Abstract:
In this article, the author claims that the reason why human civilization is suffering from issues such as poverty, inequality, corruption, exploitation, over consumption, environmental problems, biased and censored media, inadequate education, immigration, discrimination, oppression and tyranny, is the lack of a real democracy in all local, national and international levels. Thus proposes a progress from bottom to top, in which the power-less and possess-less people participate in a gradual movement in order to establish a new social order and a new power and wealth distribution model.
The core believe of proposal is “The people are the system”, in matter of quantity and quality. Therefore they need to find each other and cultivate their common world and apply their wills on real world in order to impose radical changes to system.
Obviously it is not a new peephole. Throughout history, humankind has gone this way many times and failed many times. Sometimes they failed because of oppressive governments, and sometimes they failed because they became the oppressive government. The motives of movement and the threats are remained same as the previous ones. So why this time should be different? The answer is, this time we have innovative mechanisms and tools to carry out and support the movement. The internet, cryptography, blockchain and decentralized governing are our tools. A well designed game theory on top of these tools will encourage people to engage in problem solving in all local, national and international levels simultaneously, and being rewarded (directly or indirectly) because of their participation. The game rules also prevent participants from becoming the new tyrant ruling class, while the decentralization protects the whole system against external adversaries.
Author believes it is very hard and impractical to teach history, philosophy and economy to every one and explain how and why we ended up in this catastrophic human civilization, in order to convince them to revision their value system and reform their assumptions and misconception. Instead, it will be far easier to hack existed and familiar concepts and materials, and trigger an evolution in their definition and functionality by launching a persuasive game theory.
One of these familiar concepts and materials is the money. While money itself, is not really the matter, it seems that everyone believe that money is cause and meter of almost everything in the world, and more money means more prosperity.
The proposal uses money concept to embody its thesis in a tangible concept. It proposes a model, in which every group of people can decide how to create money and how to divide it. The outcome will be a true free market of different communities with different rules and values and different monies (even money-less communities) which are competing for more population in order to increase the value and popularity of their money and their values as indicators of the excellence of their community.
The new paradigm is about a “true” free market of believes and believers, since entering to a community or leaving it has no cost, unlike the current communities, ideologies, political regimes or countries and territories.




The core elements of “The new paradigm” are the software and the people. In other word, every one can download and install the software on her/his personal computer or mobile and start a community of her/his friends or her/his like-minded people. There is no central control at all, so no one can prevent or force people from/to establish, join, branch or leave a community.
We can expect to make millions of different communities and currencies, but in practice only a handful of them will be able to amass a significant population. Then they will compete to convince other people about the value of their money and correctness of their value system, and excellence of their social order and fairness of their rules and perfection of their governing model, etc…
since we already established a real and transparent free market of thoughts, there is no barrier for people to leave a community in favor of joining better one, and there is no barrier for communities to adapt successful strategies of successful communities. This progress and improvement is explained in another post, titled “Redefining exchange rates to excellence index in democracy term” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

Till here , we assumed that we had created a real free market of ideas without outside interference, but creating a truly free market of thought remains a matter of doubt if we cannot guarantee the security and privacy of free and uncensored debating. These are merely the software responsibilities and are explained in detail in “What is wrong with current social networks and messengers app” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5312087.0 .
The software is designed to be as secure as possible and as libre as possible.

Another requirement for a real democracy is possibility of running a “free and democratic election”. In this regard, we must answer the following questions.
Who can choose the electable options (people or laws)?
Who can vote in the election?
How to hold election (instant democracy, liquid democracy, Quadratic voting, etc...)?
How votes are counted?
What is the quorum of acceptance of a person or law?
Again it is software responsibilities to prepare all these options for community and communities will decide how to configure elections as it please.
The software is designed to be as flexible as possible.

The polls will lead to the passage of laws. There is a famous motto “code is law” and this law treats everyone automatically and equally. Combination of free market of thoughts plus democratic polling plus “code is law” will cause the “rules without ruling class”, and eliminate the necessity of existence of legislator, judge and executive(government). This can be applied to all communities which are powered by the software regardless of where are the community members living, who are they, and what race or nationality they have.

So far we have explained how to set up online communities that are democratically created and managed. Now the question would be “how can these online societies affect the real world and improve the living conditions of their members”. In addition to what is mentioned in this great article “Netizens: An Anthology” http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Book_Anniversary/Netizens%20An%20Anthology%20part%20I.pdf , here I want to return to the money as a tangible and favorite concept for everyone.
The basic idea is that members of a community will begin to use that community's money in their business dealings. Early, in small amounts of money and temporary jobs (maybe a few dollars for gardening, dog walking, tipping, etc...), but later in more serious jobs and larger amounts.
The communities grow and increase their reputation and expand their common world and embrace new members and increase their market range (in terms of variety and volume of goods and services) and increase their money turn over gradually, until they meet all their day to day needs directly with their money, without need to exchange the money to governmental money and vice versa. The software supports all financial activities such as transactions, remittance, loan and lending (not fractional-reserve), pull and push business models and a subset of smart contracts all in decentralized model without third party. Just having a customized money under your control, and the possibility of providing capital and running mutual systems (e.g. mutual banking) greatly improves the economic situation of a community member. Needless to say, this money is far better than cheap, inflationary governmental fiat money.
A community of capable and minded people and relatively richer that have possibility of free debate and democratic decision making and funding, will lead influential social movements in order to force real changes in real world. This will be the outcome of “The new paradigm” in long run.

Here, in order to delve deeper into the “The new paradigm” potentials and practical details, I intend to explain an early community which is powered by the software as a tangible and real world example. This community is called “imagine”, inspired by the song of Beatles. The first and most important mission of “imagine” is implement, develop and gift this software to the world. The “imagine” motto is  “fair effort, fair gain, win win win”, where the winners are the world, the “imagine” community and the participator, respectively.
I have created and enacted some rules according to my own plan for improving this community. Are my rules capitalistic or socialistic or under certain doctrine, regime or school of thought? While the answer is not really matter, my answer is yes and no simultaneously. Indeed, I do not want to fit “myself”, “The new paradigm” and the “imagine” community in any “ism” at all. I made the system which I think will work for my goals, while other people can establish different community and different strategy as they believe, obviously.
So I set proper rules to achieve proposal goals and ship the software, as free as possible, as open as possible, as flexible as possible, as robust as possible, and as un-stoppable as possible. Hopefully successive communities use the released software and ancestors experiences happily.
Are the laws I have passed for “imagine” community the best, fairest and most complete laws? Certainly not, and I have no such claim neither. The first rule of imagine is: “every single decision must be made based on the vote of the community members.”, thus over time “imagine” rules will be changed dramatically and it is very good for community and the software.

Lets return to money again and figure out how money flows in “imagine” community. In “imagine” I created an scarce money. That is, the software is configured to create X fixed amount of coins every day. So the issuance of money is regulated and predictable, and there is no way to increase it overnight. Then I set the rules for dividing these coins between community members.
The mechanism of distribution of coins is pretty simple and straightforward. Whole coins will being divided between participators (aka shareholders or community members) in proportion to their shares. Who works more obtains more shares, who works less obtains less shares, but it is not merely a meritocracy, since it has some complementary mechanisms to moderate it that you can find more about it here:
“Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

“There is no place for feats, beauty and heroic deeds in the modern world”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306920.0 


In this way of dividing money, the following questions come to mind.
- What kind of participation, people can do in this community?
- Who and how measure and evaluate the participation quantity and quality?

Indeed there is no limit for activities or even no-activities (e.g. UBI). That means if the current community members -for any reason and by any mechanism- are convinced that person Y deserves Z amount of shares, then person Y will be a shareholder of system, and because of that shares s/he will be get paid a portion of daily X minted coins, unconditionally. Also person Y will have voting right in proportion to her/his Z shares of system total shares.
So the community members all are proposers and evaluators simultaneously. They evaluate and accept (or reject) the other users proposal. Every single proposal is put to a vote, and “all” community can/will upvote or refute proposal.
So, people can send proposals for participating in “imagine” activities and become the member of community. In this stage, the activities are mainly developing software, test, design, translate, educational stuff, etc. But the community always welcome all new ideas, even if one believes that feeding an elephant in Africa has a positive effect on improving the overall condition of human society.
The way “imagine” create and distribute money prevents “Cantillon effect”, and runs a rational cash flow - not spend it ASAP nor Hodl it forever-. (neither inflationary nor hyper-deflationary)
Regarding the fact that this money and the community around it, are created by the first person who installed the software on her/his computer and invited others to join her/his network, the community members and their horizons are strongly tied to intentions, tendencies and beliefs of its founder(s) and early members. So the benevolent originator, will run the software and will invite like-minded honest people and -probably- will establish and develop an Utopian society, while wicked people will establish a corrupt community.
The evils already have their tools and most probably do not need our new born software, but some of them will try to obtain the majority of shares of our honest community in order to exploit it or destroy it, since they would probably be more motivated for doing so.
Here, the concept of “power of fragility” comes to the picture.
The software that manages community issues is open source and free. It is designed to be fully decentralized, flexible and super user-friendly. So every one without any technical skills can install the software, configure the community settings, monetary mechanisms, governing rules in a couple of hours, and launch her/his own new territory and new money and new rules, etc… There is no monopoly, control or privileges at all.
The software also supports immigration. That is, if some members of a community are not happy with community any more, they can fork it and establish a new community. They can selectively port the history, coins, rules and configurations of old community to new one. They can re-configure new community hoping the new community grow up without malicious members. Good actors boycott bad actors (or vice versa) by running a polling with minimum cost. Both old and new communities will have their money. Probably both will lose a portion of their money’s value, and that is ok too. If the dispute wasn't grave, probably they will find some solution in order to avoid splitting and losing the value of their wealth, since they had cultivate their common world by spending time and strive and faith. Here the “cancel culture” costs far more than tolerate and debate and constructive communication. The splitting impacts directly on every member of community by reducing their money power and their community reputation. It is the conscience of “power of fragility”.
By the way, for “imagine” governing model the doubt can be “It is unlikely and also impractical that everyone would evaluate every proposals and works done by every one else every day”.
Thus we need another mechanism to encourage people to participate in proposal evaluation. So the rule is “every new proposals by default are approved”. So if no one go to vote, the proposal will be approved after polling time frame automatically. Since the issuing coins amount is fixed, new shareholders means less dividend to current members. Thus community has enough incentive to participate in polling and will investigate wisely on every single proposal. It is an instant democracy.
Is it technically possible? In old classical human interaction this kind of decision making was too costly and nearly impossible, but with internet and blockchain technology it is absolutely possible, even for entire world population. By the way, the things could be handled more effective by liquid-democracy or even quadratic voting. Both are apply-able in proposed software/community.
Another critic would be: by this mechanism, There is a perverse incentive for shareholders to undervalue the work by other people (up to zero).
Let imagine the network/community consist of only me myself as initiative shareholder. Obviously I have whole shares and I’ll get all new money, but what is the point? If I do not find somebody whom accept my money in exchange of her/his goods or services, the money worth nothing forever.
Because of human nature, we prefer to keep more coins for ourselves. If it is not possible so we will divide coins between as less as possible people, and if this is not possible too, we will divide it between our clan. But none of these 3 approaches will help the community in sustainable growth. Particularly the value of the money of the community directly affected by quality of the community in every aspects.
The network has to be expanded and embraces new members to raise up the money usability, applicability and popularity in order to advance its market range. Bigger community means less daily coins for each, But also means more usability and applicability for the community’s money.
Hence community has to be grown and every decisions are made by polling, the community has to add more and more honest person and not corrupted one. Otherwise community dies in early steps and their money will never be a valuable asset.
The community grows because of its improvement and vice versa.
Money is just a group hallucination but that doesn't mean it is an easy thing to create.
The community around that money, can be established and grow or just die very quickly. It is a trade off, and the outcome depends on how community members are mature and how much they care about community. What about bad actors? Even bad actors have to follow rules and do something good for system in order to obtain system shares, and these contributes empowers system even more.
There is a catastrophic case in which the majority of system are bad actors and they accept corrupted proposals and gain more and more power. The “power of fragility” is the solution.

The “imagine” community is a prove of “The new paradigm” theory in practice. While the software and the “imagine” community is the product, they are “means of production” too, simultaneously. According to the mechanism of distribution of wealth, power, and software services (financial sovereignty facilities, privacy care messenger and social network, democratic voting system, decentralized domain name service(DNS) and decentralized website, wiki, weblog, video channel service), we can claim that "imagine" and software are also "allocation" at the same time. In summary, in “imagine” community decide what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce, and why produce.
The "imagine" is not just producing a free software merely! "imagine" cultivates a culture of "decentralized production" (aka "peer production") using decentralized and open money, which will be the basis for the production of other decentralized products such as open hardware, open technology, open medical, etc... under "The new paradigm".



Conclusion:
Regardless of “isms” and labels, “The new paradigm” proposes a complicated system of combination of technologies and people that make a real transparent free market of thoughts (a realization of Agora and “Vita Activa” in 21 century) where people freely can support or reject any idea with minimum cost. People by joining to a community or even accepting the money of a community (in exchange of their goods or services) support that community. Vice versa, people by leaving a community or simply by not accepting the money of a community refuse that community. It is the easiest and most practical way to demonstrate democracy. Free choice of free people determines the communities progress direction. Their choice elevates society or turns it into an abandoned society. No need to argue, quarrel or fight. No need to war.
These communities are not merely online groups since they affect people's real lives in different ways.

Next, we described a realized community called “imagine, which was created by this software and in order to maintenance the software. The “imagine” represents one of the thousands potential ways of generate and distribute money and power, which can be powered by this software.

The “imagine” community looks for active participation of software developers, hacktivists, activists artists, and researchers in order to improve and accelerate the movement.


Hu,
a human, a practical philosopher, a technical thinker

This post is an article of a series of articles about the "The new paradigm" that will be gradually placed on the site. There are few published posts, you can find at the end of this article.

I consolidate social networks and messengers, apps and websites in one place, since they are hardly distinguishable by their features and functionalities nowadays.

This is not a new topic, and I am not the first critic, so I list all problems and then immediately go to  my proposal in order to address these issues.

Fails:
- No privacy, not enough good encrypted messaging either direct messaging or group messaging, in both end-2-end encryption and client to server encryption. And all of them suffer from metadata leakage.
They all have very serious problem because of requiring people to link their “identity”through a retard-phone(aka smartphone) to network, in excuse of spam and troll fighting.

- Hidden algorithms, so that no one know how they decide to recommend particular connections or content or advertises to users and how and why they filter some feeds.

- Lack of data sovereignty, either the content or the connections(relations, likes, shares, comments, feedback, etc). The friends list and user network and interactions are not under users ownership, they are companies properties. Users can not export out their created contents, connections, comments, history, etc... in order to self backup these data, or immigrate and import these data to another platform. Instead the companies use this information to analyze users as precise as possible, in order to maximize their profit.

- Gaining high profit and having minimum willingness to share revenue with their creators (the app users). keeping users staring their apps as long as possible. Increasing dependency to their app by abusing users habit.
To me, the social networks and messengers must facilitate the “action” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Condition#V_-_Action , while they do not care about it. They are existed just for money and control, even by encourage users to low quality activities and waste their time in their platform.

- Seemingly free services, while in reality users are ‘paying’ (with) attention. Indeed users are the product and not the consumers. Interesting article “Reasons not to be used by Facebook” as an example. https://stallman.org/facebook.html .
They provide “free” services to encourage users to expose themselves, their believes, their habits, even their impulsive, as much as possible. They are totally free, to persuade you to reveal yourself in order to be used against you very soon.

- Their business model is not just about the money, they provide these facilities to surveillance, “full pipe monitoring”, secrecy, censorship, disrupt social movements and gaslight users perception.

Solution proposal:

The solution is creating a “real” decentralized social network. The system that has open source and free licensed code, like Bitcoin.
The whole system will be a pure protocol and a reference implementation. No one will be the protocol owner or software owner at all, and everyone can run software on their computer and join to network with no mandate or obligation. The “protocol“ is secured by users consensus.
The user data and all kind of information about user is controlled by user itself. s/he decides “what” to share, and with “who”, and for “how long”.
The software will have vary set of different open-source and transparent algorithms to organizing data and feeds to users home page, so that user can decide to get the feeds under a particular policy or share/broadcast her/his content by another policy.
For example if a user don’t want to remain ensconced in her/his safe and familiar community and idea-sphere (with basic level and safeguarded inputs and content suggestions algorithms), s/he can switch to an adventurous or heuristic algorithm. Or even sets a combination of five percent safe algorithm, plus ten percent popular algorithm, and twenty percent elite-like algorithms plus half a percent Facebook-like algorithm (just as a reminder about past custodial algorithms). Every developer or enterprise company can create new scoring and sorting algorithms and promote it to users. These algorithms must be transparent as well and users can use new algorithms in order to organize their home page and feeds. Again there is no place for abusive or exploitation algorithms. Whole algorithms must have the ability to explain the reasons behind theirs judgments. And these explanations need to be shown routinely to users in a way they can understand.
What people are really missing with Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal/Zoom or whatever messenger in future is the fact that “End to End” encryption makes no difference in privacy level, if the service is only accessible from a “single app, provided by a service provider”, who can impose an automatic update. In other word no messenger of no company will be secure and private, since soon or late they will be forced to implement at least one backdoor.
The only practical solution, as I told before is an “open and free standard/protocol” for communication that can be implemented and used by different clients (e.g. different mobile apps, developed by different companies or different clients developed by different people for different operating systems). The only definitive thing is the “protocol” itself.
This “protocol” must be implemented by a decentralized consensus, and maintained by a decentralized mechanism too, in a fully open-source ambient, where no one can impose malicious upgrades to protocol. This goal can be achieved, only if a decentralized decision making process about the “protocol” (aka a decentralized community and governance) already exist.
It looks like the chicken and egg problem! We need a decentralized community of developers, in order to implement a decentralized and secure protocol of a decentralized social network.
It won't be an unsolvable problem, if we start from a pure centralized community and step by step decentralized it. I explained this “continuous peeling in community and rules and governance”, from different angel in “Redefining exchange rates to excellence index in democracy term” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

Building this protocol and embody it in a software and forming a community on top of it will not an easy process at all, and needs huge efforts and resources. There is a proposal to address this, titled “Open Money, a glue for accelerate Openness“ https://community.hackernoon.com/t/open-money-a-glue-for-accelerate-openness/50908

Obstacles:
does really a real decentralized social network support influencers and their million followers live streams?
At this point definitely no, and the proposed architecture supports normal users with hundreds of friends and connections. But it doesn't mean this model will never work in bigger scale. It is the first step and we definitely will make on top of it the better products.

Is there any sustainable and feasible business plan for this proposal?
Yes, the business model will be a combination of classic advertisement model and a monetary model that I explained in another article titled; “Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

Hu




Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence index” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

There is no place for feats, beauty and “heroic deeds” in the modern world
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306920.0

The system shares and system coins are two different concept.
You can earn the system share because of your active participation in system activities. Then because of this shares you will get payed by community’s money, from community’s treasury in proportion to your shares. Then you can spend your coins in exchange of goods or services. You can give your coins to everyone you want either another community member or your grocery store. Having community coins doesn’t grants any rights in community like having USD which doesn’t grant you voting in US election.
Sorry it was my partial article, I'll write a complete guide about coinbase block and related mechanisms soon.

The difference here is that USD doesn't grant any rights to the holder other than itself being a financial asset unlike the community idea presented on your articles. You mentioned that "get the money of one community, be part of it. Get rid of their money, leave their community and voting rights and other stuff." When a currency grants some rights to its holders, the value of the currency is not just determined by the amount of bread it can buy, but also the rights attached to it.

I think we should define a criteria for “heroic deeds” or “great deeds” to be able to continue on this subject.
Indeed I am using the Hannah Arendt's definition, since we are all modernism’s slaves.
You can find here more about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Condition

Hi Sterbens,
Thanks for sharing your idea.
Unfortunately the wrong direction of technology improvement caused to lose our precious abilities which we have obtained through thousands years of evolution. I am talking about ability of deep working in general, and here deep studying in particular.
Most probably you are right and too many will not reach to even half of my article. It is what it is. No one is forced to too.
You can dedicate enough time to read it and then debate it or just ignore it. I do not expect every click on article link finished in a serious discussion.

Good luck

Anonymous via email:

I think that currently there is a place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds, perhaps even more than before. We now have social media, and if you save a stray kitten and share it on the internet, your photo could be on news websites, shared across the internet with millions, you could be invited to a TV show or even got some donations from others. People literally get paid for playing games and being entertaining. Or even better, people literally get paid simply because they are beautiful, I mean, the female twitch streamers or youtubers who have a lot of followers and income even though they are not a good player. People literally pay them money so that they will read their names on live stream.

The current financial system is actually based on the concept of individual's "pleasure/profit" from the action/service/product. I might be paying for some computer games simply because I like playing games and someone else might be paying for beauty products simply because they would want to look more beautiful. Now when it comes to the issuance, who is going to define the rules for getting paid and who is going to set the events classified as "beneficial for society"? I could say that I am playing games, entertaining depressive people so I should get some portion from that issued coins and someone else might say they helped a poor person so they should get paid. The issue here is that if I am the lawmaker, I would want to put "art/entertainment" under "should get paid" class, however, someone who has no interest in art/entertainment might say "nope, they shouldn't get paid". That's why every government have different rules and different social structure and laws. In US people get paid $600 because there is covid, and in some other country they don't. In Germany people get paid some money if they have a child (under the name of child support, paid by government) and in some countries no one gets paid for that. And in china, people are fined for that.

That's why, it is really hard to determine what should be considered as a feat, beauty or heroic or socially beneficial and that's why philosophers have been arguing for many many years. One approach here could be "find a peaceful religion, take all the good deeds from that and move on with it", or gather around and define 10.000 different events initially, ask people on the street what they think about each of these events/tasks and how would they rate them. But again, either we would be taking the word of some people who lived in the past, by the rules of past or some random people who are not even going to be part of our community.

So the only option left is that founders of community can agree on the good deeds initially, later make additions or changes to them. But again, this would give leverage to the founders. The response to that would be "no one joins their community then", so the founders have to agree on a fair, and acceptable list for potential future members. But again, this would be unfair to the founders because they have done all the initial hard work and they get no extra credit? It is really a grey area, and a matter of philosophy at this point.

I think I answered most of your points in previous comment https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.msg56042509#msg56042509
BTW I re-answer some of them again.

This kind of worry is a case, if we have only one community (or we are limited/forced to be a member of a certain community) and we want to gain more from this particular community even by misusing our shares, but my proposal offers a concept called “power of fragility”, means, “million of communities and coins can be emerged and disappeared. Only the excellent one can be survived.
If community members plan to sybel attack, what they can achieve? Just ruining the community reputation! It doesn't work in my design.
Additionally there are some complementary mechanisms to avoid “exit scam” plans, which I’ll explain in another post.
Meanwhile please read this post for more details about “power of fragility”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276 and give me some feedback.

And also look for reply to “what is stopping me from proposing 100000 ideas a day?” issue on top.

First of all “develop” doesn’t refer to programmers only. Indeed we are all developer and some of us are software developer. So, participation can be materialized by software developing, test, design, documentation, manuals, translate, tutorials and educational stuff, Etc cetera.
This “Etc cetera” can be stretched to even “feeding an elephant in Africa”, if the community accept it.
Only if members of society are mature enough to understand the fact that the prosperity of a poor peasant in a poor country impacts the entire our beautiful world.
Obviously we start from software developer as primarily population, since our first mission is developing software and improve it. And the early adapters have chance to earn more shares and more coins. Every systems need this kind of incentives. If you today start to work you will get paid today, if you start tomorrow, you already lost today, but will get paid from tomorrow. Today you participate one hour and earn X shares, tomorrow you participate one hour and earn half of X.
It is not that bad if rein it properly. And the last but not least, do not forget the mission of this primitive community in first place is release a free and open source software. After shipping this software, every one (even a farmer) can establish a new community and coin, so being first community is not a privilege, if the community do not treat great. I refer you to the other post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
“The new paradigm” is a complex combination of game theories and proper mechanisms and tools. It takes time to form the big picture in whole.


We will face different kind of problem in different stage of our life, or more precise in different stage of our community’ life, In terms of population, horizon, and externalities. We have to cope with. It is a life that we have to live it.
What I propose is a direct democracy model. This model will work quite well, if we are a few hundred members. As you said truly “larger community means more things to be done and more things to be agreed on” in larger communities we can manage decisions by some kind of customized smart contracts. As an over simplified example you can delegate your vote in economic issues to some experts that votes in your post. And in political issues vote directly and personally, and about cultural decisions delegate your vote to another group or NGOs of experts, etc..
Using AI and blockchain transparency and history, “you” can observe your “representatives” and not they watch you. If you do not like the representative acts, simply you can revoke your delegation every time. It is just an smart contract and needs a signature.
I have other solutions as well, but I believe “The new paradigm” ethos is not just “my” solutions and “my” prescriptions, instead it is about community (or society) decisions.
We will not face this kind of problems in near future, so we can concentrate on more realistic problems and solve them.
“Conflict of interest” can be happened even between two person, so our “problem solving skills” in our primitive community, acts a critical role in our community future. Thanks Blockchain technology, there is no place for hypocrisy or hiding problems or misleading.


Now we need to go a little in technical details.
Offering a proposal and run a polling has cost and proposer has to pay this cost regardless of the result of polling. It is a notable cost (equal to 3 month income of proposal, if be accepted) and is the best barrier against spamming. this proposal tax will be divided between community members same as newly minted coins.
Additionally the treasury minting coins are “fixed” that means if current members accept a new member, a part of their actual income will be cut in favor of new member. This is another mechanism to eager members to investigate on new proposals and not just accept everything.
Forking a new coin and boycotting fraudulent member is mater of some hour regardless of how many member community has. Even one percent of community can initialize a polling and run it. They just simply config some numbers such as threshold(e.g. 51 % or 99% or what ever number they like), and some set actions that must be triggered after polling time frame.  e.g. if polling agree members hit the threshold, then create a new coin and bring entire history and coins of agreed people to new blockchain and burn their coin in old blockchain. As simple as possible. Then we will have two chain, two community and two different coin. We can have two million community. All are ok. But IMHO there will be few giant communities that they have almost same rules and governing model with slightly difference in money systems.

I think we all agree on the fact that “nothing happened overnight!”. Dictators appear overnight, but for years ahead they have secretly and out of sight provided the grounds for their emergence. This can not be happened in such a transparent blockchain systems. We are establishing the communities up from the ground, so fraudulent or corrupted members will be disgraced even before reaching one percent shares of system. One may cheat one, but one can not cheat all.

So, lets practice our future community interactions right now, here. You said “if the members of the community really wanted”, but we need a solution that works even “if the members of the community DO NOT want”, so what is your solution? Here I explained a complementary mechanism and I think you are already agree, since your solution is almost same (in case of a 51%, community can easily fork away or update the state of the network). Maybe you read it again and explain it in your interpretation as well
It will be a good practice for our newborn community.
Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

I think I already addressed it. if not, please write me in a more detailed scenario the polling issue(s).

Anonymous via email:

There are some issues. For example on the participation part you mention that "develop" will allow participants to receive currency based on their work. The classification of "develop" actually leverages the people who know how to code, develop an app, or come up with some designs. Assume that I am a farmer and have no idea on how to use a computer, how can I be a part of that community? Even if someone helps me to do that, I have no idea about coding. So, initially this scheme would be making the early adopters rich people of the community, but wouldn't be a totally "fair" way of distribution. There has to be some other way, and additional measurements so that anyone, including a 15 years old high school kid who wants to make some money on the side, can join the community and get paid by their work.
Another issue is voting, the reason why we vote is not that we are interested in democracy but simply because larger community means more things to be done and more things to be agreed on. In every country there are, perhaps, more than 1000 different government institutes. All of them are interested in different things such as the forests, or infrastructure of cities, or management of air traffic. Cumulatively, I believe there are more than thousands of proposals made in those institutes and as a person I can't spend all day in front of computer, reviewing those proposals. And again, there is the problem of "ignorant". Lets say there is a river and there has to be a bridge to be built, assume that the local people there don't like that bridge because if there is a bridge, visitors won't stop by the village and the villagers will not be able to generate income. Now the government entity that is responsible from that river knows that if bridge is built, the citizens of the country will be saving from fuel, less carbon emission and overall economic profit for every individual. With current system, the bridge would be built, but in your proposal, what if the villagers lobby together, make up some fake stories and make people vote against the bridge? Or another example is anti-vaxxers. I think you get the idea.

Also another thing about proposals, what is stopping me from proposing 100000 ideas a day? All of them are same or slightly modified, so no one has time to review all those and they get accepted. What if one of them is granting me unlimited power to mint unlimited amount of community currency? Initially, as you said on the article, the community can kick me and fork away. But what if that community already has 10 million members? At the end all can vote against me, for away, kick me from the community and so on, but my malicious actions would damage the community and badly affect its reputation, hence why now we have some "dictators" in some countries and why their reputations are bad. If the bad action has a huge effect on the community, its reputation is damaged badly too.

I didn't want to comment on the 51% because I believe it is not an issue. The problem could be solved easily if the members of the community really wanted. Since there is polling every day, in case of a 51%, community can easily fork away or update the state of the network. Just, the issue of polling has to be solved first.

When I describe a community, the last thing in mind is an state or a country. The community is a collection of people in different sex, race, nationality and even geo-location. And the point is “People can interact with communities at different levels”.
That is the real virtue of system. People can be only user of the money of a community as a "medium of exchange" or as a "store of value", and do no more engagement. Pretty like using USD in other countries. The Americans can not stop others using their Dollar, instead they will be more happy if the other nations prefer their dollar! More demand for their money results more valuable money. Thus communities will propagate their money, they will do everything to show how much heir money is good and how valuable is -comparing other communities monies-.
In deeper level, people can involve a little more and participate in community activities and decision making. In this stage may actual community members expose a level of pickiness. that’s ok too.
When I refer the “exchange rate” as a “excellence index” I do not emphasis on how internal mechanisms of a community will be! Instead I emphasis on how exposure of communities will be. In other world if many people believe in community X is a great community and wishes to join community X (either an ordinary citizen that has citizenship rights, or an active citizen in decision makings) or at least have some of their money, it denotes excellence and greatness in community X. thus the problem wont be the target community, instead will be the origin community which is no longer our favorite community and we want to leave it as soon as possible. In order to leave your current community you just need to get ride of its money. You want to sell your coins which are belonged to a corrupted community. More and more people will think like you, so more and more supply, more devaluation of coins. No need to violence.

I addressed this question in other article comments here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306920.msg56037080#msg56037080
BTW I repeat some parts here.
In my proposal, the first and primitive community will be a community of developers (not only software developers but also translators, designers, educational staff, etc). The first and main goal of this community is developing the software itself and improving it. This community ships that free  and open-source software. In the journey of developing the software we learn how will be the ideal community(or communities). We will start to constructive interact with each other, cultivate our “common world”, learn and educate the principles, define our core values, and help to rise up community reputation and strengthen our money.

This will be long long journey. I do not expect next year pay my taxes by community money, neither in next 10 years. We have to move step by step. For start we can imagine less than one percent of our yearly turn over done by community money. First of all we have to find some place to spend our coins in order to circulate a rational cash flow – neither spend it ASAP nor Hodl it for ever-. It should be started from online activities. e.g. some freelance working. Then it could be stretched to real-life by some small activities like gardening or dog walking or …
we do not wait for giant payment/service platforms like (paypal, gaming industry or Spotify, itunes, etc…) Neither exchanges. they are not our friend at all. They love fluctuation. They do everything to keep market unstable.
In long run, if we do great and our community money work better than Bitcoin, we will be the mainstream money, so no one needs to exchange community money to fiat in order to buy goods and services. It is all up to us.

This is exactly the opposite of what I have in mind. These geographical constraints are the reason of our today’s human misery. Why poor African can not take part in Apple board members to name the price of their own minerals? Why s/he can not be a even simple shareholder of the company and benefit from company revenue? Why they have to leave in poverty and their minerals be used in all hi-tech chips and sold hundred dollars each? Is it fair? Absolutely no. In our future communities there must be no discrimination based on race, sex, nationality or geological location.
The horizon is decentralize everything, particularly “decision making”. We have only one world and until now we ruined it more than enough, because all our solutions are concentrated to people one area in cost of destroying other places.
Indeed the future economy is online economy and interaction between online entities, so let's be a “decider” instead of a “naive consumer”.

It is quiet possible and I can not guarantee this will not happened at all. In order to nullify this scenario, I proposed multi communities system. What happened if we have thousands of different community with different mechanisms for governing, money distribution, etc?
No one is forced to join to or leave a particular community. People can join to communities that they trust. As soon as smelling “ponzi” or other scams, people will leave it and devaluate their money.
Here I explained it in more details. Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
BTW, there must exist one particular community. The initialization community which I establish it. The first mission of this community is developing that software. A free and open source software that provides our needs. And here is the place that no one can cheat or scam. Because it is pretty clear what are the goals. After releasing the software this first community can disappear or can keep continue. It is up to community members and the community achievements.

Partially true, and that’s why systems are improving and extending. First adapters/contributors burden more risks, so they most be rewarded more. Without these incentives early movers won't exist, and without early movers late movers won’t exist.
A moral thought is how much “more” rewards is fair? While the answer about this question is different from person to person (and depends on her/his favorite ideology), I prefer to follow different road.
I implicitly admit this risk reward must not be too much, meanwhile I suggest to “reduce the risk amount to near zero” and “encourage more and more people join to this adventure”, thus more people will be rewarded. The outcome of this strategies won’t be a feudalism, oligarchy or clans that control system, instead will be collection of thousands different social groups which are formed based on some common interest. They divide power in between. These social groups are participating in governing the system but they have no hierarchical structures.  It will be like two dimensional shapes (different by size and color) that may have something in common or some are totally separated islands and non of them has superiority on the others.
This is my “prediction” and “will” for the first community that I establish. It may/may not happen, But as I told before the first mission is developing the free software and preparing the infrastructure. Later, based on this infrastructure, others can make more excellent communities and monies.
This free and open source software must work totally decentralized, nu-censorable and un-stoppable. Only then we can hope the emergence of great cryptocurrencies that address Bitcoin’s shortcomings.

There will no group that controlling access to good will, instead there will be community members that following community principles (whatever is), and as long as community follow its rules and core values, the community grows and more happy population has.


That’s not true! The current mechanisms and incentives are flawed. This system main rule is produce just for benefit and not because of someone’s need, and allocate it to whom pays more and not who needs more! And even this simple “free market” rule is not respected by the governments - either US, Russia or China-.
My proposal is a remedy for this situation, where in first place, the software is “product”, “means of production” and “allocation” simultaneously. The goal is communities in which community members decide “what to produce”, “how to produce”, “for whom to produce”, and “why”.
In first step we ship our software, and later we can produce almost everything in a really decentralized manner. I hope and strive for at least one of those thousands future communities realize this system.

Sorry but I didn’t understand this part.

Anonymous via email:

On article, basically you have defined a country (or a state) actually and named it a community. As you know, the problem with nationality is that you can't change it easily. And due to known reasons, countries tend to not allow people to immigrate to their country without valid reason. The online communities (such as gaming, chess, tv show ones and soccer etc.) are accepting new members easily simply because those communities are not actually effecting the community members' lives. On the other hand, some communities like "freemasonry" are really picky in terms of having new members because the community, or part of being their community is effecting their lives a lot. Same goes for family too, even legally, adoption or marriage are things that take time, some paper work and some commitment and promises just because of their effect on individuals' lives. Now the same would go for a new community model. At one point, if the defined currency on the article starts effecting members' lives (it will be effecting because at the end, it's the financial value that they afford their lives) they will be picky and changing communities, or even joining a different one will be a huge problem just like changing our nationalities.

I think you should first address the issues about how people form their relations with others, based on those others' effect on one's life, then the community idea could be further developed. Plus, as an example, legally I can't pay my taxes in any other currency than our national one. So I will have to exchange that community's currency to my national one at some point (just like Bitcoin exchange to fiat) because at the end, my government is the one that is building the roads and funding the army as well as feeding the stray cats. A community based online future would require community members settling down together at some physical location due to humans being a physical matter and not entities on the internet, and again, would be forming a state/country.

Alexander via email:

The most difficult problem is how to distribute coins, and I think your
evaluation mechanism will end up as a ponzi scheme or some mechanism where
I need to pay a fee to some initial, powerful group of people that hold the
most coins, otherwise I will not get my money for my good deeds. I think
the social system will look like feudalism as initial contributors have
more of a say.

Similar to all the middle-men we have today (banks, politicians,
consultants helping with regulation), there will be lots of fees to be paid
to be able to compete, and the people controlling access to good deeds will
be profiting.

Democracy has the advantage that you can actually count the people and each
person can get a share. Capitalism already has a pretty good system for
benefiting those that provide value without the problem of ganging up on
the small man and extorting a fee for participation like I fear your
proposal will lead to.

Thanks franky1,
lets review points one by one.
Do you agree the “heroic deed” is really scarce? It is hard to accomplish and it has cost. So it is totally different from “air drop”. Everyone in order to be a participator and get paid, needs at least one hour helping project. To having 45 million participator we need 45 million hour of contribution. It is too big number. Can we achieve this level of participation in one year? Absolutely no. we need at least 10 years to hit 45 million real participator in project.

We definitely will solve this problem by 45 million hours of participation of supporters (people in different skills) in next 10 years. This is not our today problem at all.

I still have to write more technical document to explain what exactly happened under the hood. But for now since you emphasize on blockchain space “bloat”, here I want to tell two other facts that even worsen the situation

1. My proposed data structure for recording data is a Directed acyclic graph (DAG) and not a linked-list like Bitcoin! In this design each node can publish unlimited blocks regardless of that famous Bitcoin 10 minute gap between blocks!
2. My proposed DAG not only records transactions, but also records text documents(e.g. decentralized weblogs, wiki, forums), media files (e.g. decentralized podcasts and video channels) and literally every kind of files, all in one DAG.
Considering these 2 features the block-graph will bloat even more rapidly. What is the solution?
First of all, users have to pay for recording data on blockgraph, and nodes get this money in their wallet. The cost of different data type are different. e.g. transaction, wiki page, weblog post or video stream have different prices.
Even if users pay for record data, the blockgraph will bloat fast, but there are solutions too. We can solve it by simple “Supply and demand“ of free market rule.
In my design, data is divided in 2 classes.
A: Essential data
B: optional data
The essential data are the core data about transactions which are compressed and small. They are necessary and each node has to record and maintain these data (either full history of transactions or pruned version is ok), whereas the optional data are cumbersome and each node may record it or not.
BTW if a given node needs some optional data which doesn’t exist on local machine, it can purchase this information from other nodes. The mentioned node can also sell this data to other nodes -if there is a demand for it-. In such a mechanism some nodes may prefer to act like a Long Term Data Backers and making a passive income by selling data, and the others just maintain the necessary data.
It is a free market for data. As we know, the storage nowadays are very cheap, so most probably major percent of nodes prefer to store entire blockgraph (including transactions, wiki pages, weblog posts, even video podcasts) on their passive hard drives and earn money by selling those information.
At this point we can also use CDNs or better calling BDNs to provide fast, reliable, distributed storage over the glob. It will be easy to write a plugin to connect our nodes to any commercial CDN company and vice versa.
Recorded data can have expire date as well, so the recorder may renew the data rent regularly.
Nodes can manage what kind of data to be maintained or not. In addition, some customized application can be implemented as a plugin working on top of our software via APIs. So this app will use blockgraph space only as a proof of existence and they share data in between in form of big blocks of data. For example a supply chain software can be a plugin to software. So this software(plugin) will be installed by business partners and they just record the hash of goods allocations or stats on block chain and the real big data will be transferred via FTP or what else between partners.
At the end of the day the nodes use UBL either for trade real goods and services in smart contracts or for trade recorded data (either encrypted or not) on blockgraphs.
These are just a few naive and today’s practical solutions that we already knew. Definitely we improve and innovate far more solutions to use and manage these mass data as well.

Another point about “coinbase block”. Every 12 hours one coinbase block will be creates by software. It contains “only” information about all participators dividend. Since the system is decentralized and all nodes have same information, rationally all nodes can create same coinbase block. There is no block reward in this system too. So we actually do not need to even broadcast the coinbase block. Each node standalone and independently creates the coinbase block and adds it to DAG. The coinbase block hash will be same for entire network, and outcome for all nodes will be same transactions records and same final balance. The details about this mechanism needs another document which I’ll post ASAP.

Thanks for your “active participation” and not just virtue buzz. Indeed I can say now you are doing kinda “heroic deed”, since the first mission of the system is to be survived and improve itself. I guess you dedicated around 30 minutes up to 1 hour to read my posts and write your notes, so you may now re-estimate the fact that how much hard will be having 45 million hours of participating in system (either technical or non technical) and how long will take this process.
BTW, In my design we spend whole output of an account in one transaction and return back remained amount to a new account (like Bitcoin). In this system there is not a balance for an account. Each address can have Unused outputs(UTXO) or used outputs, Same as Bitcoin. Therefor the “slot” solution won’t work for this system. Meanwhile because of the way system designed, we can have vary different type of transaction simultaneously in a block. That is, while we have M of N multi-signature transaction as a common classic transaction in system, we can have IoT-friendly transactions for micro payments as well as MimbleWimble format transactions and also “in-jar” transactions for more privacy, all in one block. Up to the case (In sense of functionality, transaction fee, privacy and security level, and...), users can chose which type of transactions they want to do. Some of them will be really small and light weight transactions while the other are longer, more secure and costs more. I’ll explain more technical details on this subject step by step.

Again I have to post a separate article only for covering coinbase mechanism, but for now I should admit the system is designed to support entire world population (currently 8 billion) and not 45 million. If you have technical skills (either mathematical, statistical or software development) let me know. I will send you more draft detailed technical document (or even some code snippets) in advance.

This post is an article of a series of articles about the "The new paradigm" that will be gradually placed on the site. There are few published posts, you can find at the end of this article.

What is your position about the title statement?
What is the relation between this statement and Bitcoin?

I personally believe nowadays there is no place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds. In other word they are “scarce”. I assume you believe in the fact that “heroic deeds are scarce” too.
Isn't “scarcity” one of the features for which the Bitcoin – as a kind of money- is valuable? Obviously scarcity is not the only feature of Bitcoin. There are a few other important factors that we will come back to them later. But for now we will investigate on “scarcity” and talk about a proposal for a new money/monetary system as a one of principles of "The new paradigm".

So what is scarcity?
- the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage.
- a situation in which something is “not easy to find” or get.
- when the means to fulfill ends are “limited” and “costly”.

So, can we use “heroic deeds” and theirs scarcity as a feature for a kind of alternative “money” system? I think so.
Let me depict that system. Imagine we have a decentralized monetary mechanism (software) and this monetary system daily creates X amount of an imaginary money. This X is fixed, or even better it halving every Y years.
So far we have daily X new coins minting which must be divided between people by somewhat mechanism.
Since we all agree on the fact that heroic deeds are scarce, and it is hard to accomplish a heroic deed, and it impose “external costs” somehow, we can use it as an indicator of competence. Thus we can divide these coins between people who accomplished a heroic deed in proportion of her/his deeds. A simple and straightforward mechanism. More heroic deeds, more appreciate and coins.
The obvious challenge for this system will be; “who” and “how”, “measure” and “evaluate” the “quantity” and “quality” of a potential “heroic deed” of a person, organization or corporation? I addressed this dilemma and its proper resolver game theory in another post, you can find it in “Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?” linked in bottom.
But for now just imagine we have this perfect (or almost perfect) mechanism that can evaluate your deed and returns a number as “heroic” index.
It seems that in order to continue, we need to define what is “heroic deeds” more precisely! Regardless of the eminent and glorious interpretation of the “heroic deeds”, if we “temporarily” reduce the interpretation of the heroic deed to “altruism”, we can make it more tangible, and decrease its scarcity as well. Therefore not only Hercules, but also we -ordinary people- can do some heroic deeds or at least some great deeds. So more people have chance to be appreciated by system in both psychic and materialistic way.
By this new definition of “heroic deed” as a kind of great deed, it can be interpreted like; how much useful is your job for your society, or even better how much useful is your job for whole glob – since we have just one earth and we have to consider the fact that “someone's benefit can be someone else' lost”-. People all around the world can/will join this system in order to help our unique shelter and get benefit of this great job.
More great jobs done by more people results less coins for each participator, but who cares? If the goal is more prosperity for “all” people. Once the whole world be saturated by great jobs of all people from all nations intended for help each other, the human kind will be the most prosper than ever.
Today is the time to start to realize it, since we have the necessary and sufficient tools in our hands. Bitcoin couldn’t accomplish its promises because of its shortcoming in design, mechanisms and its proper game theory. It was the first proof of separation of “money” and “state”, and it doesn't mean it must be the latest one. We are about to make a better one, more promising and more maturate. I am not talking about another sh**t coin at all. “The new paradigm” literally is about new paradigm in thinking about people, their interactions and their value system (moral, cultural, economical and political). We are slave of our fears and stress.
We live in an angry, dangerous, hostile, threatening world, because we afraid. We need to free ourselves. We are afraid of the future. We are afraid of the governments. Even governments are nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted persons as well. But the main point is the “fear”. Entire our systems works based on the fear. We are eating each other because of fear of being eaten. The problem is if one of the evils (supposing a few evils governing the world) dreamed to dismiss bad doing and start to good doing, immediately the other bad doers swallow him. As a result, the world is a place of constant conflict and fight between the forces of evil and worst evils. Our world needs “heroic deeds” in order to convince them or force them to stop being evil. We have to get up from the ground. The strategy will be:

1. reduce the cost of heroic deeds and engage more and more good people in it.
2. increase the chance of resonant, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of all people, all around the world.

“The new paradigm” is a plan to help human prosperity by using new technologies (mainly cryptography and blockchain, alongside other useful tools).

Most of readers, will not read this article till end because the wrong direction of technology ruined our precious skills we achieved by centuries of evolution, thus we just see the short posts. Some will reach this point and most of them will not take this plan seriously. All is ok.
Some think about the “will” of changing instead of “wish” of changing. They will participate in “The new paradigm” and help the whole our beautiful planet.
I gradually add more technical and non technical posts to explain different aspect of the proposal.

Hu


Related posts:

Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

You mentioned very good points about “cryptocurrency's value”. Indeed there must be a crypto-value that has intrinsic value, Something like "labor theory of value" but do not sticking that too much.
I propose an alternative monetary system and its proper money which:
- Distributes the wealth more fairly and more justly (in all local, national and global levels)
- Encourages the rational cash flow - not spend it ASAP nor Hodl it for ever-
- Without “Cantillon effect” shortcoming.
- Is absolutely decentralized
This model has to distribute a kind of good money that has all feature of money and something more, like:
- Some kind of money that is scarce and has “intrinsic value”. Thus cannot be generated out of thin air overnight.
- The money that appreciates its value over time, means not declining the purchasing power even over decades, meanwhile is anti hyper-deflation as well.
- The money that can be easily used for loan and lending – particularly decentralized P2P operations- but does not allow the “fractional reserve” banking system.
- And the last but not least, whole ecosystem around it (including monetary mechanisms, its money features, and system users) is emerged to make world a better place for “all”, and essentially has to has mechanisms to guarantee this intention and functionality.
it’s looks too good to be true, isn’t it?
Please read the this post of a series of article about proposal here.
Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

This post is an article of a series of articles about the "New paradigm" that will be gradually placed on the site.

Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?

A model to distribute the wealth, that works more fairly and more justly (in all local, national and global levels).
The model that encourages the rational cash flow - not spend it ASAP nor Hodl it for ever-.
A distribution model without “Cantillon effect” shortcoming.
A model that is absolutely decentralized.
This model has to distribute a kind of good money that has all feature of money and something more, like:
Some kind of money that is scarce and has “intrinsic value”. Thus cannot be generated out of thin air overnight.
The money that appreciates its value over time, means not declining the purchasing power even over decades, meanwhile is anti hyper-deflation as well.
The money that can be easily used for loan and lending – particularly decentralized P2P operations- but does not allow the “fractional reserve” banking system.
And the last but not least, whole ecosystem around it (including monetary mechanisms, its money features, and system users) is emerged to make world a better place for “all”, and essentially has to has mechanisms to guarantee this intention and functionality.
 
it’s looks too good to be true, isn’t it?
I do not think so. Indeed, not only this monetary model is feasible, but it is time to realize it. A decade after emerging Bitcoin, more people knows about economy, and there is maturate community of people who believed in Bitcoin promises - mainly “financial sovereignty”-.
Thus I explain a proposal for implementing that.

Note:  The numbers are not random numbers.

Imagine we have a decentralized monetary system/software that creates new money regularly . Precisely two times every day. Once at 00:00:00 and second at 12:00:00.
Each cycle (12 hours) the software issues nearly 45 million new coins, and right after minting, the software divides coins between system participators.
The mechanism of distribution of coins is pretty simple and straightforward. Whole coins are being divided between participators based on their participation amount. You work more you get paid more, you work less you get paid less. It is enough fair for distributing fresh coins, meanwhile we do not need mining mechanism and endless PoW consensuses. Blocks can be created freely (therefore no limitation in TPS) and will add to blockchain – or better named blockgraph, since the data structure will be DAG and not a link list- immediately.
In order to avoid spamming network, blocks have a fixed cost, apart transactions fee. The block cost and transaction fees will be divided between participators same as newly minted coins.

You may have these questions:
- What kind of participation, people can do in this software (system or community)?
- “Who” and “How” measures and evaluates the participation “quantity” and “quality”?
- How this blockchain will secure itself against “chain reorganization” and rewriting transactions history?
- What about famous double-spending problem? How can we solve it in a DAG?

Things getting complicated, but do not panic. Keep continue reading and I‘ll explain all points in easiest possible way.

- What kind of participate, people can do in this software (system or community)?
There is no limit for activities, but intentionally we start from “develop” and over time expand it to wider range of activities.
The “develop” refers to every activities we need to develop our system and its proper community. Some of them are software developing, test, design, documentation, manuals, translate, tutorials and educational stuff, etc...
These kind of activities can be measured and evaluate fairly.

- “Who” and “How” measures and evaluates the participation “quantity” and “quality”?
The users community are proposers and evaluators simultaneously. They evaluate and accept (or reject) the other users proposal. Every single proposal is put to a vote, and “all” community can upvote or refute proposal. For example you translate some documents or you suggest some tips to improve system. You propose your participation worth 5 hour of level 6 (later we will come back to “level” issue). Your job overall will be 30 point (5 * 6) and if the current community members accept your proposal you will be new community member with 30 score. Thus from now on you earn from network treasury in proportion of your score (your score is indeed your shares). You have also voting right in proportion of your shares. You can always do new jobs and increase your shares (if community accept your proposal).
You may argue: It is unlikely and also impractical that everyone would evaluate every proposals and works done by every one else every day.
So we need another mechanism to encourage people to participate in proposal evaluation. So the rule is “every new proposals by default are approved”. So if no one go to vote, the proposal will be approved after polling time frame. Since the issuing coins amount is fixed, new shareholders means less dividend. Thus community has enough incentive to participate in polling and will investigate wisely on every single proposal.
Is it technically possible? In old classical human interaction this kind of decision making was too costly and nearly impossible, but with internet and blockchain technology it is absolutely possible, even for entire world population. Believe me, I am a technical person.
Some may argue, by this mechanism, There is a perverse incentive for shareholders to undervalue the work by other people (up to zero).
Let imagine the network consist of me myself only as initiative shareholder. Obviously I get all new money, but what is the point? If I do not find somebody whom accepts my money in exchange of her/his goods or services, the money worth nothing forever.
Because of human nature, we prefer to keep more coins for ourselves. If it is not possible so we will divide coins between as less as possible people, and if this is not possible too, we will divide it between our clan.
But none of these 3 approaches will help our network -particularly the value of our money-,.
The network has to be expanded and embraces new members to raise up the money usability, applicability and popularity in order to advance its market range. Bigger community means less daily coins for each, But also means more usability and applicability for the community’s money.
Hence community has to be grown and every decisions are made by polling, the community has to add more and more honest person and not corrupted one. Otherwise community dies in early steps and their money will never be a valuable asset. Thus there will be no reason for participators to participate in project any more.
Today I strive to raise population to two person and tomorrow we both invite two new member, and so on.
The community grows because of its improvement and vice versa.
What about bad actors? Even bad actors have to follow rules and do something good for system in order to gaining power, and this empowers system even more.
There is a catastrophic case in which the majority of system are bad actors and they accept corrupted proposals and gain more and more power. The bad actors can create million sock puppets as well. I personally can not understand why bad actors want to help an open source and free software (and free community) development. Unlike Bitcoin which is a particular case, and sh**t coins which are created by companies to profit them, our new money is absolutely free, and intentionally by its design will be too easy to fork a new coin in couple of hours. The good guys can fork a new coin and bring entire history (and shares of good actors) to a new community and boycott bad doers or vice versa and bad doers create a new community. Both are ok. End of the they we have two or two thousand different community and coin. Some of them has more population some less. As long as the population are happy and use and support their coin, everything is in best condition.
So what is the benefit of bad actors? If they want to earn more coins in order to change it to fiat, but who wants their coin? Indeed the new coins worth nothing for a wile. It takes at least 3 to 5 years for new money to have value and returns investments. Can a corrupted community last 3 years? I don’t think so. What I call this condition is “power of fragility” means, “million of communities and coins can emerge and disappear”. For more details see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0 . Every community start with a level of decentralization and over time can move toward more decentralization or centralization.
Only the better one can survive since we are based on real “free market” and no external intervention. IMHO survived communities will be more decentralized and more democratic communities.

How this blockchain will secure itself against “chain reorganization” and rewriting transactions history?
I think I already answered this question. The share holders secure the network and transactions history. If a transaction worth enough to more than 51 percent of network colluding and change the transactions history this network must be collapsed as soon as possible. This network worth less than that transaction. This network is fully corrupted and most probably is not decentralized at all. I can not imagine a network that is worth cheating and fraudsters have more than 51% stake in this system. This is a contradiction.

What about famous double-spending problem? How can we solve it in a DAG?
This part is a little technical, in short, there is an strong solution for avoiding “double-spend” in system. If you are not interested in technical details please jump to conclusion.

So lets start with CAP theorem which claims in a “partitioned” distributed system you can not have both Availability and Consistency features together and you can have only one of them. So I chose Availability in spending “maturated” coins, and Consistency in spending “not maturated” coins.
That is, you will be owner of newly received  invoices immediately after recording it in DAG, but you can not spend it before 12 hours after block creation date.  Because of this timing we can apply Besantin consensus on a c crowdy network (even million nodes of validator/participator).
Each node immediately records received blocks, and marks the block used coins as used coins. If later the node receives some blocks which are trying to double-spend the coins, the node records all these suspicious blocks in DAG as well. Meanwhile node generates a report about transaction reception order and sign it and propagate his idea about the right order of transactions, based on his perspective. e.g. node 1 claims he received 2 transactions x and y in this order. First he got transaction y and after 10 minutes he got transaction x. the node 1 propagate this report to all his neighbors and the neighbors propagate is as well. Meanwhile node 2 may claims I get the x,y in different order. He may say, I first got x and after 2 hours I got y. so the node 2 also propagate his report about transaction order.
The entire network can propagate their report about the order of received double-spend transactions.
The network have 12 hours time frame for this reporting activity. After 12 hours all network will have same set of different reports from different nodes. So they can evaluate reports, score them based on reporter’s share, and summarize it in order to decide about the real order of transactions.
The outcome will be one of these decisions.
A: one of transactions is first transaction (based on majority votes), and it is valid transaction and acceptable, the other transaction(s) will be rejected.
B: Both transactions are rejected and the engaged inputs will be ceased in favor of network treasury.
The actual implementation is a bit more complicated and you need to read implementation document in detail.
In short, every transactions are recorded in DAG immediately. So the coins are spent definitely and spender can not reverse the transactions at all. In recipient side, s/he can spend coins after 12 hours. If spender tries to cheat the coins, the coins could be ceased in favor of network treasury. Thus cheater will hurt himself. Indeed after a certain time, cheater even can not hurt himself and transactions are hard confirmed.

You may argue 12 hours mandatory delay before spending new received coins it too much.
The answer is yes. it is too much, but in what point of view and which concept? The system/software/community that I aimed to create is designed for make the world a better place. So I do not care about speed that much. In a world in which people do not get paid even after of months of hard working, 12 hours won’t hurt anyone. Additionally some features like speed (and huge data process/transfer ability) forces project to be used by who can afford these services, means more centralization, which is not my goal absolutely.

You may argue about Besantin consensus algorithm and it’s shortcoming in scale. It is not true. By this 12 hours offset, the Besantin works perfectly. Although reports about double-spending can sink network , but for that there are solutions too and just for brevity I do not go in details here.


Conclusion:
so we can create a new monetary system to address some of fault in our current economy system, meanwhile it makes life better for many people. It is not a charity and hopefully we will eliminate the necessity of charities.
It is not UBI or any “one way resource distributing”, due to the fact that there is no one which is completely useless for the community, causing to be, only a frail consumer. Everyone is a precious asset. We must appreciate her/his participating in make the world a better place and compensate it.
I will gradually add new documents -either technical or not technical- to cover all aspect of the proposal.
It looks most of us “wish” a better world, but the point is do we “will” the better world?

Happy new year
Hu

P.S.
All critics are welcomed.
Critics + participate offers are more welcomed.

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members
I hope they enjoyed reading the long texts and the serious discussions. Since the rest of internet is full of spam posts, memes and funny cats and… if they like.
I hope more people participate in this thread in order to finally do something serious and accomplish real work, not just complaining the world and endless talks.
As I supposed you are misunderstood the point. I admit it is hard to form the big picture, and needs some days to shape it. So I start from another point of view.

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc...
As a normal person can you please answer these questions honestly?
A: say you are in a situation that you have to decide to do act X or not do. You -because of your morality or believes- believe the true reaction is doing act X.
A1. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X has no cost for you?
A2. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost you a little (may be you lost some dollars).
A3. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost highly (say loosing your house).

B: say you are in a situation that you have to decide about the act that person Y already did. You must declare your opinion about that act. was it a good act or bad act. And you already convinced that Y did the bad job.
B1. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has no cost for you?
B2. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has small cost for you?
B3. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has too cost for you?

Your answer most probably in cases A1 and B1 will be yes. Like other 99 percent of human.
Your answer in cases A2 and B2 depends on your “core values”. The another important factor for your decision is the society in which you are make this decision. In other word, you alone have less than 6 percent chance to scarify your benefit in favor of truth. But you looking to the society you are living and considering other people and the morality norms, in most societies the likelihood of the yes answer will be higher than 50 percent.
And always there will be less than .005 percent of society which in cases A3 and b3 will say yes.
I over simplified the situation for the sake of time, but the points are
1. reduce the cost of being good actor.
2. increase the chance of resonate, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of society members.
By these 2 strategies we are using literally our human nature (and do not forget human nature isn’t only bad habits ) to improve our life condition.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions…
I made a mistake about talking about Joe too soon, may I ask you to talk about it later, but just a hint for thinking, do you agree “right now, most of important decisions are not taken by experts or specialists, vice versa they are taken by greedy and corrupted politicians”? And most of time the decisions are contrary to experts. A simple example! Do you believe we have insufficient agriculture resources (globally) and because of that we cannot eliminate under-nutrition? In reality, we have more than enough, but “they” had decided to rule the world in this way. Now, where is the “intelligence” about this bad management done by “elite”, comparing the average Joe decision to “not wasting foods”?  

USA vs. China….
The first economy in the world, the GDP, Economic growth indicators, … all are wrong addressing.
I am not a money hater, I like it, but there is a big fail in our mentality and rationality, particularly in economic. We take the resources (land, oil, cereals, livestock, water,…) and transform it to something else, in order to use it or consume it for another kind of product. In these transformations we increase the value of materials. The grape transforms to wine. Its values from x dollar increases to 4X. We created 3X value that we compensate it by something we call it money. So if you need more money you have to transform more and more grape to wine. So you have to sell your wins in order to get 3X money. You encourage people to drink more and more and over consumption, even they were saturated. Meanwhile you will not sell wine to poor countries for 1X benefit, even if they are dieng because of thirst.  Because you want 3X benefit, because of economic reason! What is the consequence? You are the biggest wine company in the world. You created 2000000000000000X value of growth in one year and you are rich. This 2000000000000000X dollar represents nothing than you ruined  2000000000000000X unit of grape. The resource that we have no replacement for that and we could use it wisely in next 1000 years! Is it rational? At the end what can you do with your 2000000000000000X dollar? You will invest it in another business to do the same catastrophe? Or FED prints another trillion dollars and devaluate your 2000000000000000X dollar to 1000000000000000X dollar! In best case (in sense of humanity and our civilization) you can be Warren Buffett and donate 99 percent of your wealth for common goods and charities. But can you tell me how much cost -directly/indirectly- you (Buffet) imposed on human condition?
There must be some reasonable reason for economic growth. The growth because of the growth itself has no sense. Do you agree? The growth because of competition (caused by fear) is even worse. Isn’t it?


About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

This is the part that I like to talk about the most. You probably didn’t read the other article in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
you can find the answer of some of your point there. Here I’ll explain some major difference between my proposed software and the other social networks.
The main difference is “data sovereignty”. The “data” refers ALL your personal information and ALL content you create.  The “data sovereignty” refers to your data and the “treatment rules”. In my proposed social network, user own her/his data, s/he decides to how treat with her/his data. To whom show what, or what to be shown to user. Both are important and nowadays both are controlled by corporate s. They do not care users privacy and ownership of the data. They can ban or disable users account. They decide what feed to your personal page and your eyes and finally your mind. It is the way they control you, gaslight you and govern you. The majority do not feel that and indeed they do not care at all. Here the currency comes to the picture. Now people will care about their community. They hope the value of the money (tokens, shares or credit) of their community, which they have earned grow up over time and make benefit. So they start to constructive interact with community, cultivate their “common world”, learn and educate the principles, help to rise up community reputation and strengthen their money. These societies are not like a Facebook group or an online forum, because they make “their own rules” and not company rules. They set “their premier goals”, and finally they have an index to measure their excellence.
It will not like “IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube”. It is inviting people to freedom and “data sovereignty”.
One of those hundreds or thousands communities will be the “imagine” community. One that starts in a super centralized governing and moves toward super decentralized system day by day. I already sat its rules and monetary system. There are complicated mechanisms and I have to explain them in other thread -which I’ll do it soon-. So I can guarantee at least one community will exist that its goals are:
1. developing and maintaining the software itself in a most democratic and flexible possible way. Either development style or software features. (Obviously an open source and free software license).
2. developing and re-developing the community in order to implement maximum level of decentralization (either in rules or principles).
3. establishing an alternate “value system” in which who helps more the globe, gains more and maintain this rule as the “core value” of society.
These plans never happened in history and it is the first time in history that people can benefit because of their altruism action. I am pretty sure the model will work.
Even if we fail, we have built a system (including software and culture) that gifts too many good things, and on which the next people can do the next experiences. Isn't it clear that we have to do it regardless of the outcome?

And about the gov shutting everything down…
At the moment, this does not threaten us. It is an extreme exaggerated scenario that never won’t happened. Are you talking about North Korea or United State that 99 percent of vital activities are highly dependent to Internet?
Although In my design there are complementary solutions for dictatorship countries with high level of censorship and oppression, IP banning, low speed internet, and all other barriers for commercial, high speed services we are using freely in Europe and US.
This is not our today problem, once our community gathered hundreds of hacktivists and “specialists” who really care about human prosperity we will implement new solutions - instead of dummy, ineffective, neutral, useless, hard to use and incomplete, elite like solutions that now we are doing just to “hide the fact that we are actually do nothing”-


As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers,…
It is quite possible some community emerge based on hash power or another system resources – e.g. ram, memory space, or even printer resolution - so who has more money earn more. But it is not the case. There is possibility to emerge another societies with different “value system” as well.
As an example I can tell you about “imagine” society which I am aware of. In imagine there are three option to earn society “shares” and “coins”.
    A: A Skilled people can directly involve in software development, testing, documenting, design, translation, tutorial staffs, etc.  her/his contribution will be compensate by shares in proportion to the hours (and quality of work) she/he did for system.
    B: An entrepreneur can hire developers/translators,… and pay them fiat money as their salary and propose that accomplished task to community in exchange of the shares of community network.
    C: An investor or a normal person with small capital can buy the coins or shares from other early adapters who did A or B.
BTW in early days (first 3 or 4 years) the coins and shares worth nothing, so no one will pay fiat money for those. It is a big chance for encourage people to do “real job” to make a “real product” that impacts on “real world”. No meaningless trading, No greedy speculation, No abusing the words like Blockchain, decentralization, cryptocurrency, smart contract. Instead educating and experiencing real meaning of decentralization.
Surely people will try to use(misuse) our software to fool others, cheat, fraud, make money, etc, etc. But we have an strong feature. “power of fragility”. Most of them before accomplish first cents will be disgraced.
Again as an example, in “imagine” community who will take the majority of network which helped the software more. And the software is free. So the outcome will be a great software by which people can establish other communities (either for making a new community and running their rules and money or simply because of being frustrated because of abused by social network companies and selling them and their freedom to market).
I described “imagine” community partially, hopefully you establish another greater community with greater rules that works better than “imagine”. That day definitely I’ll join to your community and leave that primitive “imagine” community and I’ll help your community members to achieve more excellence.
It is how the things will happened in our software. Just to speak precisely, the software name is “Comen” stands for Community Maker Engine.

Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in.

"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.

someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code  is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.

Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.

wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.

The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.

If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to.  While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.

Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.