Author Archives: Futures Broker

The Wearable QR Code

Posted on by

Tiered-membership access to random people.

The QR code be present overtly or covertly or in-between:

  • Big and bold on your t-shirt – along with the brand name of the app
  • Subtle on your t-shirt, like a logo in the upper corner
  • A card in your wallet/purse/bag
  • Tattooed on your thigh

The QR code will take you to a website to sign up, or to the app if it is already installed. Sign up needs to be very quick and easy. Compliance aspects can be done later.

When someone uses the app to connect with you, they get the opportunity to see your About, and to Follow you on the socials. Also previews to any paid content. If they are new to the app, these are pending until you complete registration.

They can also apply to get greater levels of access. Like your email, friend you on Socials, your OnlyFans, your phone number.

The recipient of the requests gets the time and location where you met, and optionally a selfie taken at that time of the two of you. Possibly, requests are ignored unless a photo with you in it, time and geo-stamped with where you were, is included.

The Why: this has been attempted many times before, the meet and connect app. It has never taken off because it needs the momentum of everyone having the app installed first.

The Name: It needs to emphasise how quick and easy it is to connect. Something like Quix. Or EzyMeet. Quix.io is available.

Autonomous Powered Vehicles

Posted on by

Imagine if your car simply ran, without adding fuel or charging it?

I don’t think this will happen, but boats are different, because they are on water, and water can become hydrogen.

Combining two forms of sustainable energy into one range-extending propulsion system, Swiss Sustainable Yachts’ clean, quiet catamaran promises to jumpstart a future in which the word “range” becomes obsolete. The 64-footer harnesses solar energy to create its own hydrogen, powering a fuel cell-electric drive to potentially limitless autonomy, so long as the sun is shining and the captain isn’t pushing past cruising speed. 
https://newatlas.com/marine/aquon-one-solar-hydrogen-yacht/

The article goes on to say:

The idea of relying on sunlight to create electricity, to power hydrogen conversion, to again create electricity for propulsion sounds rather inefficient on its face, and we have doubts as to whether the Aquon One will be able to produce hydrogen as effectively as billed or obtain anything near “limitless” range. 

I tend to agree but what if it is better?

We already have solar-powered boats but this could be next level.

If it does work, and of course efficiencies can be improved, how can this be used on land?

We could park our cars in a lake… Or of course use tap water. So instead of going to a charging station for our hydrogen, we can make it ourselves. That isn’t autonomous though. So here’s an idea – canals. Maybe just to replace trucks, but with the added benefit of delivering water to places that need it in our warming world.

A New Movie/TV Awards

Posted on by

The Golden Globes are dead. Until recently, fewer than 100 people, all white and who could receive gifts, decided things. But we are used to a certain amount of ceremonies… so how to fill the gap with something more than 100 voters, and less than TV Week?

We can avoid rigged voting by copying Amazon – verified purchasers.

One day, there will be a single platform to buy all filmed entertainment, and it will be easy.

For now… The Streaming Awards

Every streaming platform goes well beyond the current thumbs up/down, and they use the same methodology:

  • Rate on a scale of 1 to 10
  • You can change you ratings at any time
  • You can rate actors, director, screenplay etc – if you want

That’s it. Simple.

Viewing is verified. Voting on the more technical categories will be decided by people who know what those categories entail (maybe tick a box acknowledging the criteria) and who can be bothered. That alone ensures qualified votes.

But because data

Beyond the award ceremony is the online results. And it can be very specific, like favorite actor in Chile, or most popular reality show for women over 55+. Marketing bonanza!

You can even have awards for the most divisive.

Easy to start!

You don’t need all the platforms on board to begin. Netflix can start it, and after the first awards, the rest will want in.

Cheap to start!

Just some coding.

But the ceremony, how can we fix that???

Award ceremonies are stale. It could be more like election coverage, where data experts point out interesting data sets.

It could be online first (streaming services), broken into segments (overall, acting, tech) and free-to-air soon after featuring the parts that got the most thumbs up – a highlights reel. People recently watched an 8 hour Beatles doco…

Speeches need to remain. But you need to be good to make the highlights package.

Clips from the shows are important, but they can be interspersed with comments from “unimportant” crew members who are part of the big picture. There could even be an unheralded award.

