Similarly, when Synereo launches, an initial supply of
AMP s will be available for purchase and distribution to early
users and contributors. Synereo also o ers a unique social approach to proof-of-
work that will be connected to a kind of "mining" and AMP
creation. However, the discussion of this is currently out of scope for this paper.
It is impossible to invent a PoW which derives from a decentralized, no-consensus network which isn't about consuming a resource and also achieve global consensus on the distributed ledger's (block chain's) Consistency due to the CAP theorem.
This is nonsense to claim you have such a PoW.
Edit#2: so on page 33 (#31) it is explained that it is not AMPs that are socially "mined" but rather Reo is socially mined and then can be perhaps some exchanged for AMPs. But this doesn't solve the problem that this will cause a divergence of consensus about the value of an agent's Reo score:
Socially meaningful proof-of-work and "mining"
AMPs If all value associated with cryptocurrency must ultimately trace back to value
originating in at currency the transition to cryptocurrency will be a slow pro-
cess, indeed. If, however, we provide a mechanism whereby a key aspect of the
creative process is re ected in the AMP's relationship to value, that process can
be dramatically accelerated. What everyone implicitly understands, yet very
few explicitly acknowledge is that creativity has a distinctive mark: creative
processes are ex nihilo; they generate something from nothing! Whether it's a
new algorithm, a new song, or a new way of looking at the world, we recog-
nize creativity in the freshness and newness of the o ering { something is there
that wasn't there before. Human life vitally depends on the font of creativity;
without the renewal of creativity value slow receeds from our lives.
However, without a mechanism whereby that creativity results in the cre-
ation of currency, none of the value created by a genuinely creative o ering is
recognized. All of the existing currency traces value back to some other source.
So, without such a mechanism the creative act is not recognized properly by the
system. Note though, that if they nd their audience, the consistently creative
participant in the network will have high Reo. Their standing in the community
will re ect the recognition of their creativity. If they had a means by which
they could turn some of their accumulated Reo into AMPs, literally capitalizing
on their reputation, then the system would actually have a means to recognize
the creation of value in the creative act.
The attention economy
Out of these core concepts we build an economy of attention; a way to manage
this highly limited resource of the human brain. In some sense, this economy
is not unlike an economy in a functioning capital-based democracy. Typically,
such economies come with two dials: on the one hand, citizens can express their
voice through democratic processes, such as elections, referendums, and other
mechanisms where they can cast their
vote
. On the other, citizens engage in the
creation, distribution and consumption of goods and services and use capital as
a means of facilitating the bene cial ow of this wealth.
Both processes ultimately result in the distribution of goods and services.
And as long as the linkage between votes and capital exchange is suciently
weak, citizens have
two
distinct ways of expressing their individual and col-
lective will about the functioning of the economy in society. When working
e ectively, these two channels provide a mechanism for balancing the collective
will (largely identi ed with democratic participation and self-determination at
that level), with individual will (largely identi ed with the ow of currency and
self-determination at that level).
The notion of
Reo
, as can be seen in its technical form in chapter 2, is essen-
tially a kind of attention-based measure of the collective will: it looks remarkably
like a kind of online voting. Meanwhile,
AMP
s are unabashedly an attention-
based form of currency. As such, these two notions are balanced against each
other and provide a means of balancing collective will with individual will. What
distinguishes Synereo from the idealized capital-based democracy, however, is
the reconciling force of
engagement
. In point of fact, a democratic society lives
or dies according to the engagement of its citizenry; but there is no objective,
rei ed measure linking this directly to the distribution and ow of value. In
Synereo, there is - the attention model allows each and every individual to cast
his \vote" and show his engagement without making any special e ort beyond
his normal participating in the network - and this additional sophistication cre-
ates more subtle network dynamics, hopefully leading to a more balanced social
model.
The entire point of an attention model is to remove the conflict in the community by making the communities more granular and eliminate the tension. I should be able to participate in multiple sub-communities and my posts to those communities should be relevant to the shared interests and attitudes of each sub-community.
I am leaning towards your model is fundamentally conceptually flawed for as long as it is including AMPs and Reo is not more granular than the monolithic agent.
Edit @ 30 minutes after post time: Ah now I see it mentioned that more granularity for Reo is contemplated:
Further developments of this model include more
fine-grained distinctions between information types, social consensus, and other
signals that shape the network and the flow of information and attention in it.
Edit#3: So the only reason to use process calculi to model the network versus kinetic proofreading (think of Facebook's Like) is to incorporate AMPs:
Using
the social network interpretation kinetic proofreading provides a quantitative
model of an attention economy. As such, it stands as a competitor to the
Synereo model. That's why we care.
Comparison
As mentioned in section 2.2.6, we hope to publish quantitative
comparison results in a subsequent paper. More qualitatively, the question is,
does Synereo's network model do anything to improve this basic mechanism?
The short answer is that Synereo includes each of the attention ratcheting mech-
anisms and ampli es them. However, it balances that with
AMP
s. This acts as
a kind of catalyst or enzyme working in the opposite direction to the natural
signal improvement.
