There might be some clues from "Standard Voting Power Indexes Do Not Work: An Empirical Analysis" that claims population^0.9 is closer to US political reality, http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/gelmankatzbafumi.pdf However a major critique of this, is that the American political system is not as diverse as the European system.

1. "non-monetary market mechanisms" sounds like a good idea, but not necessarily something one can quantify and experiment with.
2. John Gottman's idea of 5 positive responses per 1 negative response (healthy bound being between 0.8:1 to 20:1) as a sweet spot is somewhat useful.
3. If one were to not rely on an organ-like structure, the number of connections per person can become overwhelming or inefficient.
4. Fair assessment
5. The fluidity is one thing, but the strength of the connections implies somewhat the utility of the collective, bigger unoptimized crowds lead to more burdens.

Some questions regarding Personality: If IQ (often a sub-in for Openness), Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are often more likely to be closer to genetics, what about Extraversion and Emotional Stability? Those two effect organizational efficiency (similar to Agreeableness).

Also, the nature vs nurture debate table did not include anything on sexual selection (age of sexual debut, sexual activity, mating vs parenting effort), which can affect multi-generational planning. Some postulated that fraternal birth order and birth control use can mutate one's personality, leading to more varied results.

Measure their Dark Factors, and see how much are made from exploiting others without proper education (the hustlers). Dark Factors are a way of determining coercion and selfishness.

Individuals and corporations becoming wealthy via exploitation of captive markets.

Can we also factor in Dark Core (or Dark Triad Traits) for the divergence between income distribution (what happens) and social value distribution (what is expected)?

This might suggest Dark Triad traits being the main factor of wealth siphoning (selfishness and coercion) rather than wealth creation. But at the same time it reaffirmed that IQ is worth what it is worth.

Here are some questions to note against "networks of trust":

1. How does one increase the value of the persons entering the network (through referrals) over interaction and "training"? How does the network extract (or scale) value from people who are in the network?
2. Are tit-for-tat too strict as feedback? Should it be tit-for-two-tat or two-tit-for-tat? What is the optimal positive-to-negative ratio? Would it be based on John Gottman's "Magic Ratio"?
3. Are modular sub clusters made as "organs" of a bigger network, thus having divergent utilities, trusts and needs? How can overlapping community detection work?
4. Would small-world, rich-club-like structures, and critical social conduits create trust network power imbalances?
5. Can reducing connection strength or quantity of a person's surrounding bonds increase their efficiency? How can it be optimized based on Dunbar's Numbers?

Here is the rub against PageRank: EigenCenter, bridging centrality and other indices exists for alternative characteristics. All the web needs to do, is simply render the search engine task into a multi-objective optimization problem. Those that are popular vs those that are comparative vs those that are derivative. Attempts at optimizing the three major mode of creative operation (copy, transform, and combine) are hard but more realistic.