BUX (Be yoU eXchange) is a zero-cost exchange (ZCE), or a no-cost, non-commodity currency/exchange (NCC), designed to promote value in creating sustainably. No cost means no usury, demurrage, fees, interest or tax. Usury means any interest on currency, not exorbitant interest, as modern definitions allay you to believe.
BUX shifts the idea of profit from quantitative purchasing power – wealth through commodity accumulation – to qualitative purchasing power – wealth through experience accumulation. The bank is in the hands of participants with accounts. There is no central institution distributing currency as a reward for work. BUXB simply records transactions as agreed by participants in a blockchain with redundancy to secure it. It also pays participants as peers when being educated.
- 1 CURRENCY EVOLUTION
- 2 GOVERNANCE AND THE BUX BANK (BUXB)
- 3 EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ACTION FOR CHANGE
- 4 HUMAN NATURE AND ENVIRONMENT
- 5 CURRENCY AND CULTURES
- 6 IMPLEMENTING BUX
- 7 EXPONENTIALS IN USING BUX
- 8 COMPARISONS TO OTHER CURRENCY MODELS
- 9 FURTHER READING
Current exchange models are built on purely scarcity/compromise based paradigms, the core of this is based on fear-based game theories such as The Prisoners Dilemma. The invitation of winner take all becomes inherently destructive. We are witnessing this today more than ever with the problems of business inefficiently using resources to create commodities to obsolescence.
The ultimate commodity has become money itself, which arguably now uses more energy than ultimately all physical commodities combined, made all the more prevalent by the burgeoning ICO, payments, and now the re-emergence of classic trading markets, derivatives of usury or debt-based currencies (DBCs). All of these focus on commodity, neglecting the inevitable flooding of money available to be speculated on, to the point of being another bubble to crash.
There are 4 basic parameters that define how people will use an exchange model:
- Amount creation and availability (finite or infinite).
- Distribution method (connected or separate from work done).
- What it is based on (tangible or not, eg gold or work).
- Costs or not (usury, demurrage, fees, taxes, or none at all).
The basis of BUX is capitalizing on trust based game theory, leveraging the collaborative and educational aspects of human nature. This changes the framework from creating commodities to obsolescence to valuing experiences to redundancy: when experiences have reached their evolutionary capacity.
The only exchange model that can facilitate this must be neutral: have no commodity capacity; is only useful for exchange. Such a model values purchasing power, shifting status to creating sustainable quality. This demands a synergy with using resources as efficiently as possible to empower the most people as our creative capacity can.
That a currency has no costs is only part of the solution. What it is based on, the amount available, how it is distributed, who owns the currency, and how secure the platform is, all define how people will relate to it for what it can do for them. This also delivers what money really is: a transaction medium for wealth, not wealth itself.
The parameters of BUX are:
- based on all work created.
- all monies created through work are available free to exchange as communities see fit.
- monies are distributed as work demands; there is no need to create artificial scarcity.
- each BUX account is a bank in itself, ultimately making each person their own bank.
- the BUX app will be built on Holochain, a distributed blockchain network powered by each device the app is active on.
There are a few more details that define the distinction of BUX in comparison to other ZCEs, which are:
- people working for the bank are paid B60 per hour. B60 is the mean, but not fixed, salary for all jobs paid in BUX. Free markets will drive the charges down as competition for services produced increases (more people will shift to using BUX as its acceptance grows) inverting the current definition of the price mechanism is in DBCs: items of higher quality cost more.
- all people participating in any sort of education are all paid the mean B60 per hour, but this is also likely to go down as quality of education increases across the sector.
- BUXB will always be in deficit as it will have to pay for those working there, education. It does not need to produce any funds for work done as this is created by the people involved themselves. Any business entity that represents a group of people working together will in effect be the ongoing cumulative balance entity, of which book balancing will equal zero. Businesses are in effect co-ops that do not need to be bought into. This includes all core industries for an empowering lifestyle.
- BUXB does not need to pay back its deficit as it records, in essence, the increased volume of work being made in society (which will balance to zero), and its investment in education and administration to make this possible.
