From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
My name is Patrick Paquette. I am a software and system developer in Canada.
I've registered to the site as it was the best I was able to find that would help me publish an idea that is preventing me from sleeping at night.
I feel that the monetary system is broken. I've come up with an idea using the systems and software development methodologies I've learned in my career to provide an alternative to the monetary system, and in doing so came to realize that not only was I addressing the issues of the monetary system, I was also coming up with an implementation of a direct democracy, and in particular, a collaborative governance.
NOTE: This is the initial 'brain dump' of this idea, but I have since moved it to my server and am attempting to simplify it's consumption. Registry THIS IS INCOMPLETE, and some of the ideas have changed.
The problem and proposal
What follows is the definition of a system to replace the monetary system with one that utilizes the power of human nature to bring us closer towards the society the majority of people desire.
Think out of the box - the 2 axioms of the registry
- Given two equally valuable utilities, the time it took to bring the utility into existence is the common commodity
- Provide incentives or deterrents to the members of the registry by introducing imbalances in its transaction such that the cost (in time) to the individual receiving the utility need not equal what is paid to the individual providing the utility.
What The Registry does
The registry is like the banking system today where everyone has an account, except they are allowed to carry an interest free negative balance up to an amount based on the risk factor allowed by society. (This negative balance is now obsolete)
The registry takes the rules defined democratically by society and the time it took all members of society to bring a utility to existence agreed upon by the members of a transaction to compute the cost paid by the consumer and price paid to the provider.
An implementation of the registry for a resource based economy
What follows is an implementation of the rules when society decides that they would like to live in a Resource Based Economy:
Equation for each transaction
Cost to consumer = T/S + C
Paid to vendor = RQT + C
S = Supply for a utility
T = Time agreed upon by members of the transaction representing the time it took by the owner to bring the utility into existence. It can not be more than the time that has been registered towards the utility since the vendor registered the onwership/existence of the utility.
R = 0..1 to represent resources society defines as scarce
Q = A quality factor applied by the consumer whether it was a quality product.
C = Cost of Goods - the amount paid by the vendor for utilties that were required to bring the utility into existance.
Equation for gifts
Cost for consumer = X
Paid to vendor = X - (some number * number of bidders)
so that as the number of bidders go up, money is destroyed, but allow gifts from loved ones so that if bidders = 1, Paid = Cost
Resource Based Economy rules derivation
These rules provide:
A deterrent for purchasing utilities that are currently in short supply, but an incentive to produce them.
A deterrent on producing utilities with resources that are scarce
An incentive to produce an overabundance of quality goods for each individual
The registry will provide a means for direct democracy by providing individuals to:
State something is in demand
State the quality of a transaction you were a receiver of as either high or low quality
Propose any changes to the system.
Propose new infrastructure projects.
Vote for existing infrastructure projects by committing your time, the cost of which is a function of the projects popularity.
This is the high level design of the system. Follow the links to read more about the derivation of the design and examples of its implementation.
I'm asking the world to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about so that I can sleep better at night under the realization that there is no solution to the worlds problems that I can offer and I can stop working on building this system.
If you can't find anything wrong with this design and I've seeded your ambition, please let me know, play the game I'm working on publishing, share this page on social media, and/or try to find someone who can find something wrong with this.
This sections details the thought process which derived the implementation of the Registry.
What's wrong with what we have now?
What does it mean when a pair of individuals in a transaction state their own price on a utility? They are, essentially, deciding how much of the producers time is worth to society for that particular transaction.
Most are in business to make money, this is part of human nature. This is not necessarily a bad thing - it's just the rules of the game we have now does not promote sufficient abundance for everyone, it's just to make money. There is nothing stopping a vendor to overcharge for a utility that everyone wants, when they could have chosen to make more of them and charged less - there is actually an incentive for them to do this as it reduces their risk. Companies do their market research and forecast how many they could sell at certain prices - they sometimes purposely charge more to give the impression that the utility is of better quality. They set the price to make the most money. Once the price is set, it typically doesn't go down until the next big thing to supersede the utility is built (the next model car, or the next phone model, for example). Once they've saturated the market, what does that mean? That means only those who could afford the utility have purchased it. The only way to bring more money into the business now is to lower the price, or purposefully use techniques like planned obsolescence, or hold back a technology for the next model.
What if, the way to make more money was instead of setting the price optimally, you simply sold and produced more of them? To sell more you would have to keep your costs low (so people could afford them), but that would also reduce how much money you make, because in our monetary system, paid = cost for all transactions. This is where we can introduce an imbalance to make the incentive be to produce an abundance of quality products for everyone - when something is of high abundance, the cost to the consumer is less than what is paid to the provider. When something is scarce, it cost more to the consumer.
How is the registry better than what we have now?
What is money? Money is just a number. When you have money, it represents your ability to request services or goods from society (which the registry calls utilities). When you owe money, it represents you owing utilities back to society.
Since the registry uses time as a common commodity, the cost of everything falls back to a fair baseline that everybody understands. Everyone knows what an hour of their time means to them. Inflation does not exist in the registry as we know it in our economy because it prevents individuals from stating the amount of time something took to bring into existence to be more than the amount of time that has actually elapsed.
So now the definition of this 'money' number can be rewritten to state: When you have money, this represents your ability to request some amount of time to be spent by society in the creation of a utility you desire. When you owe money, it represents your commitment to providing your time to society.
How much is one individuals time worth compared to another? Also, why is it this exchange of time need be zero sum? In economics, it's fundamental that in every transaction, you must have debit = credit. This is where we all have to think a bit out of the box - why is it this way? It's this way because of physical money, and that we think of it as something physical like water or a pile of coins, but it doesn't need to be. When a transaction occurs in todays economy, someone literally gives someone else a note representing the value of the transaction. We had no means of introducing an imbalance with paper money, technically, because that's all we had and it seemed fair. We have the technology today to make these transactions have imbalance, on purpose. This is where the power of the direct democracy of the registry starts. The people decide what is important to society. Whatever the people decide, this is translated to an imbalance in every transaction to either provide a deterrent or an incentive. This imbalance, in turn, can be thought of as stating that the time of the individuals involved in the transaction on a particular utility is either worth more or less than with some other utility.
What happens when you introduce an imbalance in a transaction? Let's take a look at two cases:
The time you have to pay for something is more than the time it actually took to bring the utility into existence:
This deters individuals from purchasing the utility and from producing it (because it's less likely for the transaction to occur)
The time you get paid for something is more than the time it actually took to bring the utility into existence:
This promotes individuals to produce the utility. It doesn't change the likelihood of it being purchased
So now it just becomes a question of asking society - what kind of world would you like to live in?
