Pages:
Author

Topic: Market Driven Money Supply.. (Read 3792 times)

sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
January 09, 2014, 04:51:06 AM
#47
I was thinking along the line of Fresh coins constantly debasing the olders out of existance...
I don't think this will be a linear process but more like exponential decay, but the parameters decided by the "Hand" lol

Ok lets define as "Age Band" the timeframe of  ages of coins a user/market feels they have some value like a comfort zone
Local markets develop their own "Age Bands" that shift forward or backward as they grow or recess, a single currency of variable "Hardness"

Redeemability
If I offer some redeem of new coins for invalidated coins then I could not recycle lost or unaccounted or stagnant coins,
That would put a floor as you say to the coins value, is that necessary? I like the idea that the only value stored in the coin to be the utility as exchange, more like exchange tokens. So If you don't use it for exchange then it has no value Wink something like anti-bitcoin.
Would not people?l trade them as soon as coins get out of their stated "Age Band"
Besides maybe there is a market even for near expiration coins: let the children play Wink.

Variability of the Valid Block Window.
It occured to me that markets will define their own Subwindow in the form of "Age Band" and possibly making the size of the Block Window irrelevant, as long as of course the block Window is sufficiently large to encompass the various markets needs/Age-Bands.
So markets expand/shrink - inflate/deflate their bands at their will.

On the lighter side:
how do you like naming my coin ouro from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros multiple puns intended
I even have found a symbol for ouro :Ȣ or ȣ  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ou_(ligature)

comments?
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
January 08, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
#46
Money with a fixed expiration data was a common means to issue a defacto-demurrage currency in the middle ages.  At a fixed date in the future a unit of currency would be subject to mandatory recall and it would be exchanged for some amount of gold/silver less then it's face value, possibly with a sliding scale for any early redemption.  This established a predictable decline in value for the currency very similar to demurrage.  So I think their is some merit to the concept even if it is more complex then demurrage as implemented in Freicoin, one thing I like is that it makes the money more like a bond and makes market based control mechanics seem more natural to people.

But I would make a modest initial change, the 'expiring' coins need to be redeemable for some quantity of new coins, they can't just be completely voided, that would introduce too much instability on the downward slide in value, you want to have a floor to establish some minimum valuation even as you approach the expiration/recall data.  The amount received might be subject to change of course.

The whole idea of a variable sized 'window' of how long coins last as a way to expand or contract supply is also interesting but I need to see a way to get a handle on how the market would work to know if I really like it.

With regard to inflation and demurrage, I generally envision demurrage being fully reintroduced to the money-supply automatically so demurrage can be set to any rate without changing money-supply.  In Freicoin the rate and the recycling are both fixed and were externally computed to be equal, but so long as one tracks the total money supply it's a simple matter to make recycling continually match demurrage fees programmaticly.  Then a separate 'true' inflation mechanism would add more to get a real expansion of the money supply or if we want contraction some of the demurrage recycling stream gets diverted to the void to satisfy the desired reduction rate.  So ideally demurrage and inflation are completely separate variables that can move up or down independently.



hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
January 08, 2014, 12:46:57 PM
#45
Thinking out loud..

If a coin has an 'expiration date', then the older it is, the closer it is to expiration, so the LESS it is worth. This sounds very similar to demurrage ? I can see why Impaler invited you Wink
 
Trying to keep track of how old coins are, whilst keeping the same value, seems quite complicated. I think that the demurrage principal used by freicoin, where the coin is worth :

(It's value) * (-5% per annum), is simpler for people to understand.

Your idea of buying newer coins with older ones seems THE SAME as simply applying demurrage to all coins ?

The newly minted coins will be worth more since the demurrage has not had a chance to affect them as much.

What I do see as different is that if you had an exchange for older to newer coins, the AMOUNT of demurrage would effectively be set by the market, and would not be set in stone.

This could be a useful metric in deciding the state of the economy, and whether money needs to be injected or not. Hmm..

So, what if the coin amount inflated by 2% per annum, or some amount. BUT the amount of demurrage that was applied to each coin was decided by a some kind of on chain exchange. Similar to exchanging old coins for new.

If the demurrage was set to more than 2% you would have monetary deflation, otherwise inflation ?

I'm not sure if the money injection would be done per coin, or just given straight to the miners.

sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
January 08, 2014, 10:14:18 AM
#44
thaaanos! ('Thanos Rising' by Jason Aaron was almost my favourite comic of last year..)

