This post is in response to Chris Barnes' (of #Fractally) suggestion that i create a Hive post comparing the differences between Fractally & The Matrix-8 Solution.
I asked 
With much discussion/editing between John and i, focusing on the key differences, this is his (and my) response:
I think that in essence Fractally and the Matrix-8 Solution have the same soul. They are both engines developed to deliver Sovereign Individuals from the predations of the Powers that Shouldn't Be. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two systems is in the envisioned size of the Groups the platforms are designed to handle. Where the Matrix-8 Solution is focused on providing the logistics for Anonymous Participation, Deliberation, and Voting for groups of millions, Fractally's focus appears to be on relatively smaller communities of less than 8000.
I think capping the maximum community size is a logistical problem. In the case of a national election, unless Fractally developed a seamless mechanism to connect multiple communities into the same fractal, Fractally would not easily scale up to handle the 100's of thousands or millions of users.
“Markets fail to sufficiently recognize those who produce public goods such as music, art, science, independent journalism, charity, and open source software. To solve this problem, ƒractally taps the wisdom of the crowds to build consensus on how to better recognize everyone’s contribution to the community.
Abstract: This paper provides a blueprint, strategy, and background rationale on how groups of people can cooperate to provide public goods and mutual aid.”
Since Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago, it has been our Human Nature to care for ourselves, our families, and our friends. Sane people have always sought to protect their Lives, Liberties, and Property from Criminals. And when we gather in larger groups and establish our greater communities, we mirror that same humane concern for strangers. We attempt to install the best Institutions of Governance to balance between the Power of the Group and the Power of the Sovereign Individual.
For the last 10,000 years – since the Agricultural Revolution – we have ceded the Power of our Sovereignty to society's evolving Top-down Leadership. With varying degrees of success, we have adapted iterations of the Social Contract to best secure our Human Rights. And so far, Representative Democracies are the best we have come up with to enshrine our Human Nature. But, our present systems of Top-down Government have failed us. The people we have elected to run our Representative Democracies are the very Criminals destroying our lives.
So, once again, as with problematic kings and priests, feudal lords, and dictators, it is our right – it is our duty! – to throw off whatever system of Governance vexes us, and to provide new guards for our future security. What's next after Representative Democracy?
Democrity– A style of Governance enjoyed by a population that uses Democratic Processes to reach Accords, but without the use of concomitant Enforcement.
Real-time Democrity – Analogous to the Democrity enjoyed by Band Societies making decisions around a council fire, or the Direct Democracy of early Puritan Colonists making decisions in a Town Meeting – Real-time Democrity describes the continual deliberative processes provided by a MultiLevel Governance (defined below) Internet Platform. Unlike Direct Democracy, it is not limited in the number of Participants, their proximity, nor is it hampered by scheduling constraints.
MultiLevel Governance (MLG) – The formulation of a substitute for traditional Government, providing the efficiencies of Real-time Democrity (Democracy without the Force). (See https://www.mlgov.org/)
Tokens
Tokens play an important part in the Matrix-8 Solution, but they are not a major part of the operations for the public when it uses a Matrix-8 Platform. It is expected that thousands upon thousand of people will populate and then abandon various Matrix-8 Platforms, month to month. Most won't stick around once their particular Cause has been discussed and deliberated and the Cause Group is satisfied with the Consensus reached.
It is the people who are actively involved in promoting the Matrix-8 Solution itself who will be involved with Matrix-8's KLU Tokens (Knowledge/Leadership/Unity, pronounced, clue). It is they who will own the Mother DAO Community – because it is they who will make it up. And it will be a Meritocracy, as determined by the Community assembled in the consensus mechanism.
The same decision-making algorithm offered to the public will be the engine of Governance by the Matrix-8 DAO Community itself, and this is the primary focus of the Mother Matrix-8 Solution Cause Group
KLUs come into existence only through Donation by the Community to those specific Participants it wishes to reward for their Donations of Goods, Services, and/or Money to the Community. As with Hive and Fractally, the Participants who donate Value to the Community, will be rewarded by the Community.
But KLUs will never be sold into existence. You cannot buy a KLU from the Community – you can only be granted one. You can sell your own granted KLUs to another Community member; but, to keep the SEC at bay, KLUs can never leave the jurisdiction of the Community. (More on KLUs here). Note that the U in KLU now represents Unity – (not Understanding).
With Matrix-8
1- You come to it to join with others and do something about your Cause. At this time there is only one Cause Group, the mother platform itself, the cause being to create the system itself. Once The Matrix-8 Solution is coded and released to the general public, anyone will be able to join (or create) a Matrix-8 sub-platform (Cause Group), be it Save the Whales, Ananda Bulgaria Community Village, Happy Village Playgroup, Censorship-free Decentralised Internet, or whatever.
2- You chat in your Cause Group until your numbers make productive chatting in a Chatroom atmosphere logistically difficult.
3- You enter the Matrix-8 consensus mechanism for the Cause Group you have freely chosen to join (and can freely choose to leave at any time), and are grouped by survey into groups of 8, known as 8-PACs (8 People in Active Communication). In the 8-PACs you lose your Chatroom identity and are known only as #1, through #8. It is forbidden to disclose your bona fides from the Real World – you discuss only the data. (Meanwhile, the Chatroom discussions continue throughout the process.)
4- Over the course of multiple possible meetings (depending on the size of the group and the complexity the cause), you deliberate anonymously until a Consensus is determined, and/or a Business Plan is agreed upon and funded.
In this way, the Wisdom of the Crowds is first distilled by groups of 8 and then that distillation is shared among all the other groups of 8 until the whole group is on the same page and Consensus is reached.
