The studies showed that contrary to financial theory, financial value is not the only thing that investors seek. They are also motivated by, among other things, the positive emotions that they experience from trading, such as enjoyment, thrills, and excitement, as well as by how investing activities contribute to their self-esteem and image toward others. In other words, the economic activity of investing is also a consumable good in itself, like a game or a sport
CCP Games has a unique approach to player interest aggregation. Every twelve months, EVE's half a million players elect from among themselves a Council of Stellar Management that represents the views of the players to CCP. This fourteenmember council is empowered to bring players' wishes and grievances directly to the developers' attention through special online channels and regular physical meetings. To get their voice heard, individual players can petition council members on a forum provided for the purpose, support the election of candidates who share their views, and stand for election themselves. A degree of party politics based around in-game alliances also takes place. CCP gives the council credibility by showing that it takes its recommendations into account in its decision making, and also supports the council financially by flying its members to Reykjavik, Iceland, for physical meetings. The minutes of the meetings between the Council of Stellar Management and CCP are public.
"Swiss dinar" banknotes continued to be used as a currency in the Kurdish regions of post-Gulf War Iraq even after the government officially renounced them. The value of the notes was upheld purely by a collective belief in their value. This can be called communityfiat money.
In the massively multiplayer online game Ultima Online, gold was not scarce at all. Because of bugs, it at one point existed in such abundance that it lost all its value. Instead, one of the most highly valued substances in the system came to be something brown and decidedly nonshiny. When they created the game world, the developers had placed a handful of horse dung in the stables, presumably in order to enhance the atmosphere. But because they did not provide virtual horses with the ability to produce any more of the substance, its supply was absolutely limited. Players noticed this and quickly grabbed the rare nuggets as souvenirs. A professional virtual goods dealer estimated that at one point, there existed only a single lump of horse dung per 30,000 players. According to the dealer, "Owning one of these was a status symbol, akin to owning a diamond in the real world." The lucky owners would proudly display the cakes at prominent spots inside their castles and be the envy of the social circles. Nuggets were also traded between players for the equivalent of hundreds of dollars in in-game money.
Team Fortress 2's publisher, Valve, uses rationing; it asks players to use fewer than 800 polygons for hat designs and 8,000 or under for weapons. The problem with rationing is that every design, no matter how superb or worthless, is allocated the same amount of resources. This is not an optimal allocation. The game experience would be better if good designers had more polygons at their disposal and bad ones fewer.
In many cases, the primary purpose of a virtual economy is not even to earn revenues directly, but something more subtle yet equally powerful: to attract, hold, and manage attention; to reward referrals and incentivize contributions; to allocate resources; to lock users into a platform or to guide them around it
In the digital world, things seem different. Bits are not scarce: information can be duplicated indefinitely. Instead of choosing which of two music albums to buy, you can simply download both and share them with your friends. Because there is no need to choose, there is no need for economics. The dynamics of online interactions are sufficiently explained with concepts such as status and identity, which are the domain of sociology and psychology. In the digital world, a set of resources coupled with interactions is not called an economy but a community
If electronic technology continued to advance, and that seemed certain, two-hundred year old banking oligopolies controlling the custody, loan, and exchange of money would be irrecoverably shattered. Nation-state monopolies on the issuance and control of currency would erode. It mattered little that traditional banks or government might be the settlers of last resort-the ultimate handlers of huge, accumulated transfers of monetary value. The vast preponderance of the system would fall to those who were most adept at handling and guaranteeing alphanumeric value data in the form of arranged particles of energy.
Content can be made available for anyone to read and consume, but that doesn't mean it needs to be open for anyone to participate. Much of the fatigue that open source developers experience comes not from making their code public but from expectations around making their code participatory.
. In open source, we might imagine that anybody is welcome to read community mailing lists, issues, pull requests, and chat logs, but further participation requires the approval of existing developers (or, in some cases, paying for "write access").
Write access for the CODE of most projects is already limited to maintainers. It’s interesting to imagine what life would be like if write access to the rest of the project (issues, forums, etc) were limited as well.
(This makes some sense—the code is viewed the most sacred part of the project. But it looks like an argument can be made that it’s actually maintainer attention that is the most precious aspect of any project.)
Extractive contributions are those where the marginal cost of reviewing and merging that contribution is greater than the marginal benefit to the project's producers. In the case of a code contribution, it might be a pull request that's too complex or unwieldy to review, given the potential upside. Or it might be an enthusiastic user who wants to organize a community event that requires more resources from the project's developers than it's worth. The most common forms of extractive contributions are comments, questions, and feature requests.
I have concluded that Visa is deeply threatening because it represents just such a basic innovation, and that is why it is impossible for the mainstream business mind-set to confront... How could it have no stockholders-and be owned by its members? How could it be organized as a network with little central authority-with member rights and responsibilities of participation rather than stock, and governed by a constitution, more like a democratic society than a business?
A highly successful black friend who has held senior roles in government told us how shocked he was when his white fiancée threw away her receipt as they left a New York City department store. "What are you doing?" our friend asked her. He would never toss a receipt for fear of being accused of shoplifting. She didn't understand what he was upset about, for she couldn't imagine herself being accused in that way.
The implant allows a person control over her basic emotions: fear, disgust, joy, excitement, love. It's mandatory for law enforcement officers, a way to minimize the effects of emotions on life-or-death decisions, a way to eliminate prejudice and irrationality.
if digital computers had been in common use before the atomic bomb was invented, people would have said that the bomb could not have been invented without computers. But it was. And it is important to remind ourselves of how many things are quite possible to do without the use of computers.