Why would the community want to inject government theft into a crypto-currency?
– SeemedGood
How is this theft? The whole “taxes = theft” argument falls apart if there doesn’t exist some apparatus that is enforcing taxation through violence or the threat thereof — where do you see a threat of violence in this system?
–MemeticParadigm
In 2003, Ryan Fugger invented an algorithm that calculated the shortest path for payments in a P2P credit system. He called his invention the Ripple system, payments that hopped from person to person and zeroed out once a circle of payments was formed, like ripples on water.
Decentralised money, like any other innovation, opens up the possibility for new innovations. One possibility is to bootstrap on Ryan Fugger’s path-finding system to draw a graph of how financial inter-dependence grows over time. This would give you an unprecedented insight into what your own economy looks like, with you as the center of gravity — the economy of you.
What emerges would look similar to a cladistic tree, the tree of life, and evolutionary systems in general. You would be able to see both convergent, divergent and parallel evolution within the producer-consumer networks that make up our economies, but that we seldom perceive in full.
This innovation in turn opens up the possibility for new innovations, it creates a new paradigm upon which new ideas can be birthed.
This evolutionary web could be colonised by a form of autonomous, non-coercive tax-collectors, that spread based on consumption patterns. I call themTaxemes, and they originate from value producers, and are programmed by their primary host.
Taxemes come in different shapes, and are turing complete in a sense. The simplest Taxeme is programmed to extract a percentage from each transaction, and more complex Taxemes can be programmed to redistribute money to specific DAOs.
Taxemes are inherited per transaction, and spread throughout the network based on mate choice, and emerge through natural selection, enabling free market taxation that produces emergent effects that are similar to those of centralised taxation, but with none of the costs of centralised government.
The tax they extract is fed back into the network, downwards through pathways that formed as the network came to evolve into a specific state. I call these pathways dividend pathways, and they come in different shapes and sizes.
Dividend pathways can be more or less conducive to extracted tax, like arteries and capillaries, and are shaped by the Taxeme that the transaction propagated. More parasitical Taxemes, one with a 6% tax-rate for example, grow dividend pathways with higher admittance.
These pathways are organic in the sense that they grow and wither naturally. They get used up and decay as basic income flows through them. You might grow thousands of pathways in one place, and then if you move somewhere else, you´ll create new pathways while your old ones gradually fade.
Taxemes spread based on lowest first, leading to competition for high tax-rate Taxemes as consumers are after the basic income they provide, and want to grow dividend pathways that receive a high flow of basic income. The shape of the network is guided by the choices cells make, consumer-selection grows the vascular system of what I call the Resilience network. In the example below, Bs active Taxeme (Bs lowest Taxeme) is passed on to A, and becomes A’s active Taxeme, making A’s 5% Taxeme dormant.
```js
//before
var A = {
personalTaxemeRate: 0.05,
taxemes: [{rate 0.07, volume: 30}], //kept sorted by ascending rate
cash: 400
}
var B = {
personalTaxemeRate: 0.04,
taxemes: [{rate: 0.02, volume: 200}, {rate: 0.05, volume: 500}], //kept sorted by ascending rate
cash: 250
}
A.send(100, B);
//after
var A = {
personalTaxemeRate: 0.05,
taxemes: [{rate: 0.02, volume: 100},{rate 0.07, volume: 30}], //kept sorted by ascending rate
cash: 300
}
var B = {
personalTaxemeRate: 0.04,
taxemes: [{rate: 0.02, volume: 100}, {rate: 0.05, volume: 500}], //kept sorted by ascending rate
cash: 350
}
```
The dividend pathways grow in a fractal pattern, and branch out in new directions such that each new transaction extends away from circles that have been formed prior to that transaction. Full-filled circles are immutable, their state cannot be modified. This future-oriented design removes the incentive to consume from producers that have already built up large dividend pathway grids, as you only gain access to pathways that grow upwards from your consumption trail.
These inventions would allow us to transcend the socialism vs. capitalism debate, since decentralized wealth sharing gives us the best of two worlds. There is no dichotomy, we can have both. We are the frontal lobes of the universe, and the future is now.
This has been a guest post by Johan Nygren. If you’ve liked this post make sure to follow Jonah on medium @resilience_me