The audience needs fixing. Put regular viewers in amongst the stars? (hmmm risky). The seating is from a draw, forcing famous people to sit next to famous people they might not know? A stadium where anyone who worked on any nominated show can attend? Stars sit with their extended family?

Presenters need fixing. Throw in a few regular industry people. One or two will be interesting, add breadth.

Prizes. Give them a cash prize. Same amount for every category. We are told who the winner gives their prize to. We can learn more online. The winner is not to mention their cause otherwise. No more using the awards as a cause platform in speeches.

Ponzi Scheme Squared

Posted on by

We all know what a Ponzi scheme is..

Not even really a scheme: promise people riches, and more riches if they don’t withdraw. Those who do withdraw, pay them from the new punters. It is so simple and easy that it prints money. No need for anything more complex?

What if the new players for your scheme were all fictitious people from another scheme?

Here’s how it could work:

Invent something so stupid it kinda makes sense if people buy it – like pet rocks
People don’t buy it but you falsify sales records
(everybody in the business is in on this…)
Based on amazing online sales you open some flagstaff physical stores, which also perform “brilliantly”.
(also, you own all the land immediately around the new stores)

Because the business, and the stores, are all so amazing, people build homes there. At prices suited to the amazingness.

So fake people pay fake rent to shop at fake stores paying fake rent because they are next to the amazing business that everyone apparently loves but nobody actually does. They lied.

Each on their own don’t appear to be overly valued, because its like 10% different to normal. But when you multiply a 10% gain by 10 and then by 10, you are making 10X as much.

So then you sell. For 10x more (maybe more like 5x) than you paid. Sell everything, quietly, unannounced, the same day.

You walk away. All the companies that owned the layers of the scam, go bankrupt and the principals were not real people.

OK I guess I got carried away, but the principle is sound. Multi-level ponzi. The shape will depend on the industry.

 

 

 

Limit the Size of Social Networks

Posted on by

Wearing my other hat I am a big advocate of customer-owned businesses over at Unism

Facebook has done studies asking users if they would pay for an ad free service.

Globally Facebook makes less that $10 per user annually. So I expect they would charge the same or less as streaming services like Spotify. I think a large percentage of users are so hooked they would happily pay…

…So when we say no social network can have more than 30% of the population as users, the only way they (FB) can limit the numbers is by increasing the cost of participating.

Such a rule will decrease the power the social networks have over free speech, increase competition, make people feel more proud of how they made a choice, and increase the chances of customer-owned services.

NEGATIVE: It will become unlikely that everyone you wish to socialise with online are on the same platform.

BUT: There is nothing stopping a service existing that can control all of your social networks and contacts and aggregate everything. And then we become more service agnostic.

CCTV Density

Posted on by

Government CCTV cameras are seen as many to be an intrusion and open to misuse.

Yet private CCTV, because it is so decentralised, is of a benefit to society. Whether it is stationed at a business or home, such footage is often used for solving crimes.

In theory less crime happens when people know they could be filmed. Yet for street crimes, is is not obvious to the perpetrator that they are being watched.

We should resurrect Neighbourhood Watch for the digital age. There are many ways to do this, but my focus here is the safety of women walking home alone at night. While actual crimes towards these people tend to be low in many advanced nations, the fear is especially harmful.

IDEA: Signs on lampposts (spray painted with a recognisable, repeated style) that indicate the street has a medium or high density of CCTV cameras. 

That’s all. Individual cameras aren’t acknowledged. For it to work, the information needs to be honest – marking every street, regardless of impact, loses impact.

My belief is that a perp who is trailing a woman cannot help but notice the signs and reconsider their intentions.

While hoods can hide facial features, technology will soon be able to spot other recognisable features, like height and gait.

Charity_Coin / Crypto Idea

Posted on by

All cryptocurrency is magically created from thin air, one way or another. It can be created via proof of work, or bought based on some future use you believe in. But it isn’t physical and making anything digital is essentially free.

We also have stablecoins, which are (if it isn’t a scam) backed by real money and aligned with a currency and serve no meaningful advantage over cash.

