First step to use money is easy access to money. The more people have it the more likely it is that they will use it as money. The more people use it the more value it has... The question is if simply giving out money is enough, or if there are further incentives needed. But for sure a currency that has more easy access to it has a better chance to be used then a money that is horded by few individuals.
Hoarding yes, but the money that the poorer have, will circulate to certain individuals with the brightest ideas through capitalism. Once those individuals begin to collect money, the cycle is bound to happen again. Capitalism seperate society from the haves and have nits, but it does it in a very natural and fair way.
I think what you end up with is still the potential to be hoarded by members of society.
There must also be a consistent ability for one to exchange the crypto for cash in order to pay taxes. That means that any coin to become as wide spread to be called a currency, would need to have measurable and stable value. Or, the government would have to accept the crypto currency.
Great idea, if you have a third world government that's trying to do good. i
In a society that has a strong printing press, it's near impossible to do withoutbpissing off the central government. The inability to control the money supply means that you rely on regulation to keep banks in check (banks that will eventually loan out crypto). We're back to square one, but atleast we solved the how money is created by numbnuts issue.
money flowing to the people with the brightest idea is good, even better if they take responsibility that comes along with power... Hoarding in itself can be good, if the money is simply put out of circulation for a while and not loaned out for interest, then all will profit from a higher value of the currency, or in case of a stable currency more money could be created and distributed. The problem i see with the current system is that capital costs have become a too big percentage of the product price, this then distributes money to the people who have already tons of money.
Read the white paper, it explains that very well. Only about a third or so of the entire distribution is coming via free coins. The rest is reserved for investors and charity organizations. It is the same with Steem: value is given by the outside investors buying and trading the coin.
That's the portion I don't get and the white paper doesn't address it very well.
I don't understand how it's possible to issue a "currency" if the currency doesn't have an economic incentive around it. The only way mana would become a currency is if it displaces another. In that sense what makes mana better than steem from a usage stand point? (my view is that it doesn't).
The white paper suggest that it will attempt to displace local government currencies.... That's a order so tall, that it would cripple the global economy, which uses the usd as the reserve currency.
What makes the USD better than the JPY? Or the Euro?
People use what they have. Manna is given to anyone who signs up and verifies. The token's value rises as the number of people with the token increase as well as those who use it.
Based upon your conclusion, no cryptocurrency has much value since there is very little usage, as of now, with any of them.
One big difference between Manna and other currencies is that we are putting it directly into the hands of poor people. Every other currency requires buying in or doing something for it.
So suppose you give it to poor people, amount the poor, they would accept it and trade it for inter poor people services (that's really rude way of putting it, but you get the point). That creates its own closed economy, but money flows from the poor people from volume.... I could see that.
It is probably more speculative than JesusCoin but with a very serious approach. Nobody knows what will ever happen to this but who cares? I already earned hundreds of free bananas.
First step to use money is easy access to money. The more people have it the more likely it is that they will use it as money. The more people use it the more value it has... The question is if simply giving out money is enough, or if there are further incentives needed. But for sure a currency that has more easy access to it has a better chance to be used then a money that is horded by few individuals.
Hoarding yes, but the money that the poorer have, will circulate to certain individuals with the brightest ideas through capitalism. Once those individuals begin to collect money, the cycle is bound to happen again. Capitalism seperate society from the haves and have nits, but it does it in a very natural and fair way.
I think what you end up with is still the potential to be hoarded by members of society.
There must also be a consistent ability for one to exchange the crypto for cash in order to pay taxes. That means that any coin to become as wide spread to be called a currency, would need to have measurable and stable value. Or, the government would have to accept the crypto currency.
Great idea, if you have a third world government that's trying to do good. i
In a society that has a strong printing press, it's near impossible to do withoutbpissing off the central government. The inability to control the money supply means that you rely on regulation to keep banks in check (banks that will eventually loan out crypto). We're back to square one, but atleast we solved the how money is created by numbnuts issue.
money flowing to the people with the brightest idea is good, even better if they take responsibility that comes along with power... Hoarding in itself can be good, if the money is simply put out of circulation for a while and not loaned out for interest, then all will profit from a higher value of the currency, or in case of a stable currency more money could be created and distributed. The problem i see with the current system is that capital costs have become a too big percentage of the product price, this then distributes money to the people who have already tons of money.
Read the white paper, it explains that very well. Only about a third or so of the entire distribution is coming via free coins. The rest is reserved for investors and charity organizations. It is the same with Steem: value is given by the outside investors buying and trading the coin.
That's the portion I don't get and the white paper doesn't address it very well.
I don't understand how it's possible to issue a "currency" if the currency doesn't have an economic incentive around it. The only way mana would become a currency is if it displaces another. In that sense what makes mana better than steem from a usage stand point? (my view is that it doesn't).
The white paper suggest that it will attempt to displace local government currencies.... That's a order so tall, that it would cripple the global economy, which uses the usd as the reserve currency.
Thank you for your comment @motoengineer.
What makes the USD better than the JPY? Or the Euro?
People use what they have. Manna is given to anyone who signs up and verifies. The token's value rises as the number of people with the token increase as well as those who use it.
Based upon your conclusion, no cryptocurrency has much value since there is very little usage, as of now, with any of them.
One big difference between Manna and other currencies is that we are putting it directly into the hands of poor people. Every other currency requires buying in or doing something for it.
So suppose you give it to poor people, amount the poor, they would accept it and trade it for inter poor people services (that's really rude way of putting it, but you get the point). That creates its own closed economy, but money flows from the poor people from volume.... I could see that.
It is probably more speculative than JesusCoin but with a very serious approach. Nobody knows what will ever happen to this but who cares? I already earned hundreds of free bananas.