Resource Based Economy
A good definition can be found on Wikipedia about a resource based economy (RBE). The Registry will help satisfy one of the requirements for the existence of RBE, which is to provide high abundance of all the needs of the society. Once the RBE is in place, only the features regarding collaboration and trust will be used by the Registry, and perhaps for managing the resources which are scarce and for managing the service industry, as the RBE defines that there will be no need for money - but I feel this is optimistic. This is equivalent to the Registry being used to the point where the needs of the society are so low in cost and so high in paid that to satisfy all the needs of everyone in society would only require a small number of people only a handful of hours a day/week/month or even year.
The design of the equation in the registry is setup so that there is incentive to produce as much as you can until the supply goes sufficiently above the demand that the utility in question is provided to everyone in the registry who demands it. This occurs because of the introduction of the Quality factor on the Paid side of the imbalance, and the maximum function of the paid equation. Here is a simple example of a transaction that shows this incentive.
Once the registry is in place, it will very quickly move to a society where there will be a sufficient abundance of supply to meet everyone's basic needs, and they will be cheap. The things which are not yet of high abundance will gradually become of high abundance as the automation and infrastructure is built as part of the incentive to do so. Until then, those commodities which are in high demand but the supply is low would cost more to the purchaser, making it more likely that those who contribute more towards where society desires itself to be will be able to afford them. This is implemented as a deterrent in the cost as a function of Demand over Supply.
Similarly, to provide incentive for people to produce goods that are in short supply, the price paid to the producer is also a function of Demand over Supply.
The current formula does satisfy the needs of the many, but does not correct the issue regarding planned obsolescence or holding back technology, but the reader can envision an incentive or deterrent to promote long lasting products - like a life expectancy/shelf life that if not met results in a cost, or a payment to the supplier once the life expectancy is reached. I feel, however, that because there is more value is providing equity on purchased resources for resale value, people will prefer long lasting goods and give a high Q factor for them.
The formula does provide a means for the members of society to decide that certain resources are scarce and that continuing to use the resource should be discouraged. This is the R factor in the paid equation.
What is human nature - it's not all about money!
What is the difference between ambition and greed? People can be ambitious for things that do not directly effect them because they feel it is important. People who are greedy are those who want things for themselves above other people. Every individual has a certain level of ambition and greed. Those who are ambitious and greedy will do everything they can to get what they want. People who are not ambitious but greedy will do the least amount of work to get the most of what they want for themselves above others. Those who are ambitious but not greedy will work towards things that satisfy what they feel is important to them that doesn't necessarily effect their own well being, so long as if their minimum needs are met. Those who are neither ambitious or greedy simply are happy (or sad) enough that there is nothing worth striving towards for them and either all of their needs are satisfied sufficiently, or they have lost all hope for any improvement.
The registry is designed in such a way that those who are ambitious and greedy are not destructive towards bringing the society as a whole closer to it's common goals. Those who are ambitious but not greedy can continue to do what they do today, and can also contribute their excess 'time' towards the common goals. Those who are greedy and/or not ambitious will be able to have a standard of living much better than in today's monetary system.
With these definitions of greed and ambition, what does it mean to want to make money? This translates to greed, obviously. However, now instead of taking advantage of people who are not ambitious enough to meet their basic needs, we are instead utilizing the ambitious and greedy people to satisfy the needs of everyone, as opposed to just themselves.
Questions and Answers
Can I have a simple example of getting paid more than the cost?
Today, I can build a bicycle by purchasing material from Bob and putting it together. It takes Bob 2 days to collect enough material for 40 bikes, and he posts the offering in the registry as 40 bike raw materials in 2 days. This makes the highest T that Bob can publish for a single bike be 1/20. I can make 1 bike a day with Bobs material, so each day I go to Bob and buy enough material for one bike. Initially, I pay T and Bob receives T = 1/20 (assuming there is no information about demand or supply). The Registry will allow me to state whether I like the utility Bob is providing once. If I like Bobs product, then Bob receives a one time factor of Q multiplied by the time it took him to produce all of those units. Let's say the Q factor in society is 0.2 - this factor would be defined by society through the direct democracy. It is dependent on the implementation of the registry - perhaps we can let the consumer set the quality factor up to some upper limit, but this is a detail of the implementation. This would mean Bob gets paid and extra Q * T = 0.4. Lets now assume another individual purchases bike raw materials, this time enough for 2 bikes. Bob would get paid an extra 0.4 as he's now satisfied 2 individuals needs (even though they've purchases a different number of units). If, subsequently, I was to purchase another set of bike materials from Bob, he would not receive the Q bonus as I've already stated that I've liked the product. These rules can be adjusted based on application of appropriate incentives, but this is the design of the initial implementation for the quality factor.
Note that the more people you satisfy with high quality good, the more your time is treated as more valuable.
What about the product line?
Resale: When you purchase something from someone, and either make a modification to it or simply sell it, you can charge up to the price you paid to purchase the item to cover your costs. This propagates down the product line until the offset is only the time it took you to bring the utility into existence, at which point you can apply the current demand for the utility on top of the time YOU spent towards providing the utility (not everyone down the line). An example could be assembly of parts, or simply delivering an item to someone. Using the bike example above, I would be able to sell my bike for 1 + 1/20 T as it took me one day to assemble the bike, and it cost me 1/20 to purchase the bike from Bob. If the demand for bikes was 3, I could charge 3 + 1/20 T (note: the 3 is only multiplied to the time I spent, not the cost of goods).
Isn't there an inflation because of the imbalance?
Inflation is the result of a change in the supply/demand of utilities that causes people to request more money from the Federal Reserve, devaluing the base unit of the currency as people are able to charge more because people are willing to pay. This doesn't occur in the Registry, as all transactions fall back to the baseline definition of an individuals time and someone cannot charge more than their time towards a utility - if you want to make a profit, there are options like today: Work in a high demand utility, get more eople to like you, don't utilize resources that are deemed scarce, and buy utilities that are in high supply to keep your costs low. When the things that cause inflation happen in the registry, this just forces people to move their time from one utility to another as it's base cost has gone up. Deflation occurs when the efficiency of the production of a utility increases.
Since the value of an individuals time is a baseline, what happens when you introduce imbalance in the transactions?
When you make the price of a utility more than the base unit of time paid, you are stating that an individual has to contribute more of their time in order to purchase the utility than the individual who made it.
When you make the price of a utility less than the base unit of time paid, you are stating that an individual doesn't have to contribute as much time as the producer in order purchase the utility.
People are going to very quickly have enough money to meet their basic needs (including housing) by working a very little amount. In fact, I suspect it would be possible to survive in todays economy by not working at all quite happily, better than you would if you were on welfare. Those who do work are the ones who would be able to afford to get more of luxurious things, save up for a large investment or for when they get sick, or they can choose to contribute their surplus towards major infrastructure projects that are within their 'price range' based on the projects popularity and what they want done.
