Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] Freicoin: demurrage crypto-currency from the Occupy movement (crowdfund) - page 20. (Read 67963 times)

sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250
Actually I think a larger quote from Eistenstein may be of value here in explaining the “why”:

It seems like all of the benefits the author perceives from the use of demurrage only come about when there is no interest bearing or neutral alternative, otherwise instead of losing wealth to demurrage, the holder of money will just exchange it to a more suitable store of value. Additionally, it seems like the author forgets that one of the purposes of money as a store of value is that it does not spoil as do most consumable goods. Especially given the ease with which one block chain tokens can be exchanged for another, if Freicoin becomes popular I don't forsee anyone with significant wealth holding on to them for any significant amount of time.

Don't bother maaku with facts. He lives in his own dream world.
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
Actually I think a larger quote from Eistenstein may be of value here in explaining the “why”:

It seems like all of the benefits the author perceives from the use of demurrage only come about when there is no interest bearing or neutral alternative, otherwise instead of losing wealth to demurrage, the holder of money will just exchange it to a more suitable store of value. Additionally, it seems like the author forgets that one of the purposes of money as a store of value is that it does not spoil as do most consumable goods. Especially given the ease with which one block chain tokens can be exchanged for another, if Freicoin becomes popular I don't forsee anyone with significant wealth holding on to them for any significant amount of time.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
This is from a larger work, Money: A new beginning.

Wow, that's a brilliant find. Very succinct and accessible.

Yeah, I just wish it wasn't attached to a site about shamanism, astrology, and new-age mumbo-jumbo :\
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
This is from a larger work, Money: A new beginning.

Wow, that's a brilliant find. Very succinct and accessible.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
Actually I think a larger quote from Eistenstein may be of value here in explaining the “why”:

Quote from: Eistenstein
"Gesell's phrase, "... a monstrous hallucination, the doctrine of 'value'..." hints at another effect of demurrage—it makes us question the notion of “value.” Value assigns to each object in the world a number. It associates an abstraction, changeless and independent, with that which always changes and that exists in relationship to all else. It is part of humanity's descent into representation, the reduction of the world into a data set. Demurrage reverses this thinking and removes an important boundary between the human realm and the natural realm. When money is no longer preferred to goods, we will lose the habit of defining a thing by how much it is worth.

Whereas interest promotes the discounting of future cash flows, demurrage encourages long-term thinking. In present-day accounting, a forest that has the capacity to generate one million dollars a year every year into the foreseeable future is considered more valuable if immediately cut down for a profit of 50 million dollars. (The net present value of the sustainable forest calculated at a discount rate of 5% is only $20 million.) This state of affairs results in the infamously short-sighted behavior of corporations that sacrifice (even their own) long-term well-being for the short-term results of the fiscal quarter. Such behavior is perfectly rational in an interest-based economy, but in a demurrage system, pure self-interest would dictate that the forest be preserved. No longer would greed motivate the robbing of the future for the benefit of the present. The exponential discounting of future cash flows implies the "cashing in" of the entire earth as opposed to an immediate wholesale “liquidation” of our remaining resources.

Whereas interest tends to concentrate wealth, demurrage promotes its distribution. In any economy with a specialization of labor beyond the family level, human beings need to perform exchanges in order to thrive. Both interest and demurrage represent a fee for the use of money, but the key difference is that in the former system, the fee accrues to those who already have money, while in the latter system it is levied upon them. Wealth comes with a high maintenance cost, thereby recreating the dynamics that governed hunter-gatherer attitudes toward accumulations of possessions.

Whereas security in an interest-based system comes from accumulating money, in a demurrage system it comes from having productive channels through which to direct it – that is, to become a nexus of the flow of wealth and not a point for its accumulation. In other words, it puts the focus on relationships, not on "having". The demurrage system accords with a different sense of self, affirmed not by enclosing more and more of the world within the confines of me and mine, but by developing and deepening relationships with others. It encourages reciprocation, sharing, and the rapid circulation of wealth.

In today's system, it is much better to have a thousand dollars than it is for ten people to owe you a hundred dollars. In a demurrage system the opposite is true. Since money decays with time, if I have some money I'm not using right now, I am happy to lend it to you, just as if I had more bread than I could eat, I would give you some. If I need some in the future, I can call in my obligations or create new ones with anyone within my network who has more money than he or she needs to meet immediate needs. As Gesell put it:

Quote from: Gesell
With the introduction of Free-Money, money has been reduced to the rank of umbrellas; friends and acquaintances assist each other mutually as a matter of course with loans of money. No one keeps, or can keep, reserves of money, since money is under compulsion to circulate. But just because no one can form reserves of money, no reserves are needed. For the circulation of money is regular and uninterrupted.