- The total cumulative volume of currency in the BUX economy has no influence on pricing. They measure 2 completely different things. The objective of measuring BUX is the amount of work needed do create levels out (which will never happen). Pricing volume will fall while accessing higher quality; the BUX price mechanism. There is no need to earn more to get more. People earn more by being known for their capacity to create the best as efficiently as possible, a true reputation economy.
GOVERNANCE AND THE BUX BANK (BUXB)
As part of the governance of the communities, the BUX bank (BUXB) is responsible solely to record transactions. The information is offers, however, is what communities really value in them, and what resources afford them being the best in creating something that benefits and empowers the most. The purpose of governance is to distribute this information. This is how people know what projects are being supported to follow their interests, where, and who are the best at them. It could be called a passion emanator.
The difference of the projects will be their focus on customizing experiences that empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible. Naturally preferred projects will recycle or reuse already minded or manufactured resources no longer needed, have modular manufacturing processes that can be moved or easily distributed or built for the most efficient production possible, and be reused again. Governance has no say in the matter for what is chosen as each community decides what is best for the self and the people. If few want the results of certain projects, it would be more efficient to travel to where they are made. If many do and is suitable for the location of where they are, those most adept and interested would bring the tech to the community to be produced.
What governance will do is resolve disputes through conciliation to empower the most people in that situation. As an example, a fully accessible algorithm could be created to ascertain what the best solutions can be ((not is) as guidelines for the best decisions to move forward.
Governance also conciliates for proposed infrastructure projects. There is no need for any decision to be based on growth and therefore work created of the sake of jobs servant to running an economy. The ultimate servant is the environment and balancing this with human creative capacity with synergy and respect for all people and resources concerned. This is excellence. This demands efficiency of all resources in kind, the highest ethic to follow.
In any proposed infrastructure project being accepted, governance need not find taxes to pay for it. The project is outsourced to the people that would be the most efficient to create it, most likely the people that proposed it in the first place, and those who have the best expertise who want to be involved will participate and be paid in kind direct by BUXB. The cost of the project is exactly the same as the work created to make it possible, for the most efficient, empowering, way to make it possible. With this modelling, people who use BUX are working for themselves doing what they lave at that time, to pursue as any interests as they wish, respecting self and others in kind, with as little compromise and no adjudication needed. This also allows a true free market that values sustainable creation to scale and eventually make any usury/demurrage currencies irrelevant.
BUX also uses a lot less energy to run, and innovates to use less energy as it grows. Why will this happen? Because there is no advantage to own the bank, no need to partner covertly for better results against others. Doing anything against anyone else will simply be inefficient, unsustainable, and destructive. As status can only truly be measured by the symbiotic quality created, purchasing power goes up as higher quality progressively costs less as more people primarily collaborate. Like sport, people will compete challenging each other for all to play better the next day to create the highest art that their projects are crested and supported for.
EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ACTION FOR CHANGE
Many people are fighting for more sustainable/regenerative change in many sectors that business inherently has to exploit to succeed. Business using usury currency has always been and always will be combative, built on covert partnerships to usurp power one way or another. Business has little choice with the debt-based currency (DBC) they, and we, surrender to use to live day to day the best way we can.
The fight has always been for politics to change it. This dynamic wastes an incredible amount of energy. As the framework for decision making is based on compromise due to induced scarcity and a focus on dominion, it invites leadership from the few to the many. This, by default, leads to delusions of power with inherently corrupt.
The list of despotic leaders who command through destruction has a long history, and so those that want the environment to rule are ultimately making careers fighting politics. Political economists inevitably support this framework, leading to repeated cycles of civilizations rising but ultimately falling, ad infinitum. Many revel in the success of the past, but to think innovation happened through politics is a misdirected belief. Politics extolls itself through many wasted and irrelevant monuments to maligned advancement, especially in war. Glorifying what is the most inefficient use of resources, the stress this delivers, for thinking ownership is power, is totally wrong.
The waste of energy in trying to leverage politics to change towards sustainable values is enormous. For all the work in asking politics to change, alternative systems are possible to implement at reasonable scales that can change how decisions are made. Examples are a farmers currency, a spiritual currency, a university currency, even a new city currency. What they are called does not matter; what does is the design that connects them all together to value qualitative sustainable experience creation across all sectors.