However, because money is being created for every transaction that has a supply > 1, there needs to be a means to keep the money supply under control or else people will stop needing more of it, and therefore stop working. To do this, we have to provide means of destroying money.
This happens with the R factor, and every time a special type of transaction occurs that has the sole purpose of pursuading an individual to choose you over someone else - the gift.
What about innovation?
One might ask how someone with an innovative idea would get their initial capital from. Recall that everyone can carry a negative balance, as a start. Secondly, you can post a proposal for an implementation of a higher level need of society and if its popular enough, this could be the seed of the initial capital.
For any project, various different implementations could be proposed, and each of them worked on by multiple providers. They could all get paid from society, their competition fuelling the innovation for getting the most 'likes' when the product is complete.
What about intellectual property? This would be represented like a large project. When someone has an idea, they can propose it on the registry. When it gets used, people who use the idea would take a portion of the time dedicated towards its inception (think pharmaceuticals) based on the demand and set their costs appropriately, until the entire time spent on the the R&D towards its implementation is consumed, after which the time is 'paid off' and it becomes a common knowledge technology. This would work like a royalty.
What about entertainment like music or television? This would be like an innovation - once the time spent to make the movie has been 'spent', it becomes free and open for anyone to entertain themselves, other than the time it takes individuals to distribute it.
Isn't this going to be a lot of overhead?
It is absolutely imperative that the implementation of the registry be designed towards simplicity. The Use Cases must be simple, the data readily and easily available. It must be responsive, and be open to change when limitations in the design are found. Integration with technologies used in transactions today could be utilized, like with NFC (Paypass for example) technology, or chip cards. For those who aren't fully engaged in the registry, they could be members of a group that shares the same desires as themselves, and they would take care of allocating any excess funds that individual is willing to contribute towards infrastructure projects. This isn't much different than investing your money in a bank today, or more particularly in stocks because with stocks your actually deciding what your investing in. For example, you could become a member of a group that allocates towards education, health and infrastructure, but not foreign aide or military.
How would 'committing your time' to an infrastructure project be implemented?
The registry will maintain a list of major infrastructure projects requested by its members. These projects are categorized in a hierarchy from high level concept, to particular implementation. The members can vote on one or more of these high level projects or implementations for whether they feel its a good idea. They can also collaborate on its implementation and become engaged.
They can also commit some of their account balance to any of these projects. Each project has a popularity based on what individuals have voted for. Projects that are more popular are 'cheaper' in the sense that a single unit of time you contribute becomes more paid to the individuals who produce the project. Once there is sufficient funds to start the project, members of society can use this as an account to pay them towards its implementation.
If the need is great enough (say, when there are sufficient votes), a rule can be defined democratically that essentially creates the money out of nothing once the major project is defined, or as it's implemented. This equates to everyone in society owing those who implemented the project their time, like a tax. This is just an example of something the people could vote for, but taxes are not required in this society.
Anyone can make a proposal for a solution to an infrastructure project. More than one member can be working on a solution as well, to provide competition. The members who contributed their time towards the balance in that infrastructure project can vote as to whether to pay the individual for their time to implement the solution. Its likely though that this role will be delegated to a reputable manager of some sort (like a civil servant) who's job it is to do this sort of analysis.
To prevent continual work towards something that never realizes anything, each proposal for a solution must involve iterative and incremental commitments. Only as commitments are met are the individuals paid, until eventually one of the iterations is accepted as a solution by the members, or it fails. Whether its voted as a success or failure effects the individuals reputation, which the registry will maintain and can be reviewed for future projects the individual wishes to bid on (as well as the successes). This provides an infrastructure to deter 'make work' projects, as those who produce little will gain little reputation, and are managed. There is also a deterrent to failure and this also negatively effects an individuals reputation.
What about 'the rich' having too much control?
The problem with being able to commit your surplus time towards anything you want, it provides those who are the richest a means of controlling what gets implemented. To prevent this non-democratic process, there could be a deterrent to deposit toward unpopular projects. As the popularity of a project increase, the price decreases. This would prevent someone who has a lot of 'time money' from creating a project for what they want done and dumping a bunch of their money into it.
Why can't I set my own price?
What does it mean when you set your own price? You are stating to society that your time is more valuable than someone else. Instead of leaving that decision up to the individual, we instead move that to the decision of society, democratically. This allows society to provide incentive and deterrents for things that society desires.
You can set your own price lower than the amount of time that has elapsed to bring your utility into existence, but you cannot increase it once its initially published. The way you do this is by publishing a time that was lower that it actually took you to produce the utility, which effects both sides of the cost vs paid equation. One can think of this as the individual devaluing their own time and donating it to the society. The only time you can increase your price is when the utility has been on the 'market' for a longer time than it took you to produce it, and you haven't published anything else on the market since. At that point, there is nothing preventing someone from taking that utility off the registry, and putting it back in the registry at the higher time. However, this is just indicative of a utility that is either of really low demand, the supply is really high and the quality of your utility isn't sufficient enough for people to buy that particular one, or there is insufficient advertisement of the utility. Increasing T doesn't sound like good business advice in these situations. However, it is fair to add more advertisement, which increases the time it takes to bring the utility into existence, and if it's advertisement paid to another individual providing that advertisement service, can actually increase the cost significantly. You would be allowed to increase the price in this situation, because the amount of time spent by the members of the registry to bring your utility into existence has actually increased.
Why the Maximum function in the Paid equation?
Without the maximum function in the paid equation, once we're at a state of abundance of a given utility, you would end up getting paid less for your time. This isn't fair, and acts as a deterrent towards our goal of overabundance. Once there's an overabundance, then it just becomes an issue of waiting for individuals (consumers) to actually initiate the transaction, which increases in likelihood as the supply increases because the utility becomes cheaper for the purchases, but the paid to the supplier doesn't change. However, a vendor cannot simply lower the price and expect to get paid the same amount he would have if he didn't. The only way you can lower your price is to publish a lower time, which effects both paid and cost. If there is an issue of spoiled utilities, this can be handled like everything else by providing a deterrent or incentive, if this is what the members of the registry want.
Let's take an example of groceries. A store has a stock of 400 containers of plums, the cost to the store was, say, 600 minutes (this is the total amount of time and Cost of Goods it took all the people to produce and shelf all these units, including the manager who is actually paying all these people to do this). I want to buy 2 of them. I take 2 to the counter, and start a transaction with the cashier. The transaction takes 4 minutes. Let's say the demand for cashiers is 3 (there are 3 unfilled cashier roles in the registry that are in demand by vendors). So the cost to me is broken down into the cashiers time plus the time for the goods.
