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
