Topic: Has anybode suggested the idea of "crypto-communes"? (Read 204 times)

The bottom line rule for a commune should be, each family or person is their own private commune within the commune. There are no other requirements except to harm no one and no damage to property not your own.

Of course, that might make it not a commune, right?

Maybe I wanted to pay some taxes? If you told people that they can have no taxes, but if their house catches fire they have to ask neighbors for help, most of them would pay.
We can choose to live in places where taxes are low. For instance, Germany decided not to tax bitcoin holders, and you can get various benefits for moving to El Salvador with your bitcoin.

In your commune we live by your rules.

Many people have suggested bitcoin citadels but I think it’s mostly said tongue in cheek. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in some kind of eccentric, cult like setting. Obviously I’m sure some people could see it as desirable but not for me. Maybe if the world was ending or we were under some kind of government attack it could be a good idea but in a normal situation, no thanks.

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I’ve never browsed these forums and thought to myself, damn I wonder if it would be amazing to live with all these people. Lol. Not saying a crypto commune wouldn’t be a wonderful place to live, but I think I’d prefer a little more decentralized beliefs amongst the community I live in.

If I am not mistaken, last years all altcoins except Etherium fall in comparison to Bitcoin. Is this correct? I suppose, the main reason is a kind of social contract chosen by cryptohurrency holders, who chose Bitcon as the main alternative to gold ("a mean for avoiding the payment of inflation tax"). Bitcoin has been already mined, altcoins are not.

It certainly goes beyond anonymity in my opinion.
You are right when you say that governments do not like currencies which offer the option of obscured transactions or blockchains, but unlike Monero, the Dash anonymity was an optional feature, with Monero it is not optional.

The apparent failure of Dash has more to do with lack of innovation in comparison to other altcoins, when Dash was popular it was a novelty to have coins which allowed to send small amounts at low fees and as fast as possible, added to their master nodes. Those characteristics are not a novelty anymore and they have not managed to attract the attention of the market as once they did.

I suppose, Dash has been falling in comparison to Bitcoin, because it is anonymous (the governments fight anonymous cryptocurrencies). I am not sure that anonymity of a cryptocurrency is a good idea.

It is not quite a new concept, actually.
There has been altcoins which have some governance system behind them and to fund the governance, they use a small transaction tax. The first example which comes to mind is the coin called Dash.

It was quite popular back in the day but has fallen from the top 25 (2020) and is heading to lose his position among the top 100 coins by marketcap. Anyways, that coin used the taxation to fund a treasury and the master node operators (which were supposed to have a minimum stack of 1000 Dash), could vote on what to do with the funds, in order to increase the adoption of the currency.

It was the kind of project which would pay for advertisement in big cities, using that money from taxation. Because this governance system, it is debated by the SEC  Dash could be actually an unregistered security.

One more idea: has anybody suggested cryptocurrenties with taxis? I mean, if the comission for transactions is not burned, but it goes to a specific account, and the cryptocurrency holders can vote for changing this account.
Probably the vote of an individual holder must be proportional to the sum he sends to the "government" of the cryptocurrency.

If I understand you correctly, this is a theoretical problem of a democracy: theoretically, 90% of citizens can vote to make the remaining 10% slaves. I suggest using the lie detector for a random group of votes for preventing this. Anyway, I think this is probably not a real problem, because if 90% "dekulakize" remaining 10%, after that 80% will  "dekulakize" remaining 10% and so on.

I prefer a trustless system if we're dealing with money. Forced transactions on a majority vote allows 50.1% of the population to control the wealth of the top percentage of earners.

My question is this: Under such system, how would you prevent wealth redistribution? Say a top earner has all the wealth, could forced transactions be used to redistribute the wealth throughout all participants of the commune? Perhaps that's part of the system of what you're proposing. I would think that would devalue proposition quite significantly.

But you live in a state where the majority forces you to pay taxes. And nobody asks whether you need to do that...

Such system of democracy contribution has gone. What happens if one of the community members disappear with the coins by selling off? This is possible with the modern world and corruption plus distrust. No body does that kind of collaboration again with a decentralized system where everyone is safeguarding their privacy. Contributions for a central purpose or purse is known with fiat and it is fast disappearing, it is not known in a decentralized system.