Cashier: D=3 / S=1 * T=4 = 12 minutes Plums: COGS: D=2 / S=400 cans * T=(2 cans * (600 minutes / 400 cans)) 3 minutes = 0.015 minutes
Add the two: 12.015 minutes
Now, looking at the paid side:
The cashier would be paid 12 minutes for the 4 minutes of actual time (from a paycheck like today by the owner), and the owner of the store would get 3 minutes for the one transaction, because it's the result of:
MAX(D=2/S=400, 1) * (T=3) * (Q=1 for unknown) = 3 minutes
If I like the plums and the cashiers service, they would each get some Q factor (let's say, Q=1.2, so an additional 0.2) ontop of what they got paid = 12 * 0.2 for the cashier = 2.4, and 3 * 0.2 = 0.6 for the store owner.
Cost = 12.015
Paid = 15 if there was no Q offered by the customer, 18 otherwise.
Note how this actually created money in the economy. Imagine if the cashier was automated. Typically, the role of a cashier would have a demand equal very close to supply as it's a service utility that isn't very difficult, but it was set to 3 for the purpose of this example for when there are few people willing to provide a service. Think doctors, hospital waiting queues.
What role does the public sector or government have?
Recall that the registry allows individuals to make proposals on larger infrastructure projects, or issues with existing infrastructure projects. Each of these proposals can be voted on by the public, and debated on through the implementation of the collaborative governance tool (which the registry is a part of). Deciding what projects to work on is typically the role of the pubic sector, however this has now been moved to the citizens of the society through the direct democracy.
Some people may not be engaged enough to concern themselves with what is important, but can at least vote on the bigger issues, like - 'I feel that environment is important', or 'I feel that there is too much traffic in my city'. It need not be a vote on the particular solution, like 'Plant 1000 trees here', or 'Build a mag rail from here to here'. The public sector now exists as those who are engaged in their society, converting high level requests into tangible implementations that can be voted on by society to assign their popularity, or rank.
Government has a role just like a company does for things like enforcing laws, providing licenses, and managing audits on performance. But these things would only happen from the funds provided by those who state it as a project worth investing societies time in.
What about taxes?
There are no taxes. If you want something done, simply vote for it or commit some of your 'time money' to the infrastructure project, or if the project does not exist, create it and spread the word.
Let's take something that is typically a municipal service, like garbage pick up. A particular municipality will consist of several regional registries, representing the members of the region. They will collectively vote on how often they would like garbage picked up in their region, or they may choose to not vote at all and leave it to each individual to request their own required periodicity. Some members may want more, some may want less, but it doesn't matter. A garbage pick up company would look at this demand and provide it, and bill the individual members for the service based on the amount of time they spent servicing all the members of the community. If there are not enough garbage trucks or people willing to pick up garbage to meet the demand, the cost and paid will go up for that periodicity in that area. This will provide an incentive for those to meet that demand.
City maintenance - the people in your local registry can vote for an amount to contribute towards maintenance, similar to a condominium fee. It gives the members of a registry more tighter control of how much they value the upkeep of their infrastructure.
People will be members of multiple registries - local, regional, municipal, provincial, etc. They will vote on how important certain things are, and contribute their surplus money towards these infrastructure projects. The price of these infrastructure projects are a function of their popularity. Some examples:
local: Parks, street maintenance, garbage pickup, lighting, local power connections and maintenance
municipal: Municipal transit, power distribution, communications infrastructure, sewer, road maintenance
regional: Power distribution, inter municipal transportation, garbage storage/incineration
Provincial: Highway maintenance, regional transportation
Recall - the incentive is to satisfy more people with less time, so there will be large incentive make this work described above as automated as possible.
Let's take something that, in Canada, is a provincial service, like hospitals. People will have a demand for the availability of doctors. Being a doctor is, however, hard, so they will continue to be a high cost utility as they are today. But because people are going to have an abundance of time, they can afford to save for them when needed. It would be completely private, but this isn't a concern for society because everything is already so cheap.
In our representitive democracy, we give the decision on where our money goes to our representatives, and many people are willing to give up that freedom to people they trust to make those decisions for this. This becomes a service, like any other, where you give them your time-money and they distribute it on a percentage basis to various infrastructure projects, which is like a tax.
What is the risk factor?
Everyone is allowed to carry a negative balance. The banking system today has statistics they use to determine how much they loan to their customers, these same risk factors can be used to determine how low of a negative balance you should be allowed to go. The risk factor would be a variable set by the system administrators based on the risk factors elicited from the society.
Can I see an example of a transaction when demand is more than supply?
This may be obsolete as tracking demand is hard to do, but tracking supply is not.
First, we need to discuss how demand enters the system:
When someone requires a utility, the most convenient way to find it is to first look at the registry (think Amazon, or Yellow Pages). If the supply is already quite high and your willing to pay the published price, there is no worry, you simply order it or go to the distribution center (store) to pick it up (probably paying for it first). If there is low or no supply, or the price is too high for you to afford based on its anticipated quality or simply because it beyond your means, you simply state your intention that you demand it and the demand for that item increases. Whether an individual can 'pay' to have the demand for the item increase is currently under consideration (similar to how whether the consumer can set a range for a Quality factor or if it can only be set by society).
Let's take our initial example of making bikes using materials that Bob provides and the product line, and assume there is a short supply of bikes. If Sarah goes to buy a bike from me, and there are 100 people who also want a bike other than Sarah, it will be harder for Sarah to buy this bike. It will cost her 100 * (Cost Demand Factor) more than if there was no demand. The Cost Demand Factor would be an attribute set by the system administrator based on feedback from society about how important it is that the demand for a particular utility (or all utilities, simply based on demand) be handled. This could be a function on how rare the utility is, for example. The individual selling the utility would in turn get paid a different amount of 100 * (Paid Demand Factor) * Q. Paid Demand Factor would typically just be equal to Cost Demand Factor, but there's nothing preventing society stating in the direct democracy that there should be an incentive to produce more of a given scarce utility over another (like Doctors or Teachers), which would adjust this factor.
Let's assume that there was a supply of 50 bikes already, but the ones that are posted are too expensive for everyone based on their quality. 100 people state they want a bike but have chosen not to because of the value. The demand factor for bikes are now 100/50. Someone else comes up with a way to make more bikes in less time, or has so much free time on their hands they chose to publish a lower T for each bike. This makes those bikes affordable to those 100 people, and thet get sold with a higher demand factor.
How do we deal with competition over a high demand utility if we can't set our own price?
When there is more than one customer who wishes to purchase a utility, typically our existing monetary system allows the purchaser to offer a higher price for the utility than what was initially posted by the producer. This can go back and forth between several customers until one finally offers a price too high for all others - think auctions, or competitive bids for a house.