Thanks for your input.

I'm not quite sure I get your idea.. let me try..

There are old coins and new coins.

Old coins stop working after a while. new coins take their place.

If you have old coins does that mean they become useless after their expiration date ?

Then you can trade these coins on an exchange. Old for New. And the price on the exchange determines whether we print more or less money ?

Can you explain it in a little more detail ?

EDIT:I hope my first post has not gone unnoticed? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4375345

Yes coins get to have an expiration date

Now I wonder I'm not there yet my mind races in 100 directions Smiley
But One thought is:

Bitcoins this way gain a true utility value that of: age

Will even with a constant rate of invalidations/minings so that number of bitcoins stays constant.?

Can Price stability  be achieved by the internal trade of newer for older coins, and fluctuations overspiled/captured  in the age dimension rather that the count of bitcoins?

So I wonder if my train bellow is correct:

As economy is in recession newer coins gain more utility value and will be traded at higher value as people will try to "harden" their Bitcoins for fear of low transaction volume that will rot deposits, so there is an ad-hoc deflation of currency as people will try to compress their "Age Band"

As economy grows older coins still have good enough utility as people are more confident that they will use/get rid of them because of higher transaction volumes before they become a *problem* so they expand the "Age Band" thus currency inflates.

So maybe we don't really need to print or not more money as Market chooses the confident "Age Band" of usefull coins.

I find this thoughs very intriguing as they lead to a very KISS system, Can someone validate my thoughts so I know if I need to look elsewhere?



hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
January 08, 2014, 05:56:28 AM
#43
thaaanos! ('Thanos Rising' by Jason Aaron was almost my favourite comic of last year..)

Thanks for your input.

I'm not quite sure I get your idea.. let me try..

There are old coins and new coins.

Old coins stop working after a while. new coins take their place.

If you have old coins does that mean they become useless after their expiration date ?

Then you can trade these coins on an exchange. Old for New. And the price on the exchange determines whether we print more or less money ?

Can you explain it in a little more detail ?
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
January 07, 2014, 06:37:58 PM
#42
Ok after reading the thread I came to the realization that my proposal above could simply work with just constant rate of invalidations and expansions
and that perhaps the stability could be achieved by the internal trading of older for newer minted coins at market rates.
I expect baskets of mixed-age coins wll be created that can act as a stable index?
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
January 07, 2014, 06:00:38 PM
#41
As I said in the OP, if you could take the Human element out of the equation, maybe some of this stuff is not soooo terrible..
There are some Moral Hazard issues here
Can you "ethicaly" make a decision NOW that will be used in the FUTURE without knowing the specifics then and possibly not even have a stake?
I.E.
Would you design a Car that automaticaly stops at red lights?

So I belirve ultimately the decision to inflate or deflate the economy lies with the stakeholders,
The luck with cryptocurrencies BTC-like is that even if me/you/some random guy/we decide to inflate the economy,
he doesnt get to distribute that extra money Wink
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
January 07, 2014, 05:43:21 PM
#40
Thank Impaler for inviting me to this thread,
my 2 cents here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4348065, also quoted bellow for ease
I will now go back and read the thread from the start Smiley

There seem to people that believe that an appreciating currency is a good Idea
I would like to invite those people to come live and work in Greece, Over the past 4 years Euro is appreciating:
Wages down by 40% Consumer Prices up by 20%, Land value down by 60%. A Paradise.

Now that we have established what the problem, lets propose a solution that will solve many problems at the same time
while the parameters can be tweaked the basic idea is:

A. Block reward is maintained at a constant bonus
B. A rolling invalidation of blocks starting from the genesis block occures

So there is a Block Window of valid transactions. The size of the window determines the total number of Bitcoins in existence.

Quote
Pros
1. Early adopters get a fair share of value without becoming parasites
2. Late adopters have a chance in the economy
2. Wealth accumulation is discouraged (Hodling)
3. Blockchain database is bounded
4. Lost/forgoten/orphaned coins are eventualy reclaimed
5. Will be easier to get accepted by goverments

Cons
1. Early adopters will hate it and will be resistant to the change

Now for the window part

C. The rate of invalitations and block creation is unrelated
C. A link between the economy growth/recesion and the block window size is somehow* created

Quote
Pros
1. A chance at market stability

*As I am opposed to create rules that act as forces of nature and rather trust individual and collective human judgement,
I would like to have that parameter not hardcoded but open to negotiation and discussion.

