[EM] Delegable proxy/cascade and killer apps

[Michael Allan]

Raph Frank wrote:
> V(N) is the value per user if N users are using the system.
> P(V) is the number of people who would use the system if it had value V
> C = cost per user (time, direct cost etc.)
> 
> V increases with N and P increases with V
> 
> The critical mass, Nc, is the lowest N where, it is worth it for the
> N+1 people to use the system
> 
> P(V(N) - C) > N+1
> 
> Ideally, this should remain true for all N > Nc

The equation might not be useful for low values of N.  It does not
capture N invariant values to participation (term Vconstant?), nor
cross-population variance in V, Vconstant, and C.  At low values of N,
these variables may strongly influence the growth dynamic.  For
example:

  * A public voting medium is a network that enables self expression,
    like a blog.  Even at N=0, the voter may count on a small public
    of non-participating "readers".  (Max Weber's "material
    interest".)

  * The voter may understand the ulitmate purpose of the network, and
    agree with it.  Even at N=0, she may participate in order to
    further that purpose.  (Weber's "ideal interest".)

  * many other variables (material and ideal)

So the network effect V(N) may have no bearing on critical mass (Nc).
Nc may simply be zero.

Maybe the key thing is the distribution of values V(0), V(1),
... across the population.  How hard is it to find people for whom
V(0) exceeds corrected cost (C - Vconstant)?  Where are those people
located in the social space?  Then repeat for V(1), V(2), ...

It probably gets *easier* as N increases - average V(N) probably
increases with N.  But that does not imply a critical mass Nc...  not
unless we factor in my search patience, if it's a finite quantity. :/

(Or maybe I just better stop analyzing, and "go do it"... :)

> Ahem, if you want to really get technical, you also need to cover the
> free rider effect.
> 
> P(Vp(N) - Va(N) - C) > N+1     **
> 
> Vp = value if you participate
> Va = value if you don't bother
> 
> It is possible that a considerable portion of the benefits will go to
> those who don't bother to participate.

** typo corrected

> > The separate "out" Wiki gives me a clean copy, so people know I
> >  approved it.  I like that part.  But I can get that from a single Wiki
> >  too.  The last revision edited by me is the clean copy.
> >
> >  With a single Wiki, I don't have to do all of the text integration
> >  (from in to out) by myself.  Often the inputter's own integration will
> >  suffice.  I just clean it up a little.
> 
> That is true.  Maybe have a link to the "owner's last edit" and a way
> for the owner to just click 'approve', which would just edit the page
> without actually changing anything.

Right.  Like "touching" a file in a code build, in order to update its
mod time.
 
> Alternatively, maybe it automatically goes to that page, rather than
> the newest revision.  The history would be split into older -> current
> -> newer.

Then the newer (unapproved) revision is not the default view for the
casual reader.  OK.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/