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 rev.2.4 April 11 2020



More than ever the thing we call money is currently itself being questioned unprecedentedly. The time has come for money to be objectively specified in a fair and transparent scientific fashion without disrupting our day to day ability to operate nor sacrificing our core rights and freedoms. To this end,  we propose these simple Resolutions that can be briefly summarised by recognising the need for money to be properly specified and how in the interim we can render our current use of money “passive” in the formal scientific sense of the term. Passivity will ensure our uninterrupted day to day use of money as a valid record of what each of us do and achieve in the economy without itself being the ultimate distorting goal that it is today. Just as the scoreboard of a sports event “passively” and accurately reflects the play without determining how people behave to achieve their “goals”, so too ensuring that our money system fulfils the formal requirements of “passivity” it can serve to provide all of us valuable information,  without itself or its systemics interfering with what we choose to do or how we choose to do it.


Misrepresentation of Money:

Absent any formal definition of money and respective symbols (e.g. “$”) used in a wide array of contexts (e.g. dollar bills, checks and account entries) on similarly varied set of physical supports (e.g. paper, computer memory) and as an object of different contracts (e.g. mortgages, loans, derivatives, etc.), we are unable to identify any determinate relation between money denoted by such symbols and the value inherent in public or private goods and services money is expected to represent.  As a consequence, obligations, agreements or contracts in terms of such “$“ 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.
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. To continue business as usual in spite of this 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.


Resolution 1 (Correction of Money's Misrepresentation by Legal Imperative)

We thus seek,  as set out by the Money Systems Transparency Alliance (MSTA), to immediately set out to pursue and assist all technical and legal avenues to resolve the aforementioned logical 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.

Resolution 2 (Immediate (Interim) Imposition of Formal Passivity):

Pursuant to the above and with the aim of eliminating all and any direct or associated adverse effects and consequences arising from implementing money under its commonly assumed current misrepresentation,  we move to IMMEDIATELY adopt an interim logical “Passive” specification of money’s current use in the formal scientific sense of the term as follows:

  1. That money’s logical function shall be strictly limited to that of record/annotation the “value” attributed to goods and services transferred between parties in transactions and denominated using the common unit symbol “$”.
  2. Thus money shall be created on account to represent value given in the form of “goods and services” pending future reciprocation of “goods and services” of commensurate value and money shall be cancelled on account upon value being reciprocated.
  3. Related Balances of such “moneys” shall be kept by all stakeholders (e.g. Central Bank, associated banking or credit institutions, public administrators and interested parties etc.)  along with periodic issuance of statements as required.
  4. 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 currency units (e.g. $) 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 (see creation and cancellation of money above).
    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 (risk measured in currency units) 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. To avoid systemic distortion of the common perception of value by systemic compounding, the cost/price of all associated money (banking) services (e.g. maintaining of accounts, risk consultancy, etc.) must be attributed solely in terms of their own value and never as a percentage commission of the sums of value attributed to other transactions.

Publications (Marc Gauvin): 2009-2015

Background Foundation


Defining Money

Miscellaneous Articles


Digital Media Value Chains and Ontology (2004-2010)

– Marc Gauvin (sDae), Jaime Delgado (UPF), Roberto Garcia (UPF), Eva Rodriguez (UPF) ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Issues Regarding the Practical Implementation of the RDD April 2005, Busan, KR

– Marc Gauvin (sDae), Roberto García (DMAG-UPF), Jaime Delgado (DMAG-UPF), Eva Rodríguez (DMAG-UPF), Report Preliminary Results of RDD Core Experiment CE for Expressing “Work”ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG2005/ M12511 October 2005, Nice, FR

– Marc Gauvin, Oil Depletion, Energy Waste, Debt and Capital Production, Association for the Study of Peak Oil Newsletter, June 2005

Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado. Value Chain Ontologies for Intellectual Property Management September 2006. Europe-China Conference on Intellectual Property in Digital Media October 2006

– Marc Gauvin. Interoperable DRM & Content Business Modeling. Europe-China Conference on Intellectual Property in Digital Media October 2006

– Marc Gauvin BIBOCURRENCY. The Science of Stability Applied to Money Systems February 17, 2011 (Self published book online at: (english). Spanish translation:

– Víctor Rodríguez (DMAG-UPC), Jaime Delgado (DMAG-UPC), Marc Gauvin (SDAE) ISO/IEC 21000-10 Media Value Chain Ontology Reference Software Requirements April 2010

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel, and Miran Choi (editors). First Draft International Standard of ISO/IEC 21000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology. Technical report, Output document N11146 in tI amO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, January 2010.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez , and Miran Choi (editors). Final Committee Draft of ISO/IEC 21000-19Media Value Chain Ontology. Technical report, Output document N10768 in tI amO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, July 2009.

– Sergio Dominguez and Marc Gauvin. Formal Stability Analysis of Common Lending Practices and Consequences of Chronic Currency Devaluation May 2009 ( )

– Víctor Torres, Jaime Delgado, Xavier Maroñas, Silvia Llorente, Marc Gauvin: Enhancing Rights Management Systems through the Development of Trusted Value Networks. WOSIS 2009: 26-35 May 2009

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel, and Miran Choi (editors). Final Committee Draft of ISO/IEC 21000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology. Technical report, Output document N10455 in tI amO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, February 2009.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel, and Miran Choi (editors). Committee Draft of ISO/IEC 21000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology. Technical report, Output document N10264

in tI amO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, October 2008.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel, and Miran Choi (editors). Working Draft of ISO/IEC 21000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology. Technical report, Output document N10070 in the

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, July 2008.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, and Victor Rodriguez. Ontology for IP Media Networks: A response to the MVCO CfP. Input document M15631 for tI amO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, July 2008.

