Now, you make some serious assumptions, such as this one:
Quote
Users get two or more tokens, and thus, one coin is stablewhile the other unstable. Leading to a loss any way that you look at it.
The can't be a loss in both directions since one of the coins is stable, this is pretty obvious.At this point is clearly you're trying to overcomplicate things:
Quote
This two-way system utilizes the practice of allocating tokens to users and alloting nominal value to merchants. The reason for this is that if the currentvalue per token is tracked then that enables the ability to make trades andinvestments all at the current rate of the token. And if merchants onlyreceive accounts nominal value then there is no token received thusmaking it impossible for them to face volatility.
You're basically describing how buying and selling work right now, there is absolutely no point for a secondary token to be invented and allocated here, we could simply use a stable token without any two way burning and issuing steps.
Quote
A clear example is if someone owned 5 tokens priced at $25 dollars each,and the items they were purchasing cost $50: that would be a total of 2tokens, which then get converted into nominal value and deleted as tokens.Once the merchant went to purchase from say a vendor, they would pay inthe nominal value which is stored in a balance. Yet if they wanted toconvert to tokens later on they could convert their nominal valueimmediately and receive the equivalent coins
And at this point, with the "clear" example you totally lost me.
You are burning tokens in a transaction when goods are sold, but you are creating them with the use of your "nominal value"?
You realize that with this two-step process you're actually destroying value and will end up with a 0 balance for all the participants in this chain o transactions?