Using BUX shifts the focus to not just leading innovators that do not destroy, but creates a new economy that perpetuates this, not through the compromise of morals, but the desire to create excellence.
HUMAN NATURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Humans are the only species that has mastered and adapted to all environments on earth. Every other animal works with survival as best they can in habitats that support them. Humanity, in contrast, has made almost every habitat a home. Animals have one culture, we have many. This shows our incredible capacity to create. That is our abundance.
In the process, we have created stories around this, making these the new social rules. In that journey to security, those with the greatest talents and capacity do not always lead, leaving this to the wise, but perhaps not so active. And in this way, the most able give their power to a ruler of dominion in state, not in ability. Look at all the chiefs who may not be the greatest hunters, the best teachers, the best nurturers, be it in a tribe or a country. We all have talents, but a proof of wisdom is in a connected symbiosis of and with creation.
Humanity is the only one that puts a price on creations. What was shared limitlessly is objectified, made scarce for its own sake, like a brand of identity that has value against others, not with them. Unlike animals that have no price but live for the moment, a price on value devalues the ability, empowering less people, unless they have the money. This is the opposite dynamic of unlimited empowerment.
What happens is the journey to get better now fits in a box where money can be made, not empowerment. This externalizes the journey of reaching self-actualization, and so making it all the more difficult to get there, making the story itself of life trying to get there in frameworks that do not want you to. Over time, less manage to achieve it, until all is lost and civilization starts its cycle again. Aiming for self-actualization against ever increasing odds.
It is probably perceived that scarcity drives empowerment as nature is scarce. This story neglects that we can all have access to education to be empowered, creating in our own way, but has to be constructive, not destructive in any way. Very few are enamored for reaching this state of being, given the circumstances to achieve this. Gandhi is an example. More are valued for their capacity to exploit circumstances to live in luxury or in new ways of thought, within disempowering frameworks. It implies distinction to succeed is scarce. It isn’t.
In our journeys towards our own empowerment and self-actualization, adding a price to limit access to unlimited knowledge is oxymoronic. Nature, resources, are scarce, but our capacity to create is limitless. We are native creators. What matters is the framework we use to then define our status with what we create. Saying that it is human nature is half the story, if any story, as we adapt to any circumstances to thrive. We adapt to our environments, and are intrinsically motivated to do this. Any economic model of sustainable, now regenerative, values must align both humanity’s creative capacity and the environment they are in, not work them opposite each other, as usury currency does.
Trying to reach empowerment is not the main story. How we all connect creating with our empowerment is. Fear is an easy divide and conquer sell in a disempowering framework, with collaboration the poor defense against its rule. It is just a tool for understanding in a diversifying but connected way towards empowerment.
It is important to know we are born creators. This is how we define our distinction to others. However we choose to express this is always a selfish act of some sort because serving self and others, as we are taught to love ourselves and others, are aligned together. This is where true power is.
CURRENCY AND CULTURES
How much the way we exchange defines foundations of perceptions cannot be underestimated. Cultures within environments to survive and empower are immense.
It is easy to connect tribes living to their most abundant in a world they had little command of, but unlike other animals who wait for cycles in the environment to live, tribes did command. They built boats, tools, to hunt and cultivate. This becomes a culture of beliefs and habit. While animals live solely to procreate to sustain their species, humanity added a story to it, something bigger than itself. This took humanity out of the present, rationally looking for meaning beyond its capacity to thrive and dominate, not just over animals, but also over other tribes: to be the dominant bloodline. As almost all predator species do.
Coming from scarcity, to do this makes perfect sense. It would be easy to think that humanity would be always like this. Humanity, however, has scaled far beyond any other predator, enveloping the globe, no longer adapting to the environment, but changing it to fit a different type of organism, to be a total master. In this journey,
We always give more to those we trust. If we can trust the world, then we would give it the best it requires, in synergy with our best. This is the balance to aim for, not that of whether we will be be good or not. The arena we play in defines this, as fear-based game theory has demonstrated. In the fight for change towards empowerment, the core always centers on the weakest. As like attracts like (unlike magnetism, it seems), these ideas only empower the weakest, not the strongest.
