What do you think about them? What do you think about GNU Taler?
circles has this built in
Inflation#
In order to disincentivize hoarding and to encourage economic activity, the system will introduce an annual inflation schedule. This is demurrage by other means, where all personal currencies will issue progressively larger amounts of tokens per year, paid out per second. New users will always start issuing at a rate that is consistent with all other personal currencies.
Also to have UBI we don’t need a digital currency at all. So I don’t get it.
GNU Taler is orthogonal to blockchain. The system need to be backed by some other consensus mechanism which determines who has what. Taler opts for banks, but there is no reason you couldn’t replace the bank with a blockchain.
Also to have UBI we don’t need a digital currency at all
It’s certainly easier to bootstrap and experiment. Most currency creation face enormous opposition from the state. Creating on top of an old currency would mean you would have to change the old currencies monetary police, also hard to do.
Yes we do have a consensus mechanism run by the banks and that is the problem. Crypto is in part an ideological attack against the current regimes that control finance. I would argue that the banking industry has more direct control over finance and is what crypto disrupts, and that industry has substantial power within most of the world’s governments. But undermining the current financial regime also doesn’t mean explicitly attacking the current government structures. On the contrary, we may see successful governance fully embrace the cryptozation of finance.
You can build governance into crypto protocols directly or/and have community governance. That said, it is often hard to externally govern crypto. Most crypto projects seek to self govern in processes that I believe are far more transparent than say the Federal Reserve. For example the vote on the ENS DAO constitution
Self governing would lead to the same or worse problems than we have now. Right now the government (it’s not a good government, don’t get me wrong) can decide to print more money. In the hypothetical future, the community of a crypto asset can govern it, in the community those who have most of the mining power, most coins or whatever have most power. How does this not lead further away from a democratic election of a government like a democracy has today?
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism. If Bob creates a currency that only a few very wealth people have access to and Alice creates a currency which is airdropped to everyone on earth, which one will have a higher market cap? I would wager Alice. The details of how individuals projects are governed are not as important if the projects themselves have to compete for people’s mind share. States that govern physical land have no or little competition. No fundamental new system of governance can co-exist with the old. But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism.
Oh no what if they have a monopoly? Imagine if store ONLY had paypal. That would be terrible.
But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
I don’t think that markets lead to good outcomes in all situations. I think they are suitable for some problems and not suitable for others. I don’t think they are suitable to solve problems with currency at all.
What do you think about them? What do you think about GNU Taler?
circles has this built in
Also to have UBI we don’t need a digital currency at all. So I don’t get it.
GNU Taler is orthogonal to blockchain. The system need to be backed by some other consensus mechanism which determines who has what. Taler opts for banks, but there is no reason you couldn’t replace the bank with a blockchain.
It’s certainly easier to bootstrap and experiment. Most currency creation face enormous opposition from the state. Creating on top of an old currency would mean you would have to change the old currencies monetary police, also hard to do.
But we already have consensus mechanisms over currency and they work through the government?
Yes we do have a consensus mechanism run by the banks and that is the problem. Crypto is in part an ideological attack against the current regimes that control finance. I would argue that the banking industry has more direct control over finance and is what crypto disrupts, and that industry has substantial power within most of the world’s governments. But undermining the current financial regime also doesn’t mean explicitly attacking the current government structures. On the contrary, we may see successful governance fully embrace the cryptozation of finance.
But cryptocurrency often explicitly says that it can’t be governed.
You can build governance into crypto protocols directly or/and have community governance. That said, it is often hard to externally govern crypto. Most crypto projects seek to self govern in processes that I believe are far more transparent than say the Federal Reserve. For example the vote on the ENS DAO constitution
Self governing would lead to the same or worse problems than we have now. Right now the government (it’s not a good government, don’t get me wrong) can decide to print more money. In the hypothetical future, the community of a crypto asset can govern it, in the community those who have most of the mining power, most coins or whatever have most power. How does this not lead further away from a democratic election of a government like a democracy has today?
Because a token or crypto project is only worth anything if people value it. And that is ultimately the voting mechanism. If Bob creates a currency that only a few very wealth people have access to and Alice creates a currency which is airdropped to everyone on earth, which one will have a higher market cap? I would wager Alice. The details of how individuals projects are governed are not as important if the projects themselves have to compete for people’s mind share. States that govern physical land have no or little competition. No fundamental new system of governance can co-exist with the old. But Crypto allows us to have a completive market for governance itself, although what is governs only has value if the majority of people think it does.
Oh no what if they have a monopoly? Imagine if store ONLY had paypal. That would be terrible.
I don’t think that markets lead to good outcomes in all situations. I think they are suitable for some problems and not suitable for others. I don’t think they are suitable to solve problems with currency at all.