Paying AVAttention to Token Teleonomy — rewarding network effects

“Tokens bring with them powerful network effects that reward participants relative to their stage of adoption, the value they contribute and the risk they bear in an auditable and trustful way.”

say the crypto-experts of Outlier Ventures.

As I have argued elsewhere — I am of the opinion that the #AVA platform (of platforms) is an evolution of consensus protocols not merely a revolution of social/technical engineering. Main Network AVA Launch 2020 will permit both validators and transactors, as well venture capitalists and all comers, to adapt by tolerating the margin the engine widens through time not by cutting and moving the placements adopted to other technical resolutions through bifurcation and dissemble-able assembly otherwise known as forking in space.

The first official public code release Bo-real-is is made with two snow protocols (a linear chain and a DAG). The ways of combining them entail a totally different kind of user extraface ( not an interface) that one can shape and form. While it is practical to “reward” participants it is rather the participation sensu stricto that re-wards ( guards or protects) the sovereign itself, as in the archaic meaning of the word. The ward(user) is the ward(place) that is it’s own ward (elected vote-able councilor). Thus there is no evolutionary division into “stages of adoption” but rather different recursive kinematics that interact into a creative dynamics that is molded from the margins, flowing simply by and through its historical relation to past means of reaching consensus.

Once the 2020 mainnet is functional, most of the back variable criticisms from its ancestry will find clarity through reduction of this chaos as state transitions are pruned and social networks themselves re-horizon with the generalized plane of the network decentralization spreading now and then across the globe. Each stage in the evolution will continue just as nature’s primitive lineages do — like coelacanths surviving along with teleosts and sharks. It is just that the evolution evolving transfers less horizontally across systems than can be imagined. The complaints arise largely by failure to appreciate that crypto has moved beyond the bacterial stage. This is what network effects can do through business plans that introduce switching costs as described by:

It is not the ward that bears the risk but the plan that decides the cost.

Native AVA tokens are more than akin to data packets, they are the data teleonomized and teleologized while not being the teleomatic inbetween. Let me explain. The latter concept is relegated to the Main Network. This is what makes AVA an evolution and not a revolution. The terms teleonomy and teleology were revised by Ernst Mayr in 1992 while attempting to understand how biology used and relates to teleology. POS AVA blockchain technology possess teleological ends and means through it’s social and economic goals and directions but intentional switching-cost-affects are programmable teleonomics that while tolerated by the AVA Main Network, expands who benefits and thus who trusts what.

This is done by engineered architecture of the AVA main engine teleomatically ( in a law like but probabilistic way). Teleomatic processes are ergodic processes in physical nature. This is what AVALabs is staying on the forefront of with its “frontier of the accepted.”

While one does not want to introduce teleological language into biology one definitely wants to anthropomorphize blockchain.

The plurivocal ward thus is the end that is the cause. It is teleological. This choice remains with the individual as participant and as voting councilor thus is both bottom up and top down in the same instance incidentally. Switch costs can be confined to wardly adjustable placements and to mechanically providing the voting means of those places. Thus it is the consumer that benefits from the investors and creator’s constitutive relation(s) to&(of) the Main AVA Network. The individual regulates behavior at will instead and rather than doing it in a network that remained random /unstructured subject to raw competition past, the cooperation gain-said, that the network circulating, effects, results as transversalities (technical term in topology) accumulate. Economics and ecologics are one oikos when the switching costs to the past are higher than remaining within the present circulation. Creating this re-cycling is the engineering of the cost switch and is defensible in more ways than one.

AvaLabs’ official products are doing something outlined for biology to do but were not.

Mayr wrote: “Teleonomic processes are in conflict with causality because future goals cannot direct current events. This objection, frequently raised by physicalists, is due to their failure to apply the concept of program, a concept not existing in the classical framework of physicalist concepts and theories”

What the Snow protocols mean effectively and temporally (and soon spatially)beyond Nakamoto and Classical consensus’ ends is that the Main Network— Layer One - is programmable. This provides the subnetworks with the teleonomy that comes from it’s engine and architecture — here as a POS. And when combined with the future as a teleological end desired by the user, the business plan that programs in the defensible cost to switch, can make that telomatic law that expands the main net to society achieve bounded tolerance by any and with all returners.

What this does after all is to expand the notion of the technology with respect to the user experience and it does this as the telomatic is engineered in analogue with physical process statistics. This is why I called it an extraface rather than a UI (User interface). Also this is what I had had in mind with discussing a digital asset sorter inbetween— but the reach is much further than mere physical manipulation of future work. Let’s do it today.

This bring a new denotation to the words , “wards of the state.” This will expand quite considerably if I am additionally correct that Linus Pauling held back the engineerable forces in biochemistry — as if we were to push the POW -POS debate beyond state machine transitions in which it resides just now. This would enable all kinds of new technobiology of blockchain teleomatics through synthetically programmable technobiology uniting blockchains and biology.

“Crypto projects seek to create defensibility via network effects that allow for fee streams and make users reluctant to switch to a competing service.”

