Topic: Why would we need a decentralized monetary system? (Read 159 times)

You said short paragraph? but too wordy. You have to know what short means.
I read everything you put out, but what can we take? what are the benefits for us that can be implemented today? and what kind of Dao concept you are good at. Many theories don't make you understand, please provide at least a piece of work or proof you produced of the theory. Everyone can theorize but do not want to be able to implement it optimally. That's why other people say the same about what you have to offer. But it was all in vain.

You are just theorizing a bit too much. People on this forum are well aware of these trial concepts like DAOs.

This concept of DAOs and Sub-DAOs seems to be borrowed straight out of how Cosmos and Tendermint deal with it.

When you talk about creating a Parent DAO by getting funds from Sub-DAOs, this is nothing different from asking individuals for investment money and then making a DAO to manage it. This has been going on for ages now. There is nothing gained by confusing it with Sub-DAOs.

If you really want to talk DAOs and governance, go to Alt-section and start a topic on this. This theorizing helps nobody and I don't know why so many people seem to have been inspired by RainbowKun..

The article is voluminous and is very hard to understand the statement, assuming op break it down one by one or two two lines it would have be preferred than the present arrangements, we not need to blam op because is a beginner is still learning how to space article of bitcoin, concerning the the question he asked, we need decentralized monetary system, because is a currency that only you have access to control, other sector don't have access over your own money, and whatever that happened to your investment only know about it

The volume of your article is really quite long and seemed to me like it doesn’t tally much with the topic you have there. Anyways, I was able to read it while skipping some parts that I felt were unnecessary for me to read. May looking at the topic, one may feel that what the writer is trying to talk about is about the economy, but at the end you were focused on cryptocurrency exchanges and how they operate.

What you have to know is that there are both options available to you – you can choose to go with centralization or the decentralized way. You have both centralized exchanges and the ones that are decentralized, and they work differently, you just have to know what’s best for you, although originally, we all know that cryptocurrency was created to be decentralized in nature.

Need? You only need air, water, shelter and food. All the rest is optional. Now rephrasing, why would a decentralised "monetary system" be useful?  The answer my friend is blowing in the net and is called bitcoin. You can already see how many people and even some countries are taking advantage of this system and many individuals are using it for, for example, low fee transfers to countries in which the usual middlemen charge a high fee.

So, I think your question answers itself and the rest... well, you really need to learn to synthesize your opinion.


You are confusing an exchange rate with having a value determined in fiats.

What I would first ask is what short of advantage are your trying to achieve by the multilevel DAO and what realistic use cases are there. Most of the projects out there fail to have any advantage over traditional system or over what is already out there. Second, I fail to see the alignment of incentives.

I will describe this Dao in a short paragraph:

1. The parent Dao has an infinite point pool and a credit system to judge the sub Dao.

2. The parent Dao consists of N sub Daos.

3. By injecting the first batch of assets into the parent Dao, including monetary assets, credit assets and physical assets recognized by the parent Dao, the sub Dao unlocks its authority in the parent Dao, and obtains the points limit corresponding to the assets and points in the credit system. Note that it is the quota, but the sub Dao cannot keep the points. Note that the credit system points have no transaction practical value.

4. Under the collection of parent Daos, sub Daos can buy and sell any assets to each other, and their trading process needs to use points, not any other currency.

5. Next, suppose that the sub Dao m wants to buy a bitcoin from the sub Dao X. according to the quotation of X, the bitcoin is equivalent to 100 points, which is in line with M's authority in the parent Dao, and M has 195 points. Then M can borrow 100 points from the point pool for purchase. After purchase, m needs to pay a certain amount of tax to the parent Dao. The tax collection method is to pay a BTC or eth. At the same time, m deducts 100 points and re evaluates the authority, but he can add a credit point. X loses a BTC, but increases the limit of 100 points and re judges the authority. Similarly, he can also increase a credit point.

6. Assuming that there is no BTC for sale in the market and M wants to buy bitcoin, he can directly force him to buy BTC from the parent Dao. However, he must pay multiple points than normal transactions.

7. The parent Dao has the pricing power over any transaction in the market.

8. The governance of the parent Dao is jointly determined by all the sub Daos.

9. Selling can add more credit points than buying.

10. Each sub Dao is allowed to issue its own tokens and implement a fully autonomous mechanism.

11. Let's assume that if the parent Dao decides that the third level of authority can trade a large number of goods equivalent to $1 million in the external market. Then the sub Dao must strive and actively develop itself. He needs to constantly improve his credit score in the parent Dao, actively sell all kinds of goods and strive to reach the third level as soon as possible.