This has been and is still perpetually manifest in those chosen to lead, most applying ideas of compromise where resolution was a better option. When survival is an everyday objective, as tribes do, there is no space for compromise for its own sake. It is only when civilizations grow out of scarcity that power as an object becomes a dominant measure of status.
Governing different tribes to work together is not easy when there is a danger of cultural loss and fear of access to resources, and yet it is in the diversity of cultures where humanity is at its strongest and mostly creative and where resources are used most efficiently. Instead of knowledge being shared for use in relevant environments to leverage abundance, it became an object of power, its own entity, based on scarcity and ownership, maintaining the maligned desire for war as a means of strength.
Add the perpetual scarcity of a currency model that bleeds energy from an exchange, and the scarcity never ends, becoming a culture of itself. The explosion of diversity in business models such as the systems around startups is strong evidence of this.
At scale, politics driving culture has become its own nemesis, glorifying itself but blinkered by who the real decision makers are: the banks. Excuses politicians make for their transgressions is beyond laughable, but in such an entrenched position of power supported by disempowering corporations, they don’t care. Political models do not seem to lend themselves to voting in rulers who identify with empowerment through the people, only by controlling them. Whatever systemic thought invites so many dictator-type leaders to be voted into power has to change. Revolutions become the dramatic consequence of this, only to go through it again. The problem becomes the frameworks to build any sustainable, perpetually collaborative, empowering change. If the tools do not work, change the tools.
A tool that has rarely changed in any fundamental inception is currency. It always has usury and is accepted to have it. This one imbalance affects the resolution of the rest. Instead of changing the story, we effectively create the same story in different ways, always perpetuating that for anything being created, there is a desire to malign it, and so corrective governance is always in place rather than new frameworks that afford nurturing governance, like those in P2P and direct democracy models. As progressive as they are, they also need currency models that allow these to scale, leveraging the empowerment of collaborative, excellent creation.
Any empowering exchange model also has to afford cultural diversity and creative abundance, valuing local synergies and symbioses as the decider for where resources flow. This changes governing paradigms as we know now, existing as the perceived failsafe towards human depravity.
There are certain fundamentals that will change across all applications of BUX, with different trajectories that afford change for the better. I will look at macro effects then micro situations to see how they all fit together.
There are core industry orbits that are ubiquitous in any social structure: food. clothing, shelter, tech, healthcare, and transport. To scale these are 2 core centers: education and energy. Anything else is subject to how empowering, or disempowering, these cares are managed.
The effects of these using DBCs in managing these is quite obvious in how they have been so destructive to Earth. It can be considered that all cycles, economical and societal, have been created by using DBCs. This is why changing the exchange model to a more empowering model use can have such a huge impact.
DBCs are inherently disempowering as they are built on fear-based game theory of human nature. This is why DBCs and power-based politics work together; fear is an easy sell to limit the reactions of people which makes that easy to decipher and act on. Both are built on corruptive foundations, delusions of grandeur, and power over others. This is also why many industries not only exist, but are bloated, in assisting with the compromise, such as:
- religions and cults
- sensational media
- advertising and public relations
Using BUX, the energy required running these sectors is reduced substantially, if required at all. The requirement to becomes moot. Using DBCs leads to compromises in ethics: not knowing whose to follow, and being caught, again, in the status of finding a solution, not effectively applying them. As BUX promote efficiency empowering all aspects involved, the ethic becomes creating excellence for self and all, which respects all people involved by default. Therefore, oversight to create excellence, what DBCs profess to achieve yet must be surveilled continuously, becomes virtually redundant.
BUX may have no cost, but the effects of such are anything but stagnant. Wealth is based on what is truly created, not an imaginary construct, and this is its strength.
Creating and Scaling New Communities
Using Dunbar’s number as a reference, 150 people would be selected to cover the 6 sectors of 25 people each. incorporated in that would be participant who owns a farm.
- The food sector will work on transforming the farm to a sustainable food forest.
- The clothing sector will connect with utilize growing hemp to make clothing on demand.
- The shelter sector will also be using hemp, mud, timber, glass, and stainless for tiny houses.
