Well, I can see where you’re coming from but I don’t actually make this point. I am interested in the reputational dimension of gifting rather than the gift-debt dimension.

It is true that in tribal gift economies, the gift is a means of placing another in debt. And it is interesting to think about how this could be seen as a kind of ‘positive’ debt, one that is foundational to social capital and community, as opposed to the ‘negative’ debt of cash economies. But I am not sure this concept of debt can be meaningfully applied to social media gift economies (and the collcons value exchange) because the social formations in question are not tight tribal communities, but loose aggregations of people who may otherwise have nothing to do with one another. To meaningfully place another in debt through gifting, both parties need to belong to an established community such that there is no way of dodging the obligation to reciprocate. These conditions do not apply when people are connected in virtual networks.

What interests me is how gifting builds reputation capital. A virtual gift may not compel others to reciprocate (as if they were placed in debt), but it does elevate the giver and mark them out as someone worth exchanging with. Through repeat cycles of gifts, this dynamic can create a sense of community such that the act of gifting conveys an obligation to reciprocate. But this community needs to be created; it cannot be presupposed.