12. Evaluation of credit system, including the standard degree of transaction performance, the robustness of sub Dao governance, the activity of sub Dao members, the transaction frequency of sub Dao, etc.

13. We can even expect that if the sub Dao obtains the equity of other successful projects through foreign investment, he can still trade this equity in the parent Dao market. How interesting it is.

14. What if sub Dao governance fails? If the credit score of a sub Dao is cleared, will the sub Dao members lose their money? No, the Treasury formed by the parent Dao through tax collection and the assets injected by each sub Dao will automatically respond, give support to the governance failed sub Dao and transfer its control according to the vote.

15. Will the actual controller of the sub Dao escape with money? The initial sub Dao, as NFT, is controlled by a natural person. However, the natural person must promise to be the bearer, and the parent Dao has the ability to fragment the NFT so that it can exist as the basis of a Dao. The proxy holder can have part of the authority, but he will not have the right to control the Treasury of the sub Dao. At most, he has part of the signature right. After that, the parent Dao will release all the other signature rights of the sub Dao to the elite administrator of the sub Dao.

Could you clarify these:
- How to fill the DAO reserve? With sub-DAO fund raising?
- How can we possibly "free to borrow standard points from the DAO reserve?" With collateral?

You see, it needs capital from the beginning, and there's no guarantee that the initial capital will grow. What if it shrinks? All the participants bear the risk? It sounds like a corporation.

You have actually written so much hypothetically and that will be difficult to understand with the clustered words too without paragraphs.

However looking at the ending of your writing, exchanges are supposed to pay tax to the country that they are operating in based on the tax laws and not to the individuals and the aspect of insurance policy is also should come from the exchange protecting there customer against hackers and loses that are not there fault.

Sorry, sir, you may not know that I am a Chinese and have never been abroad in my life. My English level is not very good, so I can only write it reluctantly.

I'm not the gentleman you mentioned, ha ha

My technical strength is not enough to enable me to complete my idea. But it doesn't matter. I'm more interested in hypothesis, simulation and thinking. You asked me to make it segmented and readable, which I think is very correct. I will explain my idea in detail and clearly in this post in the next time, even if it is absurd and arrogant.

The text is very voluminous. Is it possible to somehow divide it into paragraphs?
And why does it seem to me that RainbowKun is breathing behind his back?


Sooner or later, we'll figure it out anyway, but for now, please, make the post readable.

In fact, I finally assumed a hypothesis, that is, to replace the substantive monetary system with a simulated way.
We know that there are poor and rich people in the world. The rich can use powerful financial capital to continuously multiply their wealth, as Matthew put it. The poor are extremely difficult to raise from the start- and start-ups. Therefore, the gap between the rich and the poor will become wider and wider.
As I said in my post, suppose we have this one DAO, and inside it, we are free to borrow standard points from the DAO reserve to exchange for any asset and commodity. Standard points are not allowed to be owned by each member and can only be lent from the reserve when buying and selling. And lending out has no capital cost, like a lightning loan, but it is not a lightning loan. Because it will also be measured by the lender's rating and credit rating for authority.
Personally, I assume that every member of this DAO, either as an individual or as an entity, is identified by the NFT. Dao does not issue any tokens, only points.However, for each NFT, a DAO can be created by the owner, which I call a sub-DAO. Each sub-DAO can raise funds externally, raise funds externally, and issue tokens internally for circulation. Each sub-DAO must contribute reserve assets – including various anchored cryptocurrencies – to the parent DAO in order to earn points and unlock privileges. However, such acquisitions are one-time. After that, if the sub-DAO still wants to earn points, it must actively sell various assets to other sub-DAO within the parent dao, and at the same time buy various assets of other sub-DAO.
As for how to issue coins and how to manage them within the sub-dao, I think it is free to imagine. Let's simplify the cognitive structure: the parent dao is the inner ring of the circulation of goods and assets, and the sub-DAO is the outer ring of contribution and governance. The combination of the two is a free-style economic system that ignores the influence of money. It motivates every member to dedicate, while encouraging every member to satisfy himself, it gives the poor the opportunity to acquire huge assets, and it allows the rich to optimize their asset structure. It is not born for the virtual, it is virtual for the life of human beings themselves. How can the metaverse not merge with reality?

