerned, both of you are ‘leaders’.
Not because you are trying to be, but because your enthusiasm and willingness to publicly document your ideas and thought processes has power for changing the great discussion.