No longer would money be a scarce commodity, hoarded and kept away from others; rather it would tend to circulate at the maximum possible "velocity". The issuer would ensure stable prices (P) according to the equation of exchange (MV=PQ) by regulating the amount of currency in circulation (M) to correspond to total real economic output (Q). The same result could be achieved by linking the currency to a basket of commodities whose level corresponds to overall economic activity, as proposed by Bernard Lietaer.

The dynamics of a demurrage-based currency system ensure a sufficient amount for all. This is in contradiction to today's economy in which a surfeit of material goods is coupled with their grossly unequal distribution. Hence the deeper contradiction in which, on the one hand, there are hundreds of millions of people who are unemployed or engaged in trivial, meaningless jobs, while on the other hand there is much important, meaningful work left undone—highlighting a disconnect between human creativity and human needs. "With Free-Money demand is inseparable from money, it is no longer a manifestation of the will of the possessors of money. Free-Money is not the instrument of demand, but demand itself, demand materialized and meeting, on an equal footing, supply, which always was, and remains, something material."

This is from a larger work, Money: A new beginning.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
I'm going to assume that LoupGaroux is feeling injured because his first post, the only one not filled with hateful invective, was ignored. So, assuming good faith (a real stretch at this point), I'll attempt to answer his criticisms.

Sorry, but the whole concept of artificially implementing demurrage into a a mechanism of trade and value storage is antithetical to what having a free-floating value is.
How? You haven't specified how these definitions are exclusive.

It is not a means to keep currency flowing around in the economy, it is a means to have an authority (be it your General Assembly, or your blockchain structure, or your whip-yielders in government) to force the loss of value over time.
Yes, the blockchain structure is an authority, even in Bitcoin. Because you disagree with what is being accounted for by the blockchain does not invalidate the idea. I think the blockchain structure authority is greatly preferred to some other forms of authority.

Those in such an economy, having only the ability to spend to avoid an artificial devaluation of their labor or investment, will actively seek an alternative to that economy.
Actually there is an economic "law" that states the exact opposite. It's called Gresham's law, but it doesn't apply here because this currency exists without a state setting its exchange rate. However, it suggests that in practice nobody would like to spend their more valuable currency.

Far from investment in entrepreneurial experimentation, a demurrage-based coin will do nothing but bolster all OTHER currencies as a means to avoid having an external power destroy some of the value of my work.
Sorry, but just as capital has time-value, so too does the value of your work. Your desire for a system where its possible to coast off of personal wealth without contributing doesn't exist anywhere and can't exist. As the Bobby Dylan song goes "you gotta serve somebody."
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
Sorry that opening discourse with an opposing viewpoint is "trolling" to you, but, that really is par for the course with the occupy mentality... anyone who doesn't embrace the philosophy of gimme, gimme, gimme and don't ask me to do anything for it is the enemy and to be ridiculed for being a 1%er. Fine. I am one of the 1%. Have been for over 30 years. Have the colors to prove it. And I'm part of your vacuous shadow of a 1% too. I embrace personal gain from personal effort. I resist the attempt to seize my accumulation because you "think it is fair to take from others because you want what they have".

This coin idea is an abortion of a concept twisting the philosophy of an open, anonymous currency based on free exchange by turning it into something based on an artificial construct of centralized theft, with a few destroying the value of those who produce for their own benefit.

And the fact that you would have the shameless audacity to come here and beg for $28,000 to promote this bullshit concept sickens me. You are the lowest of the low, a filthy beggar looking to cobble together a con based on a couple of concepts you read about in the news and think you can fleece some unsuspecting dupe into throwing some coins your way. Vermin like you are the basis of most of the scams in online commerce your blood-sucking is unwelcome.

Fuck off scammer, your idea is outed as a con, you are a scammer, and the concept sucks.

And that, little jackass, is not trolling, that is a prima facia ad hominem attack on you and your absurd, unworkable and bullshit idea of a coin.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
Give me your money so I can make you more money.


I don't think you seem to understand this concept very well. He's not offering to develop a speculative, get rich quick asset that will "make you more money." He's offering to make one that's better for exchange than Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
do you really think a globally targeted currency with demurrage is a good idea @maaku?

Demurrage is intended to fuel consumption, and in this day and age of overproduction, planned obsolescence and discussion about sustainability, this sets the wrong signal.

As said before, demurrage may make sense for a regional currencies as this would result in more local economic cycles, which has all kinds of ecological benefits. But when the currency is global, this positive effect is gone and will probably result in a consumer-ish slave-like lifestyle not much different to today.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
Because I'm dirt-poor? Do you know how little government workers make? And it doesn't help that the cost-of-living adjustment for Mountain View is an inadequate joke. I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck, with two extra mouths to feed.

