@Mark_Larkento shared the following post on Facebook:
I found it to be quite interesting, because it deconstructs the previous notions about the evolution of money. Money seems to be more of a social accounting tool, than as evolutionary result of barter based economies!
Would this imply that reputation economy systems like Quantified Prestige would actually be more “natural” than money?
“Would this imply that reputation economy systems like Quantified Prestige would actually be more “natural” than money?”
I believe it would highlight a portion of what money actually is, a promise of future value guaranteed by the reputation of the individual, group, or institution making the promise.
It would be interesting to read an analytical exploration of the idea, anyway.
I don’t think that reputation needs to be coupled to a promise of future value. Reputation is built up by value already created. If people quit a job they were good at (to pursue another field of interest for example), would that necessarily tarnish their reputation, or would people acknowledge that the decision of the person in question to do something perhaps entirely different may be justified?
Still, reputation in itself might be the best predictor of the future ability to create high value products or services. Money alone is insufficient to fulfil that function. The future success of companies may correlate with their market capitalization, but I don’t think this correlation is very strong.
An exploration of what idea exactly? Do you have a specific hypothesis in mind that perhaps could even be tested?