Forgive me for being a little slow on this one @littlejoeward - more occupied offline than on, as things are!
I like the line of reasoning and especially your basic objective, i.e., a stable currency - as that is exactly what I have been toying with, from even before cryptos came to light!
I like your sentiment of a fair distribution and that everyone should contribute. Your logic of supply and demand relative to the value of the currency also makes sense.
A point I would like to raise though, is whether it would be attractive for everyone to have to do maintenance on their currency perpetually to prevent it from corrupting, when there is already so little quality time to spend doing quality things?
Would it not be more attractive to have a currency defined in such a manner that it remains stable due to inherent qualities is by definition has?
Thanks!
If there was a way to do that I would be interested in it. I have been thinking about maybe having something that worked similar to steem where we would pay people to do useful things to create more tokens but I'm still in the early stages of thinking about that...
I really think that it is possible to have currency that is very simply agreed on to have a purchasing power for a unit of energy.
The fact that energy plays a most fundamental role in production and the fact that production lies at the heart of real economics together really implies that having a currency related to energy is a sensible option - at least as far as I can see..
We all "agree" that the SBD should equal $1 and there is even a mechanism in place that keeps it from going below $1. And yet we see that the price is more than $10 right now. The market doesn't always do what we want it to. The only thing that makes it work in a game is that the banker controls the money supply and the market. It is also short term and not sustainable. The game ends and everyone moves on. What if the game lasted forever. I don't think the currency would stay the same as an orange forever.
Thank you @littlejoeward, for bringing up all these points to iron out.
I am of course never really replying to you personally only. Your questions create the opportunity every time to embroider on ideas that other readers may find thought provoking. I do not see this as a project or agenda of my own that I wish to foist on the community. I see some basic concepts with the potential of us all together getting something sensible going.
Coming back to your question..
I think we are seeing two different scenarios here. The SBD is exposed to speculation on a 'foreign' market here. Steemland treats the SBD internally with care. On the world wide exchanges all kinds of strangers, people that are not stakeholders in steemit, can throw money at, it chasing up the price.
One could have it that in 'Energyland', only accountholders/players in the game will be able to trade amongst one another with the tokens, so all will be subject to the same forces.
And to make it possible for the game to last forever, one can put a limit to the total number of tokens that can be held in an account - say a few million. That will have players store additional value in real assets - property, useful things, luxuries, gold, whatever, while preventing inflation.
The individual accounts will then not be the ultimate sores of value..only to a limited degree. The accounts will primarily be a means by which to fairly and evenly and sensibly inject purchasing power into the economy at a grass roots level, instead of as at present into the top echelons of society, from where it does not "trickle down", hence the poverty at the lower end.
There will never be only one currency either. Virtually any commodity can at any time serve as a means of exchange. And other cryptos can be around as well - why not?
But what if some people don't agree that it's worth that much?
I think someone saying their token is worth more will be walked past and someone paying too much for anything (devaluing their money) will soon learn the lesson - market forces.