In the Registry, just like how a supplier can publish a lower T to be competitive or remove an obsolete stock quickly, a purchaser can also choose to pay more for a utility that is in high demand, but not by giving the supplier more money, but by giving the other individual who also wants the utility more money - a supplier cannot request a price that is higher than T. This does not, however, translate to more cost of goods to the owner, as the utility you are purchasing is not the utility itself, but the turn. Money is used now to determine who's turn it is to use a utility which is scarce. This increases the incentive to make more money, as money retains its bartering power. But, that extra money is a gift to who is "giving up their turn", and is not affected by the formula (cost of goods, for example).
ARGH! THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK. People are going to get their friends to offer other prices, then given the supplier the extra money, which becomes equivalent to people setting their own price. I need to think about this a bit more.
This also address the issue of when the supplier does not wish to provide a utility that they are able to
What about monopolies or oligopolies?
One flaw with this implementation of a monetary system is that if you hold a monopoly for a utility, you can choose to withdraw your production to increase it's demand and get paid more for your time, as you have no competition to attempt to put its utility on the market before you do. This also translates when just a few large corporations own an oligopoly of a utility and they coordinate their efforts to produce less to drive the price up by the increase demand in producing less.
When there is sufficient competition in the economy, this shouldn't be a problem. However, if it does become a problem, the members of the registry have a means of defining the rules of the registry to provide the right incentives or deterrents to prevent this. Someone in the registry can state that this is a problem and requesting a solution from the members, which will get voted on like everything else. One such solution would be to have a task force created to monitor this problem, like the auditor general today. They could audit the corporations and impose they reduce their T factor from their findings as a sort of fine, if they discover that the company was intentionally reducing their production rate.
This problem exists in the monetary system today, it is no different. With the registry, there is an avenue for the people to solve the problem.
How does a bank fit into all of this?
How do we implement this?
The plan is to validate the algorithm in a simulation using social networking games (JazzHub). Once the algorithm is fleshed out (figuring out what factors to apply for Q, Demand/Supply paid/cost factors), several avenues to access the registry will be created. Apps on all popular cell phones and web access will first be integrated. Social media will be used to spread the word in an attempt to start up several registries in small localities. A design to integrate the existing monetary system into the registry will also be implemented (design pending). As popularity increases once the locals start increasing their production rate, other members will join local registries, start their own, or aggregate. The hope is it will go 'viral', and the governments will see the benefits as well and start taking control and regulating it.
What about people who are at the top who won't like this registry?
This is still an open market. You can still get rich by working hard, the good old american dream. The game has changed, but you can still be a winner - it's just the winner won't only be you, it will be all of society. Those who are at the top and satisfying the needs of society will stay at the top. Those who are not providing a lot of value to society will not be able to make the same living in the registry, and may not like it. It is my hope that the registry will 'become viral' before they have a means of destroying the idea entirely. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted my name.
What about corruption?
System Administrator: There will be people who are like civil servants who will be responsible for maintaining the registry. It will be their job to determine the factors used to derive the right incentive. These people must be public, accountable, educated and have a high reputation. Like today, there are certifications to follow. Perhaps the amount they get paid is a function of their performance: When people state a demand, they propose an adjustment to the registry to provide the right incentive. They collaborate, coordinate, vote, just like in a representitive democracy today, on the adjustments to make to the registry to meet the proper incentives. Once they agree on the rules to adjust, they state the expectation. If the expectation is met, they get paid more. If they don't perform their expectations, they can be voted out (just like in todays representative democracies).
Hackers: There are people in the world who are very clever at finding holes in the software systems today to try and steal information from people. The whole incentive to do this is typically to make money by selling the information. Therefore, the software on the registry should be completely open source. You should be able to publish a flaw in the software and if you can demonstrate the volunerability, 'time money' is created and granted by the administrators (who are or have access to technical authorities on the software). There are no rewards for hackers in todays economy. In fact, virus scanning companies actively hire these people to find vulnerabilities to increase the demand for their product. In the registry, you could make a living (depending on the quality of the software that the registry is run on) by improving it's security, or finding people who are taking advantage of it. The registry's security would be self policing.
What are the problems of the world today that this can fix, and how?
Poor: There are a lot of people living below the poverty line, not being able to satisfy their basic human needs. Providing a society of high abundance will solve this problem.
Unemployed: Some people are poor because they are unemployed. Everything that is important to everyone will be really cheap in this economy, meaning you only need to work a short amount to meet your basic needs. Also, if you are inclined to work, it will be easier to do so as the registry posts everyones needs, and provides a very convenient means to publish what you can offer.
Health: There are a lot of people who are sick because they don't have their basic needs met, or are due to stress (particularly heart disease). In a society of high abundance and a feeling of more control, there should be less stress and therefore less unhealthy people because of stress.
Debt crisis: A majority of our tax dollars are contributed to paying down debt. This debt is artificial, a result of an improperly balanced and implemented monetary system. There should be no significant debt in this system.
Crime: Because everyone's basic needs are satisfied, there will be less incentive for criminal behaviour to get the things you need. I say less because there will still be people who will try and do unmoral things to satisfy their greed that the registry currently doesn't provide high abundance of.
Trust: There's less incentive to backstab anyone because your basic needs are provided
Purposefully withholding information or service based on contracts: there is incentive in today's economy to charge more when customers make mistakes on things like design drawings, requirements, or anything else that a provider can use to bill the client. Since now it's all based on time, and you get more by satisfying more people, there is now an incentive to work more efficiently/collaboratively.
What about laws?
Judges still exist. Police still exist. We will need to introduce new laws to prevent corrupt and immoral behaviour of the registry, just like with our existing monetary system. This system hasn't changed that. Corrupt and immoral behaviour typically occurs when there is no other alternative.
I have no idea how the world works - how could I possibly contribute?
The world is a complex place. No one person could possibly understand it all. So how could we expect the entire population to make the right decisions on what should get done?
You don't need to dictate the solution to anything - just the problem, or particularly, the requirement. Basically, if you have something to complain about that's bad enough that you would be willing to commit some of your time to it, then post it, vote for it, and/or contribute your excess 'money-time'. This will provide incentive to have someone else come up with a solution to that problem.
Another reason why there are categories:
What if somebody posts onto the infrastructure projects something that is ludicrous, but genuine, like "I want everyone to be able to have their own jet plane". With the existing technology, the amount of physical manual labour put into the production and certification of aircraft is staggering, and is why it's not cost effective for everyone in todays monetary system to have one, as well as in the Registry. However, because infrastructure projects are categorized, this will trace back to a higher level requirement about being able to conveniently and quickly travel from one place to another. There are much more effective ways to implement this than giving everyone a plane (think automated mag rails).
What about when a supplier does not wish to provide a utility?
