Multilateral exchange and collaboration: possibilities for joint activity
What becomes possible when independent participants coordinate their needs, resources and future actions? We propose investigating not only individual exchanges, but also the creation of shared results, the conditions for sustained collaboration and the development of participants’ capabilities.
From exchange to creating a result
- Coordinating transactions involving existing goods, services and resources, with monetary, in-kind or mixed settlement.
- Coordinating future actions to create a new result.
- Improving operating conditions through predictable supply, demand and recovery procedures for disruptions.
- Building up knowledge, relationships, skills and resources for future joint activities.
How participants settle transactions
The method of settlement is agreed for each transaction. Options include ordinary monetary payment, exchange of goods and services, combinations of these and, where the necessary conditions are met, netting. Different methods may coexist within one network.
Collaboration does not require money or goods to move in a closed loop. What matters is coordinating connected actions and the conditions for obtaining results.
An illustrative example with entirely monetary transactions
Buyers agree orders, the manufacturer agrees production, the supplier agrees raw-material supplies and the carrier agrees delivery. Each party receives monetary payment on the agreed terms.
Agreeing quantities and schedules in advance may reduce uncertainty in demand and supply and help organise production. The potential benefit under investigation lies in the coordination of the whole activity. Barter is optional here; this is an illustrative example, not a result from an operational deployment.
Potential benefits we propose to test
More ways to collaborate
Two participants do not need a direct match between their needs.
Access through a contribution that others need
Skills, time, experience and resources may broaden opportunities to participate, including through paid work and services. When funds are limited, parties may also consider in-kind or mixed settlement; a lack of money is not a condition of participation.
Putting idle capabilities to use
Spare capacity, equipment and knowledge may find a use.
Creating a new shared result
Combining contributions makes it possible to investigate tasks that participants cannot undertake alone.
Coordinating production and demand
Advance agreements may reduce uncertainty in sales and supply.
Reconciling different interests
Changing the participants, quantities, schedules and distribution of results may widen the range of acceptable agreements.
Independence within shared coordination
Participants retain their own activities while coordinating the necessary interdependencies.
New roles and activities
Combining capabilities may create opportunities beyond a participant’s usual occupation.
Testing and introducing innovations
A network may help find early users, people to carry out the work and resources for a trial project.
Recovering from disruptions
Substitutes, reserves and agreed procedures may limit the spread of a failure’s consequences.
Developing a culture of collaboration
Joint activities offer practice in negotiation, fulfilling commitments, management and self-management.
A foundation for further projects
Test whether accumulated knowledge, relationships and experience make new activities easier to organise.
How to sustain a shared interest in collaboration
Finding a potentially beneficial arrangement is not enough. We need to investigate the conditions under which participants have an incentive to:
- fulfil commitments;
- report difficulties promptly;
- help restore the overall process;
- revise conditions when circumstances change;
- maintain an acceptable distribution of benefits and costs.
Participant independence and shared coordination
We are investigating how to combine the initiative, local knowledge and flexibility of independent participants with shared planning, coordination of dependencies and a clear allocation of authority.
Different tasks may call for different forms of organisation: direct agreements, a chosen coordinator or leadership of a particular project. It is important to establish which decisions participants make independently, which they agree together and which they delegate.
What we propose to investigate with ObliNet
The following is a proposed division of functions. A hypothesis and an initial experiment plan have been prepared; the reliability and usefulness of these functions remain to be tested. This is not a description of an operational exchange service.
AI assistants
We propose investigating AI assistance in finding arrangements, detecting incompatible conditions and preparing options.
Commitment map
The proposed design links contributions, schedules, acceptance conditions and dependencies. It must distinguish a proposal, an agreed commitment and a confirmed result.
Participants
In the process under study, participants themselves agree conditions, authority and changes, check proposals and confirm results. AI is not authorised to conclude deals without delegated authority.
Response procedures
Procedures for restoring interaction after disruptions still need to be designed and tested.
Detailed functions, evaluation questions and conceptual background
What ObliNet proposes
Proposed division of functions for research:
AI assistant
- Analyses needs and offers provided voluntarily.
- Finds possible exchange chains.
- Detects incompatible conditions and insufficient resources.
- Suggests options for coordination.
- Does not conclude deals without participants’ authority.