This approach apperas to me to be very different from that of Fractally. Fractally's White Paper discusses what happens after the first round of voting: “After the first round, those members who rank highest are then randomly grouped into a second round.”
My attention got stuck on the word, randomly. In the Matrix-8 Solution, initially, and whenever there is a hang-up in reaching Consensus, all Participants are given a survey to determine how to group them for maximum agreement. In an on-going Deliberation, all the assigned 8-PACs are disbanded and then, the 8-PACs are reformed by survey, according to the level of Agreement among Participants. With each new generation of 8-PACs formed, the Participants will find that their peers in the new 8-PAC are much more aligned with them, and the potential for reaching a Consensus is increased.
Pareto & Fibonacci
I think installing fixed algorithms – like the Pareto or Fibonacci relationships – into the expected communications and commerce among Participants could be constrictive and counterproductive to tapping the Wisdom of the Crowds. You can educate folks about these relationships, but I think it best not to preprogram the Community to treat itself along any fixed lines. I have great confidence in Human Nature – because it's who we are! Together we'll figure it out.
Matrix-8 could be very effective in correcting for any giant anomalies in the standard 80/20 relationship of the Pareto Principle. The wildly out of balance 99/1 relationships we see in the money and power the Tech Companies have amassed relative to the average John or Jane Doe, is an excellent example of how the natural Pareto 80/20 ratio can get wildly out of whack. Another Pareto problem about to hit us will be in the dislocation AI & Robotics will create on different groups of workers in society. I think that a substantial part of the enormous wealth soon to be generated by the few in the AI & Robotics industry should be distributed to the workers who lose their jobs because of it.
Both these problems of inequity could be rebalanced with the Matrix-8 Solution. No 1% could withstand the demands for equity from the 99%.
Along these lines, I think the Fractally system could be improved by revamping its Respect allocation system. I think it would be better not to confine the decision-making to the small groups personally involved. Their vested interests could potentially interrupt rationally arrived at agreements. Since there are an infinite number of ways someone can donate to the group, it seems that expecting 5 or 6 non-statistician strangers to be effective in comparing apples to oranges is a bit optimistic.
(i realise the current main purposes of the weekly Saturday Fractally meetings, is for Testing and honing the consensus mechanism and reward distribution, and incentivising members to join - Recruitment - Atma).
By opening the discussions up via interlinking levels within the fractal (as with Matrix-8), you would minimize the impact of the vested interests of the individuals involved, and would be able to get a more objective opinion on the relative value of different contributions.
1- At the moment of Donation, the Donation should be entered into the Blockchain. It would have to be verified by at least one other.
2- Then at the end of each week (or whatever agreed upon period) the entire group gets together and reviews the recent Donations from all the specific Participants who have donated Value. Then, it allocates RESPECT / KLU's using the algorithm determined by the particular Community at that time. It can be done openly with debate about the relative Value of different types of Donations. E.g., Apples = 1.5 units, Oranges = 2 units, Asparagus = 7.4 units, etc.
3- Each deserving Participant would then get their reward according to the relative Value of their Donations – as determined by themselves and their peers.
From Fractally's White Paper: “Peer Review- At the end of each call, members can rate their experience with the other members. Members who monopolize the call by talking too much, or are combative, rude, etc. should receive a low rating. Members who are friendly, polite, courteous, and pleasant to work with should get a high ranking.”
I'm very much in agreement with Fractally about establishing what I call a Trusted Reputation score for every Participant in the system. Every time there is a group confab, each Participant should score the others. And, Anonymity is intimately wrapped up in the concept of assigning a Trusted Reputation score to the Participants in a group. You can see it discussed here.
In the Matrix-8 Solution there are two concurrent bodies of on-going discussion: the Chatroom where there may be no Anonymity; and the 8-PACs where Anonymity is insisted upon. I think that not only should Voting be anonymous, but that the general Deliberations prior to voting should be anonymous also. It washes away all the Real World status, and allows for focus on the Data. But if some Cause Group wants to dispense with Anonymity in the 8-PACs – they are free to do so.
The successful destabilizations caused by Bitcoin have opened the door to a new era. Disruption via Distribution! is the banner leading the way. I think this is the basic goal of Fractally, the Matrix-8 Solution, Aragon, and many other projects out there. (Compare the goals of the folks from the Greater Reset and Zion and other groups rising up against the Powers that Shouldn't Be.)
The crazier our 1% Rulers get, the easier it is for us to recognize our 99% common cause with each other. To determine how best to utilize our numbers, it might be a good idea to start a project to align as many other groups out there as possible into a giant Cause Group. Then, together we can take back our Power, and mold society to better fit our Human Nature.
We will replace the current Top-down Power Structures with Bottom-up Power Structures. We will return to the days when the Sovereignty of the Individual took precedence over the Power of the Group.
It doesn't matter whether it's called Fractally, the Matrix-8 Solution, or by some other name – we just need to get it done, and soon!
Further discussion by way of comments below, within the Fractally Genesis Community and/or in the Matrix-8 Telegram Group are invited and very welcome (and may result in RESPECT and KLU rewards).
Sat Nam
Atma & John
Rewards on this post are shared 50/50 between myself and
Would you like to earn some free crypto & have some fun & help save the world while doing so?
If so:
Join Fractally and start earning $RESPECT
https://genesis.gofractally.com/share/P3y08N-PpNgcxJQh
and
Join The Matrix-8 Solution General Discussion + Q & A's Group on Telegram and start pre-mining $KLU https://t.me/+U6NwI1Zw3Z_F-Jja
#teamuk #proofofbrain #palnet #matrix8 #PGM #OneUp #m8s #matrix8fixesthis #thoughtfuldailypost #communitygovernance #decentralisedgovernance #lotus