What does it mean for a utility to have value? Looking at a particular instance of a transaction, a utility has value when the consumer wishes to purchase the utility from a supplier who does not wish to provide it. Therefore, the value of a utility is relative to the individuals involved in the transaction. There are several reasons why a supplier would not wish to supply the utility:
1. There is danger or risk in doing so, either physically or to the suppliers reputation
2. It is uncomfortable or boring to do or make
3. The utility is enjoyable to the supplier and there is not sufficient abundance.
4. There is something about the consumer that the supplier does not like (morals, what they intend to do with the utility once they have it, etc.)
With the Registry's design of the monetary system, there may not seem to be a tool available to the consumer that will entice the supplier to supply the utility like there is in todays monetary system - by offering more money. If we allowed this, then the cost/demand equations above would skew the whole system. We can, however, introduce the notion of a gift. A gift is always even - no money is created on destroyed during a gift of time-money.
There are other tools as well - there is - advertisement.
As a consumer, if I wanted to entice a supplier to provide a utility, I could advertise it to the registry. This would increase the demand for the utility, which in turn increases the price of the utility. Which, in turn, provides incentives for others to provide the utility, other than the one supplier and competition will remove the remaining implediments to the transaction occuring.
Using advertisements does not address item #4 though. It is up to the purchaser in this case to either convince the supplier that they are worthy of the utility, or get someone else to buy it (possibly by advertising its worth on the registry) and then purchase it off them (which isn't possible for some types of utilities, like a service) - or, just offer the supplier a gift of even time-money.
What about utilities that no one else actually wants except for one or a few consumers?
For example - having a rare disease. There is more incentive for the high demand medical community to cure the diseases that affect more people. The only option the consumer has is to try and entice the supplier to supply the cure.
A means of enticing the supplier is to create a demand for the cure. One way to do this is to infect (or threaten to infect) other people. This is not very moral, would be illegal, but is none the less effective. If the disease is not readily contagious or the consumer (the person with the disease) is moral or does not wish to risk the justice system, the only alternative is to put your time money towards advertisement to convince society that it is worth saving your life. This will increase the demand for your life, a utility like any other, increasing the paid amount to the doctor who provides it - and makes for a more direct democracy of everyones time.
Another good example of this - requesting transportation to a place that no one wants to go other than you that is dangerous (another planet, center of the earth, bottom of the ocean). The only way to entice those who will get you there is to get the backing of the members of the registry by getting them to place a demand for it to actually happen.
Ways to bend the rules of the game to trick the system
When the supply is higher than the demand for a utility, the price goes down for the utility for the purchaser, but the paid is unchanged to the supplier. What's stopping two individuals from selling each other something that is high in supply, getting paid more than what it cost, then, selling it back again and getting even more money? Recall that when reselling something, you can only charge for the Cost of Goods, which was the price you paid, not the price received by the supplier. So you could only resell that thing for the price you paid plus the time it took you to perform the transaction.
What's stopping someone from lying about their supply to falsely bring their cost down (without changing what they get paid)? This is similar to the problem of someone stating it takes 3 days to make a pizza - people aren't stupid and they can call you on it. But, if you haven't posted anything on the registry for 3 days, and you try to sell a pizza, you can post it for 3 days and if someone is willing to buy it, well, ok then - but personally, I'd buy the one that only costs 20 minutes (so the problem is solved by competition). Also, you can only utilize that one Q in 3 days. The guy making a pizza every 20 minutes has many more opportunities to utilize Q. The guy who lies about his supply will, eventually, run out of the supply, and get caught - and if he doesn't want to, he better start working on making more of them, and not post the time on the registry (which isn't very good business smarts). If that number is significantly off, our legal system could come into place, and the suppliers reputation affected. But in the end, more people were able to get the things they wanted for cheaper (just not those with the most time money who should have been entitled), so it isn't so bad.
Giving time-money - can we do that?
Yes! Just like how someone can choose to publish a lower T for a utility than has actually elapsed, one can also give a gift, over and above the published transactional cost. However, this is a seperate, but linked transaction. The cost of goods is still what you paid, independent of the amount of the gift. The reason for this is the reason for utilizing the gift in the first place - to exercise your willingness to purchase a high demand, low supply utility, now, over another individual, at that moment in time. The equity of the utility will only be that which was published as its cost of goods.
What about ownership of utilities?
Every asset that merits tracking is done so in the registry, and has a time-money value associated to its value at the last transaction that occured on the utility. Anyone (or many people) can spend some amount of actual time making the asset better, and register their time towards it, increasing the assets time-money value associated with it. For example, one can purchase a rundown house, get a group of people together for 4 days to clean and fix it up, and publish everyone's time towards the Cost of Goods of that house, the value of the 4 days being adjusted for the current demand of manual labour in that registry. They could just as easily all have done nothing as well for 4 days and published their time, and found a gullable buyer for the house - however publishing time not spent would be illegal.
Each individual has a certain amount of their time invested in every utility (including infrastructure projects). If you have the majority percentage versus everyone else who has equity in the asset, you choose what to do with it - your vote is final. Can other members get together and take ownership of the utility? Yes - if they agree on an owner, someone can give their time-money equity to someone else and now that person makes the decisions. This has interesting side effects for renting. You cannot rent a house indefinately. Every time someone pays rent, they are first paying the time you put towards the unit since then, and then the remainder (if you choose to charge that much) goes towards equity in the building itself. If you charge so much rent that you lose too much of your equity, you lose control of the unit to the residents. But the resident who owns the most can still keep you as a landlord if they choose, but eventually, if the landlord runs out of equity, he can't charge any more rent than the time he's spent keeping the unit in maintenance for you. He can't kick you out anymore, because you own the house. You can also purchase (back) other individuals investments in any asset. You can also choose to sell your portion for lower than you actually have, if you are in the need.
What is interesting about this is that every utility in the registry has an asset value, and you can choose to give up that asset value to anyone else, if you need time-money now. This has the added benefit of providing incentive for produce high quality goods that last, as they would be more valuable than something that becomes obsolete quickly.
Only the person who ownes (has the most % equity) of the utility can approve adding time to the utility. For example, I can't add a pool to a house that I don't own but have 20% equity in in order to increase my time equity in it, which could make me the new owner.
What about intellectual property?
Not sure about this - but I'm leaving a place holder as a TODO.
How would loaning, or leasing, work?
You can loan anyone anything you want for the price of the amount of time it takes you to perform the service to actually go and loan/lend/lease the utility (paper work, delivery, clean up afterwards, etc). You can also choose to charge a bit more if you sell your equity in the utility (so long as the purchaser agrees, obviously). So long as the owner keeps a majority percentage over every other owner of the utility, they get to choose what happens to it. You can't just charge someone to use something that you own just because they need it, and expect the demand/supply factors mentioned above to kick in on that amount - but you can choose not to loan it to someone, and the other individual needing it can give you some incentive to give it up.
