Joi, I’m struck by this idea and the idea that currencies are potentially cancerous. Currency, as a metaphor, has at least two meanings. It’s a medium for exchange of value, as another of your commenters has pointed out, but it’s also a way of keeping score. You’re rich, therefore you’re thriving in an environment and we should optimize towards doing things the way you’re doing them. You rightly point out that this is a view that leads to shallow optima and fragile systems, rather than the robust, resilient and complex ones you want. As we head in that direction, you may need a currency - as scorekeeping mechanism - that rewards resiliency. It’s hard for people to optimize for something they don’t know how to track - how do we measure the resiliency of systems and celebrate them in a way like the ways we currently celebrate currencies of money and power?
‘It’s hard for people to optimize for something they don’t know how to track’
maybe that’s part of the cancer
How about changing the definition of the value given to that currency? The currency doesn't need to be changed, but perhaps it can be resignified. We would be modifying the third function of money, which is being a unit of value, so what if every unit of that currency now implies that a good or a service was obtained using concepts described in this manifesto such as participant design, diversity; or resiliency? that is, ensuring less value is given to outputs of systems that are less interconnected or that operate at the expense of other systems. In this case we enter the politics dimension in which this currency exchange needs to be regulated, idea that might not be welcome, let alone approved by those who celebrate currencies of money and power.