> Fungible value is only “centralized” in that it creates a virtual fully connected node in the market graph. Yeah, I'd agree with this. > This is a strictly

> Fungible value is only “centralized” in that it creates a virtual fully connected node in the market graph. Yeah, I'd agree with this. > This is a strictly good thing, decreasing maximum market hop distance to a constant. I think I see your point here, but I disagree. I will agree it's more convenient than the alternative (and exponentially so at longer distances), but I'm not sure it's strictly better. The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node. With something like Offset, which is mechanically highly decentralized but measures value in USD despite actual USD never needing to change hands, the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy because that influences people's perception of the value of USD. But of course if we changed it to some other real currency like the Euro, that would just shift the authority to a different government. And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network. So I arrive at non-fungible value as the only way to avoid this situation. That said, for most modern use cases where you're dealing with untrusted individuals (and thus this proposal doesn't work), money is better, yes. The intended use case for this proposal would be for "local" things like co-ops where there's already trust among the members and they can then benefit from cutting out transaction costs (and relative to Offset, which offers zero transaction costs between trusted members, also provides insulation from third-party financial policy by not measuring value in any fiat currency).