What I envision happening is a group of people in a local area will collectively purchase a shared utility, like a snow blower, lawn tractor, commuting vehicle, etc. One person may not have enough time-money to purchase the utility, but together they all do - and now they share that utility amounst themselves, and the person with the most invested has the final decision on where it goes. In these situations, if you don't trust your neighbours, you may want to not have one person have more than %50 or else the remaining owners would not be able to take control of the utility if they had to.
Do stocks exist?
What are stocks really? It is someones investment into the equity of a utility, which we've described above. However stocks have a price based on what people are willing to pay, which is affected by the money supply (inflation/deflation, etc). As mentioned above, anyone can sell any amount of their equity in a utility, and it's cost is equal to the cost of the last transaction of that utility, plus the time you've registered towards it, adjusted for the current supply/demand factor. You can choose to sell only a percentage of it, and if you still have a majority percentage compared to everyone else who ownes the utility, you own the utility still, but have less of it to sell later when you do sell it.
If something was in such high supply that it was really cheap when you bought it, and now you want to sell it because there is a run on that utility, you can only get Q factors to be a function of the amount of time you've registered towards the utility (managing the storage of it, maintaining it, etc).
If you have equity in a utility that has really low demand and you have no value in it for yourself anymore, you can publish it on the registry, as always. The T you can publish is only the time you've registered towards it, and the cost of goods when you bought it or spent as part of it's maintenance. Think of living in a house. Every time you improve your house, you register your time towards it. Every time you pay someone to improve your house, you add that to the cost of goods to your house. When you decide to sell it, the most you can publish is your time T, plus the current cost of goods, and you can publish lower if you wish for either (T, or Cost of Goods). An example of publishing a lower Cost of Goods would be depreciation, which is agreed upon by vendor and customer, usually through an appraisal service.
So with all this said, stocks are essentially just a record of the set of utilities and the percentage value of it you own.
What about employees?
Employee services are like any other utility, what gets interesting is when the utility the employees provide can be contributed towards the equity of a utility. The owner of the utility who is hiring an employee to help them make it can choose to pay them straight out, or in equity in the utility they are making. There is risk in this, as where the utility may never be sold, and the employee may not ever realize that time-money, like any startup.
Is there something like bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy happens when you don't have enough cash flow (utilities that people are willing to buy now) to meet your current demand of operating costs. What this means is the utility you are working towards no longer has sufficient value in society for the cost (time) you are producing it for (perhaps because someone else is producing something faster and or better). You can choose to sell the equity in your existing stock if you can find buyers, or hire someone like a trustee in bankruptcy to liquidate your assets for you. But because no one can owe any paritcular person anything (there are no banks, everyone can have their negative balance up to the agreed upon amount), everyone has already been paid off, so there's no issue about who gets paid what out of available assets. It's just there is going to be some people with a negative balance in their personal accounts (and possibly a lot). Society can decide to 'bail' them out through infrastructure projects (like someone who gets really sick with a rare disease), but now the decision is on society.
Efficiency factor (work in progress)
I'm exercising an idea called the efficiency factor. Each member of the registry will post the expected number of hours an individual is WILLING and ABLE to work each day in the registry. In any given day, you can only post enough hours towards utilities you own up to this amount (this does not include vacations). The remainder you do not use, you can allocate towards an infrastructure project, even one you own. This extra time can be used by the owners of those infrastructure projects to pay for their operating budgets, but when they pull that time out to purchase something and that utility has equity (it isn't a service or consumable), there is a portion of that utility that will be owned by the member who donated that time. What this means is if you are happy enough to survive off the time given to you by allocating this extra time towards the infrastructure project of keeping yourself alive, then you can freely live off of the current efficiency of society without any contribution made by you. This is similar to welfare. You are able to work, you choose not to because the likelihood of a utility you build being purchased is too low because the supply is sufficient in the economy. You can live off of your negative balance for a while, and this extra time, and either improve yourself to get more money out of society to work in a higher demand field (education, by pulling out of an infrastructure project to have better doctors, farmers, whatever), or just enjoy life.
If you choose to work overtime, this essentially means you are working more than society thinks you ought to. You can do this, but you give up your ability to own equity in infrastructure projects. This becomes another incentive to be more efficient with your time.
The efficiency factor is directly related to how much time people are willing to work. The more motivated, ambitious and engaged society is in improving itself, the higher this factor will be. The more complacent, or satisfied with the existing economy, this number will be lower. If this number is extremely high, then the efficiency or resource supply of society has gone down so low that it is a lot more work to do the things society wants. Things like a large natural disaster, famine, drought, or a key strategic and dependent resource, like oil or water, has been depleted and there is much more work to do produce a high demand utility than there used to be.
The efficiency factor can be set by any member, at any time, by publishing what they are willing to do. If you choose not to get audited on this factor, its value is the average of those who have been audited in the registry. Think of it like this - I'm a carpenter, and I'm willing to work 40 hours a week. This week, I only had to work 20 hours based on the current demand, so I hold onto my 20 hours. Next week, there's an overflow, so I work a 60 hour week. It balances out. However, let's say that my efficiency has gone up so much (or carpentry in general), that I find myself with some extra hours left over I don't know what to do with (because there isn't enough work). I allocate those towards infrastructure projects. This represents efficiency in our system (things are breaking down less, more automation, etc). There is incentive to set a higher number, as it gives you more ability to invest that time in equity that may end up being sold to someone (or not, because of depreciation, bankruptcy, etc). There is also an incentive to set it to the right number - when you say it's lower than you're actually willing to work, you're removing your ability to choose on what society works on. When you set the number higher, you're saying society can afford more of your services than your willing to given. It becomes your tool of freedom.
What is freedom?
With all that is said above about how a society would manage it's economy in this registry, what does it mean to be free? When does the game end? To me, and I hope to the readers as well, freedom means when there are no significant barriers preventing anyone from getting what they want out of life and their perception of the world seems fair. Let's look at the first case - significant barriers. If I want something, there should be a means for me to get it that, if I know I perform well enough and follow the rules, I will get it. In todays monetary system, there is sufficient abundance of utilties but not everyone who deserves them can get them, because there is not enough work due to our level of automation - you HAVE to work to get anything in todays society, even though there is no need. Now the second - fairness. Why should I have to pay for something that I don't want - this happens when taxes pay for things that not everyone wants, like education when I intend not to have children, or to bail out banks that are 'too big to fail'. With the ability to choose the infrastructure projects you contribute your extra time towards, you are deciding for yourself what is important.
When the efficiency of society is so high and the utilties it demands are in such high abundance that the work (time) it takes to actually manage who gets what is more work than its worth, then we don't need the registry anymore, and we've reached a Resource Based Economy. Every balance in everyone's account, and various infrastructure projects, are so high, that it's just the will of the members moving it forward. Once we have such high automation that we no longer need the registry to manage it's economy, the game is over and we are all free. There will be such little work to do that people will volunteer to do it at will.
How do managers / employees work?