What is the conclusion? I know this is just a text about revolution in what money is and how early history started to become a transaction tool just because a stone was taken from a place so hard to reach. This is only a part of the cyclical change in how we exchange something for something we want. Stone, bronze, gold, silver, paper money and now there is Bitcoin which shows the evolution of the world in a more modern direction.

Turning to the international economy which is currently leading to the most advanced path of conventional transactions. In a book The International Monetary System: Past, Present and Future I found "that the international monetary system is a rule, facility and organization that has a great influence on the transaction or payment system at the international level" which means Bitcoin came to be a solution to monetary problems both in a country or globally. The current level of adoption that has occurred has become a reference that every country that wants to release the shackles of the monetary crisis can sit idly by storing wealth in the form of Bitcoin. until the economic recovery recovers, then they will be early to rise up in improving the lagging economic system.

The stones on Yap Island are like shells off the coast of China, and I never imagined that I would one day shoulder completely irrelevant responsibilities. Just like stones and shells, gold and silver are the same fate. Why?
We all know that the internal operation of human society is the two eternal themes of transaction and communication. At the heart of trading and communication is finding a mutually acceptable consensus. Whether it is war, trade, alliances, they have reached a consensus in constant friction. This consensus has the following characteristics: it is currently reliable; it is currently the lowest cost; it is currently stable. Note that here, a key word I use is current.
Everything is based on the present. We cannot escape our time. In order to seek the present, we are constantly looking for currencies that can be used as consensus, shells, stones, gold, silver, and even paper money.
The biggest peculiarity of paper money compared to previous currencies is that we have changed the consensus from fair gold to the will of the state. If we recognize the stability and prosperity of this country, then its paper money will be strong. If we acknowledge the chaos and decay of this country, then its paper money will depreciate. But the subtlety is that the manipulative means of gold are in the hands of nature, while the manipulative means of paper money are in the hands of the state.
In order to escape the manipulation of the state, Satoshi Nakamoto contributed the concept of Bitcoin to us. Today, we can clearly see the absurd fact that the value of the consensus of Bitcoin is still based on state-issued banknotes.
Why is this still the case? Why is there a concept of stablecoins? Aren't stablecoins the national currency in disguise?
This is because even cryptocurrencies, even Bitcoin, still need to generate value in circulation. The foundation of circulation lies in the real society and in the transaction of commodities. All this must be determined by the value of the actual commodity.
If I issue a cryptocurrency on a blockchain network, I promise that you can use that currency to buy all the assets in my name, including my house and my car. This is actually based on the value of my assets to secure my cryptocurrency. I am not issuing a currency, but a special bond. At the same time, the reliability of this bond lies in whether I will trade it as promised, and if I deny it, then the bond will be worthless. If I admit it, then such bonds have a guaranteed value.
This is beyond the realm of consensus. I don't need to agree with anyone, I just need to keep my promises. If we expand the concept and put more physical assets in the treasury of a certain bond, then we are effectively equivalent to a country.
This economic system is ultimately backward. It still follows the old path of credit money, rather than a more advanced economic system.
Suppose, we cancel the monetary system, we build a pool with an infinite amount of water in it. But no one is allowed to take water from a pool to preserve. We license to N users, who together form a customer base. Any transaction in this customer base needs water from the pool as a medium of exchange. But they can't store water. When they need to exchange, we give each customer a score, and if you score enough, you can take out a certain amount of water to replace the goods, and the seller receives the water and puts the water into the pool to get a higher score. The buyer deducts the points.
Fractions are not the currency of this system, but a right. In other words, when you have enough permissions, you can buy anything, but you first need to pay, pay a lot of goods to get points.
We do not determine each customer's purchasing rights based on a specific score. We divide a vague phase so that each tier has a certain number of customers who unlock only the purchase rights corresponding to the current stage.
All customers are administrative members of the pool. Yes, it's a DAO. Members of this DAO have the right to judge the permissions of any member, giving a consensus of "should he unlock this permission"?
In addition to our authority, we should also design a credit system. The credit system is the basis for the operation of the DAO. Only when credit is combined with a score can we judge whether a client should be.
So, will someone maliciously unlock themselves to the highest authority, thus taking away all the customer's goods? First, we need to design a system that ensures that the highest authority still cannot take away all. Second, we need to ensure the continuity of the exchange. That is, the exchange process must pay taxes to the pool. This tax starts from the value of the goods.
Each customer entering the pool must purchase an insurance policy for themselves. This insurance is both to ensure that the customer does not commit evil, but also to avoid his loss.
What do you think?