I’ve decided it is time to move on from Ravencoin ($RVN).
Why? Ravencoin was built from first principles. Much like Bitcoin, it assumed the rules of supply and demand, and incentives based economics.
I’ve been reading modern economics, and apparently the first principles just don’t apply anymore. How this happened is anyone’s guess.
It’s time to make a new blockchain based on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
This new blockchain project, will be called LIBS (Let It Be So) and will have a generous but limited supply until block 1971, at which point the code will change to a doubling of issuance. This is in stark contrast to Ravencoin’s Halving policy, but we’re in the modern era now.
And, the worse the project does, the more it will issue. If things go really bad, the code will triple the issuance, and wildly spend most of it on my pet projects, but to keep everyone from lynching me, it will give 600 LIBS to everyone, and if that doesn’t fix everything, then it will automatically send 1200 LIBS to anyone that didn’t get enough LIBS at the beginning. Then, to really make LIBS the currency of the future, anyone that isn’t doing anything at all should get some extra LIBS. This will help balance out the LIBS distribution. Well, sort of. The LIBS will only be sent to people in a certain geographical area, anyone using LIBS outside that area, well… sorry.
The tricky part that I haven’t figured out is the random component. It might need an unpredictable human element. Something that can’t be figured out from the code, but rather makes the economics a bit of a guessing game. Should you borrow LIBS with the expectation that there will be a ton more LIBS to pay back the loan in the future, or do you HODL LIBS because they will be worth more (or the same) in the future? How many LIBS will there be? Hell, how many LIBS are there? It seems like the modern economic theory depends on this guessing game.
To complete this project, I need to find 536 individuals, called Preshousenators that, in the aggregate, know very little about economics who can determine how much should be taken from the hodlers and given to the governance mechanism. These individual’s jobs will be incentivized by how much the governance mechanism has to spend, so they’ll want as many LIBS returned as possible. They vote and say how many LIBS are removed from each account each year. Or, if they want LIBS hodlers to do something, they can choose to reduce the amount taken if the hodler does what they’re asked. The rules can change at any time, and the 536 Preshousenators change every four years or so, just to keep LIBS hodlers needing to anticipate future rule changes. All part of the fun.
Sure, these modern theories sound odd, but who can argue with the academic credentials of those espousing and benefiting from this modern experiment?
This is satire. I shouldn’t have to label it, but I fear some readers may be too indoctrinated to recognize it as such.