Before someone hit the BAN button, consider this:
I was in a meetup about basic income and crypto currencies that follow that path, and we got to a very interesting point.
Money has three caracteristics:
1- It is a store of value against time
2- It is a counting system
3- It is a mean of exchange.
So, Bitcoin, a bit like gold, is a great store of value (1), but it is poor in the points 2 and 3 (for several reasons, some do not have to do with bitcoin itself but to its acceptance in the market as money). Euros and dollars try to tackle all the three, but side effects that are not so desirable. On top of my mind, inflation takes wealth from the people and transfer it to the monetary issuer.
Duniter is by desing a poor store of value. It is meant to have a hight inflation rate. It is not so much a counting system because prices have to be measured on % of UBI rather than in Duniter for some stability. BUT it is a great mean of exchange! It is designed to be so, in fact.
You get coins for free , and they lose value over time , the insentives are there for you to expend it . So, what if we have a approach on Duniter more as LIKES on facebook or a voting system and less like money. The difference now is that you can give people Duniter not for a post or a comment, but for any thing that they perform that you think it was of value for society. Or as a voting system when you want to ask a population about something, they will only give you Duniters if they think the proposal is worth it.
Now it comes the catch. Because we are not treating it as money, people stop wanting to store it (do you know anyone keeping LIKES for himself?!), and would rather use it somehow. The more people use it, the more intrinsic value Duniter will have. Just like LIKES on facebooks, you get infinite of them for free, but companies pay to have people liking their content! The value of the coin then is not backed up by a exchange, but by people using it.
Am I crazy?