Currency Brands, Units and Reporting

November 29, 2007

In the same way that each entity is free to issue its own currency according to its self-determined limits, an entity may also assign a preferred unit of reference to its currency brand measurements. An entity may also invent its own currency unit, or simply adopt more common units such as its own brand of dollars, hours, etc. Independent entities may even choose the same terminology for their units, but assign different meanings and ways of measuring those units. With this ‘freedom of expression’, a valid concern arises regarding the difficulty of evaluating different currency brands when independent floating exchange rates are used among a huge variety of currency units.

Satconomy addresses this concern through the implementation of common reporting units, a sort of reference standard units that market participants could use to compare the currency issuance and use of different entities. In as much as the self-reporting of an entity’s activities is voluntary, the use of a particular reference or reporting unit is also voluntary. However, an entity ultimately benefits in voluntarily reporting its activities using reference standard units.  A trustworthy entity does not have anything to hide and must open its books to market participants who wish to evaluate its practices. This is not to imply faultlessness on the part of an ’open’ entity, but one that is simply honest about its own capacities and limitations, able to point to its successes and mistakes with equanimity.

In addition, such openess must be expressed directly in an easily understood context, a fact that highlights the importance of using common reporting units. Even though an entity is free to use any unit for its currency brand, market participants would surely appreciate being able to evaluate a currency brand against easily recognizable reporting units. The easier it is to evaluate an entity’s currency brand and activities, the more likely it is to gain widespread acceptance in the market.

Lastly, the entities that are involved in a transaction must agree on what measurement value to report as expressed in the reference standard units. Both parties in a market transaction must report matching quantities of cancelled debits and credits. This parity in reported value is most easily tracked and validated by market participants and analysts through the use of common reporting units.


Self-Regulation and Self-Sufficiency

November 28, 2007

A common theme in alternative or complementary currencies is the idea of a self-regulating market with a sufficient money supply. In satconomy, each unit entity’s currency sufficiency is not determined by the quantity of units it is able to issue, but by how much of those issued units it is able to spend, i.e., how much of its currency the market accepts. It is therefore quite easy to assure a sufficient quantity of money in any currency system, with the main challenge being the availability of products that one could buy with non-traditional currency. Self-sufficiency in currency does not automatically translate into self-sufficiency or choices in market products.

On the other hand, self-regulating markets are necessarily built from self-regulating unit entities. While an entity may not be expected to be self-sufficient, it is nevertheless expected to be self-regulating with its resource and product use. Market participants exert a cumulative influence on an entity by not accepting currency or not buying products from it, but otherwise the market relies on each unit entity to be self-regulating with currency issuance. Each entity must determine and declare its own limits, and market participants must evaluate the entity’s ability to self-regulate against internally-imposed limits. Through the practiced recognition of limitations and capacities, participants contribute to the dynamic establishment of sustainable markets with open borders and increased access to needed products.


Comparison to the Ripple Framework

November 16, 2007

Satconomy may be implemented in Ripple using the basic structure of binodal accounts. Each entity may be visualized as a cluster of nodes that revolve around a brand node or, for clarity of illustration, around unidirectional accounts formed between an entity’s pair of brand nodes. One of the brand nodes acts as an external interface to nodes that are outside of the entity, and the other as an internal interface to cluster member nodes. The brand account may be envisioned as forming the anatomical neck of the cluster. (Click on thumb size illustrations to view image file.)

Entity ClusterEntity Account

The member nodes hope to gain access to the market through the entity’s brand nodes. The internal brand node grants credits, which are essentially usable currency, to the individual member nodes, resulting in numerous entity accounts. The brand account limits the ‘flow’ of credits into and out of the entity though the following mechanism:

(1) The internal node assigns a credit limit to the external node, which limits the amount of ‘currency’ that could ‘flow’ out of the entity. This is functionally equivalent to an entity’s self-determined spendable credit limit or a currency outflow limit.

Outflow Limit

(2) The external node assigns a credit limit to the internal node, which limits the amount of ‘currency’ that could flow into the entity. This is functionally equivalent to an entity’s self-determined debit cancellation limit, i.e., as soon as all the entity’s debits have been cancelled thorugh the receipt of credits from the market, currency inflow is prevented.

 Inflow Limit

The next features are modifications to the standard Ripple protocol. 

(3) In satconomy, each unit increase to the currency outflow limit must result in a corresponding unit increase in the inflow limit. This would be the Ripple equivalent of the intra-entity currency issuance of credit-debit pairs. It is important to emphasize that the preassigned values to outflow and inflow limits dynamically change with currency issuance and use.

Currency Issuance

 (4) In satconomy, currency outflow results in the dynamic decrease of the pre-assigned outflow limit. This dynamic decrease is NOT equivalent to the calculated relative value of used credits versus a nonchanging pre-assigned credit limit, but rather, the actual preassigned limit changes. Similarly, currency inflow results in the dynamic decrease of the pre-assigned inflow limit. 

