The Recentralisation Possibility
Considering The Function of Hypothetical Assets
Democracy consists of two varieties of political interpretation: socialism and conservatism. Each of these varieties of democracy emphasises different aspects of democracy. Socialism emphasises the aspects of community and responsibility; conservatism emphasises the aspects of individualism and liberty. Throughout time, it is the latter that has always grown faster, more aggressively and more efficiently. The expression of the individual and the possibility of liberty will always tend towards higher levels of growth, innovation, risk-assumption and hence, reward and growth than will that of socialism. This is because in such a setting as that of a fiscally and politically conservative society, there is a greater emphasis on the individual’s control of his own behaviour, achievements and reward-systems.
Just as the real world transcended political systems some time ago, from that of aristocratie to the dominant ideology worldwide today, that of democracy, so a similar effect is taking shape in the virtual world, which is to say, online. The first form of democratic expression was in fact socialism. This is why Early Church Christian societies are often referred to by Theologians as Early Communist societies. In the same way, the political ideology that was first presented in a socio-economic context online was similarly community-based and responsibility-heavy. This is called decentralisation. One must question however whether decentralisation is the only form of political socio-economic ideology that can be practiced effectively and indeed, if it is not, whether it is the most efficient one.
Most Blockchain economies are focused today on vying for an individual’s currency. Bancor protocol is decentralised; it asks you to load your tokens onto its smart contract enabled network so as to create liquidity. Centralised exchanges do the same thing, except the management of such exchanges operate without any oversight and mostly through corrupt means. This may be the result of an over-enforced decentralised political tendency among Blockchain economies, rather than as a result of the bad actors that cryptocurrencies attracts in the form of illicit money launderers, however.
When we think about the conservative equivalent of decentralisation, the concept of recentralisation appears potentially appealing. In recentralised economic societies, currencies are platform-based and there is no actual transferable unit between encrypted wallets, merely a series of exchange-like platforms where the managers of such platforms ensure a fair and equitable — and functional and operational — status quo. Some will criticise such ideas as being potentially open to manipulation, and while true, ask yourself; to what extent are such systems likely to be manipulated any more than the ones that are in place today? Surely, if the systems depend solely on the operability of their managers, whose reputations and wealth also depends upon excellence in operability, there is more incentive for providers to offer a service that is fluid, easy-to-use, customer responsive and value-oriented. This is the opposite situation of what we find in Blockchain economies today, however.
A system wherein platform providers cooperate with one another via what are in effect, banking software platforms with virtually-ascribed digits in place of actual units of anything material, and a place where assets are purely hypothetical in nature would arguably grow much faster, be much more secure, much fairer and much easier to use — and hence open to much greater scale — than the current decentralised asset model.
Maybe it’s time to transition from software-based Blockchain assets to software-produced hypothetical assets entirely, and forget about collecting private key numbers and monitoring transaction IDs in the race to virtualise cash?
In such a system, we can just use a standard re-branded white label bank software system and roll it out with assets on it. We could make it interoperable with a blockchain so that in theory you could just store your bitcoin in your wallet and have the virtual units as a form of credit in place and you’d be responsible then to whoever you paid — not the platform provider per se. With most assets you wouldn’t need anything to back em up however: you’d just have your reputation and that’s it.
In fact, we could make it so that there was some blockchain fee to stake for currency points on the platform although we’d need quite a lot of people on it but probably quite a lot would come initially as it’s new. So, as an example, you may say, bring 1m DMHCO tokens and deposit them and you’ll be able to make up to 10 virtual units of whatever currency you like and whatever supplies you want — and you could copy someone else’s (if you had permission) or do your own; it doesn’t matter. Such assets could pay for things or be more share-like; it doesn’t matter. They are hypothetical. They don’t exist.
There would never be any limit on currency issuance quantity although you could select who could and who could not create more of your hypothetical asset and on what terms. You could say something like let everyone make this currency or let @Mouragio 😈 make this one but not anyone else.
Hypothetical Assets. Recentralisation. It definitely feels disruptive.
