A Response to Matslats's

"What happens after the crypto-revolution?"

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright ©14/6/2014

Reproduction expressly granted provided  attribution is given and original link is provided.

Key points to keep in mind:

- Ripple is not about currency design it is about trust networks. You can use any currency with ripple.

- In the deepest analysis money as an abstract representation of value is not a circulating object, logically it is an association between goods and services in the form of an annotation of value.  As such,  it is not subject to any particular locality.  Therefore the model of circulating money is false and leads to confusion.

- As an annotation of value that is strictly a posteriori to the transaction of goods and services it is not subject to being lent or to any notion of "supply".  This is true of both conventional money as it is for mutual credit see this document.

- The key scientific criteria for defining money is its function of measure of value as I explained in Alicante.  The key requirement for anything to be a measures is its stability.   Hence any definition of any currency that can have any minimal credibility must obey stability science before anything else.

You mention taking back "credit issuing power" how do you propose to do so?   I presume that you are aware that the creation of passive systems along side the current system is useless other than to give examples of what should be.  If the current paradigm which is reactive (unstable) is not restrained, then it will continue to undermine passive systems by constantly undermining the common shared environment. This follows directly from standard stability theory as follows here  of which an excerpt follows, the key point being point 3):

1) First, we should clarify that according to stability theory and its practical application in complex systems in all branches of science, there is NO RELATIVE STABILITY simply things are or are not stable.

2) Second, you cannot talk of complementing instability since complementing is to facilitate or accommodate the instability. YOU CAN ONLY INTERVENE IN INSTABILITY TO COUNTERACT IT, thus forming a new stable system.

3) Third, and this is very important, in a common environment AN UNSTABLE SYSTEM CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH A STABLE ONE. That is, in a common environment two systems one stable and the other unstable, without the stable system intervening in the unstable one, the unstable system will destabilise the stable system. If a violent drunk is not restrained the drunk's behaviour will reap havoc in the environment, one can only counteract the erratic drunken behaviour interacting with it.


So what do you think is the best unequivocal argument to the world that proves that conventional money must stop?  On a hard science basis we propose this.

Matt do you agree? Do you have a better argument? Please let us know we need all the help we can get.

Additional information