A cryptocurrency i'd like to see

[serapath]

Democratic Service Coin [DSC]

A crypto currency where every natural person who accepts the currency must only have one crypto identity.

Service Fee (="interest rate setting")

• Each crypto identity can vote at any time (and always switch the vote at any time) for the price of owning coins.
• At any point in time, the global price on owning coins is decided using the median vote of all given votes.
• The price is constantly being paid by each crypto identity according to how many coins it currently holds.
• The sum of all these payments is then instantly equally distributed among all crypto identities.

Scaling Factor (="minting")

• The current balance in any wallet is given as a percentage of 1, where 1 represents the coins in all wallets combined
• Each crypto identity can vote at any time (and always switch the vote at any time) for the global scaling factor.
• At any point in time, the global scaling factor is decided using the median vote of all given votes.
• All balances and prices are automatically scaled by the global scaling factor.
• (A crypto identity can decide to display it's balance and all prices with a different scaling factor (e.g. the personal vote))

Responsive prices

• Anything priced in DSC can and should be bound to be "responsive" to the global scaling factor.

Anarchic Service Coins [ASC]

I don't know how exactly they would work, but the basic idea is to make them work as DNCs, but instead of having global scaling factors and global service fee, everything would be scoped locally, thus many local scaling factors and local service fees.

I want to draw inspiration from the idea of taxemes which do things in a more local fashion rather than having globals, but unlike ASCs, the idea of taxemes is to tax transactions, which i find ridiculous.
ASCs would instead demand people pay local service fees on their current balances and get paid locally for people enjoying having balances.

For more details see: #4 (comment)

[serapath]

• https://groupcurrency.org/

[serapath]

i think "cool" money might be like bitcoin, but everyone who starts accepting it creates value for the bitcoin holder community without which bitcoin would be worthless... so if i start accepting bitcoins i want the bitcoin holder community to pay me a service fee... ...and of course, as soon as i earned some bitcoins, i also kind of start paying this service fee to others :-)

[serapath]

https://github.com/vtexier/theorie-relative-de-la-monnaie

[serapath]

http://www.rsk.co/blog/rsk-research-news-storage-rent

[serapath]

Background

In a society without money, trading is difficult and time consuming. Somebody who offers goods and services for "cash" (actual cash or digital) offers a service which is very beneficial to everyone who has "cash".

If everyone is specialized in trading for money, even more so when it's made kind of mandatory, two or more people who can offer goods and services to each other which they even need, but have not money, CANNOT TRADE, but they could if trading without money was allowed and common.

Given a few people pile money and don't spend it in a slower rate at which they accumulate money (thus piling it), the above situation can easily happen and is actually quite commonly found in today's reality (=> deflationary tendencies that are countered by "money printing" of banks and central banks around the world). That means - because our economy is specialized in operating with money - those without are often forced into some kind of standby mode by those who have money but not enough needs, but still, those with money have a huge interest that people continue to accept money, because that is what is beneficial to them, thus people should continue to offer the "money accepting service" to society.

A standby-service (e.g. doctors, or firefighters and many other professions) is paid, but currently people who have money do not pay for this service. Instead, they are getting paid for piling money - so the service fee they pay is negative.

[billiegoose]

the idea of taxemes is to tax transactions, which I find ridiculous

I think I understand... and I have an idea! And then I have a possible attack/loophole against my idea. And then I have a proposal which brings back taxemes but only to counterbalance the attack.

Premise 1: The purpose of coin is to facilitate trade, in opposition of storing value.

Definition of success: we want the system to achieve the following properties:

• discourage vast sums of money from accumulating into a few small pots
• discourage creating a "finance economy" where money begets money exponentially (the current state of world affairs)
• avoid settling into a "stagnant equilibrium" where economic growth, or technical progress, or societal progress slows to a pace that places the species at risk of being unable to surmount disaster either human-made (global warming, killer AI), natural (killer asteroid), or alien (planet invasion).

Proposals:
To discourage hording, we place a tax on piles of money. Establish a decay rate and much like radioactive materials, allow coin to decay when left in an account for too long. Too fast a decay rate, and nobody will be able to save for retirement. Too low a decay rate, and it does no good.

Attack:
Set up lots of fake "shell corporation" accounts and keep the money moving around so it doesn't decay.

Proposal 2:
We need to discourage moving money around in circles as a loophole. Therefore we need to add a transaction cost (taxeme) so the cost of moving money around in circles exactly balances out the decay rate.

Attack 2:
A taxeme necessarily means a tax right? So somebody is getting that money. New loophole is bribery/corruption.

Solution 2:
Rather than tax transactions, we simply throw the money away. The end result is: we must simply let all money decay regardless of whether it is sitting still or not. I'm pretty sure this idea has a name (negative inflation?) and has been well studied. No current cryptocurrency does this that I am aware of.

Treating money as a percentage of a global pot, throwing away money must mean putting it somewhere.

This leads to an hourglass idea: when your money decays it is distributed equally to everyone else. Therefore the people at the bottom are pushed up and the people at the top are pulled down. Adjusting the decay rate (which we might now call the redistribution rate) gives some room for tweaking the wealth distribution.

[mitar]

Why not simply distribute all collected taxes to everyone as universal basic income? Then more economic activity there is, more transactions there is, more everyone benefits.