What equation was used to draw that graph? I quickly tried to reproduce it but wasn’t able, this is how far I got: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xfggtjjy2f
If I actually try to graph that equation it doesn’t look anything even remotely similar to the graph pasted into the document. Did you even click on my link on desmos.com?
Haha, I started with that and for some reason thought it was wrong. Anyways, you’re right, that is the correct graph now that I’ve studied it closer.
Here it is with a center line so it’s easier to see the middle. You can click anywhere on the line and it gives exact number at that spot.
You can also consider it is better to include all people to find a center-life value with : ln(v)/v < y < ln(v/4)/(v/4), to be sure the great majority of living people will reach the average money mass at v/2.
But anyway those range of values are correct.
Life is never white, neither black. There is always some touch of grey somewhere. You solely focus on reducing the growth of the monetary mass (and thus the inflation for external actors) as much as possible. But do you realize that by focusing on your white spot, you favor a dark spot, eg. more potential inequalities within the community that uses this currency?
If I’m reading the graphs correctly then with 6.59% growth rate the user will produce maximum amount of currency at 62 years old, as compared to 35 years old under the 10% growth rate.
I would argue that in the next 50 years there will be enough advancement in science to get people living to 120 years old. But even if considering the 6.59% currency with today’s life spans: if someone joins the WoT at 20 years old and lives to 80 they will have had a chance to generate the maximum currency. I think that’s reasonable.
Call me a pessimist, but it is just as likely as the possibility that the pollution generated by technology could drastically reduce the overall lifespan.
1 Like
One would argue that it would be better to actually reach the maximum way before you die, because otherwise you won’t have a chance to live with the full impact of your economic choices.
To make an analogy in France with the retirement: people work all their life and finally get a pension at ~65 years old, but as you know, many of them die at that moment as the life expectancy is ~80 years old in France. This is really a common case: people die when the finally have the right to stop “working”. This is quite terrible, a lot of them just waited for that moment, but without the death!
To me it makes more sense to reach the maximum before the end of your hypothetic lifespan. We chose 10% = 1/2 * 80 years. So you reach the maximum at the half of your life expectancy. This gives you a chance to use this power to make your economic choices and live the other half of your life with them.
4 Likes
That’s the point. How could one use something he obtained just before dying ? This would be completely nonsense. Reaching average money at 1/2 life expectancy assure that 99% of the people will be able to use it during a non-zero period of life time.
Some of them could, if the hypothesis is right (of which no scientist would argue it is sure), but some of them will not change the average. For example in Europe, if 100 million people reach this goal, it won’t change the average for the 330 millions to this goal :
(230 millions * 80 years + 100 million * 120 years) / 330 millions = 92 years only.
And c = ln(92/2) / (92/2) = 8,32 % / year let c = 10% / year still valid, very near, without great difference.
1 Like
All valid points guys and I would love to join the G1 someday (or equivalent in the US) when it reaches me. But I think for OSE, where we may have more external currency holders, it makes a lot of sense to keep the inflation on the lower side.
By the way, since I’m already investing so much effort into learning Duniter for OSE maybe I should also consider doing the US version of G1? I would keep it as mirror image of the G1 with the 10% growth rate, etc. We could start Jan 1, 2018. Any thoughts? What should it be called? I can start a separate forum thread on this subject if you guys like the idea.
1 Like
Yes you could start a Duniter/Ğ2 libre money in the US. You will find a name for it and core developers able to maintain Duniter code for it, because separate money system need separate maintenance to keep it safe.
It needs time, for instance the Ğ1 project started in 2010, so 7 years where necessary. With chance if you start with Duniter it can take less time, but you will need time too. The more difficult will be to find other US people interested in it, and over all libre software developers.
Starting by explaining RTM in your own website / forum can help that goal.
That’s kind of my point, we’ll have to do all of those things for the OSE Coin, so we might as well keep it a little more generic and use all the same materials and infrastructure to do a Ğ2.
Is Ğ2 the preferred name? What does the Ğ stand for? For US it would have to be plain G since nobody here could type the Ğ with the breve diacritic mark.
What about the NAC (North American Coin)?
Why did you guys decide to make the Ğ1 an EU currency instead of just France?
I was just thinking that maybe for me it would be more realistic to just do it for my state (New Hampshire) instead of targeting the entire US. My small state has 1.335 million people.
1 Like
I can tell you two things:
First is that if you start a Ğ1 mirror in the US, we won’t be able to help you unfortunately, because Ğ1 is already taking all of our energy. You will need your own developers which will have to study the software. This is quite hard, but absolutely possible 
also even if we try to help you by answering questions, for sure we will strongly prioritize Ğ1.
As a recall, we are only 375 members in Ğ1. There is absolutely no clue that what we built will survive the next 3 years. You guys take a risk by starting another currency so early after our first developments. If you waited like 1 more year, you could learn a lot from our successes and mistakes.
Second is about OSE: you seem to care a lot “external currency holders”, is that more than your own fundamental economic participants, the humans from OSE? If yes, libre currency may not be what will suit your goals for this specific case.
2 Likes
For OSE the issue is that there is a mission independent of the currency. If something is for sale on a future OSE Market denominated in OSE Coins this means someone would have to first get some coins (on an exchange) and then purchase the item they want. We can’t have any obstacles to doing this (such as having to join a WoT).
We need to be able to interact with the outside world, with people who are not in the WoT and can’t be in the WoT because we don’t know them.
The concept is like this:
- OSE Developers and contributors get dividends.
- Not all OSE Developers sell stuff, some of them just do CAD work or other R&D work and testing. Which still takes a lot of time and effort and resources.
- Some OSE Developers will actually build and sell machines and tools and do workshops, etc.
- The idea is to have a way that the OSEDevs who are working towards the common mission but not necessarily selling things to also get compensated. Their compensation would be based on how well the market is doing (if designs are good, more people will buy stuff with OSE Coins).
- If an OSE Market requires purchases be made in OSE Coin then OSE Devs can sell their coin to consumers who will then purchase things on the market.
- This way it’s a self-sufficient system and some of the money (external fiat) from selling physical goods trickles down to those helping to design, develop and test the products. All in a distributed way without a central authority collecting money and paying people. Everyone will be responsible and invested in making sure the whole ecosystem is healthy and productive.
Is Duniter good for such a system?
As far as waiting a year to do the Ğ1 mirror in US, that sounds good, probably it will take that long in terms of having time to setup a website to explain the currency and figure out the name and all that stuff. 2 months isn’t enough to figure all this out. We’ll probably still do an OSE Test Coin early next year to get more experience with Duniter.
Maintenance:
I do a lot of Dart programming (2 years full time) and Python (15 years full time) in my day job so TypeScript shouldn’t be too much of a problem. C++ i’m not familiar with. I’ve been primarily a Linux user since 1998 and lately have been working a lot with Docker, I built a Docker based continuous integration service: https://hub.docker.com/r/damoti/shipmaster/ It’s not very user-friendly currently and not documented but we’ve been using it internally for production deployments for about a year. Probably one of the first things I’ll do for Duniter is Dockerize some of the components to make it easier to deploy.
Also, I’m working on the software powering the actual product development and community building parts of OSE:
https://github.com/damoti/osedev <-- Python, Django and little bits of Dart
https://github.com/damoti/osedev-workbench <-- Python and Pyside (similar to PyQt like Sakia uses)
We’re using osedev already in production: http://osedev.org