nealbozeman

5 ms·

1.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Well said, and fun example with Chiemgauer. Critical mass/tipping point is the issue, so what is the target audience in the beginning? Ping me if you want some Metrics. Neal@metricdc.org.
2.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Points heard - I've been down this road, too. Contracts & debt can be specified in any currency, including a private one, even if taxes have to be marked to a national currency at the end of the year. But still a question of why ad
3.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Agreed. I don't mention anything about inflation proof. Rather, it should be clarified as a reference to monetary inflation. Inflation happens for many reasons, and even monetary inflation could happen here as the circulation grows to
4.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Agreed! Ping me Neal@metricdc.org if you want some cash. If you're looking at any other ideas in the space, would love to hear about them.
5.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Thanks for the nice comment! Ping me neal@metricdc.org and I'll leave you some Metrics :) . Anyone else interested, can ping me, too. I'll leave you a "cash" pickup that you take using a QR code or URL. The thing about
6.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
The taxing is continuous. There is no strategy to wait to pay out.
7.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Central Banks don't require a nation-state. They can be private. Cryptos and tokens, generally, are decentralized and couldn't be controlled by a central bank. I'm using a private central bank in this case to control the mone
8.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
https://metricdc.org
9.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Yep, this is why it has to be centralized. The Central Bank has to verify identities. You can have accounts that are unverified, or business accounts that are not individuals. They just don't have a UBI, so the tax hits them without th
10.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
It's a private CBDC, so a private CBDC couldn't collect on property tax. Anyway, I'm considering only dead-simple ways to fund the UBI, which means tapping in to all money across the system continuously, evenly.
11.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
Thanks, it's okay that the comment order shifts around. It's intended, so the most interesting aspects rise up.
12.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
A successful private currency would be one which was your preferred currency to make a transaction with in the grocery store, over and above euros, dollars, and pesos. Despite the romanticism of it, cryptos don't have the possibility o
13.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
A tax is needed to raise the money for the UBI, and to keep the value and money supply stable. Income tax is unnecessary if you say money that's sitting doing nothing will be taxed out of the system (basically a waste tax). The whole s
14.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
For the stable money supply, let's cap it at X-money per person. We want a money supply that grows to accommodate new users of the currency in order to prevent deflation, and a supply that's capped and predictable to prevent infla
15.
by nealbozeman 4y ago
For the defuckifier, I chose a UBI, or you can call it a "negative income tax," or a perpetual redistribution. Something devoid of moralistic choice - it's just something everyone gets and it does the job of the Fed, which is
16.
I'm lonely, and created a private CBDC
13 points by nealbozeman 4y ago|31 comments
17.
by nealbozeman 6y ago
Same as any other crypto that starts off, you can't buy gold. No one will trade. You can use it to trade labor and dig up gold.
18.
by nealbozeman 6y ago
I would love to browse the web with different personas. I want to see what Bill Gates' search results look like, compared to someone else.
19.
by nealbozeman 6y ago
Interesting point how bitcoin is only anonymous up to a point. Thinking about privacy instead is maybe a good angle.
20.
by nealbozeman 6y ago
Really throws out decentralization if you have to verify identity.
21.
Digital currency where the money supply is based on participation(nealbozeman.com)
3 points by nealbozeman 6y ago|4 comments
22.
Has this season of Silicon Valley become very formulaic?
1 points by nealbozeman 9y ago|0 comments
23.
by nealbozeman 9y ago
It's hard in this case not to argue that he owns 33% of the 1.5mm company that the three have built until today. Diluting him out to effectively zero would be cause for criminal charges against the company. It's theft. In the same
24.
by nealbozeman 9y ago
Investors will not see his 10% ownership as a red flag any more than they will see a non participating investor owning 25% of the business as a red flag. In this case, he/she delivered 18 months of value that led to a 1.5mm pre money v
25.
by nealbozeman 9y ago
Keep the 1/3rd of the company you are entitled to today, and make sure the other two founders stick around by creating a new allocation of shares that will have a vesting schedule, and will dilute you down fairly over time. There'
26.
by nealbozeman 9y ago
Yes, 10% is fair, but it's also fair to be diluted down by the other founders in the future. Experienced founders also have vesting periods. It entices founders to stay, and is a fair way to value a founder's work when they leave.