tyaga.org

I have just uploaded a browser-compatible presentation - The NASDAQ of Independent Currency Brands -using Eric Meyer’s S5 system. I also tried Slidy and DOMslides, but eventually found S5 to be simpler to use. The new presentation has only 18 slides and gives what I think is the best overview so far of the satconomy framework and implementation. Even though there is no audio on the slides, a lot of the bullet points are self-explanatory. So please take a look and enjoy the presentation.

I have uploaded a bunch of documents here. I don’t really want to spend too much time polishing the documents, as I am in the middle of developing an interactive demonstration for all the implementation project examples on this site. I have high hopes that the interactive demo, once active, will really clarify how everything fits together in the satconomy framework.

The Prowl implementation example has been revised to comply with the slightly extended version (see Prowl specs in the docs folder.) It shows an example for each of the three query strings that should greatly simplify the automation of inter-entity ledger reconciliation. The source code for the example is also available in the linked page.

I have updated the ledger based on my recent currency inflow and outflow activity. While I still believe that my live demonstration of an open web ledger is a good start, I just realized that as a contract worker, my revenue stream and expenses occur in spikes, rather as a continous stream. I get a check about once a month, and I also spend in bulk, such as transfers to personal accounts, office puchases and irs estimated taxes. My business activity is not like a store or restaurant that could register highly dynamic inflow or outflow updates to the ledger, so it still looks inactive even with the TDS accounts tracking. I am still learning how to design a more dynamic small-scale implementation example.

The Prowl protocol documentation is coming along; it will be about 6 pages with generous spacing, so nothing overly technical. Just trying to arrive at a web ledger query syntax that is clear and simple to use. I have also modified the basis of the acronym to Pull-Reconciliation of Open Web Ledgers, since the “peer-to-peer” aspect might be confusing under certain interpretations. I originally meant p2p to be non-arbitrated interaction between two ledgers that have interchangeable server-client roles. But “Pull-Reconciliation” is still a more accurate description.

Lastly, I am seriously considering taking a 6-week break from contract work to spend more time on documentation and online examples during 3Q. It has been a struggle to arrive at appropriate language to describe what I am trying to do, but I think I may have found a good model to emulate and use in explanations. More on that when the documents get done.

Since the beginning of the year, I have concentrated on using implementation examples to explain the various components of the satconomy framework. I hoped that through these demonstrations, a more complete picture would emerge in the reader’s mind, showing how the various pieces relate to each other. Of course, the satconomy.org site also discusses the framework’s conceptual bases, but I have always felt that observable practice is always more effective than verbally communicating abstract ideas.

I still feel that way, but at this point, I also see the need to supplement the simple implementation examples with more definite guidelines and specifications. So, I am now in the middle of drafting documents to address this perceived need. Whereas before I thought it would be counter-productive to create specifications that might narrow the appeal of the satconomy framework, I have since realized that there are ways to draft highly flexible guidelines and specifications that broadens the framework’s inclusiveness to diverse technology platforms. I liken this approach to using the minimalist protocols that gave birth to the ‘world wide web’, as explained by Tim Berners-Lee in his book “Weaving The Web”.

The specifications will cover the basic features that must be offered by accounting systems, transaction processing and publishing/reporting mechanisms in order to comply with framework implementation requirements. Using the specification documents and online examples as guidelines, each system component or module could be independently developed on its own. Specifications-compliant components would then be assured of compatibility with each other, facilitating the implementation of a robust system from readily available applications.

Come to think of it, there are some similarities between this approach of developing independent software components and the establishment of independent currency brands. Both conceptual frameworks encourage independence while offering a way for the independent pieces to work with each other. Software components offer specific services outputs which are used as inputs by other components, which is basically the same concept behind inter-entity market trades. Another similarity is that whereas software development is expected to be self-regulating against open specifications, entity and brand establishment is expected to be self-regulating against public opinion within a satconomy framework. In both cases, it is expected that the transparency and diversity of interacting components or brands will enhance framework adoption and robustness.

In previous posts, I have highlighted the efforts of an activist group and an institute-type entity that could potentially become independent currency issuers. This time, I would like to focus on the activities represented by the PSPad brand. (Note: There is no direct relation between the tyaga.org and PSPad brands other than the latter’s text editor being used by the former for coding projects.)

Based on its voluntary donation system, it may be safely assumed that the PSPad text editor was created out of self-determined purpose and effort. That is, in reading through the PSPad web pages, especially in the donation page, the reader could get a sense that the author was not externally coerced to do the project, in the same way that there is no obligation for a user to pay for the software. Of course, there must have been various incentives for the author to start on the endeavor, but I doubt that the incentives involved guaranteed material rewards. The fact that self-determined obligation, in itself, could result in a high quality product, such as the PSPad text editor, is evidence of entity specialization, mission statements and goals as bases for currency unit creation.

But there is another aspect that makes PSPad a good candidate for becoming a potential currency issuing entity within a satconomy framework. Upon scrolling down PSPad’s donation page, the reader will find currency inflow entries in units of US$. So besides tyaga.org, there is at least one other market entity on the internet that publishes a publicly auditable, open ledger. I’m sure there are more examples that I could reference, and sometime this year, the website that I’m working on for a nonprofit would belong in those examples. However, I should also point out that tyaga.org’s ledger demonstration also includes published currency outflow (in addition to inflow) while also offering a facilitated mechanism for public audits and automatic reconciliation of inflow/outflow between different sites.

As always, I accept that not everyone is ready to experiment with alternative systems, especially at this point when there is a dearth of tools that would facilitate the early adoption of such systems. Hopefully, tyaga.org will be able to offer more guidelines and products soon to encourage voluntary participation in the satconomy framework. With enough luck and effort, maybe tyaga.org would establish itself as a reputable brand, just like PSPad has done with its brand of text editor.