What if Trust were more then currency.
Is trust a medium of exchange or is it rather the metaphorical fertile soil within which we could collectively nurture a birth of relational learning? Do other currencies allow or stimulate such relational learning in a manner with which trust could?
Is trust the UI or could it rather be the codex; the code, the Duty of Care and / or the social contract?
What are the attributes of trust, what are its algorithm(s)? What are its Trojan horses or its bugs?
If trust were currency then why would we have (the word) “currency” and not simply (the word) “trust”? Why then the dilution, segregation or confusion? If there were an answer could trust then truly be (reduced to) a currency?
If we want to call trust a currency then how should our perception of currency (and trust) change? Should it change?
What is the difference between trust and entrust? One might more easily entrust than one would be trusted, or vice versa, or other? One might be more enabled to depart with or distribute trust compared to being or feeling enabled to depart with other types of currency; e.g. cryptocurrency or “money”. The flow of trust versus the flow of such other currency has potentially different vectors and different gauges as well as different resources or feedback loops or currents.
Have we collectively found a conversion method to identify and speak the same signals, pinging the other, to enable a trans-system integrity, entitled “trust”?
The exciting call-to-action with analogous metaphors is as is with reality in memes: critical thinking that is augmenting, rather than dismissive, is implicitly requested as a filter of projecting said meme or metaphor into the foresight of one’s nascent action with larger networked contexts and eco-systems. Yet that call-to-action is explicitly avoided or explicitly kept implied.
I intuit we perhaps don’t want; though we do need to innovate on our individual and in-between thinking processes. The “innovation” lies in our mental space to enable us to dig into the multidimensionality and multi-directionality of *the attributes* and *the consequences* (which is a mechanism of foresight) of a metaphor or a meme such as “trust = currency”. Or, since trust and knowledge are related: knowledge(-sharing) = currency …after all, if trust can be then why not it?
I sense we might need to do so by means of explicit yet, creative redesigning of narratives in exchanges and debate of knowledge or exchanges of intuitions (unveiled by contemplating on e.g trust and currency).
As some have alluded: we need a new global narrative and to which I then add: we need a new interlinking of the components that enable us to create a new narrative. We need new spaces in-between the nodes that allow the exchanges of trust, knowledge and consciousness which each could be understood as currencies of sorts.
I imagine (and foresee) this to be as intense as the impact by multi-billion dollar PR, advertising and marketing industries which might be seen as driven by a trust in the unwavering rote learning of its target-audiences/consumers. It might be perceived as such due to the industries’ repeating of its formulaic communications of iterative versions of one and the same underlying intent: collect currencies of various types.
However, one might collectively wish to aspire to more than a rite to passage via rote-learning into the superficialities of the desired promises, hidden within a metaphor or a meme alone. To trust is to dive deeper and wider. How does a currency have proverbial depth and width?
Currencies might have implied greed; should trust have greed? Imagine for a moment: what if greed were good and what if trust were not to have greed than…. trust is no good? Absurdity seems to creep in. Some creases in mapping “currency” with “trust” need to be ironed out for some of us (at least for the naive such as myself).
Rather a critical co-creative analysis of attributes and steps is needed toward shared action in, for instance, eco-to-human-to-human-to-eco “trust”-building. Better questions than the ones I opened with might be helpful to an uninitiated, such as myself, of whom there are many around this planet and whom we entrust to calling “home”. After all, if one were to imagine Earth void of any other human (and perhaps any other mammalian or other life form) except one’s own self, would one trust to sense “home”?
If trust were, mythologically and esoterically, to be encamped by the few initiated into the circle of trust, could one then truly speak of trust in a practical applicable sense as a viable currency (for humanity and its eco-systems)? Or would then trust —as an innate human co-creative processing attribute— be commodified? If so, then sure, we as a species could do / trust to undergo that (after all, even an entire human has been known to be commodified as a data pool).
Indeed, in the process of exploring trust as equalized to being a currency, one might quickly move one’s thinking through a techno-lens, unveiling the hypes of blockchains. Then one might either claim a result via rapid rote-learning, and that by “blindly” submitting to a hype. Or rather, one can be excited and open to explore the potentials via questions: what is needed for this techno-imbued trust? Does it offer what we need? …and much better questions then these.
How can we improve potential consequences? For instance, in techno-fying trust, by encoding it, one might overlook the tremendous strain on ecosystems. Such techno-imbued trust (ie blockchains) might be or has been imposing strain in terms of energy usage for the running of the implied server farms. Imagine a scaling of such trust for each and every citizen.
Additionally, then imagine non-fungible items around the globe and the creative imagination of a nascent economy of digitalizing or digitizing creators thereof.
In too blunt but awakening terms: “computing trust burns the Earth”; …or one can imagine to impose any relevant slogan-esque narrative construct. (Sure, non-fossil energy sources are being considered and implemented sporadically. Also note and perhaps trust that some types of batteries might hang as strange fruits from a tree but they are sights and signs of death to healthy eco-systems, if not embraced properly). This does not suffice though.
Then one could try and sense the invitation to unpack both the slogan and the idea of algorithmic trust (be it analog, digitized or digital trust-processes), rather than to simply debase, dismiss or, in contrast, put trust on an unquestioned pedestal of mesmerizing gold-plated idolization.
These could be the beginnings of a humane and scaleable transformation of trust as currency or rather trust as soil for knowledge which in turn might be currency, if shared …and if, with equity of others in mind.
Attribution:
In respectful contemplation and reflection on a LinkedIn post by Mr. Christian Sarkar on trust as currency:
Thank you to Mr. Christian Sarkar, Ms. Evelien Verschroeven, Mr. Jef Teugels, Mr. Thomas D’hooge and many others; whom more or less unwittingly have aided me in my thinking on this and other topics, while learning through a platform such as LinkedIn. I happen to trust that, to me, learning is relational, even if seemingly impersonal and unintentional.