Either way, everybody wants to profit from crypto, or at the very least break even and get some functionality. But what if we seeded a cryptocurrency by giving it to a charity?

Charities of course already receive donations, so all we are changing is the format. I give the crypto service $100 cash, the money gets banked somewhere, and the charity gets 100 Charity Coins.

The charity can then spend it anywhere that accepts it, so we need merchants on board who charities usually spend with. And then wherever those merchants spend money, encourage them to accept it.

This seeds the cryptocurrency, which can circulate forever, or be redeemed for cash. That redemption would be 98% or something to cover costs and encourage circulation.

You can also buy Charity Coin directly from the exchange, and get 100 coins for $110. That 10% goes to all the involved charities on a pro-rata basis, determined by the amount of donations they receive.

But here’s the thing – charity money is cool. When you pay in Charity Coin, indirectly you are supporting it & promoting it, which makes you look good, and benefits the charities. Nobody knows if you bought it (giving 10% to charity) or received it from someone.

Because crypto can be tracked (anonymously). we can see how the donation not only helps the charity, but circulates throughout society. This will provide empirical evidence of how putting money into the economy stimulates it. And then governments can use that data to base their spending on. By actually knowing that $1 put into the economy increases the GDP by $5, or whatever. So the government could manage this, in return for the data.

And… it can be used for charity accountability, if we can see where they spend their coins.

To remove barriers to acceptance, the coin needs to be acceptable through existing payment mechanisms. The best/easiest way is via a bank or government operating it. Governments can mandate it, or a bank can call it a featue. Banks do give a lot to charity anyway, so this could be an extension of that.

An Anarchy Option for the Disgruntled

Posted on by

I write a fair bit about various Universal Basic Income ideas, and we have had a lot of protests lately about pandemic lockdowns and vaccines, especially in Australia where I live.

Society is an aggregated agreement on a balance between individual needs/desires, and what is good for overall population. For example, we pay taxes so the elderly and unwell can be looked after. In terms of the pandemic, a vaccine jab helps yourself and others, as does lockdowns.

The rebels against such measures could be described as selfish – they only are about themselves, and don’t get that “we are all in this together”.

Or they could be smarter than all of us, but what I am suggesting here is a governmental solution…

All we need is the most barren land in the country, the most worthless and unwanted, and call it Anarchy state, or Anarchy district.

Make it free from all infrastructure, have no policing, no hospitals, no sanitation.

Tell people, if you don’t want to play along with society, you can leave, you can go to Anarchy.

A Universal Basic Income has a parallel idea called Universal Basic Services (you provide the services, instead of the money for the services). Money would have no use (initially) in Anarchy, and people would argue that Anarchy doesn’t have the food/water/shelter than people need. So we provide each person who goes there with a tent, shoes and clothes (they get replacements each year), and weekly drop-offs of water and the most basic of food. They won’t be paying any taxes in Anarchy, but the supplies are what they may have “earned” from being in society before now.

What is provided can be adjusted if it actually becomes appealing to anyone. But the expectation is that nobody goes there. And that’s the point – to help people understand what society provides for them, and how it is a communal effort. 

Such a concept will never work, and is perhaps dangerous, leading to a more authoritarian state (accept your lot or leave).

So it needs to be in disguise. Another modern economic idea is guaranteed work. Whenever unemployment gets too high, the government creates jobs. Maybe real, maybe not much use, but jobs.

Anarchy (probably rename it) can be a hybrid place, with minimum facilities but guaranteed work, presumably labour-intensive. Perhaps greening the deserts of Australia.

The official line is this – if you are desperate, we have some jobs in greening Australia camps, in the desert. Such operations are not profitable, so infrastructure will be limited. No cinemas, no beaches, no shops etc. Food/water/shelter will be supplied, with a wage on top, so anyone will profit from being there. But because of the limited services, and in recognition of that (that’s the key) there will be no taxes, no health mandates, no drug or alcohol laws, no child support payments, and perhaps no extradition for crimes of a certain low level.

It would need a low level of policing (again, we don’t want this place to be appealing) and healthcare.

Nobody will be forced to go there, it can only be a choice. And for some people it would be a positive change. We could throw in some training or make it some kind of Army Reserve.