- The tech sector will be accessing and creating networks to share information, exchanges, and social profiles showing what people want to do and what is out there to make, based on the Synergy formula, as required.
- The healthcare sector will look at creating the best remedies and inventory for any ailments or accidents, as required.
- The transport sector will deign and put forward systems for the most efficient accessible transport systems for all these networks to work together in the most efficient way possible.
All these sectors design the space together for the most efficient ways to create these systems based on their expertise. All sectors also reach out to DBC markets to offer their expertise to be paid in BUX instead of DBCs as well as been fine any surplus stock. . This reduces the liabilities of participating industries, increasing profit margins to then pay off debt faster. Further, with access to an increasing number of people willing to be paid with BUX, there is an incentive to access expertise with less and ultimately no need to use resources from DBC markets. As this is happening across sectors, not just one, there will be little compromise in shifting to BUX as product and services in BUX markets expands. What is made will also change as commodity based markets will shift to experience based markets, which will create quite different, but for more, empowering, things to access.
Liaising With Existing Industry and Communities
As in creating new communities connecting with BUX, the key is to offer support to DBC connected communities with resources and labor paid in BUX. The advantages for their integrating BUX and then leaving DBCs to such companies are obvious.
Decision Making within the Commons
Much of commoning decision making focuses on highest ethical capacity. The dilemma is this focuses a lot on underprivileged at the expense of creators who could use available resources far more efficiently, to the benefit not everyone, including the underprivileged. This offers a means of inclusion for all involved regardless of any socio-political stigmas. This values the ethics of creating excellence, to the greatest capacity possible.
EXPONENTIALS IN USING BUX
BUX is not a model to drive subsistence or austerity paradigms. Its objective is to drive creative capacity as efficiently as possible in synergy with Earth and even the universe. it drives the qualitative nature of value, therefore the love that changemakers speak of, but not in an ethical space where love itself can be owned, but in the excellence space, where, as in what you create and make, cannot be owned by anyone else, as is your value in BUX itself.
Commodities v Experiences
Wealth through commodities implies status, and security, through quantities. While people do sell the experiences with owning such commodities, specifications are shortly superseded, with status becoming having the latest of its type over the knowledge and efficiency in how to use them.
Wealth through experiences values status, and security, through qualities. People value creating empowering experiences in exchange for the same by others, encouraging customizing what is created on demand. This values efficient, and symbiotic, use of resources and labor. There is no value owning an experience, but more in having access to it.
Obsolescence v Redundancy
The meaning of words always changes with cultural differences. Like the word usury has been covertly changed to mean exorbitant interest on money when it actually means any interest on money, so has obsolescence inherently implies it is planned as our emphasis of value has become universally connected to commodity. As the emphasis here is to buy experiences with as little value as possible, commodity values wanting more not less, thereby disempowering those who buy them.
To totally disassociate with this connection, redundancy implies anything created has past its need to be created, superseded by something else after the learning experience of that creation is past. As the objective of creating experiences to redundancy is to empower as much as possible, creating in such a way is the most sustainable path to follow. BUX promotes this way valuing what is created with as little governance as possible.
Resource Dominion v Resource Efficiency
or ==Quantitative v Qualitative Dominion==
There is a long standing tradition for the need to own property as security to create, especially in modern economic models. Greatness was and is usually politically driven, not just by owning land, but also by owning people to work it. The book ‘Debt: The First 5000 Years’ by David Graeber effectively illustrates the relevance of war and dominion to create monetary wealth. This also shaped systems where people can create their own wealth, but still built on smaller version of the same effects: owning someone and something to create what one wants. This is turn has affected the whole social structure we have built to be empowered, compromising something somewhere.
Commoning has little value dominion through ownership, but dominion through efficiency. It is the use of land to empower the most people that offers the reputation and status that people desire. By default, sustainability and collaboration become the standards in creating everything in this economy. It is all about the quality and experiences. This is the strength that BUX offers to these empowered communities.
The freedom of business has been known throughout generations and civilizations, but the context and framework is limited, and solely directed to, competitive markets. The freedom to create is an immense attraction to the startup space, but few look at the big picture to wonder how empowered the industry is. Despite the increased awareness of purpose, success still demands profit within debt-based currencies (DBCs). As always, this invites owning the medium of exchange itself: why there are so much investment is in finance over anything else. The energy spent on medium of exchange itself, not what it buys, is the most inefficient use of resources.
