Self-Redistributing Wealth



  • koeppelmannkoeppelmann Member Posts: 51
  • KarlSchroederKarlSchroeder Member Posts: 10
    Thanks for the link!

    To be clear, I've never once considered this as a tax. It's not payment to a government for services, it's a correction on an unwanted large-scale statistical effect of currency transactions.

    The core question behind a self-redistributing currency is: are there large scale statistical effects of exchange as such that are autonomous from, and run against the spirit of, individual transactions? Since in a perfect game of chance played by equals, the inevitable outcome is inequality, the answer would appear to be yes; and then one can ask, can a simple mechanism be added to exchange to prevent this large-scale, statistically autonomous effect?
  • greenman023greenman023 Member Posts: 1
    edited March 2015
    Perhaps I've got it wrong but one of the things that attracted me to bitcoin was that it had built within it the ability to redistribute wealth and prevent excessive wealth accumulation. I based this view on the following properties and the logical conclusions there of...

    1 Bitcoin is a means of exchange which has no inherent value. It's value is a reflection of the trade facilitated by it.
    2) There are (with the exception of mining) a limited number of bitcoins.

    Therefore the value of the bitcoin economy is a reflection of the total value of the trade in that economy. The more trade facilitated by bitcoin the greater the value of bitcoin. Thus each time a transaction takes place it has a positive impact on the total volume of trade and the value of the coins used in the transaction increase as a consequence of the trade just performed by it. In other words every time a coin is spent it becomes worth more than the goods it was just exchanged for.... this added value/deflationary aspect of BTC is aka to redistributing wealth...

    Conversely the act of 'hoarding' has a negative impact. If one were to collect every coin and save it then the trade with BTC would stop. As bitcoin's value is in the trade then all those coins in one wallet would be insufficient to buy a topping let alone the pizza to put it on.

    In this way crypto-currencies naturally redistribute wealth and prevent it's future accumulation...

    Am I not correct in this simplified but essentially correct concept of what adoption of crypto-currency ultimately results in?
    Post edited by greenman023 on
  • resilience_meresilience_me Member Posts: 7
    edited March 2015
    You might be interested in my system. I designed it 2012, and started developing 2014, and Bitnation have acquired it and it's received some media attention.

    It uses a concept called dividend pathways. Each transaction you make creates or adds to one of these pathways. Each pathway facilitates a flow of dividends up to the amount that was transacted to create the pathway. If you send me $100, up to $100 in dividends will flow through that pathway.

    The dividends are divided on everyone that's connected through these pathways. I call this a swarm, and I've called the algorithm itself swarm-redistribution or p2p-dividend protocols.

    The flow of dividends is then optimized through an optimization layer,

    You can see this optimization on the GIF below in real time,

    It uses an inventive structure, a sort of reward system, or you could think of it as a governance system that emerges from the feedback loops between producers and consumers,

    This meta-pattern, the incentive layer, is similar to what the co-operative business movement has used for decades,

    "The dividend scheme makes it more advantageous to be a loyal Coop member. As more people realize the economic benefits, the idea is that more people will become members, more people will shop at Coop and that casual customers will transform into regulars and consolidate their purchases to Coop. This will make Coop more profitable, making it possible to further improve the stores and offers to members. "

    -@CoopSverige, In Brief, 2010
    This incentive mechanism was described brilliantly in the article,
    “This means that consumers who want to receive basicincome will benefit greatly from seeking out corporations that are connected to Therefore, corporations are incited to join the network in their effort to gain and keep costumers. Not only will this mean that consumers can create a resilient financial safety net through making active consumerist choices. The corporations will also be encouraged to take greater financial responsibility for their entire supply line.”

    The system interfaces every currency online, bitcoin, ripple, NXT, and old banks too if they install an API so the app can read their ledgers. The system is like a third-party web-app, and all the user has to do is to sign their outgoing dividends, micro-payments, which could be automated if they let an app manage their password.

    Brief whitepaper,!whitepaper/c21xm

    On Twitter,
  • Ether-LordEther-Lord Member Posts: 7
    I look forward to reading the whitepaper
  • CubeSpawnCubeSpawn Member Posts: 33 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2015
    Probably fighting above my weight in this well developed discussion, but what I don't hear is: is the goal to build new currencies with baked in biases toward specific outcomes? Or is the goal to use this phase of the economic transition to transcend currency entirely? I favor the latter, since in the most developed parts of the world we are all so obscenely rich compared to our ancestors that there is no comparison in lifestyle.

    Example: 1 gallon of gasoline represents 600 man hours of labor - in other words 10 guys working for a week and a half in 1850 did the same work that carries a lazy guy in a jacked up, 5000 lb truck eight miles today. Ergo, no comparison is possible between those lifestyles.

    If the goal is to level access to the basic services between wealthy and indigent so people dont starve, freeze or suffer and can't be extorted by richer members of society to become richer still, then creating easy access to material wealth seems to more directly and efficiently solve that problem than any very indirect and symbolic currency based solution.

    "Smart" money seems an overly clever solution to a contrived problem: people need their basic needs covered, this is often done without any money at all people need air, water, food, and shelter, they don't "need" money. If we remove the gatekeepers that deny access to these things the entire problem withers away.

    If material wealth is a pervasive feature of society, I don't think people will "trade" much.

    Any more so than fish exchange water, since they all have enough.

    Crypto's are fascinating, but are only a phase in our fractal shift from ancient solutions to better ones.
Sign In or Register to comment.