Proposed Resolutions for Financial Transition Draft V.1

Money Systems Transparency Alliance (MSTA)

Editors: Marc Gauvin (mg), Mark Heffernan (mkh), Jordan Soreff (sg)

January 2020 rev.2.3 Feb 26 2020



Absent any formal definition of money and respective symbols (e.g. “$”) used to represent money in a wide array of contexts (e.g. dollar bills, checks and account entries) on similarly varied set of physical supports (e.g. paper, computer memory) and as an object of different contracts (e.g. mortgages, loans, derivatives, etc.), we are unable to identify the relation between money denoted by such symbols and the value inherent in public or private goods and services such money is expected to represent. As a consequence, obligations, agreements or contracts in terms of such “$“ units are commensurately indeterminable such that a logical, fully reasoned and hence just rule of law is impeded.

Just as any mathematical expression is rendered indeterminate if its variables are not fully and unequivocally defined in terms of the reality in which they are to be applied, so too mathematical expressions in terms of units of money are rendered indeterminate, unless those units are unequivocally defined in terms of our common reality to which they are expected to be applied.

 

We thus seek,  as set out by the Money Systems Transparency Alliance (MSTA), to pursue and assist all technical and legal avenues to resolve this anomaly,  and to do so in relation with the highest monetary authorities i.e. Central Banks, leading banking and investment houses and related stake holders, by way of the necessary open ratification and publication of a valid formal logical definition/specification of money, its function, scope of use and corresponding logical requirements. This formal logical definition/specification of money shall be done in terms of independently determinable criteria. For example, money’s definition cannot be circular (i.e. in terms of itself, also known as “false confirmation”) but rather must be in terms of the reality in which it, money, is to be operated on and applied.


In the interim we require, by virtue of the immediate exigencies of common practice, to continue making use of money. In this respect we note how, in absence of any formal logically decidable publicly ratified definition to guide us, common practice has adopted a notion of money where it is implicitly and explicitly assumed to be both a record/measure of value AND a commodity/tradable good without noticing how these two notions (measure/commodity) are, by logic, mutually exclusive. Such a logical
misrepresentation, once identified and by the most fundamental principles of law and justice, must render any contracts in terms of such a notion invalid. As to continue in spite of such a revelation is to arbitrarily subject one or other parties directly or indirectly to unknown, incalculable and/or undeclared consequences and imperatives.

As a consequence of the mere knowledge of this common misrepresentation,  again by
principles of law, it also becomes incumbent on all parties to contracts involving “money” to seek remedy by proactively assisting in providing a logical and independently evaluable (valid) definition of money for contracts.


Pursuant to the above and with the aim of eliminating any direct or associated adverse effects and consequences arising from implementing money under its commonly assumed current misrepresentation we put to vote the following resolutions to adopt an interim logical “Passive” specification of money for our financial dealings. Accordingly, we move to propose that all monetary dealings be, in the formal scientific sense of the term, “passive” in nature as follows: 


  1. That money’s logical function shall be strictly limited to that of recording/registering/annotating the “value” attributed to goods and services transferred between parties in transactions and denominated using the common unit symbol “$”.
  2. To distinguish between parties receiving value (buyers) from those providing value (sellers), the current convention of using positive and negative signs on corresponding account entries will be maintained, such that a seller will have the sum of value transacted added to their balance while the buyer will have that same sum subtracted from their balance.
  3. Thus money shall be created on account to represent value given and pending future reciprocation and shall be cancelled upon value being reciprocated.
  4. Related Balances of such “moneys” shall be kept by the Central Bank, any associated banking or credit institutions and/or public administrators and interested parties along with periodic issuance of statements as required.
  5. In order to maintain a system of any number of such transactions “passive” according to the formal requirements of passivity the following shall be observed:

    1. Money is defined as an annotation of value expressed in $ units and only comes about as a result of transactions after the fact.
    2. There is no prior circulation, supply or demand of units required.
    3. Each transaction generates its own independent units that are later resolved against existing balances.
    4. The sum of money in a system of any number of such transactions at any given point of time, represents all non reciprocated value and at all times is equal or less than the sum of input cost/prices, thus conforming to Passive BIBO criteria for sampled LTI Systems.
    5. Value transacted may never be unilaterally determined.
    6. While associated services (e.g. maintaining of accounts, risk consultancy, etc.) may be the object of transactions their price/cost must be solely in terms of them and never as a percentage commission of the sums of value attributed to other transactions.

Additional information