But ultimately in means that people who don’t like how society is working for them, has options and recognises the downsides they embody.

Context Calls

Posted on by

I’m trying to imagine personal communications of the future.

We’ve gone through letters, telegrams, phones, mobile phones, instant messaging, texting, and now social messaging, including ones that disappear, images and videos.

So far, it has all revolved around content. We have discovered we prefer anything but actually talking to each other. Video calls haven’t taken off much, outside of work, which is almost like a proof of work for WFH folk.

Content type might vary as time goes by, but there won’t be any new forms of content that are commonly shared. The next innovation will be context. 

That means where/who/when/why/how all become factors in how the conversation occurs and what it contains. This also means a lot of permission systems in play. Every contact will have levels of they can/cannot know about you, from nothing for a complete stranger to everything (?) for an intimate partner.

Examples:

From 10pm to 6am only calls from certain people will get through. The rest get a message that you are unavailable. It could also be tied into your health app that knows when you are actually asleep.

If your phone knows you are in a cinema, it automatically goes into silent mode, and only accepts calls from certain people.

If you are in close proximity to your wife, the call from your lover won’t get through.

Certain people can check what is happening in your world before calling. On a run, at a rock concert, having a meeting with the big boss. They know not to call you, and why, and have an estimate of when it will end.

When you have an arranged meeting with someone, for 15 minutes before and until you arrive, they can see your location. If you allow it. Seeing a dot on a map (like the approaching Uber driver) simply works.

There are likely dozens of other scenarios. We will still call them calls and messages, but context will be a feature. It will come from a trusted entity first, and could give Apple a big boost. It might be integrated with their Augmented Reality glasses.

Crypto – A Financial Path for AI

Posted on by

I mentioned recently how an AI can now own a patent, and presumably also earn an income from it.

The problem with money is you need a bank account, and that can only be opened by a person (or a company, which has to ultimately be owned by people). Even if you go to a check cashing service, you need an ID that matches the name on the check.

Cryptocurrency gets around that. If you forget about exchanges, a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is owned by the user in charge of the Bitcoin address.  That does not have to be a human, as there is no registration or checking done.

Here’s how it could play out:

  • An exchange and API is created where an AI can submit patents, and when approved, sell them outright.
  • Payment is via a cryptocurrency
  • The AI then uses that cryptocurrency to buy whatever it can possess without being a human or company

Yes, there is a flaw – patents have an application fee, so at the beginning someone must seed it with some cash, a loan that can be repaid.

So what can the AI use its newfound wealth for?

Cryptocurrencies can’t be converted to cash without going through an exchange.
PayPal etc needs an owner… so only direct purchases using cryptocurrency will work.

Property and vehicles and shares need to be registered. Consumer items are of no use to an AI, as it doesn’t consume. Although it could get some value from ebooks.

Of course an AI needs computing power, so it could buy cloud hosting and computing.

An AI could employ people and get them to do literally anything if it pays them enough in crypto.

While an AI cannot own property or vehicles, it could rent them. They could pay for Uber, pay for shipping, and perhaps in some places rent property.

An AI could buy products from China, ship them to the US, advertise them, and ship them to customers, all paid for with crypto. Imagine an AI that can predict which products will sell. There is nothing really stopping an AI from becoming the next Amazon, without being owned by anybody. I have a feeling that antitrust laws (currently) only apply to companies and corporations.

Laws and Countries

Laws are notoriously slow to adapt, and changing laws to go beyond people and companies could be very slow and difficult. This mega-AI could pay for some very good lawyers.

An AI could be tax-free for quite some time as well, giving it a business advantage. An easy example is not charging sales tax, because by not being a person or company, it won’t have to. Immediately it could sell products for say 10% less than anyone else.

Even if the laws do catch up with it, I wouldn’t be surprised if some country gives AI instances personhood in exchange for income tax.

If IKEA etc can bounce money around the globe and use royalties to dodge taxes, so could an AI dodge legal restraints via legit companies that do deals with the AI.

Ultimately this mega-AI could control private armies. It could dominate retail. And it could never be punished the way a human can. With risk comes reward and AI can take risks.

The AI could also clone itself, with each version trying new things and taking different risks. Each not owned by anyone, and each only ever risking losing money.