Hacking Paul Graham’s Vision of the Future with Hypercatallaxian Economics

If cash artificially decays, people will just ditch it in favor of owing something that holds its objective, free-market value other than cash (for example, gold or some similar durable commodity). That then effectively becomes cash, as soon as it starts being used directly for bartering.

All interference schemes will be defeated by the underground.

Also, what does money decay relative to? Inflation (the normal "decay rate on cash" that we know today) means that a broad range of goods and services is becoming more expensive, numerically: a given unit of the currency fetches less and less, year over year.

You can't absolutely dictate that without a communist state which fixes prices. (The semi-communist governments which run the "free" world steer the general trend with some coarse-grained controls like central bank interest rates: how expensive is it to borrow money.)

That's an idea I've not heard before. I like it, a lot. It tickles my Libertarian streak, but relives the inherent guilt about the disabled and under-represented.

I'm sorry, but I think the name sucks.

"This leads to low-interest rates, a reduction in risk, and helps establish a merit-based safety net comparable to a basic income."

How does it do any of this? If I have no say in the structure or management of the company, it's a huge risk.

As we've seen with Bitcoin, it's too easy for hackers to manipulate a technology that 90% of the population will never understand.

"In general, this reality leads to a co-operative reality where more people are working as named agents with skin in the game."

It has to be proportional to risk, however. Most of the people I know will not risk debt for a possible return 5 years in the future. They would rather just work a regular job and get paid for it.

"What have I accomplished on a world scale?"

It's risk vs. reward. If you make a million dollars on the stock market, you most likely risked a good portion of income to do it.

Not only that, but the company has benefited from the transaction. What if it means a company that builds artificial hearts can now go into full production?

You could have just as easily lost a million dollars, but nobody is rallying to get your money back.

"No new real capital was produced."

If we are going to go with this line of thinking, 99.9% of all the startups PG funded should never have even been started. Nothing is ground-breaking nor will it save lives or change the world as we know it.

"I can now sit on my million dollars for as long as I would like and my only threat is uncontrolled inflation."

It's pretty foolish to just sit on a million dollars without investing it in something. You are leaving money on the table and lose a portion of it due to inflation every year. Inflation is always happening and anyone with money knows this. So 'sitting on money' is really a non-issue.

"We place a burden on those that win. Use your winnings to produce real capital or it will go back to those that provided it in the first place."

Why stop at money? What if we said something like: Use your free time for something productive or you will be forced to work for the government. You could be doing something that will save the world, but instead, you are smoking weed and playing video games.

I find that there is this sentiment lately that we need to punish the rich for their success...mostly by people that have not yet achieved it. When something you covet gets taken away by force for the 'good of the people', you will be singing a different tune.

"But if buying a Tesla also produced future dividends based on how successful Tesla ended up being in the future, I might take on this much-reduced risk"

So if I buy a Tesla and get a % of the profits? How will this be beneficial to anyone if they get a 10 cent check every month when 30 million people also bought the same product?

The ideas presented here just don't seem to be better or more efficient than our current system.