– Marc Gauvin, Challenges for IP Management as Represented & Communicated Digitally. Submission to WIPO “Foro sobre derechos de autor, industrias creativas y políticas públicas”Mexico City August 2007

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Eva Rodríguez, and Víctor Rodríguez Doncel. Requirements for a machine readable rights ontology.Technical report, Input document M14707 for ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Moving Picture Experts Group, July 2007.

– Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel, Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado: An Ontology for the Expression of Intellectual Property Entities and Relations. WOSIS 2007: 196-203 June 2007.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, and Victor Rodriguez. Proposed RRD Text for Approved Document No 3 – Technical Specification: Interoperable DRM Platform, ver. 2.1. Technical report, The Digital Media Project, March 2007.

– Marc Gauvin and Victor Rodriguez. Proposed RRD Requirements.Technical report, The Digital Media Project, January 2007.

– Víctor Rodríguez, Marc Gauvin, and Jaime Delgado. An ontology for the expression of intellectual property entities and relations. In 5th International Workshop on Security in Information Systems (WOSIS), June 2007.

– Marc Gauvin, Jaime Delgado, Víctor Rodríguez, and Eva Rodríguez. OWL Ontology to Represent the DMP Creation Model. Technical report, The Digital Media Project, October 2006.
– Marc Gauvin and Jaime Delgado. Value Chain Ontologies for Intellectual Property Objects. Europe-China Conference on Intellectual Property in Digital Media October October 2006

– Marc Gauvin, Eva Rodríguez (DMAG-UPF), Jaime Delgado (DMAG-UPF) MPEG 21 RDD spec vs MPEG 21 RDD versus 21000-1 (2nd edition) terms and definitions. Input document m11556 ISO/IEC/SC29/WG11. Hong Kong January 2005.

– Marc Gauvin (sDae, Spain), Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay (Medialive, France) The Notion of Underlying Work within MPEG-21, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 input document M10616 Munich, April 2004

Money's Misrepresentation and what we eat

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright © 12/2017
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.




Yeah, all those bacteria that feed off us and try to kill us just to consume us. All those carnivores and omnivores that just see us as food. Is this world immoral? What if morality is just a matrix/story?

When humanity was at its height in terms of health and physical strength we were hunter gatherers, 30% of our diet was animal protein much of it stolen from other predators' kills particularly the valuable organ meats with far greater nutrient value than flesh and far more portable.  When we "graduated" to an agrarian lifestyles it is reported that we lost physical health, brain mass and strength.

The American indigenous people saw killing for food as part of the cycle of life and death all beings are condemned to. The Buddhist's leave their corpses to be consumed by scavengers to "give back" to the system of life not humanity alone.

Are we doing a favour to animals when we hunt them for food when they are on the verge of losing their prime vitality, before succumbing to the decrepitude and crippling disability of old age?

What of the farmer who cares and protects the animals he feeds off and allows them to realise their full life cycle at the price of sacrificing it or its progeny in far less painful and terrifying fashion than would a predator?

Domestic cats play with their prey while wild cats aim to suffocate them before the anaesthesia of adrenaline wears off, is that moral or immoral?

The Spanish bull fighters justify their "art" because of the fantastic lives that the majority of the herds experience in a free range existence across massive territories where whole ecosystems are preserved only "economically viable" thanks to the income the Bull fighting festival produces.

It all boils down to pain and sufferance management that celebrates life while accepting and mitigating its ultimate conclusion - death.  In this light, it is evident that "industrial" farming is a crime against nature because it does not just rob living beings of their bodies but also robs them of their entire lives and purpose, in a foolish quest to short change the very system that gives all beings life. Such an abhorrent manifestation is the fruit of the attempt to sell the promise of an impossible and illusory permanence and status of "life" to the mind's and souls of people governed by money's misrepresentation while ignoring the very essence of life, death and our true nature.

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

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA


Materialism vs Idealism

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright ⓒ April 3 2016

Basically, the above video "Sim Theory We May Be In The Matrix" questions the premise labelled as "materialism" that there exists a fundamental nature of "physical matter" that is what determines everything in our universe including consciousness. This premise is contrasted with "idealism" that postulates the existence of an intelligent realm of "ideas" that is what defines our "material reality" and that does not depend on it for it to exist. Hence and from the perspective of our material universe, such a realm appears as the "immaterial" source of "everything". This latter view, is what is referred to as the "sim theory" referring to our reality being the work of some realm external or at least independent to our material world. 

The strongest scientific evidence referenced for the idealist point of view over the materialist view, consists of:

1) The double slit experiment and subsequent variations of it, where it is conclusively proven that rather than behaviour of "matter" being a function of its properties e.g. particle or wave, behaviour of matter is determined by a set of rules only relevant to consciousness. That is, if there is no conscious perception, then matter and its behaviour remains indeterminable within a probability distribution, while the moment consciousness "perceives" or becomes aware of matter, then matter displays a concrete behaviour within a predetermined range of rules of behaviour. 

2) The fact that,  certain phenomenon that has also been shown to exist experimentally, such as entanglement,  cannot be explained without resorting to the sim theory. Specifically, two entangled particles separated by any distance no matter how far, can only synchronise if and only if what governs them is independent of time and space i.e. a simulator that although is responsible for generating the simulation (our reality), has no need for its existence to also be of what it simulates.  Also such it is equidistant to any two points in the system no matter how distant these are between themselves.

These are truly compelling arguments that seem to prove that our universe is governed first and foremost by a rule set that defines matter rather than any independent nature of matter itself. The medium or common denominator between our "creator" and our "physical" universe, appears to be consciousness also stored outside of our "simulated" universe. This idea in part is what prompted contemplating "The Wrath of Certain Eternity Rev. 2 (matter, consciousness and eternity)".

Información adicional