On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Vanderweit wrote: >>So should I just write up a proto-proposal for an ordinary linear >>numerical system of currency with the proposed ideas (transfer tax, >>etc)? > > We already have currencies. We don't need a new one, and they're easy > to create if we do find a need for one. What you need to do is find > a fungible, mostly-conserved, scarce quantity that can be represented > by a currency. Since we don't deal in physical goods, scarce resource > types are thin on the ground. Voting clout is the only fungible scarce > resource that we've positively identified so far; notes (and VCs before > them) are essentially a derivative of that. Work on administration or > legislation is not fungible, so there's little scope for currency there. > > If you want to mix logarithms with currency, the way to go is exponential > pricing. We've experimented before with arrangements where N extra votes > on a proposal cost 2^N currency units. The currency itself is still > linear, of course. There's room for quite a lot of nonlinearity in how > currencies influence voting clout, because the latter isn't properly > additive: clout is relative, and one gains a greater share of it only > at the expense of someone else's share. > > I ranted quite a bit about intra-nomic economics back in early 2007. > Check the archives. > > -zefram >
Well, I do see some merits to creating a new fungible currency. It could be used as a game winning condition, for one, but that's not the most important one. By giving the currency out to public works and officers who do their reports on time, it gives incentive. In addition, since they could be traded freely, players may pay each other the currency in exchange for favors, like writing up sections of proposals or deputizing for them. I'm not saying it would necessarily take off, but if it did, I believe it would be a good addition. Also, I thought of a compromise between the banking and transfer tax thing in an idea sort of like T-bonds. Depending on how much you invest in the Treasury, you get some amount of the Treasury's holdings every week. So, if every week, 50% of the Treasury's holdings go to public works and salaries, then 25% may go to investors. Similar to the banking idea, the investors get, proportionally to what they have invested, a certain salary as well. Perhaps it would work. avpx