You should probably know this as a fact that any digital currency that does not offers something different from what we have been seeing with the fiat financial institutions and their currencies makes nothing different to offer us aside what bitcoin is doing right now in cryptocurrency, we are in the advanced era of digital technology and people want a decentralized network that can present to them the privacy needed with their finances and anything different from these may not be accepted by the majority.

Exactly. I don't want the majority to decide for me. I don't want to live in a system where people can force me to do anything.

This thread is about money, but it's a great moment to mention covid, as people were forced out of their homes, denied services and money because others feared the virus. Fear is a very easy and efficient way of controlling populations. When threatened from the outside, your perfect commune is going to turn into chaotic state of lockdowns and terror.

Even if you buy a piece of land and make it your own state, what's going to stop your neighbors (nation states) from taking over with military and forcing you to pay taxes?

I don't know what societies can gain from such a system?
Although it appears to be a socialist system, it is much worse than centralization...
Implementation of forced transactions by this majority decision is worse than communism.

I think DeFi and anarchism share some common principles and goals. Both DeFi and anarchism value openness, transparency, autonomy, and democracy. Both DeFi and anarchism aim to empower individuals and communities to control their own resources and decisions. Both DeFi and anarchism challenge the existing power structures and offer alternatives that are more fair, efficient, and inclusive.

Therefore, I think DeFi and anarchism are not only compatible, but complementary. DeFi can provide the technological infrastructure for anarchism to flourish. Anarchism can provide the ethical framework for DeFi to be used responsibly. Together, DeFi and anarchism can create a more decentralized and democratic society that respects the freedom and dignity of all people.

The question is the same old question. If we develop communities, who is going to do the developing? And if somebody doesn't like the way his community is being developed for him, does he have to leave his "homestead" and move out?

Rather, let everybody develop in the ways they want as long as they don't break the Ten Commandments, and any laws that fall under TC categories. Then punish according to harm and damage (and maybe direct threat) he did to someone else.

Yes, this can be correct, but probably still a usual majority (50.1%) will be needed for withdrawing your money from the system.


Your question is not fully clear for me; I suppose, simple system "1 person - 1 vote" should be used. These communities require some minimal trust between the members (I suppose they can be gathered on forums like this).
When a commune is organized, each person should pay e.g. $2000 for joining. Forced transactions require 75% of votes for accepting, but if you need to widthdaw your $2000 back, a simple majority is demanded.

To me the big point is freedom.

If I join, what control does the commune have over property that I decided not to bring into the commune? Obviously, the property I brought in is communal property.

If some unforeseen occurrence comes about, and I don't like the way the majority votes, can I leave the commune... or if I simply don't like it any longer? And if I leave, how much stuff can I take with me to start a new life elsewhere?

What if I join just to test the waters, and I have a house in a pure trust outside the commune, is that house protected from the commune?

A majority for this type of governance is way too little. A super majority of 2/3, perhaps even 4/5 seems more reasonable. 51% of a community having plenary power means they govern over the remaining 49%. There would need to be some mechanism of balance that would allow the minority at least some degree of influence.

And if forced transactions were permitted, the currency system would become useless. If someone has a disproportionate share of wealth and is within the top percentage of earners, the bottom majority could confiscate all of the wealth from top earners. It turns into communism with wealth redistribution more than it turns into anarchy. And has there ever been a society which has shown restraint rather than alacrity to take other people's money?

I has already described my understanding of "Kropotkin's anarchism", the essence of which is not the withering away of the state, but the development of people's communities at the bottom level. I wrote that such communities will be effective if they have the opportunity to punish individual members for selfishness (with fines) by the decision of the majority. This is the principle of any state: in it people are forced to pay taxes and comply with laws, or rather, those who do not do this are punished, and no one asks if you need to pay these taxes. I think, theoretically, with the help of DeFi, communities that work on the same principle can be organized. It will look like this: members of the commune must keep some amount of money in special coins. These coins will be like ordinary bank accounts, with the ability to transfer to another participant, and with two conditions:
1) By the decision of the majority, forced transactions can be carried out, i.e. money in your account can be transferred to another account;
2) You can withdraw your coins into real money only with the consent of the majority.
Such a commune can unite from 20 to thousands of people, and it will quickly become clear that the leaders of such groups will force the members of the commune to help each other in every possible way, to get to know each other first, and this will be very beneficial for everyone. Those who refuse to work for the benefit of the commune will be fined by the commune.