Every employee and manager is paid from the same infrastructure project. Managers provide services to their employees and their managers. Since they are supplying services to these individuals, they are the ones who deliver the Q factor for that manager, which has an interesting side effect of increasing collaboration. Managers and employees would act as auditors for 'time sheets' regarding the equity factor. CEOs are the owners (the ones who have invested the majority of time equity into) the infrastructure project, but can delegate that role as a service like any other.
How do wages work?
This is where it gets really weird - in today's economy, we have contracts by companies/people to pay a salary to an individual for work done over a certain amount of time and are paid by the hour based on what it is they do.
With the registry, these contracts would still exist, however the cost to the employer would be adjusted for the supply and demand factor as the employee must publish their service to the registry under the appropriate category. Let's take a high supply service as an example - a fast food worker, or a cashier. This would be high supply based on what people offer on the registry but have not yet been hired to do. Let's say I'm currently not working, so I post under 5 different categories of what I have experience for, or are willing to do, one of them being a cashier. This increases the supply for cashiers. The employer could theoretically let go their current cashier and hire someone else - they can choose who supplies the service they need. As soon as that individual posts their service for a cashier, the price to all employers for all cashiers go down. As soon as a cashier is hired, the price to all employers for all cashiers go up. In all cases, the amount that a cashier gets paid stays the same - so long as supply is greater than demand.
Let's consider a low supply service, like doctors. Whenever someone puts a request on the registry for the services of a doctor, and it is not provided, that increases the demand for all doctors. When I say not provided, I mean the transaction never happens, or, particularly in the case of doctors, is delayed to some future date (the date of your 'service' appointment). When the demand increases and it is more than the supply, the cost to the consumer and the paid to the provider both increase.
How do we determine supply and demand?
Everybody gets the same hours everyday, like an unconditional basic income. Whenever you want something, you search the registry for it and commit to purchasing it, either now or in the near future. The registry can then provide a list of which vendors supply the utility near you. You can choose to go get it yourself or have it delivered (where delivery is yet another utility). If they are too far away or too expensive for you, but you still want something in a particular price range that isn't available, you can state it as a demand with a price tag. The system may (if the data is available), provide alternatives to that utility. By stating the demand at a certain price, that number you stated is added to all the other individuals who want that utility who cannot get it right now because the cost is too high or it is too prohibitive to get (too far away, for example). As it increases the demand, it also increases the price for you immediately, and for everyone else. However, since you can't afford it anyway, it's no different to you but what it does do is provide data to the suppliers about how many they SHOULD make to get the price low enough so that you would eventually purchase it, or, to get the utility in an area where it isn't (to reduce it's Cost of Goods).
Once you've committed to purchasing the utility by a particular vendor, the price to you and paid to the vendor is determined, based on the number of utilities of the same type in the same area that you purchased it. Until the utility is actually in transit or in your arms, someone else can request the same utility in that area, and trump you - the demand for the utility is increased until its delivery. Let's say, you reserved the last utility in a local store, and it is still on the shelves - you decided to reserve the price before someone else does so you state the demand in the registry - you realize that the store is on your way to wherever you're going anyway so decide to travel to go and pick it up yourself, as opposed to hiring someone to deliver it. It isn't owned by you until it's actually in transit or you pick it up - which means another individual can request that same utility - it will be more expensive for that other individual since the demand has gone up (by you committing to purchasing it), but the supply hasn't changed yet because you don't have it yet - so this now becomes something like an auction - while enroute, you could be notified that someone has usurped your bid - how important is it that your reservation be held? You can then set an upper limit for your bid, just like in an online auction - which is essentially stating how much of your time this utility is worth to you. This same process is done for utilities still in production. Think things that are scarce like concert ticket seats, or beach front property - or utilities that take a long time to build or produce based on when people want them, like when there is a storm that takes off everyone's shingles in an area and there is only one roofer around. Another perfect example is for services supplies by few that are booked well in advance through appointments - like doctors, MRIs, highly dangerous or technically difficult jobs. Money now has more power because it decides who goes first.
Aren't we printing a bunch of money doing this? Won't it lose it's value?
You may think that because we 'print money' every day, the value of money is lost - in the registry, it is used to decide who goes first for utilities that are in high demand - this is typically not done in todays economy because we still use a first come first serve system for a lot of things (particularly services). First come first serve seems fair, but if we change the rules, it provides much more incentive to work. The real world is not a childs game - 'I was here first!' doesn't always work, but without any other information about who is entitled to the scarce resource, it's the best we have. Those who provide a high abundance of utilties everyone needs, or supply the utilities that are in high demand, are entitled more than those who supply things utilties that are not.
Think about this. You're standing in line for something, there's a huge line up. You see there's a line mediation service provided (or, there isn't and it's just an app on your phone). There's someone who's ahead of you who started his offering of his spot 10 minutes ago. Everyone in line has done it, and the "cost of goods" for that spot goes up the closer you get to the end (since the time has gone up). You can choose who you want to switch spots with. As each spot in line is it's own category, the supply and demand for each place in line would be 1, so there is no money ever created during these transactions - unless you have a bunch of people wanting to be first in line.
You may think people would take advantage of this by just sitting in line without actually buying anything, but you're in a line, and someone can mediate it. People can see you, and call you on it (it would be a socially unacceptable thing to do). In a digital line (bandwidth usage, for example), the service provider can manage accepting payment to get more bandwidth over someone else, at any given time. Netflix is slow, and you need that show on now or your kids go bananas? Dump some money in, and it won't be. Someone who doesn't care if their movie is slow right now can publish a lower cap (or quality cap), and get paid for it.
The same can be done by putting RF Id chips on cars, with sensors on highways. We could capture load metrics on a highway (which represents the supply). Every time you take a particular offramp, the supply goes down, every time you get off, it goes up. Big sign on the onramp displays the current rate. Go.
Advertising and your time
So we've said the value of money is time. What about forced advertising? You're paying for a streaming entertainment service, and your provider forces you to watch advertising. This would be illegal, as you've paid for the entertainment, not for the advertising. If you didn't pay for the entertainment (think data on the airwaves that have no consumer control), you get what you get. As someone who wants to get the word out on their product, they need to take people's time away from whatever it is their doing and get them to pay attention to their advertisement. To be continued...
Loss of Cost of Goods
Sometimes, you buy something that is used as part of an assembly of utilities, and lose it. You cannot charge people for the loss. Ever. What is stopping you from saying you lost it because you consumed it? Nothing. Therefore, it is imperative that the accuracy of the supply information be correct and current, particularly when a loss occurs. If a gain occurs in supply that isn't registered, this is less bad. But if someone is saying that their supply is higher than it actually is, and this value is audited to determine that it is not the case, it is up to the supplier to purchase extra units at cost immediately, without entering into the system as COGs.