So why not making another coin you may ask?
Because if Bitcoin fails the whole experiment of p2p cryptocurencies will fail and all we will have left with will be Bankster issued virtual currencies

EDIT:
Maybe Invalidation threshold/rate can be decided by a de'facto concessus between the independent private Invalidation threshold/rate that miners choose.

I think I have reduced the problem to 2 diffrent dynamics, blockchain expansion & blockchain invalidation
so any static rate of inflation is possible, but I believe the crux of the thread is to make them dynamic exploiting info both from the blockchain as well as from miners intentions. Maybe even using all that cpu power that goes in hashing to some monte-carlo solution seeking race

A rule I want to investigate is:
If SomeFunction(transaction fees,transaction count) < K1 invalidate a block from the begining
If SomeFunction(transaction fees,transaction count) > K2 award a bonus for this block

effectively using transactions as a pivot to determine if economy is inflating or deflating
member
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
January 07, 2014, 01:04:13 AM
#39
This proposal would not change relative price levels and would thus have no effect on purchasing power, and no effect whatsoever, good or bad.

? Err.. I have to disagree. Agreed that 'relative' prices stay the same, but what about Price Stability ?

1)Price stability makes it easier for people to recognise changes in relative prices since such changes are not obscured by fluctuations in the overall price level. This enables firms and consumers to make better-informed decisions on consumption and investment. This in turn allows the market to allocate resources more efficiently. By helping the market to guide resources to where they can be used most productively, price stability raises the productive potential of the economy.

2)If investors can be sure that prices will remain stable in the future, they will not demand an "inflation risk premium" to compensate them for the risks associated with holding nominal assets over the longer term. By reducing such risk premia in the real interest rate, monetary policy can contribute to the allocative efficiency of the capital market and thus increases the incentives to invest. This in turn fosters economic welfare.

3)The credible maintenance of price stability also makes it less likely that individuals and firms will divert resources from productive uses to hedge against inflation. For example, in a high inflation environment there is an incentive to stockpile real goods since they retain their value better than money or some financial assets in such circumstances. However, stockpiling goods is not an efficient investment decision, and therefore hinders economic growth.

4)Tax and welfare systems can create perverse incentives that distort economic behaviour. In most cases, these distortions are exacerbated by inflation or deflation. Price stability eliminates the real economic costs entailed when inflation exacerbates the distortionary impact of tax and social security systems.

5)An environment of stable prices helps to maintain social cohesion and stability, since price stability prevents the considerable and arbitrary redistribution of wealth and income that arises in both inflationary and deflationary environments. Several scenarios in the twentieth century have shown that high rates of inflation or deflation tend to create social and political instability.

6)Price stability also contributes to financial stability, because it eliminates market distortions and uncertainties arising from unstable prices. For example, price stability reduces risk premia vis-à-vis interest rates because there is less uncertainty about future inflation.

Or so they say..  

Problem is of course that if someone has the power to PRINT money, they'll PRINT IT! (Regardless of WHY they should be printing it..)

What we need is an equation.. A maths way of calculating how to affect the Money Supply.

And it seems some kind of Free Market, might be a way of ensuring 'Honest' discovery.

I don't disagree with any of the quoted text above.

Thankfully, none of those problems will materialize based on the hypothetical I described. I don't have any other way of explaining it to you, so I'll leave it at that.
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
January 05, 2014, 10:59:08 PM
#38

When they have too much cash, what will they do ? When they don't have enough what will they do ? Seems pretty clear they buy and sell the gold. But maybe i'm looking at this to clinically/physics engine-y.

Sure some kind of exchange ratio develops I'm not disputing that but we can't just assume that ratio is telling us what we want to know.  I've heard LOTS and LOTS of proposal from people who think just setting up any kind of market or any kind of voting system involving opposing viewpoints will produce the desired stability.  

For example I frequently hear a proposal build around miners 'voting' for the rate of inflation.   This tends to be one of the first things that occurs to people because it is the technically simplest thing to do and miners and things which empower miners are generally considered doable in BTC (because miners have de-facto veto on protocol changes).  Under this kind of system their would be some miners who vote for high inflation and other that vote for low and the system would reach some compromise when it sums all the votes, but no ones motivation for for their vote is linked to the actual growth in the economy or what would produce stable valuation of the currency, rather it will reflect their individual balance between past holdings and future mining potential.  Their are an endless number of ways to extract a 'signal' from coin users but it is making sure that signal is reflective of the economic variable desired.

