nealbozeman

Well said, and fun example with Chiemgauer. Critical mass/tipping point is the issue, so what is the target audience in the beginning?

Ping me if you want some Metrics. Neal@metricdc.org.

Points heard - I've been down this road, too.

Contracts & debt can be specified in any currency, including a private one, even if taxes have to be marked to a national currency at the end of the year. But still a question of why adopt it?

A private currency, to get adopted, would have to be as good as a national one, plus more. UBI might help that cause. No transaction fees might be another. Stability without interventions, a 3rd? Accessible to informal economies?

Issues to overcome with each.

Agreed. I don't mention anything about inflation proof. Rather, it should be clarified as a reference to monetary inflation. Inflation happens for many reasons, and even monetary inflation could happen here as the circulation grows to reach its supply cap.

There are no pegs, and especially no pegs to any other currency. It's a free floating currency, but the money supply is capped to the number of verified users/accounts.

Agreed! Ping me Neal@metricdc.org if you want some cash. If you're looking at any other ideas in the space, would love to hear about them.

Thanks for the nice comment! Ping me neal@metricdc.org and I'll leave you some Metrics :) . Anyone else interested, can ping me, too. I'll leave you a "cash" pickup that you take using a QR code or URL.

The thing about centralization is that you have to abide by banking laws in each country, so accounts that are verified would have an identity that goes with them. This is the trade-off with crypto, but even crypto doesn't have this benefit because to get involved, you go through a centralized, regulated exchange.

Transactions and identities on the CBDC are private as there is no public ledger, but warrants can still be used to compel the bank to give information on an account, same as any other bank.

In my opinion, liquid staking + inflation still has the classic liquidity trap problem. You want to hold the "currency" rather than spend it, and there's not really a process to acquire the currency, other than exchanging other money for it. UBI is a process to acquire the currency, and the tax an incentive to spend it and spread it.

I will do grants this year that people can use to make new business and get new money in to circulation. Employees of businesses getting grants will also get verified accounts.

The taxing is continuous. There is no strategy to wait to pay out.

Central Banks don't require a nation-state. They can be private. Cryptos and tokens, generally, are decentralized and couldn't be controlled by a central bank. I'm using a private central bank in this case to control the money supply.

Yep, this is why it has to be centralized. The Central Bank has to verify identities.

You can have accounts that are unverified, or business accounts that are not individuals. They just don't have a UBI, so the tax hits them without their accounts getting replenished. Spend/use the money fast so you don't have to worry about it.

It's a private CBDC, so a private CBDC couldn't collect on property tax. Anyway, I'm considering only dead-simple ways to fund the UBI, which means tapping in to all money across the system continuously, evenly.

Thanks, it's okay that the comment order shifts around. It's intended, so the most interesting aspects rise up.

A successful private currency would be one which was your preferred currency to make a transaction with in the grocery store, over and above euros, dollars, and pesos. Despite the romanticism of it, cryptos don't have the possibility of becoming useful currencies, and it has nothing to do with them being cryptos. No private currency ever existed that has had widespread adoption, for instance, a private gold-standard currency. Before crypto, what prevented a private currency from globally taking hold?

Private currencies have all the problems of national currencies, and none of the tools to try to unfuckify them when the business cycle ends. So, a private currency needs a mechanism that replaces what the Fed and congress do in a crash, which in the simplest terms, is to get money back out to people to spend.

A tax is needed to raise the money for the UBI, and to keep the value and money supply stable. Income tax is unnecessary if you say money that's sitting doing nothing will be taxed out of the system (basically a waste tax). The whole system is being taxed away at 1% per month to pay for the UBI. If you spend, lend, or invest your money as soon as you get it, you never pay taxes.

There's a neat equilibrium here. UBI is put in, but slowly being taxed away while it sits. If your account is zero, you're not paying any tax, and the account grows quicker. The more your account grows, the slower your account grows, and your account growth keeps slowing until it stops at equilibrium. The amount of UBI being put in matches the amount of tax being pulled out. It's an advantage to use the money rather than save it, because you're being taxed on less money.

For the stable money supply, let's cap it at X-money per person. We want a money supply that grows to accommodate new users of the currency in order to prevent deflation, and a supply that's capped and predictable to prevent inflation. Everything else is relative, and the marketplace determines the value.

For the defuckifier, I chose a UBI, or you can call it a "negative income tax," or a perpetual redistribution. Something devoid of moralistic choice - it's just something everyone gets and it does the job of the Fed, which is to keep the money flowing. The marketplace determines the actual value of the UBI.

As you might reason, a Central Bank becomes necessary to account for the identities of those receiving the UBI. No eyeball scanning, just old-fashioned verification, like opening a bank account.

Same as any other crypto that starts off, you can't buy gold. No one will trade.

You can use it to trade labor and dig up gold.

I would love to browse the web with different personas. I want to see what Bill Gates' search results look like, compared to someone else.

Interesting point how bitcoin is only anonymous up to a point. Thinking about privacy instead is maybe a good angle.

Really throws out decentralization if you have to verify identity.

It's hard in this case not to argue that he owns 33% of the 1.5mm company that the three have built until today. Diluting him out to effectively zero would be cause for criminal charges against the company. It's theft.

In the same vein, they can't raise the $500k and then immediately dilute the investors. That's also theft, called fraud.

He seems to have shown a lot of good faith in this matter so far.

Investors will not see his 10% ownership as a red flag any more than they will see a non participating investor owning 25% of the business as a red flag. In this case, he/she delivered 18 months of value that led to a 1.5mm pre money val.

The most fair option is already mentioned - to maintain your 33% that makes all three of the founders equal as of today, and then allocate a new share allotment to dilute you out over a new specified vesting period.

If you want to show future investors good will, ask to maintain a seat on the board.

Keep the 1/3rd of the company you are entitled to today, and make sure the other two founders stick around by creating a new allocation of shares that will have a vesting schedule, and will dilute you down fairly over time.

There's nothing to stop the other founders from doing the exact same thing you are doing - leave and retain the company. Give them a compelling reason to stay.

Yes, 10% is fair, but it's also fair to be diluted down by the other founders in the future.

Experienced founders also have vesting periods. It entices founders to stay, and is a fair way to value a founder's work when they leave. Typical 4 years with major events triggering a full vest.

$500k raise doesn't qualify here.

Each partner in your case is 1/3, presumably you are all considering yourselves at the same market rate, so your time spent is the same.

If you were to have done a 4 year vest, you would be getting 1/3rd of your shares at 16 months.

It's fair for you to receive 1/3rd of the current 33% of shares which is even more than 10% today. However, expect to be diluted down as the vesting for the other partners continues.

-----

Here's another way to look at it without retroactively creating a vesting schedule.

Each of you have contributed to 1/3 of the business, entitling you to 1/3rd now. Going forward, the remaining founders will be incentivized to stay by having new shares allocated to them.

Say, in 16 more months, the number of shares allocated will be double what it is today, and split between the two remaining founders. Your size goes down, but in proportion to the value that you are no longer creating on the business.

In this scenario, you need to work out that future allocation before you finish the 500k raise.