Mangos 2.0 Prototype

After reflecting my time in France during the FFM meeting, especially our last discussion on sunday, I am repositioning my goals a little bit. So in case anybody is interested on what I am going to work on the next months:

My focus will be on not creating a new currency, but just a “Set of Rules” of how assets/ressources/money are being redistributed between verified individuals, in the form of a basic income, no matter of what currency you are using.
See here a first draft of definitions I am suggesting to bring together basic income projects:
Please don’t hesitated with feedback :slight_smile:

So the main goal of the CO | OPEN platform is to define the parameters, of how individuals are being identified and verified as unique persons and enable cooperation on open source projects.
CO | OPEN will set for the beginning their own set of rules, (currently i am tending to 10% redistribution per year to each individual) in order to channel competence during the prototyping stage. Once a stable version is reached, we open up for pools with different set of rules.

looking forward to see you again in Summer.

I think the concept is great. I’m just wondering, the number 10% is not the same with any money. For a money with a growth of 80%, it won’t be the same than a money with a growth of 1%.

So what is the reasoning behind this ? Couldn’t the users decide by themselves how much redistribution they want to achieve ?

Also, I am wondering: redistributing is OK, but redistributing what? If you redistribute money, then you first have to distribute it. What will be the distribution rules then?

From what I understand, there is no distribution. People are donating money (any currency they want to donate) to the system, and the system redistribute it.

You have to differentiate between a Pool (set of rules) and Currencies.
f.e. the ucoin parameters (the river, flux, fleuve) are a pool. Anyone can now create a new currency on top of those rules. f.e. mangos, yak coins, meta brut, or le sou :wink: or what ever name you can think of. At this point you are distributing a new currency. But you can as well choose to use current currencies, such as the euro or bitcoins as well. They co exist in the same pool.
f.e. I can hold meta bruz and euros in my account. Euros get only redistributed. Meta bruz get distributed / issued and redistributed.

We have a starting point, where resources are already distributed between people, so why should I ignore that fact and exclude the already existing distribution from today?
This way you are opening up your system for other currencies, the entry point for an ordinary person, is much lower than if you would exclude them.

If you are choosing to use a currency with 1% growth, you are subscribing yourself into the 1% Pool.
The same for the 80%. The point is exactly, that the user has the choice :wink:
You are having now a choice of rules + a choice of currencies you wish to trade with.

All this is not about developping a free money like uCoin project is about. So why don’t you start your own reflexions and discussions in a dedicated forum, where you will explain what you want to do ?

I can say just now I don’t understand anything about what you are trying to do, and I’m sure it’s not about a free money, because if it was a free money, I could see and analyse the money code elsewhere and verify that space-time symetry will be completed or not between humans who will use it.

And here, it’s about developping a free money, not about thinking about other points.

How can you make judgements like this, when you are not even understanding, what I am doing, as you are correctly stating yourself? I know, it all is not well explained, but I am still learning to get better at communicating.

The only thing which I am adding here is considering a starting point in reality, where resources are already distributed between people and trying to find a way of incorporating this situation.

But if you wish to stick to your very strict own definitions as the only important truth and want to cut off any of my input, I will do that and go happily my own way. Fine for me.

A free money is defined by uCoin following a very clear code anyone can check. Because what you are doing “is not well explained” like you said, and so cannot fill free money definition we develop here.

Then, when you develop something like a software without referring with a GNU free software licence, you don’t go to a GNU forum to speak about what you are doing or not, because people will first check your licence, and then they will say to you a GNU forum is for people who adopt GNU licences.

The same concerning money, because you don’t refer to the free money definition adopted here for uCoin you should post to another forum, or develop your own forum where you will be able to define, explain, discuss with people who will be interested to what you are doing, and you should not go interfering with a project you don’t refer to.

I don’t have proper definitions yet, but I am developing them. They will be just an extension and a tiny modification of what you are defining. So, for me it is naturally, if I have and improvement idea or extension that I will go to the GNU Forum and start communication there, but of course if the maintainer of the GNU Licenses are not open for extensions and modifications, I will create my own fork.
Do you want me to give regularly progress reports here on the ucoin forum or rather prefer me not to? Your choice.

Yes so the principle of a fork is : you make a fork. Then when your fork can be checked, sometimes, the original project take parts of it, and many times they continue their own way. So make a fork.

When you will have something people can check, and concerning money it’s about the code of the money, then you will be able to post a single post in the forum saying : this is link of my fork, you can check it and discuss it in the fork’s forum if you want.

This is respecting freedom. If one project is ok for you you can contribute to it adopting it, if it doesn’t so you make your own way and perhaps people will adopt it, or not.

1 « J'aime »