March 28, 2006 Phone V 0.93 A Pure Economic Response to Irrelevant Contact Provable Relationships and Personal Interrupt Value

2 Antispam & Delivery Mechanisms Personal Filters Community Filters Laws Sender Identification Trust & Reputation Payment or Risk

3 It’s The Economics, Bucko! Spam is undesirable mail Undesirable mail is a product of poor targeting Poor targeting is rewarded by economic incentive Solution: Create an economic disincentive

4 Economics 101: A Knot in the Belly... Fair & Effective (“1 st class” implies a 2 nd class) Simple and Transparent Effective before Widespread adoption Resistant to Zombies Keep Free of Tax & Postage Purity: Do the incentives makes sense?

5 Primitive or Pure: Certified Mail Who Decides It’s Spam? Who Gets the Money? Cash –vs– Risk: The medium is inexpensive Stranger –vs– Friend: Why even risk? Trust: Centralized –vs– Personal Definition: Communal –vs– Personal

6 and the content of his message ain’t in my filter database.” “I get this c-note back if the boss got no beef with my message. Capisch?” “His name is not on my list

7 A Rude Interruption A tall, bald man shouts out … “Wait, Wait! Hold on a second! I’ll ask the questions… If you want the real problems with Economics, let’s not have any canned questions here!”

8 The Gotchas! Who would agree to such onerous terms? I won’t pay to keep in touch with customers. How can I deal with demands of every recipient? If every value floats, what’s my total liability? Can a recipient collect all the time? So now I get rich spammers?! Spam comes from Zombies What about adoption?

9 The ‘Perfect’ Mailing List 10,000 creditors lost $2,000 each 80% lost to filters and challenges Sender wants $100 liability limit 2000 are ‘aware’ of relevance guarantee $100 is insufficient… Risk/Cost: $750 / $14 Apply ‘1:50’ and Vanity rules: $500 / $2 ~ 5¢ each and seizure rate of 0.4%

10 Four Pieces of Magic Personal Interrupt Value: ‘Bid for Attention’ Risk – Trust Conversion Feedback (‘Risk Rules’ stop recipient scam) 1:50 Rule Vanity Rule Age of credentials The Two Sided Network Effect

11 Personal Interrupt Value

12 Fungible: Risk & Personal Trust You are trusted, if… I have written to you before and have never penalized your previous messages. I have not revoked your trusted status It’s not the sender’s identity that counts (useful only for friends)… It’s the fact that they are trusted or at risk

13 Join the Initiative Become part of the solution: Sponsor the ‘Free Ap’ MIT Paper / Slides / Animation / Programmer Forum or Learn about the company that is pioneering R&D Creators of the Message Verification Platform