Return to Answer

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure. A couple of reasons in non-technical language:

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's probable that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself. In other words, a starting point for a model might be

v(t) = a (dr(t) / dt) + b(t)

where v is the value, r the reputation, t time, a is a constant and b a function that might end up being too time-dependent for anything useful to be gleaned here. If b turns out to be practically constant or even linear in time then you have stumbled upon something truly brilliant. Not sure where you'd get the data from though to test this model; you can probably get r(t) from a fancy data query, and v(t) from the stock price and shares outstanding data. Good luck!

My thought: it's not worth anything.

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure. A couple of reasons in non-technical language:

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's probable that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself. In other words, a starting point for a model might be

v(t) = a (dr(t) / dt) + b(t)

where v is the value, r the reputation, t time, a is a constant and b a function that might end up being too time-dependent for anything useful to be gleaned here. If b turns out to be practically constant or even linear in time then you have stumbled upon something truly brilliant. Not sure where you'd get the data from though to test this model; you can probably get r(t) from a fancy data query, and v(t) from the stock price and shares outstanding data. Good luck!

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure.

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's possible that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself. In other words, a starting point for a model might be

v = a (dr / dt) + b(t)

where v is the value, r the reputation, t time, a is a constant and b a function that might end up being too time-dependent for anything useful to be gleaned here. If b turns out to be practically constant or even linear in time then you have stumbled upon something truly brilliant. Not sure where you'd get the data from though. Good luck!

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure. A couple of reasons in non-technical language:

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's probable that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself. In other words, a starting point for a model might be

v(t) = a (dr(t) / dt) + b(t)

where v is the value, r the reputation, t time, a is a constant and b a function that might end up being too time-dependent for anything useful to be gleaned here. If b turns out to be practically constant or even linear in time then you have stumbled upon something truly brilliant. Not sure where you'd get the data from though to test this model; you can probably get r(t) from a fancy data query, and v(t) from the stock price and shares outstanding data. Good luck!

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure.

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's possible that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself.

A comparison between currency and reputation makes little sense so therefore you can't think of the value of Stack Exchange being in "reputation". The mathematicians amongst us would not consider a substitution of reputation for currency as a valid change of measure.

1. Reputation is not-transferable (with the exception of the bounty "give") between parties so therefore cannot be used as fiat money.

2. Reputation is far too inflationary. Processes that deflate reputation are rare and include downvoting questions (-2), answers (-3), and question and user removal.

It's possible that the rate of change of total reputation is correlated with site activity, but that neglects the important facet of folk visiting the sites that don't vote. So I'd submit to you that the rate of change of reputation might be broadly linked to the value of Stack Exchange, not the reputation level itself. In other words, a starting point for a model might be

v = a (dr / dt) + b(t)

where v is the value, r the reputation, t time, a is a constant and b a function that might end up being too time-dependent for anything useful to be gleaned here. If b turns out to be practically constant or even linear in time then you have stumbled upon something truly brilliant. Not sure where you'd get the data from though. Good luck!