In your cash/gold scenario I think the signal your going to be getting is going to mostly reflect the ratio between the two assets and to a lesser degree liquidity, as you say people will want the cash when they want to make purchases so their will be an premium on it which reflects it's ability to be spent (this assumes gold has some time-delay to convert as described earlier, else it is just as liquid).  I've thought about ways to detect the value of liquidity so that demurrage currency could be adjusted to the idea rate.  Freicoin is likely suffering because as a fledgling currency it's liquidity is very low and the 5% rate is likely excessive at this early stage.  Liquidity is a very tricky thing because it gets into all kinds of financial decisions without us being very aware of it, many rates that we see in markets reflect a combination of factors, for example interest rates per the Fisher equation reflect Liquidity + Inflation expectation.  So to get accurate inflation numbers it may be necessary to subtract out the effects of liquidity but knowing liquidity value might take a whole additional market!
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
banned but not broken
January 05, 2014, 12:43:17 PM
#37
Very interesting topic and discussion.
I also think that the right money supply system is one of the most important keys in creating a successful currency. I think that deflation with money is silly, because money should be the intermediate tool in trading value and shouldn't be considered as an separate value to be hoarded.
I'm ok with bitcoin money inflow system being based on deflation, because the speculative nature made it very attractive among masses. And by it's attractiveness, it propagated this new idea of an privatized and decentralized monetary systems.
I'm anxiously waiting for new cryptos that have more complex supply systems and that would have a real future as usable money. It sure is hard to imagine the complexity of that system that could run and autonomous and dynamic money supply without direct human intervention. But topics like this surely contribute in finding answers to those questions. Smiley
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
January 05, 2014, 10:53:15 AM
#36
Were working with a problem that to my knowledge has NEVER been dealt with before, even my own economic school of Gesell is completely silent on how to do what we want to do.  I'm flying purely on my own understanding but that understanding tells me you can't beat deflation with a deflationary commodity be it a metal or a cryptographic one.

I can see you're not going for my cash/gold idea. I still don't think it is such a loser though.
 
When they have too much cash, what will they do ? When they don't have enough what will they do ? Seems pretty clear they buy and sell the gold. But maybe i'm looking at this to clinically/physics engine-y.

I'll have a regroup on that one. Come back when i'm ready.

Going back to your previous idea though with the demurrage Stamps. I think I see how the system works. You have an account and you can buy and sell additional demurrage points. You can't spend these. JUST buy and sell them. And if you have any, they are used to pay your demurrage, otherwise your normal account is used. Then if you think money is cheap now, you buy the Stamps, or vice versa.

'..This will give us a predicted value of demurrage in the future and hence the predicted value of coins in the future and we adjust money supply accordingly.'

How would you affect the Money Supply given the market for Stamps ? Print more when the value goes up and print less/none when the value goes down ?

Would that not destroy the market for them in the first place since we would be weakening the stronger side ? As it were removing the thing that was making it swing one way or the other.

sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
January 05, 2014, 12:01:39 AM
#35
I'd say your getting colder not warmer.

I don't think fixed monetary expansion rates are viable in any Crypto-coin, the 'economy' for a crypto-coin is not the world, it's the transactions being done with that coin and it can grow explosively or shrink rapidly because it is by necessity a tiny thing in a much bigger economy and activity can flow into it or flow out of it from that bigger economy very easily.  In Freicoin we adopted fix demurrage rates and fixed supply purely out of conservativeness and technical limitations, I don't stand behind ANY fixed value going forward.

Keep focusing on the thing that we know will work a market that makes HONEST predictions of future valuation.  Try to pull apart what I've presented, I'm giving what I think is good criticism of your proposal and want to hear more of yours thoughts on mine.

I'm still completely skeptical of any kind of fixed-supply coin being predictive of anything.  The fundamental nature of any fixed supply is to be deflationary NOT stable in prices, they are NOT a store-of-value either.  The BTC and gold-bug communities consistently confuses store-of-value with SPECULATION.  A store-of-value has some quality that makes it's price stable, a speculative commodity is the opposite, unstable so you can reap a speculative gain from holding it or shorting it.  I urge you to not fall into that same rhetorical trap as it will lead to dead-ends.