 Currency Cancellation

 (5) In satconomy, credit-debit cancellation between entities would be functionally equivalent to a Ripple autosettlement feature, if such a feature were to exist. Ripple offers a manual settlement option for the cancellation of the debt between creditor and debtors, which results in the restoration of the usable credit limit to the preassigned value. In contrast, there is no manual settlement option in satconomy:  An autosettlement feature is enforced wherein an entity-declared debt to the market is cancelled by the credits of consenting market participants. An entity’s debt is reduced through the provision of its product to market participants who redeem their credits against the market in general (and not simply against the credit issuer.) A satconomic market transaction does not result in a new record of redeemable credits, but results in its opposite – the destruction of redeemable credits together with an equivalent amount of pre-existing debits.

 Manual vs. Automatic Settlement

(6) Since an autosettlement feature does not result in records of indebtedness, the inter-entity payment routing feature in Ripple becomes a nonbinding trust routing feature in satconomy. If a path of trust could be found to link unacquainted market participants, then the seller might choose to directly accept the buyer’s offer of credits (to be used for cancelling the seller’s debits). If no such path is found, the seller might choose to reject the buyer’s credits, or might still choose to accept the buyer’s credits anyway. There is no need for payment intermediaries in satconomy, but there will be a major need for trustworthy intermediaries, such as market analysts and advocacy groups, in verifying an entity’s currency brand qualities. A trust path might be indirect, but payments are always directly made between the market transactors in satconomy.


Comparison to Mutual Credit Systems

November 14, 2007

The following implementation scenario might help explain satconomy to those who are familiar with LETS, TimeDollar or mutual credit type systems:

Suppose that instead of individual trading accounts, members decided to organize into unit entities within a trading community or market. The unit entities would be known within the community by its brand. Each entity does not need to trade with other entities or borrow from others in order to issue currency. Instead, if an entity member has made a perceived contribution to the entity’s goals, then that member is awarded credits and the entity accrues the corresponding amount of debits. The amount of currency or credit-debit pairs that an entity could issue is self-determined within the entity – for example, by a supervisor, manager and other positions of authority that monitors the level of member contribution to its goals.

The member who earns the credits can then spend it on products in the market, or more rarely, redeem it for the products of the entity if those are not already provided as benefits to the members. Currency is intended primarily to be used outside the issuing entity. When the entity is able to benefit someone with its products, goods and services, its debits are cancelled together with an equal amount of the beneficiary’s credits.

In other words, satconomy may be implemented as a mutual-credit community where the members organize into unit entities, each with a declared market specialization. Currency is issued within an entity as credit-debit pairs, which translates to an entity account that has both credit and debit balances as opposed to a single net balance. Only the entity by itself could increase its balance amounts, and those balances have to increase by the same amount at the time of currency issuance. Finally, credits may only be used to cancel debits that are already existing. 


Comparison to Stock or Bond Issuing Entities

November 13, 2007

Unit entities in satconomy have operational similarities with publicly held corporations, which issues shareholder stocks, and municipal governments, which issues bonds. However, there are important differences:

(1) Instead of quantitatively symbolizing the status of an owner as a shareholder or a lender as a bond holder, credits in satconomy are awarded based on the recipient’s perceived contribution to the entity’s goal or mission. 

(2) An entity may issue any amount of its currency according to its self-determined limits, as long as the currency is issued as credit-debit pairs. That is, for each self-determined unit increase in the entity’s credits, its absolute debit quantity must also increase by an equal amount.

(3) The credits are intended, but not guaranteed, to be redeemable into products of the market in general. Redeemability is not specifically limited to the products of the issuer.

(4) When the credits are redeemed for products in the market, the credits are cancelled together with an equal quantity of the product provider’s debits. There is no reusable currency transfer between entities. Each entity does not need to acquire currency from other entities since an enity could independently issue its own brand of currency.

For added emphasis, it is worth repeating that there are no guarantees that credits could be redeemed for products in the market, or that the debits of the entity would be cancelled eventually as a symbol of fulfilling its self-determined obligation to the market.


Unit Entity – A Basic Definition

November 10, 2007

A unit entity could be a sole proprietor, partnership, corporate organization, cooperative, nonprofit, government, public agency or any other type of organization that exists to address a perceived need outside of itself. In satconomy, an entity does not exist merely to satisfy the needs of its member(s), i.e., it is NOT a trading club or an exclusive community. More specifically:

(1) A unit entity has a declared specialization: An entity determines the needs that it intends to address and sets corresponding milestones for itself. Since no entity could possibly address every market need, an entity must specialize in order to achieve reasonable objectives.

(2) A unit entity has ongoing ‘credit recovery’ mechanisms, i.e., some means to be able to cancel debits: Examples are product sales, tax collection, fundraising, asking for donations, and any other activities which represent credits that are received from the general market.

(3) A unit entity is primarily known by its brand: An entity is a fluid organizational concept, with dynamic membership profiles, goals and directions. A brand is an entity’s attempt to maintain a more stable and lasting impression of its socio-economic relevance.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.