While the unconsidered costs of legal tender can always be imposed on the general public, MONEY 2.0 has to be sufficiently funded, as funding gaps would not only jeopardize the currency’s stability, but threaten its existence.
The operational costs of MONEY 2.0 consist of administrative expenses (computing, manpower, legal costs, etc.) as well as payments for defaulted obligations, which are crucial to keep the currency stable.
QUESTION V: How is MONEY 2.0 funded?
OPTION 1: Through fees
Beyond percental money-holding and transaction charges which fulfill important control functions in MONEY 2.0, the administration needs to levy some kind of flat fee to help empty abandoned accounts. The remaining funding can be customized by the currency administration (possible options include a surcharge on the balance fee, a money creation fee, and a flat membership fee for all participants, as known from traditional banking).
OPTION 2: Through advertising
MONEY 2.0 can be funded through advertising, as long as all funding is transparent and participants can decide if they want to participate in such a currency. To guarantee the independence and stability of MONEY 2.0, funding must also be ensured if advertisers are no longer available.
OPTION 3: Through donations
MONEY 2.0 can be supported through donations or volunteering, as long as participants are able to determine if the currency’s independence is still sufficiently guaranteed. To ensure the stability of MONEY 2.0, funding must also be secured if sponsors are no longer available.
OPTION 4: Too big to fail
One of the fundamental principles of MONEY 2.0 is to allow market participants to decide in favor of a medium of exchange just as consciously as they choose the products and services they buy with it. Once the general public no longer depends on a single mandatory currency, however, it can no longer be forced to share the responsibility for individual abuse.
Moreover, as everyone is held responsible for their own actions, the chance that such abuse can happen in the first place is significantly reduced.
QUESTION W: Should the currency administration be funded through MONEY 2.0 exclusively, or does participation require traditional bank money?
OPTION 1: Through MONEY 2.0 exclusively
Since MONEY 2.0 is designed to replace traditional bank money entirely, funding the currency administration through MONEY 2.0 isn’t just a logical step, but ultimately necessary.
By accepting all funding via MONEY 2.0, the central office also demonstrates that it has no reservations about its own currency, and sends a clear message to all participants.
OPTION 2: At least partially through traditional bank money
While complete funding through MONEY 2.0 and the message it conveys are important goals, monetary stability is even more important. For new currencies, using already established money is difficult to avoid – to pay for postage, for instance, or for services which are needed to identify participants. Before running the risk of having a central office which can’t take care of important bills because MONEY 2.0 isn’t accepted for payment, it is definitely better to levy fees in traditional bank money.
The money market serves as an important stepping stone, as a properly managed alternative currency can be converted to any currency the central office requires. Until the new currency is established, however, it is in the participants’ best interest to take on this step themselves.
QUESTION X: Does MONEY 2.0 have to be in line with current legislation?
OPTION 1: Yes
Even though it would be very convenient if MONEY 2.0 was fully compatible with current laws, there can’t be any compromises at the expense of functionality.
In many countries, circulating a functional alternative currency actually seems to be illegal per se. This problem, however, cannot be evaded by only implementing dysfunctional concepts. If the legislator was to ban seaworthy ships, it would be equally absurd to set sail with a ship full of holes – not least because that would mean losing the trust of possible passengers for good.
OPTION 2: No
Ultimately, the legality of MONEY 2.0 doesn’t depend on MONEY 2.0 itself but on the jurisdiction in which it is implemented.
As it seems, the laws in many countries are designed to explicitly prevent a functioning alternative currency. Since the main focus of MONEY 2.0 is to function in the best way possible, however, it is pretty obvious that it can’t be adapted to current laws – at least not if the declared goal is a functioning alternative currency.
In democratic countries, implementing MONEY 2.0 already makes sense to launch a public debate. Anyone operating an alternative currency must, however, be aware of the possible consequences and share their knowledge with those participating. For the debate to be effective, all conflicts with the authorities must be publicized promptly.
– To create a digital money system in which all market participants can issue money under a collective brand, and which doesn’t require a higher authority for implementation.
– To limit money creation with each participant’s ability to render equivalent service in the near future.
– To make the currency freely convertible.
– To establish a sufficiently funded central administration which monitors the rules and, if necessary, enforces them by law.
– To see to it that currency administration and money-lending are separate entities.
– To ensure that the alternative system is used instead of the current money system, therefore REPLACING it.
| « LEVEL V: Money Parameters | LEVEL VII: Replacing Bank Money » |
