[wsfii-discuss] Worldchanging article on Complementary currencies

Wed Oct 5 16:19:34 UTC 2005

Adrian

I've been lurking on this thread for a while reading all the mails regarding
complimentary currencies. However, given the following statement:
"It's pretty clear to me that cash as we know it will cease to exist in
a few years"

Would you like to put a date (and a bet on this)?

Cheers

Mike

Quoting Adrian Short <adrian.short at gmail.com>:

> It's pretty clear to me that cash as we know it will cease to exist in
> a few years and any remaining economic anonymity will go with it. Bear
> in mind, as I'm sure you're aware, that the use of cash in the UK and
> many other countries is already severely limited by money-laundering
> regulations.
>
> It's a problem that needs to be solved but it's not a problem that
> needs to be solved by every CC system and as many have pointed out,
> may well be antithetical to some of them.
>
> The great thing about alternative currencies (note the term) is that
> they are additional to the national currency. We destroy the idea that
> most people, most of the time have to use a single currency, whatever
> it may be. When you're using multiple currencies, you can choose the
> ones that are fit for your purpose from the currency toolbox. Those
> that are useful to people will thrive and those that are useless will
> die.
>
> It's important to be clear about your intentions when designing a
> system and stick to them. That implies that you also know what your
> system is not. Trying to be all things to all people tends to lead to
> a mess. A diversity of projects, each with a specific focus, will
> enable the wide currency scene to innovate and constantly come up with
> better solutions. But not every system will succeed, in fact, most
> will fail.
>
> In more specific terms, I've been trying to address the line between
> disclosure and privacy in my own software. It's tricky and it's always
> going to come down to a value judgement. There seem to be three
> approaches:
>
> 1. Everything is as private as possible on principle.
> 2. Everything is as public as possible on principle.
> 3. Work out which questions in specific circumstances a member might
> legitimately want to ask about another member and provide as little
> information in that context as they need to answer those questions.
>
> I'm going with number 3 for this specific system but I can see how
> both 1 and 2 will appeal to many people. There would be nothing to
> stop someone being a member of many systems, each with different
> policies.
>
> To give a specific example, it's taken as read in most LETS that
> members know the other members balances? Why? Because it appears to
> show whether they're in good standing and therefore are trusted to
> trade with. However, it's quite meaningless and can lead to wrong
> conclusions in almost every situation (large positive balance, large
> negative balance, balance near zero.) The trading volume, length of
> membership and average trading volume over a specific period is highly
> relevant to answering that question, though. Therefore, I will not be
> disclosing members' balances to protect them from misinformation,
> rather than in the interests of privacy.
>
> I'm quite relaxed about aggregate system-wide statistics and I think
> most people are, with the exception of trying to avoid presenting them
> in a way (ie. in real time) where they might inadvertently reveal
> information about specific members.
>
> Let a thousand currencies bloom!
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>
>