As for the link you provide to gold I read it the first time you linked it and have simple been trying to not mention it under the old 'if you can't say anything nice' rule.  It is GARBAGE, as is everything put out by anyone who things gold has ANY meaning in our or any economy.  While the author earns some points for pointing out the fallacy that money-supply alone dictates the price of gold, just because someone points out a piece of main-stream Bullshit dose not make their alternative right.  My personal rule of thumb is that so called alternatives are 90% bull-shit too.

Were working with a problem that to my knowledge has NEVER been dealt with before, even my own economic school of Gesell is completely silent on how to do what we want to do.  I'm flying purely on my own understanding but that understanding tells me you can't beat deflation with a deflationary commodity be it a metal or a cryptographic one.
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
January 04, 2014, 01:39:19 PM
#34
To clarify the previous post :

When trying to come up with a system to grow and shrink the money supply in line with economic growth, using whatever devious mathematics one can come up with, it occurred to me that maybe you could do this instead.

Grow the money supply at a constant rate, and then give the user the ability to mitigate any difference between the ACTUAL rate of economic growth and the 5% we are inflating the money supply by.

That way even if the rate of inflation of the CrytoCoin is not the same as the economic growth, it won't matter.. as :

So that, in the +5% inflation model, when economic growth is less than 5% the price of CryptoGold will go up. But when Economic growth is more than 5% the price of Cryptogold will go down. And when economic growth is 5%, the price of Cryptogold should be stable.

I again refer to this : http://www.macro-investing-strategy.com/gold-and-money-supply/

So, you can make up for the difference, in actual economic growth and 5%, by buying or selling cryptogold.
   
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
January 03, 2014, 11:37:01 AM
#33
Hi, sorry for delay, New Year Trip. Back now.

Skype not my thing.. Email or this, thx.

So - If the previous system with 'variable money supply growth rate' doesn't seem quite right, what if we made it even simpler, or attack the problem from a different angle..

Have the 2 coin chain with p2p exchange setup. CryptoCash and CryptoGold... stick with this for now, as something may pop out the other end of a brainstorm..

CryptoCash grows by a fixed percent, say 5%. (Could be -5% as in freicoin - just trying to remove the coins ability to be used as a long term store of wealth)

And CryptoGold is fixed to some limit amount.

In this scenario, the Cryptogold with 'on chain exchange' can act as a 'pressure valve' to the ratio of economic and monetary growth ?

So that, in the +5% inflation model, when economic growth is less than 5% the price of CryptoGold will go up. But when Economic growth is more than 5% the price of Cryptogold will go down. And when economic growth is 5%, the price of Cryptogold should be stable.

I again refer to this : http://www.macro-investing-strategy.com/gold-and-money-supply/

The Cryptocash would lose it's long term ability as a store of wealth, but in the short term it would act as a great medium of exchange, 5% per annum is tiny on a day to day basis. The CryptoGold would be the Store of wealth, but you would never need to leave the chain to have BOTH (like having to switch from BTC to USD and back). 
 
Also, as an addendum, cryptocash CAN be destroyed. If not touched for 20 years, or whatever, it is simply removed from the system. CryptoGold always gets put back in the system. 

This system is similar, to the original proposal, but different in a subtle way.. ?

..ps Happy New Year!
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
December 31, 2013, 05:28:11 PM
#32
Yes I understand your objective I just don't think the structure gets you their because the time factor is not present.  The two parties in an exchange need to be trading places 'in time' so to speak for the market price to reflect a market valuation over time.

The real exchange of Gold vs USD isn't a good target to emulate because it's simply a commodity exchange and both parties are exchange their commodities in the present, no one is taking a different position in time from the other party.  The better market to try to emulate would be a commodity futures market or a bond market.  In both cases the parties are trading across time, the commodity futures market tries to pull future commodity prices into the present and the bond market tries to pull future money demand into the present.  The bond market uses only a single commodity (money) where as futures markets use two so I favor bond-like markets as I think these will be simpler.

Also we have a well documented history of gold fluctuating in its inflation-adjusted exchange with the Dollar, not to mention that as a mined and consumed commodity a fixed quantity coin is not an accurate reflection of it despite what BTC propaganda says.

I'm interested in continuing discussion but via a more direct channel, do you use Skype?  Etlase2 your welcome to join us if you wish, I'll PM you both my Skype account.  Anyone else interested PM me.
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
December 31, 2013, 05:10:46 AM
#31
Market prices are by definition the 'fair' price or at least the only way to arrive at a consensus that we can call fair.

