Markets are sub-optimal

This is just the beginning of a fresh reflection on markets.

instigage

In early interactions with Michel Bauwens I was a defendant of the market, arguing that the market will persist in a p2p society, in a predominant form. [provide reference of that].

Later, I realized that the p2p economy, especially with the push based on blockchain, and drawing from our experience with the 4thSector concept, I realized that p2p was developing beyond the influence of the state and outside of markets. The open culture was producing commons, Linux is not a product. Moreover, Bitcoin has been created in such way that it cannot be easily destroyed by the state. Increasingly, I started to think that in a p2p society the market will only play a minor role.

To that, I also add another tangent to this discussion, which is the lesser role that monetary currency will take in a p2p society, and that's influence from Arth Brock, from his with his Metacurrency project and the concept of current-see, a generalization of currency.the notion of.

First argument, markets seem to be sub-optimal because they reduce all the possible arrangements to exchanges, which are reciprocal transactions between two agents, where an asset goes one way and another, usually money, goes the other way. The transaction is complete when both agents have received their respective assets, otherwise the transaction is considered incomplete, in which case it can be reversed or litigated.

NOTE: Talk to hREA people about how they model market transactions.

p2p allows for other arrangements to occur among agents, some of these being many-to-many, not limited to one-to-one.

Supply and demand, rest on scarcity. pools of shareables provide abundance, because make assets more fluid, easily available. Moreover, Linux is not a scarce product, supply is infinite, demand is what it is. the law does not apply.