I shall show now , again in specific terms, how to create fee streams for an (AVNA) AVA dog dna Veterinary Network Application. The competing service is the existing market driven economics of the dog poop DNA Marketplace. There was an attempt early on by Cedric Moses to expand the marketplace but the power of centralization won out and appears to be consolidating this defined economy towards one company. As best I can research there are only two companies ( Poo Prints and Mr. Dog Poop) with one dominating let’s say 90% of the market. AVNA establishes the network proposed Cedric ( to include poop scoopers which was also the original domain of Mr. Dog Poop’s business plan) and expands it terminally by adding a totally new class of employer and employee de novo laterally . It loops back to ancestral participants in the classical market and forward onward to the most distal addition in line with the extension.

Connecting the arrows diagrammed above creates the fee path that establishes the basis for a fee stream. The ward does this. AVA is open source and class creation is associated with this property. The open source libraries enable each member of this class — as recycling center operators- to make and expand the subnetwork service amongst themselves as supported by the total AVA network. This subnetwork growth property is however under regulated expansion ( as a variable cap asset) allowing each recycling center to mint new coins depending on the very specific contribution they have towards connecting the arrows back to the past and into the future.

This is not a kinematic of the main AVA chain but the internal dynamic of the subnetwork. Thus the recycling center community will be able capture value by developing code via regulated competition with the goal of being the placement ward for the for-ward choices that are being made independently and voted on by the multiplicity of the participants. The lab of the future creates directionality and establishes the governance bifurcations that the voting comes onto by means of finding new ways to bring in new capital and connect to other AVAsubnetworks outside those being grown by the recycling center subnetwork.

AVALabs thus has an engine that if properly configured into the subnetworks economics and tokenomics can self organize and grow the tech into larger and larger economies, provided the smart contracts are functionally open — lambda calculus enables one to do this with functionally typed languages. This means that the initial recycling center subnetwork may include say an OCaml virtual machine — but this may be put as something for later implementation , once the future pharma stream potentials are clearly defined and described.

One can imagine that the existing companies, especially Pet CIS and Mr. Dog Poop, may be transitioned into this structure but is more likely that they will not be interested in adapting their business plans to the new activity model and thus they, including Poo Prints will be marginalized as the new crypto switch model gains participants churned by keeping the costs less than those in the existing marketplace. This is accomplished by initially expanding the back arrow connections at a faster rate than the forward expanding ones.

Thus the application of AVA AVNA will fullfill either a competitive supplantive change or a simple voluntary switch of “good money” ahead of “bad money” in the words of John Nash as described in “Ideal Money” —’ “good money” will not naturally supplant and replace “bad money” by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies.’

Smart Contracts need to be built into both possibilities — Once the lower limit directed expansion is found to either equilibrate the subnetwork and mature the new crypto economy (if the legacy economy continues to compete than adapt) or exponentiate the stable new crypto system into the future (by using the back flow flux hooked to the lateral external connectibilites) .

There is thus a general stress -strain relation between the minting of new coins by the recycling centers and need to keep the coinage scarce on the periphery of integration with external social communities. This has an analog on the main net and thus if implemented in the smart contracts will develop by connections to the main AVA network by recycling center validators becoming archivalists. The risk that users have is thus not linked to auditable functionality but rather to this relation of minting and scarcity as this effects the exposure of the somewhat permissioned AVNA subnetworks relation to fluctuations in the financial market in general.

It may be possible that the AVNA coin should be exchanged for fiat and other coins in the future but because it stores value this value is only in the continued circulation of the marketplace under change. If it could be proved mathematically what this minimal circulation the recycling centers need to circulate, then one could show how much of the flux may be sustainably and stably expounded to exchange. Any math people out there?

Ava subnetworks ecologically are thus not start ups nor ventures — they are smart contract type functionalities of indeterminate extensibility — They do not seek product market fit but rather educt-reduct fit — they fit in the AVAmain eductions and reductions of the external social economics. The market is left to itself. AVALabs is only enduring the criticism of the past back critics because they seek to enter this space that they are not structure d to be able to enter. There is no such thing as token gravity here. That is an analogy to physics when the proper analogy is to biology — at least for this AVAsubnetwork manifestation.

“A decentralized application (dApp) is one where there is no single authority that maintains the state and processes transactions.” The physical teleomatic however remains with main (AVAPCX) chain while it is programmability that dominates in the subnetworks but in a potential diversity of different ways than that proceeding actually in Ethereum 2.0. So while some critics have thought that the restraint coming from the AVA main network seems like a detriment to dApp devs developing and general computing in particular, it is actually an advantage as it horizons societal vantage points through stochasticity determinate rather than a completely random sample differentiate.

The reason the token gravity does not work here is that the tokens both move and divide — gravity is a metric but AVA native tokens are a contained but variable connectable topology. The likelihood and frequency of transactions are controlled by the wards and societies they find themselves in. Thus the frequency of transactions are independent of the structure of the new blockchain “systematics” that is a “phylogeny” from the past not a n engineerable /negotiable cladistics of computer coding techniques. It is the fish’s liquid that makes it’s liquidity not the other way around. This is governable as well. This amount of liquidity may be less than desired by some investors but it is moving irreversibly in space no matter what.

AS in Computer Science and BS in Biology from Cornell University. Interested in evolution and blockchains