AI’s ability to perform these tasks reliably remains to be tested. Its proposal does not mean the chain is feasible or lawful.
ObliNet mutual commitment network
- Shows who promises what to whom.
- Displays interdependencies.
- Accounts for schedules and acceptance conditions.
- Helps track changes and the consequences of non-fulfilment.
- Maintains the distinction between a proposal, an agreed commitment and a confirmed result.
Participants
- Check AI proposals.
- Agree exchange value and conditions.
- Confirm commitments.
- Accept results or report problems.
- Make decisions independently within their authority.
Unlike group purchasing, which investigates pooling demand and organising a common purchase, this research concerns coordinating needs, supply, production, sales and execution among independent participants. Payments may be monetary, in kind or a combination of both.
Connection to Sergey Lachinyan’s work
Sergey Lachinyan considered the “Organised Buyer” and production–sales cycles: coordinating the needs and contributions of independent participants. Other writings describe guarantees and restoring interaction when difficulties arise.
This is a historical and conceptual foundation. The author’s accounts of practical experience are not results of present-day ObliNet experiments. Historical rules will not be adopted in ObliNet without separate design and evaluation of legality, voluntary participation and fairness.
- “Social Synergy”: the “Organised Buyer” and collaboration
- Author’s article: guarantees and restoring interaction
Historical primary sources in Russian; translations of these external materials are not provided here.
What may limit the benefits
- The costs of search, negotiation and ongoing coordination may outweigh the benefits.
- The value, timing and quality of contributions may be incompatible.
- Disruptions may cascade through connected actions.
- Unequal bargaining power may allow individual participants to capture the shared gains.
Barter and netting are not the same thing
Barter involves providing goods, services or work in exchange for other goods, services or work.
Multilateral netting involves agreed settlement of reciprocal obligations among several participants and may require a separate legal arrangement. Not every exchange chain can automatically be assumed to constitute lawful netting.
Transaction values must be agreed and documents prepared, with registration and reporting where required by law. Depending on the country, participants’ status and transaction types, VAT, income tax, accounting, licensing and other obligations may arise.
The absence of monetary payment does not, by itself, mean there are no tax obligations.
Before using a legal debt-netting mechanism in a real pilot, professional legal and tax advice must be obtained for the participants’ jurisdiction and types of activity.
How we propose to test this
We propose assessing three groups of results:
- What additional results were created or work completed.
- Which costs, delays and losses were avoided.
- Which opportunities emerged for future joint activities.
Compare ordinary coordination, multilateral coordination and coordination with ObliNet using comparable resources. Account for the benefits and burdens of every participant, including negative results.
Retained plan for the first model-based experiment
The retained plan describes a specific model-based exchange-chain scenario. It does not require other scenarios to use non-monetary settlement. Collaboration in which every transaction is monetary also needs to be investigated.
What exactly we are investigating
Can AI, together with ObliNet mechanisms, help participants find and execute multilateral exchange chains with lower costs of finding partners, coordination and settlement, while complying with the law?
- How many potentially feasible chains can be found.
- What proportion of proposals is acceptable to all participants.
- How much time and work agreeing them requires.
- How robust chains are to delays, withdrawals and changing conditions.
- The full cost of coordination, documentation and lawful arrangements.
- Whether the mechanism offers an advantage over ordinary partner searches and deal negotiation.
Evaluation is not limited to counting matches: actual feasibility of execution and the overall result must be checked.
We do not promise to eliminate intermediaries or monetary costs entirely. We are testing when they can actually be reduced and how useful this is after all costs are included.
The first experiment
We propose starting with a synthetic network of needs and offers: a model of participants, each with certain capabilities and needs.
Compare several ways of working:
- Ordinary exchange search and negotiation.
- AI-assisted chain search.
- AI-assisted search and coordination of mutual commitments through the proposed ObliNet mechanisms.
Provide comparable conditions, input information and resources. Use comparable AI tools and computational budgets for the second and third methods. Differences in AI access must not be mistaken for ObliNet benefits.
Also test failure scenarios: no suitable chain, disagreement on value, a participant’s delay, insufficient resources, a quality dispute and inability to arrange a selected transaction lawfully.
Record negative and inconclusive results too. Consider a limited pilot with volunteers only after model studies and checking legal conditions.