It certainly is OK to fail, too, but parameters must be in to support not to fail, to be as efficient at what is successful to empower the most people with customized experiences as soon as possible. Unlike current startups that work on creating ever narrow niches, free market entrepreneurship affords creating really valuable objects, and be fully supported to find what they are.
COMPARISONS TO OTHER CURRENCY MODELS
Money has had a long history as a commodity, therefore a mechanism of wealth itself, irrespective of what it can buy. At present, the volume of currency available over what it actually created in products and services to buy is approximately 33:1. Despite the total volume in existence, which inherently means there is a total glut of currency in the market even before ICOs, how it is distributed keeps it scarce, and therefore keeps its value. The ultimate status of measure of wealth is owning it, even though it can’t buy as much as one would like, and so becomes the tool for buying the most meaningless things for meaningless purposes which is completely unsustainable.
While we look for solutions using DBCs, we will always waste energy not only in money markets themselves but trying to control it so it is stable enough to work for the greater good. If this was possible, we would have already achieved this. Instead, political an economic dogma has aimed to finesse ways to work with the fragile monetary model using ‘innovative’ ideas of economic gurus with, at best, temporary success, only to fail again to yet find another idea to try to pull out of the black hole. All such solutions omit the one primary problem: money has costs. As it is a mechanism to exchange wealth, not wealth itself, making money on money, especially with interest, makes no sense.
How a block chain is defined, what it offers, show how empowering it is or not. Ethereum, on which many ICOs were and are built on, is the complete antithesis of Bitcoin, offering unlimited capacity to create currency. Despite the knowledge that flooding economics with increased money supply would weaken the purchasing power, may ICOs were released and like the dot.com bust, have cycled very quickly to redundancy, taking what it could in mainstream currencies like any pyramid scheme. ICO markets did not crash mainstream currency markets because they were decentralized and in their own bubble: no one was using ICOs for exchange purposes, only for commodity.
Bitcoin is unique in its specific parameters, unlike most ICOs. It has an absolute limit that cannot be breached. Many crypto currency (CC) specialists believe that its infinite divisibility makes this irrelevant but forget this means prices must drop to keep the velocity of BTC moving since its volume is finite. Stability would be reached when all coins are released and will not decrease (or until it is uneconomical to continue mining for them) and everyone solely used BTC to trade. That the volume would be stable is unlikely unless BTC was not used for any other purpose. Either way, these limitations were quite obvious and the support of Bitcoin become ridicule over how inefficient it is for trade. However, this is the short term way of looking at BTC. The first of its kind, it influenced the currency trading market to decentralize, yet connect, the building of its infrastructure, in essence issuing an ICO itself with a white paper. However, in analyzing it’s parameters if used globally, it would effectively crash the price mechanism: that of higher value costs more. Of course this is why CC players were looking for something new. The point of BTC is inherently to demonstrate that price is a very primitive and old way of establishing value.
If a currency has any cost involved, directly or indirectly, it presents itself primarily as a commodity. Therefore the best currency model for change is one that neutralizes this and dominates itself as an exchange model between wealth and cannot be commoditized as wealth itself.
In any variation of a ZCE, the core idea of one being used is to drive creating experiences, customized on demand, that empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible. The idea is to stabilize or even reduce prices for higher quality experiences as required. This keeps the purchasing power high, distributed primarily evenly, with little, if any, need to control pricing. This also allows the market to be free, as it is meant to be in capitalism, truly allowing people to access what empowers them the most without the need for ownership.
Outside of their having no cost which is fixed, varying factors include:
- If there is an amount given in reward for joining.
- If the ZCE is run with or without labor charges.
- If controlling the amount of currency in the market is separate from the amount of work being created.
- If education is credited to participants or still considered a transaction between parties.
Examples of ZCEs using these parameters are:
- TUMIN: reward on joining, volume based on work created, bank is run with volunteers, all exchanges may not always balance to zero but orbit around it.
