What is P2P V4V?

P2P V4V stands for 'Peer-to-Peer, Value-for-Value'.

'Peer-to-Peer' is a way of doing commerce. 'Value-for-Value' is a way of doing commerce. Both have been around for a while now. As far as I know, joining them together is new. The result is a basic framework for commerce that is fairer and freeer and leverages existing 21st century technology.

For starters, let's contrast P2P V4V sharply with its opposite. I'll call this 'A2I V4A', 'Agent-to-Intermediary, Value-for-Access'.

If you read down the list of the right column, does it seem familiar? I hope so. It's the status quo. Want a coffee? Pay first. Ugh... they changed the beans! Too bad. You might get a refund, but it's a hassle.

By the P2P V4V way, first you would get the coffee, then you would pay. Or not. It's completely based on your satisfaction. "I got value, so you get value." The consumer determines the price. Payment is via some peer-to-peer method, like bitcoin¹ (BTC) or monero (XMR). Payment should be quick and irreversable. It certainly puts the buyer in the dominant position. If you don't like a product, don't pay. Isn't this a recipe for parasites? Maybe. I'll get to that soon.

Is P2P V4V just a form of donationware?

Free products... but then you pay...if you want... I bet you're thinking 'donationware'. That's like saying a campervan is a van. It's not wrong, but you're missing the key elements. P2P V4V solves some of donationware's problems. Most of the time donations work fine, but there are edge-cases. Consider the following hypothetical examples:

P2P V4V solves these edge cases like so:

What's wrong with the status quo?

Our current system works well for the most part. It particularly suits scarce goods, such as food, whereby a large number of freeloaders can ruin it for everyone. Why is there a need for a new way of doing commerce?

A non-P2P system puts us at the mercy of the intermediaries. Take governmental sanctions for example. Fatima in Iran might desperately want some Levi jeans, and Harry in the U.S.A. might want to sell her a pair. They are not free to do so, because the banks in between obey sanctions. I'm not saying governmental sanctions are never justified, but I lean strongly towards individuals being free to transact with whomever they want.

Another drawback is corruption of leadership. I think the banking system worked well in the 20th century because the people in charge had scruples. They realized the huge privelege and didn't want to abuse it. Nowadays, they take the privelege for granted. There are many stories of people getting debanked for their political views. The case of the BNZ versus Gloriavale³ put in plain sight the typical bankster attitude that contract law is optional for banks.

The status quo is also biased towards rich people. The price is set by the market, but the 'market' is an average of transactions by rich, poor, and comfortable. The rich inevitably skew prices upwards. The poor must abide.

Finally, we have a modern-day problem of price-expectations. Two generations now expect free stuff by default. Millennials and Zoomers have grown up with the 'freemium' model. Most take the 'free' and leave the 'premium'. For small to midsize businesses, and especially for solo operators, the gap is filled with sponsorship, or other kinds of deals extrinsic to the transactions themselves. This is complicated. Sponsers end up taking precedence over customers.

P2P V4V is fairer

Under the P2P V4V system, poor people can pay amounts they can afford.

Businesses need not be beholden to sponsors.

Smaller operators would probably coax out higher average payments from their customers than big businesses.

Consumers get a way of showing satisfaction far better than choosing stars on review websites.

Producers really know where they stand.

P2P V4V is freeer

No bank in the middle can block you from recieving your income, or from expressing your like of some product.

The producer does not have to worry about vague future obligations to his customers; every transaction relates to the past.

Individuals feel empowered, because they determine the price.

P2P V4V works with existing technology

I can put a QR code on my screen while vid-streaming and it can link to a cryptocurrency address. If people are enjoying my drivel, they can repay me. Cryptography, fiberoptic cable, and web-shopping platforms, amongst others, make P2P V4V a reality.

Credit card payments are ruled out, because they are not P2P. There's nothing stopping people from using a hybrid model however. In fact, it would probably be commercial suicide to go all out P2P V4V at this stage of history. I myself allow for Paypal and I hope to add other fiat options in the future.

Cash in the mail counts too. I would hate to jinx myself, but I admit that I've used cash in the mail a few times recently and it's worked fine.

Parasites

The sad truth is that about 2% of customers donate for free products. It's bordering on hippy-dippy Utopianism to think that people could make a decent living from a donation-based way of doing commerce. I wouldn't be too black-pilled. In the longer term, something interesting would happen if P2P V4V began to take hold. When the default option is payment, the person who recieves value but doesn't give back is a parasite. The culture would change. In small, virtuous communities, where I think P2P V4V would take off, being a parasite would be frowned upon at best.

Being such a fan of donationware myself, I have noticed that the typical setup is poor. Most don't even have cryptocurrency. How can content-creators complain when they don't make it easy for people? Let's give donationware a fair shot before writing it off.

It's also worth mentioning that P2P V4V works when there is low marginal cost per unit, and that's not so bad for dealing with parasites. Say you have 100,000 pot plants in stock. It costs you 0.33c to make another. If a few parasites don't pay, you could cope.

The Wedding Night

Isn't this putting the Wedding Night before the marriage? "Goods first, then pay." If defloration came first, not every man would pay for the stalk. There's a big change between anticipation and actuality. Call it buyer's remorse if you will. The current system aligns with this deep fact of psychology. V4V goes against it. You were fizzing at the bung to see the film... now... "It was okay I guess." Not the best time to fork over some cash.

To be honest, I don't know how to answer this one. All I know is that, for myself, it depends a lot on the particular ware. With software, I want to try first, then pay. With news media, I find myself unwilling to pay once the tea has been spillt and my curiosity sated.

Summary

P2P V4V is an alternative way of doing commerce that takes things back to unique, independent transactions and puts the buyer in control. It works for abundant goods with low marginal costs. It demands more responsibility and virtue, because one must acknowledge the value one has recieved and then pay for it willingly. Current technology, especially cryptocurrency, makes it easy to do.

At the back of my mind is the image of Siddharta, the Buddha. He begged for food. I wonder if 'begged' is the right word? Maybe he was trying to teach a P2P V4V way.