Attention can certainly be used to pay for services, and the value can be readily quantified by comparing the cost of free ad-supported services with their ad-free alternatives. However the value of attention is unique to the individual, and also the context in which it is applied.

But still something about this article just doesn’t sit well with me. I suspect it’s the thought that the nature of currency doesn’t or hasn’t changed and that for something “new” to be considered a currency it must adhere to the old rules, the old definitions.

The notion that a currency must be fungible just doesn’t feel correct.  Indeed a quick hunt around the interwebs shows this question of a need for mutual substitution has been discussed at length many many times but that views are certainly still divided. This article by Venessa Miemis is as good a set of arguments as I’ve read so far.

What is apparent is that Dawson’s characteristics of currency don’t follow the accepted definitions of currency which seem to allow for interpretation as to what constitutes a medium of exchange.  Looking solely at that aspect a great many things have been used over the millennia as tokens of exchange and to the best of my knowledge not all goats are made equal – goats are not fungible.

I do agree with Dawson that to talk about things like reputation as a currency may not be useful, at least when discussing this in traditional terms, however it is clear to me that whilst in it’s infancy reputation, attention (and to a lesser degree influence) are indeed future financial instruments.

As a teaser here’s the summary I’ve posted to the BEUC:

“Models, Privacy & Ownership”

When given people trust businesses those businesses perform better. But for people to truly trust businesses and organisations they must have confidence in their privacy being safe-guarded.

Barney Craggs examines the effect emerging payment mechanisms has had on the volume of personal information being traded and highlights how by abandoning old set notions of ownership any organisation can foster trust and thrive which ever business model they pursue.

As an example today I must have had over 30 emails from websites from which I have bought something, commented upon or in some way been foolish enough to have left my contact details with. Now 30 might not sound like a huge number but in my already attention stretched world of social networks and real life conversations, having to wade through those 30 to find the 3 or 4 genuinely interesting emails was a pain.

Now that’s not to say they were spam – Google Mail generally takes care of the 300+ a day obvious spam, indeed at the right time, in the right place the majority of those 30 would have contained something of interest, right down to the third Amazon email this week promoting a product I have just bought from Amazon right back at me!

So what is the answer?

I honestly don’t know. I could grab ANOTHER email address for even more personal emails (got several already) or….. oh sod it. In the time it’s taken me to whine and complain about my lack of time I could easily have browsed those 30 emails. Duh.