What if we stop treating Duniter as money?!

Archives Discussion
,
1

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. :star_struck:

You get coins for free :grinning:, and they lose value over time :face_with_raised_eyebrow:, the insentives are there for you to expend it :wink:. 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?

2

That is not true. But you could say money share is transfered, instead of wealth. That would be true to me.

First you get Duniter and money Ğ1 mixed up: Duniter is the software and Ğ1 is the money. We understand that you meant “Ğ1” when using Duniter, but please use the right word to avoid confusion.

Also, there is no such thing as “a perfect store of value” for the simple reason that humans die and get replaced by new ones with a completely different vision of what is value and what is not.

That is not true. Example: in March 2017 we could not buy any beer with our Äž1s, but few months later we could whereas the money supply more than doubled. If the units were only to loose value over time, they should not have allowed to buy beers thereafter. They did.

5 Likes
3

This is totally refuted by Relative Theory of Money and the relativity principle, there is no value nowhere for anything but in your own spirit, not other’s one.

Thinking out the relativity principle is thinking like in 14th century before Galileo and not knowing relativities theories in science from 1905 revolution by Einstein / Poincaré

In facts now : no value in history has never complained those three axioms because there are inconsistant (cf Relative Theory of Money, RTM).

Obviously you did not study the RTM, and don’t know what is a referential.

UD = c M/N => M/N = 1/c UD. That means that here is always a fixed number of UD in the monetary mass, so absolutely no inflation at all, inflation is not the point ! Counting in UD means the point cannot be any “inflation”, and has never be the point in any time at any point.

So then, there is no inflation, what RTM say ? People have money creation privilege and other people don’t, that implies a distorsion of the prices (not inflation), giving more price to one’s values, and less prices to other’s values.

You just need to study the subject, and to understand it well enough, you absolutely need to realize the Galileo module, and you can watch first the Thatoo realisation in english to start to understand a little bit what is about here.

When you will have done that, you will probably be able to speak about money without (those) mistakes.

3 Likes
4

Who is the monetary issuer in Libre Currencies?

4 Likes
5

:open_mouth:First of all, please don’t see my post as diminishing Ğ1, rather on the contrary I’m really a fan of the iniciative and of the implementation. :grinning:

I’m sorry I got them mixed up. Ğ1 it is then. :+1:

I’ll not get straight to your points because I’d rather not argue over definitions but over the mindset that would attract people to use Ğ1. My point still stands, when we talk about money we want somehow to fulfill all those 3 characteristics, though no currency can ever do it perfectly. So if we break them down and focus Ğ1 on its strenghts we will attract people with sililar aspirations and have a greater community around the coin. Do you disagree with this perspective?

6

Please note that my point there is for fiat currencies. The issuer is the central bank.

Different Libre currencies will have different issuers. For instance, in circles (if I’m not mistaken) the currencies are issued per peer at a stablished rate. Solidar mines the coins and distributes it equally through the users.

7

First of all, please don’t see my post as deminishing the iniciative. I am really looking forward to be part of the network and I really want the network to trive.

Also, if I don’t understand it well enough, excuse my ignorance. Let’s say you are absolutely right about what you said. There is still a point there that you did not react to:

My point still stands, when we talk about money we want somehow to fulfill those 3 characteristics, though no currency can ever do it perfectly. So if we break them down and focus Äž1 on its strenghts we will attract people with sililar aspirations and have a greater community around the coin. Do you disagree with this perspective?

8

I don’t see your posts as diminishing Ğ1, I just see misunderstanding and I try to answer by giving you somes keys of understanding.

But I do not see any weakness with the libre currency, you do! You are saying “they lose value over time”. I’m telling you: this is wrong, and even particularly wrong today as its value is constantly growing, we can see more and more offers of goods and services as time goes by. So its value increases relatively to the number of goods and services accepted for it.

The more we observe, the more you can buy things with a single unit of Äž1. You can verify this:

So if you tell people “this is not a good storage of value”, you are just lying to them. Why would you do that?

3 Likes
9

I take it back then. Until I have a better grasp of G1.

2 Likes
11

The term Free Money is indeed used in different contexts in the world.

In here, we speak of “the Libre Currency system as it is described by the Relative Theory of Money, by Stéphane Laborde”. So the “Libre Currency” (that you will also find as “Free Money” by some here, since the translation of the very precise French « Monnaie Libre » is not trivial) is only, and only the one described in the RTM.

To answer the question above about the issuer for @Zuanazzi , in Libre Currencies, the issuers are all the members of the web of trust, not only some “miners” or whatever minority. So if you consider the matter of “inflation” that seems to scare you off, the transfer of wealth is actually spread across all members of the WOT, totally indiscriminately. This explanation should give you a different vision of it.

3 Likes