But that isn't even the point. If people think it's a good cause, that we're the right people to do it, and if they've got some cash to spare, they'll donate. That's an ethical transaction between us and them; why should you care?

This will be my last post on the subject. But feel free to engage me in a discussion about the merits of the proposal or demurrage currencies per se.

Translation: Pity me and support my project because I'm poor. Give me your money so I can make you more money.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
Because I'm dirt-poor? Do you know how little government workers make? And it doesn't help that the cost-of-living adjustment for Mountain View is an inadequate joke. I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck, with two extra mouths to feed.

But that isn't even the point. If people think it's a good cause, that we're the right people to do it, and if they've got some cash to spare, they'll donate. That's an ethical transaction between us and them; why should you care?

This will be my last post on the subject. But feel free to engage me in a discussion about the merits of the proposal or demurrage currencies per se.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
Remember the term Open-source and free kind of go hand in hand. Asking people to fund your project goes against that very concept. Grin Grin
That couldn't be further from the truth. These days only a small minority of free or open-source software is developed and maintained as weekend/hobby projects.

But anyway, why should the quality of the idea represent a legitimate demand on my personal time and resources? I thought we were mostly libertarians here--what's wrong with seeking even minimal compensation just to cover the cost of production? Is there something inherently unethical about donating specifically to the cause of creating a open-source/free software project? Would you object to someone making a similar donation to the Debian foundation? What about the Google Summer of Code interns? Are they scum for accepting stipends for the work they do? I really don't see the logic of that argument.

We priced the Indiegogo as low as we could make it while still doing a top-notch job, accomplishing all the goals listed in the timeframe specified. You might not believe it, but servers cost money to build and run, marketing artwork takes resources to make, and code takes time to build. $28k is our conservative, at-cost guestimate of how much it would take to complete the proposal and to do it right (no cutting corners), plus the Indiegogo fees and taxes.

Okay then why don't YOU fund the entire project yourself???
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
Remember the term Open-source and free kind of go hand in hand. Asking people to fund your project goes against that very concept. Grin Grin
That couldn't be further from the truth. These days only a small minority of free or open-source software is developed and maintained as weekend/hobby projects.

But anyway, why should the quality of the idea represent a legitimate demand on my personal time and resources? I thought we were mostly libertarians here--what's wrong with seeking even minimal compensation just to cover the cost of production? Is there something inherently unethical about donating specifically to the cause of creating a open-source/free software project? Would you object to someone making a similar donation to the Debian foundation? What about the Google Summer of Code interns? Are they scum for accepting stipends for the work they do? I really don't see the logic of that argument.

We priced the Indiegogo as low as we could make it while still doing a top-notch job, accomplishing all the goals listed in the timeframe specified. You might not believe it, but servers cost money to build and run, marketing artwork takes resources to make, and code takes time to build. $28k is our conservative, at-cost guestimate of how much it would take to complete the proposal and to do it right (no cutting corners), plus the Indiegogo fees and taxes.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
Or here's a thought: why don't you troll somewhere else?


I'm happy to respond to any reasonable questions about the economics of the proposal. But let's keep the discourse level-headed and rational, okay?

No Loup is right this idea is not going to work.

Remember the term Open-source and free kind of go hand in hand. Asking people to fund your project goes against that very concept. Grin Grin
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
Or here's a thought: why don't you troll somewhere else?


I'm happy to respond to any reasonable questions about the economics of the proposal. But let's keep the discourse level-headed and rational, okay?
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
Here's a thought... why not hop the whole crypto-currency crowd of occupy-lings over to ShortBusCoin/MicroIntellectualPropertyTheftCash and adopt their failure of a currency instead of creating your own. It would really be more in keeping with the philosophy of occupy- leech from others, create a culture of dependency and entitlement by corrupting that which isn't yours, and seize what you want without the effort of actual creation or labor, because , gosh darn it, the 99% should be able to get what they want without all that yucky work stuff, just by taking it from the stupid 1% who actually created it.

An idea about as fucked up as this concept.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
$795 raised against a $28,000 windfall for the con-men behind this project with 44 days to go. At that burn rate the final result will be in keeping with the nature of the proposal- FAIL.

Well that remains to be seen. There's still quite a bit of time left and we've only just started to publicize.

In any case, if we don't make the goal then we'll just scale back some of the non-critical items, with the block chain pruning probably being the first to go--being the longest pole in the tent.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
$795 raised against a $28,000 windfall for the con-men behind this project with 44 days to go. At that burn rate the final result will be in keeping with the nature of the proposal- FAIL.

So true ...

sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
$795 raised against a $28,000 windfall for the con-men behind this project with 44 days to go. At that burn rate the final result will be in keeping with the nature of the proposal- FAIL.
Pages:
Jump to: