Operational costs are computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage and disk space usage.
Okay, let me make sure I have this right - As a potential participant in the MicroCash system, I
have to pay for my computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage, and disk space usage - And MicroCash promises to tax me for this, so it can give it to others using the same (or potentially lower, as I'll address in a minute) level of resources but who happen to have a higher MSB set in their account balances?
hope I have that very, very wrong, and you've left out something about these taxes funding a built-in exchange, or secure online wallet backups, or hell, even paying 3rd-party dev(s) and auditor(s) to improve and validate the system.
Nearly everyone around the world sets a price for these features (ie it's very difficult to find reliable hosting that is free). Because you can now securely use MicroCash without becoming a node you are essentially relying on the hundreds/thousands of computers around the world to do it for you.
Okay, perhaps you've just touched on our failure to communicate here - How exactly does one use MicroCash without becoming a node?
By putting a fee on this resource we can basically control to some extent the number of useless accounts created (that clog the nodes), prevent and cleanup spam and also now offer small amounts of interest back to the chain proportionally.
The possible account-space for a modern cryptosystem comfortably exceeds the number of atoms in the universe by a factor of more than a google. Given that they don't count as a scarce resource, that inactive accounts have no effect on either network or storage, and that disposable one-time-use accounts provide one of the bigger selling points
of a cryptocurrency - What does this first point matter?
As for "cleanup spam", this tax seems like a bitdust attack built right into the system itself - How does MicroCash plan to get around the resulting problem of massive block fragmentation, and how does causing
such fragmentation prevent
the ensuing cleanup? Or does the protocol have a significant enough change from existing BitCoin clones that "dust" no longer presents a problem (and if so, why do we need to pay to avoid it)?
MicroCash can provide a better infrastructure and new services on top of it.
(the users of the currency) provide all the necessary infrastructure, all the end-point computing resources, the entire raison-d'etre
for any currency. I don't see how charging us for our own contributions makes the network in any way "better".
All fees are collected, account and transaction fees, and instead of giving them to the people who are rich in hardware (miners) they give it back to all MicroCash account holders proportionally based on the amount of MicroCash they have.
But on day-1, only the large existing SolidCoin holders will have a balance on which to draw interest; this tax effectively gives them a reason not
to spend their MicroCash, as they can continue to receive income without doing anything (including
contributing "computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage and disk space usage" to the network). They can just log in once and go offline forever, and rake it in over time. How does that encourage new
users of the system, to know that they get to pay a tax to others who can effectively retire on their now-idle "investment" capital?