Just to be clear, in my system the 'Fair' price is simply Total cash / Total Gold.

.. Hmm.. I do see what you're saying though. The incentives to switch from one coin to the other are not so clear.

I really just wanted one to act like the USD, cash, and the other to act like Gold. Then people would use them as such. And I could use that system to judge required monetary supply changes.

sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
December 30, 2013, 08:27:15 PM
#30
Market prices are by definition the 'fair' price or at least the only way to arrive at a consensus that we can call fair.

I think the spread will always mirror the ratio of the number of coins in each half of the system and won't provide any additional signal.  Say you start with 1:1 ratio between the two, the spread will be 1:1 and no signal to grow or shrink supply will exist.  Then lets say the value of this new crypto-currency rises, I think both halves will rise in tandem and the ratio between the cash/gold will remain 1:1 again no meaningful signal is sent even though their is deflation.

I as a holder of either the fixed supply or floating supply coins can always expect to long-term be able to exchange between the two halves of the system at what ever the ratio of existing coins is.  Only a change in the ratio would change my expectations, but their is nothing to actually initiate a change in the ratio and if their was the system is designed to counter act that movement by changing cash supply.  So a rational trader should conclude that the ratio is never going to move much if at all.

In fact I really see no reason to participate in the internal market except under some rare circumstances, such as if I'm holding the gold half and am ready to spend, then I'd convert just what ever I need for a purchase and I would treat the calculate the value by combining the gold-cash exchange rate and the cash-USD rate.  It would be a bit like using LiteCoin, it actually has a fairly stable exchange rate with BTC but it's still massively deflationary, the two coins just deflate together.
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
December 30, 2013, 06:40:31 AM
#29
In your crypto-gold scenario the ability to convert to the crypto-cash means that a user can very easily convert and thus very easily spend both halves, and thus they lose any distinction.

Yes but you can only exchange at the Market price. Not the Fair price.

The spread between the 2 prices is what I think of as 'The Demand for Money'

If demand is high, market price of cryptogold will be lower than Fair price, so expand. And Vice versa.

And, if the market price IS the fair price, then there is the right amount of money in the system.. No change.

Otherwise, what does the Market price of cryptogold in the system show?..
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
December 29, 2013, 11:01:49 PM
#28
I think were making some good progress, a lot of your ideas are avenues I've gone down before as well.  The idea of having one type of special coin that can not be sent by normal means but can only be exchanged through the internal block-chain market is a very interesting tool.  I'd considered this at one point as a tool in determining the appropriate level of demurrage which requires us to know the liquidity premium and an illiquid asset would be useful for illuminating that.

But one thing I realized is that a market being continually available for exchange MAKES an asset at least slightly liquid.  In your crypto-gold scenario the ability to convert to the crypto-cash means that a user can very easily convert and thus very easily spend both halves, and thus they lose any distinction.

To create real illiquid assets you will need to freeze coins, much the way newly mined coins can not be spent for certain periods of time.  This is a fairly simple technical solution and it could be done for different lengths of time, a bit like the different length of time that bonds take to mature.  At the very least you would need to do this to your gold equivalent to get the other 'cash' part to be the only medium of exchange.  While I think their may be some usefulness in this type of frozen coin, I think it's in the liquidity discovery area rather then in the inflation/deflation discovery area.

When you have a fixed quantity coin pool as with your 'gold' it's own lack of liquidity would concentrate it in a small number of hands which will make it's price unstable and thus send false signals.  Also if you were to actually have the development of a ratio in valuation that keeps the 'cash' at parity valuation and the 'gold' going ever up then half your total money is going to be of a deflationary type so the solution will be a half failure by your own admission.  I don't think any fixed quantity is useful in stabilizing valuation, but I'd encourage you to keep trying to prove me wrong.

As for how to increase money supply, so long as current coin stake is NOT the basis for the receipt of the newly created supply it would be fine as that linkage between present stake and future coins will invariably leak into the market.  Mining can work but at Freicoin we believe it's possible to give most new coins to charity.  Ultimately we hope to have users even choose which charities by a stake voting process.  Both demurrage and new coins created to counter-act deflation can distributed in this way.  The main obstacle is avoiding fraudulent capture by large stake holders.
Pages:
Jump to: