Implementation Agnostic Problem Statement (IAPS)

For "Money" and "Money Systems" V.1.0

By Marc Gauvin on behalf of:

Copyright ©7/9/2014

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


With regards to all the discussions about money and proposed alternatives to the current de facto standard and in keeping with best practices in standards development, we all need to agree upon a common logically coherent and consistent generic problem statement that is implementation agnostic.

"Implementation agnostic", implies that we shouldn't assume anything about how solutions will work, i.e. we are thinking prior to any decision to use digital, use coins or bills nor assume any of the consequences of such implementations as requirements. Instead, we lay out the logic of the problem that ostensibly is addressed by money, derive a set of more granular logical requirements and then define functions and their relations (logical and temporal dependencies).

Throughout this process we will develop a minimum core set of terms and definitions such where all terms used in those definitions are understood literally and unequivocally by everyone who reads them, i.e. we may need to define or refine definitions of terms so that they cannot be misunderstood or present any ambiguity.

If we don't go through this process for this important topic and many others for that matter, we will forever be talking past each other and or in unresolvable circular logic. Only by having an agreed upon problem statement and subsequent requirements to point to, can we have a meaningful and constructive discussion about the best way to define and use money and/or any alternative to money as we will possess an unequivocal COMMON understanding of what money CAN be as opposed to what it is purported to be.

The process begins with an initial set of statements we believe is needed in a solution, in the form "Money shall be/do X, Y or Z ....."  We then review this list to identify contradictory or incompatible notions and form the best most comprehensive list.  Finally,  we identify the list of functions (always at a generic logical level) and order them in logical and temporal dependencies e.g. A cannot take place until B happens first or If A then B is not possible. 

General Rules/Guidlines for participants:

No one is required to know what they don't know but all are required to prove what they claim to know. This is a knowledge building community with no tolerance for trolls, demagoguery, or sophism. This work has the potential to create extraordinary and reliable knowledge capable of altering the course of contemporary events in a conciliatory fashion. The group administrator(s) reserve the right to change modify and enforce the rules as they see fit after providing at least three warnings and alerting the group of the nature and details of any offence.

(Note all participants are required to accept and do their utmost to abide and require others to abide by these rules and guidelines)

General Rules of Debate

  1. All new and current participants agree to keep these core rules.
  2. All participants agree to refrain from paraphrasing and/or misrepresenting the content of this work in other fora agreeing to defend the groups integrity outside the group and informing group members of any communications of proceedings or generated documents and materials (see: IAPSM Group Operation) prior to such communications. By default all group documents will be posted at
  3. All participants will be credited correspondingly for their contributions.
  4. All participants will represent themselves and are expected to declare any relevant affiliations.
  5. All participants are to refer directly and only to statements given by other participants (beginning with the initial draft problem statement to be edited/improved/expanded by the group).
  6. All questions must be responded to by the person who made the initial statement being queried at the earliest possible time following the query.
  7. All affirmations must be set in complete valid arguments, premises, argument and conclusions. See Deductive reasoning here:
  8. Outside references may never be required although they may be provided for purposes of attribution or general information.
  9. All statements must stand on their own merit i.e. "I already answered" or "if you read this and this..., is not sufficient, all answers must be provided in the direct context of the current question or point of debate.
  10. To avoid strawman arguments, any reference to a colleagues statement must include a direct quote.
  11. Other to define the origin of a statement, statements about a person particularly derogatory ones are strictly forbidden.  Statements may be proven to be foolish but people never are foolish.
  12. Any other rules required to enforce the current set are implicitly included.
  13. The Administrator(s) reserve the right to remove or delete any posts or comments and if need be participants that do not conform to the rules of this community.

AD HOC Groups/Threads

  1. Participants are expected to volunteer for group support tasks such as maintaining documents (Problem Statement & Requirements, Terminology, Functions, Logical and temporal dependencies e.g. "A depends on B to happen first") and dealing with issues and conflicts.
  2. Separate AD HOC threads (Terminology, Requirements, Functions, Dependencies etc.) will be created as required each will have a designated Chair, responsible for maintaining the conduct and synchronising with other relevant threads.  AD HOC threads shall be face book posts bearing a title with format:

    AD HOC Thread - (some number) 
    Title:  "Some agreed title"
    Created: "day/month/year
    Chair:  "Full name responsible person"

  3. All Threads will require a Chair a stated purpose and rationale.
  4. All Threads will maintain a facebook external document of its proceedings to be published to the group.


Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for.

    Additional information