Any currency that has no asset backing is not a currency, its a failed economy waiting to happen.
I agree for the most part, but technically you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation. They did this in 1930s Germany with MEFO (I might be getting the acronym wrong, but its the German name for national metal works) notes, where the metal works get an order placed and the bank issues a note covering the value of that order. This was the best proof that currency could be backed by real asset or real productivity.
The blockchain technology and cryptocurrency medium of exchange are only half of the fix.
yes, blockchain ensures the system is tamperproof and not centrally controlled. But the assets on the blockchain need to represent something of value.
Any currency based on faith fails when faith fails.
The other side of the coin is, too much faith gives too much power to those who dont deserve the faith. Like the current system. Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
Also, any economy that doesn't have in place market places for barter will also fail. A single standard medium of exchange (or even a few) can be horded.
I would go further and say in a perfect world you also need local crypto currencies. Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members. All these currencies must be tradable. The productivity of a community establishes the value of its currency by market pricing. This system is like what Titanic was supposed to be. Compartmentalisation of failure. Even if a bunch community currencies were taken over and manipulated, it wont bring down the whole system and market pricing will signal the currencies in distress.
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
Then if you need bread, and you have no "silver crypto" or "gold crypto" you can just trade 1/100th of your TMTG stock, or GME stock, or whatever, and buy some bread
I would starve but I wont part with my TMTG or GME stock lol, but yeah this is an interesting concept. Once assets (stocks included) are featured on the crypto, sky is the limit. Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
as units redeemable for computation on the network
The cryptos represent an amount of computation that has been "burnt" to add the entry to the ledger, but it does not represent something of value, as in an amount of computation that I can actually use.
Theta is actually an exception. Theta guarantees the availability of computational power for you to use (something of value), and not just computation that was burnt in creating that coin.
A global supercomputer accessible to anyone; that charges you fairly for resources depending on the applications you run.
I am all for a supercomputer thats available for everyone to run what they want, but will this control the world's currency? Is so, its an entirely different question.
The suspicion people have about crypto being a trap I can understand but overall the idea the cabal needs to re-engineer the entire internet and network protocol to implement something they already have working is clearly illogical
Not sure what you mean by re-engineering internet and network protocol. Can you elaborate?
Dont get me wrong, Blockchains are great and we will definitely use it in future post-awakening. I cannot imagine a free system without a good blockchain based currency system. Just like Internet is great and can be used for freedom of information, but can also be subverted and hence it was allowed to enter the public realm.
Bitcoin as such is not viable as a currency for so many reasons (I have posted extensively about this, and I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone who really loves bitcoin). The Cabal knew it wont, and it was dangled in front of us as a bait because they knew they had to take us out of this fiat system into a central bank digital currency system - thats their end goal.
you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation.
Any currency based on the future labor of people is called indenture. I suggest we don't do that. That is what we currently have. The reason we have inflation is not because its backed by our future labor, but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
It's a fair bit more complicated than that, and has a lot to do with what happens when money is taken out of the system (see the Great Depression). The point is, our current system is exactly this, backed by our future labor, and inflation is not based on that aspect of it.
Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
I suggest we need a no faith system. Assets are not faith based. There is no faith in there. You either need (or want) silver or you don't. It doesn't matter if its a medium of exchange, it has value all by itself. It is used for all sorts of things, including as a primary form of adornment for god knows how many thousands of years because it is pretty, malleable, and has numerous other qualities that are unique. It has value, all by itself. Zero faith, tons of faith, it doesn't matter.
Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members.
Sweet JESUS. You are going to give me a heart attack. I can't wait to release my report so that people can see the real history of economies. I will repeat myself. Any system that uses as a medium of exchange for barter the future labor of people is called slavery.
It also is something that doesn't exist, i.e. it's just a worthless currency, not backed by an asset. Banking on the future fails when the future doesn't live up to expectations. For an example, see the Federal Reserve Note in a few months (hopefully).
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
For sure. I have a ton written up as a starting point for debate.
Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
Exactly. Everything is liquid, everything is solid. Its the perfect cup of ice water!
but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level,
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
No system is risk free.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system you describe has always led to slavery.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things.
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
I agree for the most part, but technically you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation. They did this in 1930s Germany with MEFO (I might be getting the acronym wrong, but its the German name for national metal works) notes, where the metal works get an order placed and the bank issues a note covering the value of that order. This was the best proof that currency could be backed by real asset or real productivity.
yes, blockchain ensures the system is tamperproof and not centrally controlled. But the assets on the blockchain need to represent something of value.
The other side of the coin is, too much faith gives too much power to those who dont deserve the faith. Like the current system. Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
I would go further and say in a perfect world you also need local crypto currencies. Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members. All these currencies must be tradable. The productivity of a community establishes the value of its currency by market pricing. This system is like what Titanic was supposed to be. Compartmentalisation of failure. Even if a bunch community currencies were taken over and manipulated, it wont bring down the whole system and market pricing will signal the currencies in distress.
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
I would starve but I wont part with my TMTG or GME stock lol, but yeah this is an interesting concept. Once assets (stocks included) are featured on the crypto, sky is the limit. Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
The cryptos represent an amount of computation that has been "burnt" to add the entry to the ledger, but it does not represent something of value, as in an amount of computation that I can actually use.
Theta is actually an exception. Theta guarantees the availability of computational power for you to use (something of value), and not just computation that was burnt in creating that coin.
I am all for a supercomputer thats available for everyone to run what they want, but will this control the world's currency? Is so, its an entirely different question.
Not sure what you mean by re-engineering internet and network protocol. Can you elaborate?
Dont get me wrong, Blockchains are great and we will definitely use it in future post-awakening. I cannot imagine a free system without a good blockchain based currency system. Just like Internet is great and can be used for freedom of information, but can also be subverted and hence it was allowed to enter the public realm.
Bitcoin as such is not viable as a currency for so many reasons (I have posted extensively about this, and I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone who really loves bitcoin). The Cabal knew it wont, and it was dangled in front of us as a bait because they knew they had to take us out of this fiat system into a central bank digital currency system - thats their end goal.
Any currency based on the future labor of people is called indenture. I suggest we don't do that. That is what we currently have. The reason we have inflation is not because its backed by our future labor, but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
It's a fair bit more complicated than that, and has a lot to do with what happens when money is taken out of the system (see the Great Depression). The point is, our current system is exactly this, backed by our future labor, and inflation is not based on that aspect of it.
I suggest we need a no faith system. Assets are not faith based. There is no faith in there. You either need (or want) silver or you don't. It doesn't matter if its a medium of exchange, it has value all by itself. It is used for all sorts of things, including as a primary form of adornment for god knows how many thousands of years because it is pretty, malleable, and has numerous other qualities that are unique. It has value, all by itself. Zero faith, tons of faith, it doesn't matter.
Sweet JESUS. You are going to give me a heart attack. I can't wait to release my report so that people can see the real history of economies. I will repeat myself. Any system that uses as a medium of exchange for barter the future labor of people is called slavery.
It also is something that doesn't exist, i.e. it's just a worthless currency, not backed by an asset. Banking on the future fails when the future doesn't live up to expectations. For an example, see the Federal Reserve Note in a few months (hopefully).
For sure. I have a ton written up as a starting point for debate.
Exactly. Everything is liquid, everything is solid. Its the perfect cup of ice water!
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
Same with my suggestion, no slavery necessary.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Cant be less faith based then taking trust out of an exchange altogether...