All right, so this is what I've learned about the digital currencies out there. It seems like if you made one that had a set cap of 1 billion, then
for every dollar of value put in by different entities, each coin goes up by a billionth of that value. That means that ANYONE who invested in this
would ALWAYS gain on their investments as long as the cap did not go up, as long as governments and bankers did not interfere too much, as long as
more and more companies of different sorts integrated a said coin into their economies, the value would increase.
The value would decrease if governments cut off contact with a coin, such as state governments or local governments or federal governments outlawing
coins. The value would decrease if companies cut off contact with a coin.
In a way, this represents companies and governments affecting the value of a coin based on how well they agree with the message the coin is
representing. Governments could legitimately make certain coins illegal, for example, if the coin was doing something like being used in assassination
contracts or child trafficking (or any human trafficking for that matter).
The kinds of transactions happen on the deep web, and leave a trace of what kind of currency is being accepted for that transaction. I am not sure if
there would be a way for bitcoin to drop access to people they know are using their currency for illegal activity. But that might seriously become an
issue at some point. Bitcoin has already associated itself with criminals, it might be hard to shake that off. But there could be other altcoins that
do not tolerate criminal behavior.
But my point is, that is what makes the coin have value. The value is also determined by whether or not more and more resources are being added to the
system by all participants - are those participants mining more minerals, enough to cover the costs of operations and have some left over? Remember,
the value of everything increases, unless people are destroying each other because they are at war. There is another way the value decreases, and that
is if the minerals run dry.
Let's say that it costs money to build and maintain a hospital. Well, if the hospital was paid for by the federal government, who had earned money
through taxes, which had been produced through mining metaphorical minerals (such as talent, vespine gas, living accommodations for the population,
working vehicles for the population) then people would have enough real-world money to invest in the currency.
So, as long as this is wealth is going up (for example, the more of the population that owns homes, the more value is added because they have more
money to spend on other things, the more hospitals that are already constructed ads value because they don't have to be constructed again, just
maintained) and as long as governments and companies don't sever their ties with the currency, the value of the currency will rise.
What does this mean? Well, it is kind of like taxes, only taxes on stim-packs. When someone invests their real-world earnings in a coin, for example,
if they were paid $700 a month in a developing country, they might be able to buy .0471 bitcoins today. But I think bitcoin's value could drop,
because they are associated with criminals. So it would be better to use another altcoin that somehow isn't, or has better processing time, even...
But let's assume it goes up, as it should if all the conditions I already mentioned are in effect - then the person will have a fairly good gain on
their money every month. This would encourage saving because there would be a gain on that wealth over time of a fairly reasonable amount. In fact,
someone could start doing legal odd jobs as a child or teenager in their youth, and have enough money to start out on their own. This would encourage
young people to add talent (at a legal level) to the coin's value, which would also make it increase.
When people die or get older, they do exit the workforce. But they still have time, and they have the expertise to offer advice to others and continue
their research even into their old age. They could run their own websites, and do things such as offer subscriptions to content or gain advertising
revenue and royalties, or do consulting over the internet so they don't have to leave their home, or nursing home!
And this will maximize wealth, because at the moment, the older generations have no way to integrate talent into the workforce and get paid for it.
And maximizing wealth adds value to the coin.
However, what about when those generations die off? Their work did not. Their contributions to science and everything else in between has remained so
that the work that is built on top of that becomes worth more in value. That also increases the value of a coin. For example, if someone in the stone
age invested in a stone cave with a wooden club, with a reasonable amount of work, they would be able to have made it all the way to a fairly swag
modern residence today, had they lived long enough. Maybe WAY more than that, considering their lifespan and the talent they would have added over the
years, and the growth of their reputation over that time.
So, what about developing nations? They would be able to produce goods and sell them on the market and any profits that were made would be duplicated
by the growth of the coin.
For example, if a country makes $500 billion in GDP, and the coin doubled value in a year, they would have $500 billion bonus dollars, and those bonus
dollars would go directly back to the people because they would own coins.
What would the people do with this extra money?
Well, they could donate it to hospitals and schools of their choice, if those schools were willing to accept that particular coin as a payment option.
And it would be it would be in their best interest, as long as the trend caught on and was legal. AND it could be mandated that people spend a
percentage of their GAINS on fundraisers of their choice. And these would be pretty good gains, and it would be free money, anyway.
But why donate to a local school?? Well, let's say that a school wants some money - but who wants it? The band. So they set up their own fundraising
account linked to this digital currency (which always grows). If they do some marketing, they could get donations from parents directly to where it
needs to go! And if they save money, they get dividends!
A science teacher could campaign for things that he needs in the classroom, that he currently has to use his own money for! So that teacher could
campaign to get school supplies, and even upgrades to the lab (that the school can't afford to upgdare), or whatever.
If it was a public school, maybe some things would be covered by the state. So once again, it depends on where the law falls on this
edit on 03pmWed, 03 Jan 2018 14:20:54 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 03pmWed,
03 Jan 2018 14:27:39 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 03pmWed, 03 Jan 2018 14:38:05
-0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)