4 ms·

I don't think it will get popular. It needs too much infrastructure for emission and tracking. You will need to manually find a way to get to the right amount u

by yoha 13y ago

I don't think it will get popular. It needs too much infrastructure for emission and tracking. You will need to manually find a way to get to the right amount using such a restricted set of values [1]. Additionally, you cannot make backups and it is very easy for lose or destroy some of these "bills". It's a nice idea, but there is not a chance it will gain value. I don't think it's worth investing any real money in it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem

blueblob 13y ago
I wouldn't barter any of my cats for this. It is just easier to exchange kittens for services.
drcode 13y ago
I think you've got it wrong. The appeal of those pieces of paper is that they hold their value long term. You can keep them in storage, and in 100 years they'll only have lost a mere 97% of their value.
- polymatter 13y ago
  Thats assuming they don't rot in the process! Now Gold people can trust because that doesn't rot and can last 100 years in a damp jar. You'll never get the public away from the gold standard.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  Currency is not meant to hold value; it is not an asset. Currency is a means of transacting. It needs only to hold its value in the short term and change value at a stable and predictable pace.
  - jamoes 13y ago
    Currency isn't meant to do anything, it just is. The reason you (and others) think it's supposed to lose value is because you've been fed a set of lies meant to deplete your wealth. Try this thought experiment: Let's say the Federal Reserve invented two sets of currencies in 1913: The Dollar, and The DeflataDollar. Both are protected by Legal Tender Laws, both are acceptable for paying taxes, and both are basically accepted everywhere. The only difference is that the supply of Dollars increases every year (as it does now) whereas the DeflataDollar has a constant supply. If your employer offers to pay you in either of these two currencies, which one do you choose? Any rational actor would of course choose to be paid in the currency that won't lose 97% of its value every hundred or so years. The only way to maintain an inflationary currency is to enforce its usage through laws and taxation. Otherwise free individuals will choose something else to trade with.
    - rtpg 13y ago
      how does the company get their deflataDollars? If the supply of your currency is constant, and there's economic growth in some other sector, then the company will (proportionately) collect less, and you'll end up with less deflataDollars in your hands year on year. It's basically the same as inflation.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      But your boss isn't going to offer you the same wage in each - they will be able to offer you more Dollars than DeflataDollars after adjusting for inflation, because he needs to take into account the expected value when he's liable to trade the currency for something else, not just the relative values now. If you want to trade for things immediately (say, buy some groceries on the way home from work) you might very well prefer the Dollars. If you plan on keeping your wages under your mattress for 20 years, obviously you should prefer the DeflataDollars, but that's not what most people do. "Any rational actor would of course choose to be paid in the currency that won't lose 97% of its value every hundred or so years." Right, because that time horizon is totally what is relevant when I'm being paid today and turning that money into other things tomorrow.
      - jamoes 13y ago
        The point of the thought experiment, if followed through to its logical conclusion, is that in such a world The Dollar wouldn't even exist, only the DeflataDollar would. No one would accept a currency that's losing value (even the grocery vendor on your way home from woek) if they had the choice to accept something that will hold its value. It doesn't matter if the rate of value loss is slow or fast, it's inferior to something that holds its value.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        And that point is just wrong. Anyone with a short enough time horizon would prefer the depreciating currency, because they can get it at a discount from those with a longer time horizon.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Meant? Meant by who? The people that use currency certainly don't want it to lose value. That's a cost to them. Something that loses value is never going to catch on.
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
These 'bills' do have a nice physical feel to them, though. Like bars of gold. It's not as fleeting as digital money. I can see it being used as a means of restricting your budget; after all, most digital money can be spent until it's gone. Adding a boundary like having to go to a conversion point (digital to cash) to get your daily or weekly budget may lead to less spending.
skizm 13y ago
US coin and bill denominations are designed to make the change making problem easy. You just take the most of the largest denomination without going over. Repeat till change is made. The outcome is always optimal given the set of US currency denominations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem#Greedy_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem#Greedy_m...

by yoha 13y ago

blueblob 13y ago

I wouldn't barter any of my cats for this. It is just easier to exchange kittens for services.

drcode 13y ago

I think you've got it wrong. The appeal of those pieces of paper is that they hold their value long term. You can keep them in storage, and in 100 years they'll only have lost a mere 97% of their value.

polymatter 13y ago
Thats assuming they don't rot in the process! Now Gold people can trust because that doesn't rot and can last 100 years in a damp jar. You'll never get the public away from the gold standard.
gamblor956 13y ago
Currency is not meant to hold value; it is not an asset. Currency is a means of transacting. It needs only to hold its value in the short term and change value at a stable and predictable pace.
- jamoes 13y ago
  Currency isn't meant to do anything, it just is. The reason you (and others) think it's supposed to lose value is because you've been fed a set of lies meant to deplete your wealth. Try this thought experiment: Let's say the Federal Reserve invented two sets of currencies in 1913: The Dollar, and The DeflataDollar. Both are protected by Legal Tender Laws, both are acceptable for paying taxes, and both are basically accepted everywhere. The only difference is that the supply of Dollars increases every year (as it does now) whereas the DeflataDollar has a constant supply. If your employer offers to pay you in either of these two currencies, which one do you choose? Any rational actor would of course choose to be paid in the currency that won't lose 97% of its value every hundred or so years. The only way to maintain an inflationary currency is to enforce its usage through laws and taxation. Otherwise free individuals will choose something else to trade with.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    how does the company get their deflataDollars? If the supply of your currency is constant, and there's economic growth in some other sector, then the company will (proportionately) collect less, and you'll end up with less deflataDollars in your hands year on year. It's basically the same as inflation.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    But your boss isn't going to offer you the same wage in each - they will be able to offer you more Dollars than DeflataDollars after adjusting for inflation, because he needs to take into account the expected value when he's liable to trade the currency for something else, not just the relative values now. If you want to trade for things immediately (say, buy some groceries on the way home from work) you might very well prefer the Dollars. If you plan on keeping your wages under your mattress for 20 years, obviously you should prefer the DeflataDollars, but that's not what most people do. "Any rational actor would of course choose to be paid in the currency that won't lose 97% of its value every hundred or so years." Right, because that time horizon is totally what is relevant when I'm being paid today and turning that money into other things tomorrow.
    - jamoes 13y ago
      The point of the thought experiment, if followed through to its logical conclusion, is that in such a world The Dollar wouldn't even exist, only the DeflataDollar would. No one would accept a currency that's losing value (even the grocery vendor on your way home from woek) if they had the choice to accept something that will hold its value. It doesn't matter if the rate of value loss is slow or fast, it's inferior to something that holds its value.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        And that point is just wrong. Anyone with a short enough time horizon would prefer the depreciating currency, because they can get it at a discount from those with a longer time horizon.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Meant? Meant by who? The people that use currency certainly don't want it to lose value. That's a cost to them. Something that loses value is never going to catch on.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago

These 'bills' do have a nice physical feel to them, though. Like bars of gold. It's not as fleeting as digital money. I can see it being used as a means of restricting your budget; after all, most digital money can be spent until it's gone. Adding a boundary like having to go to a conversion point (digital to cash) to get your daily or weekly budget may lead to less spending.

skizm 13y ago

US coin and bill denominations are designed to make the change making problem easy. You just take the most of the largest denomination without going over. Repeat till change is made. The outcome is always optimal given the set of US currency denominations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem#Greedy_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem#Greedy_m...