- NumeroSet: reward on joining, volume available based on velocity of exchange, bank run with volunteers,. all exchanges balance to zero.
The parameters of BUX are a little different:
- Ideally no reward on joining, but can convert existing work and educated life to BUX.
- Volume based on work created.
- Base rate of $60p/h is mean point for any service or product creation, as free market demands
- Participants in running bank are paid on base rate (base point is $60p/h)
- Time spent in education credits all participants as peers, therefore all earn something for participating in education
- Total volume of money available and prices are disconnected from each other
The forecast of using BUX is that prices inversely fall inversely to increased quality as projects that support the best use of resources will only be supported. Governance demands making what these projects are, analyzing their qualitative effects to a factor of eXcellence Quotient = Empowerment x Sustainability (XQ = E x S).
Projects that have the highest factor naturally value all resources available for the greatest outcome. How this is calculated is dependent substantially by location and numbers in the community, therefore to ascertain an exact figure is relative is not expressly relevant. More pertinent are comparisons, and what people really want to do. There is no point telling people to do the most sustainable thing if there is no joy doing it. This would make it unsustainable by default. What ultimately happens is economics is governed by qualitative measures, such as creativity and empowerment instead of quantitative measures that are dominant, and therefore disempowering, in DBCs.
Parameters of BUX
BUX is a specific ZCE that dominates the trusting part of human nature without compromising our competitive nature. It capitalizes on using a competitive free market, but also incentives collaboration as the most effective way to create the best for the most people. It does not take away the autonomy of business, but does take away it's current sustainable waste of resources. It changes the cultural aspect of business from its culinary backstabbing nature to a sport, learning from competitive collaboration to be better together for a new day while also valuing what is created as art.
To facilitate trade without the inherent disempowering nature of DBCs, BUX can be called anything a community wants to call it, but as the parameters can be considered the same across communities, it will be BUX named to identify the community/country that uses it, and what specialties, if any. Unlike communities using DBCs that would trade currencies between them, this is redundant in BUX as the only difference could be the price from other communities that could make buying outside one's community more advantageous.
BUX is, at the risk of sounding generic, a people's bank. It cannot be owned by a specific entity as all money created is by the people themselves. It is simply a ledger as there is no commodity in owning the currency, so it doesn’t. There is nothing in the bank unless people choose to value their work being paid in it. Participants running the bank base their work on the set mean payment as all other participants using BUX. Given that this could, however unlikely, be a problem as all people are using the bank, the $60p/h is the ceiling price, although it can drop as mean pricing changes with more people using the bank.
This also means there is no need to loan money, or influences a political model that demands tax for projects. All projects, large or small, that is supported is chosen by the community, not governance, based on the qualitative frameworks of Sy.E/Su. This makes the community the center decision maker for what goes ahead, and not servant to an economic model to keep them busy or its own sake. Growth creating commodities is pointless. Growth creating experiences is evolutionary.
It is intended to be a blockchain built on Holochain. Any data used from this will only demonstrate what projects are being supported and why. Therefore, there is no need to secure this, but everyone has a right to show or hide any data they choose.
A crucial framework in BUX is that there is no incentive whatsoever to use resources destructively, as commodity does. Therefore, anything that involves any inefficiency, such as war, can't be supported. There is no incentive to own resources to warrant such conflict as resources will flow to those who use them best: to those who create the best experiences that empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible.
Whatever are the best parameters to use, they will blend between ideas that TUMIN, colonial scrip, and BUX are working with, as their objectives are the same: to drive status creating sustainably. Already the comparison between these defines the competition between them: it doesn’t matter who wins because all will benefit with the best model in action.
There are many other currency models out there for social good, but most are connected in some way to DBCs. While this may be more acceptable to change makers, analyses of their full affects has to be explored in detail. Examples aim to put prices on the environment, which would be an extraordinarily hard thing to do. How does this change over time? How does it balance with what is created and the economics to sustain it? The term social good, and qualities over quantities, have been thrown around exhaustively as much as discussing sustainability vs regeneration when both point in the same direction, so why bother arguing between them when they are aligned. Given the history of how much time has been spent fighting for sustainable change, that none attack the parameters of currency show how fundamental these have to be addressed for anything substantial to happen.