Do you distribute them evenly and fairly to your community after you buy them? 
3 Likes
In an ideal communist world, everybody gets according to his needs. In this case, MAID would be free for everyone. I selfishly hope MAID will not follow this trail. Would rather prefer capitalist ideal - buy low, sell high⌠Grab em cheap while you can 
2 Likes
No comrade! You have misunderstood the secret text! Those rules are not for us elites, they are for the slave, whoops I mean the working class 
4 Likes
Thought experiment (as we go really off topic): in a truly decentralized world, there is no need for moneyâonly tokens to be leveraged for bartering. Every product and service has a correlating token that can be exchanged freely on an open market. Anyone can mint a token for their wares. How many McDonaldâs tokens is a ride in an uber (self-driving, obviously) worth?
1 Like
My first post was not an offtopic, but (among other things) about my hope that MAID will not end up being zero value. 
To your thought experiment. I find it very interesting and I thought about it already in the past. Correct me if I misunderstand but in the sense, you wrote it, no money = no common denominator. Is it?
I think some common denominator (money) is very useful (as a communication channel) and I assume its necessary for efficient organizing of complex society.
I assume if there was a timeframe where there is no common denominator, there is a big incentive for independent entities to settle on something which we can call money.
1 Like
âOff topicâ is in reference to the âthought experimentâ
A common coin certainly has its differential uses (ease of exchange, ability to monopolize, etc.), which is why over time weâve seen centralization in fiscal policy. But, if technology makes tokenization and exchange incredibly efficient, perhaps a hybrid model is likely to emerge. For a moment a few years ago, it seemed like everyone wanted their own cryptocurrencyâfrom Facebook to Starbucks.
At first blush, the thought experiment seems at odds with centralized power (I.e. governments and banks), but I donât think it necessarily would/need be. Simply the method of regulation would change.
1 Like
I know this was not directed at me but may I ask you to clarify something: how are you defining money v tokens?
Technically, Iâm not using âtokenâ in the classical crypto sense here. Money here implies a âcommon coinâ like fiat. A token implies an exchangeable unit pegged to a specific source of value that can only be used to redeem that specific value or exchanged for some other token/money. In this âmodelâ, USD = common coin = money; Safecoin = exchangeable unit redeemable for Network space (I know, oversimplification) = token.
To add further complexity, I might define money as governed/generated by a central authority and tokens as governed/generated in a decentralized or distributed way. In the first âmodelâ BTC is arguably money; in the second BTC is a token.
1 Like
This is known as the âlong tailâ
2 Likes
I would not define money that way.
Money by definition is able to store value over long periods of time or at least it has been able to for thousands and thousands of years up until only recently.
Fiat is currency, it is not money because it cannot store value. It is currency.
Hence why I asked you to define it so that we donât argue over nothing
I think this part of what you wrote is not accurate and it means the thought experiment is flawed, maybe you meant it that way? But being an experiment iâll play along.
In a decentralised world, storing value is still a requirement. Because humans are the same. I can list a thousand different examples of why you would need stored value. Im sure you can too. Probably the best human example is the requirement for daily calories otherwise you die. So storing grain in the summer for the coming winter, you can sell it, eat it, trade it, gift it but its value is probably only good for a year or two.
Again literally many many examples of needing stored value.
Going with this fundamental core principle of humans wanting and needing to store value (heck our bodies do it by storing fatâŚ) we introduce God-given chemical elements like Gold and Silver because these are great for storing value as they do not perish, they do not melt, they do not evaporate and they can be melted down into tiny little units or really large units and we can all agree they are valuable the world over, and they donât really ever lose value and when the value goes up it doesnât do it over night but slowly and gradually over time. Sure there are dips here and there but Gold & Silver generally hold their value really really well hence they are great forms of money and have been for thousands of years.
These tokens would effectively be governed by central bodies, or at least I assume McDonalds would want some role in the minting of their own tokens. So A) Itâs not really decentralised if they are minting their own and that would mean they will just devalue it over time, or maybe not hard to say in a thought experiment and B) you cannot store value in McDonalds tokens over long periods of time because of A) but also because not everyone values McDonalds tokens and so you canât exchange McDonalds tokens for Uber tokens unless there are enough of the same for the prices not to be wild. They need to be pegged to something.
Mike Maloneyâs stuff is the best on this. He has a really good eye opening book and also a video series.
I think he explains the general parts of it in this video below:
Jim Rickards does a great little explainer when he talks about monopoly money.
Its broken down like so
IMO decentralisation is the future, if the future is to be a good oneâŚand the crypto or digital whatever currency that will rule all will be the one that backs itself with gold or silver.
1 Like
Money is a method of determining the hierarchy in the social organism - a human being.
Without money there can be no society, only small groups of people. Money guarantees low levels of aggression.
Iâve said it before - money that is controlled by the majority is something we donât have in the world right now.
Safe has the potential to give us that kind of money and stop the insane redistribution of wealth, which will inevitably lead to unprecedented aggression when the majority becomes too poorâŚ
1 Like
You have every opportunity to buy real money, gold and silver and watch what happens in time 
Since I have been buying real, physical gold and silver its almost as if something magical has happened to my finances.
Everyone has this same opportunity, almost everyone. Unless you are a slave or something extreme.
1 Like
All money are just a shared fantasy. There are no real, no fake money. Money is based only on peopleâs faith in it.
For a biological organism, only things that help survival and reproduction have intrinsic value - food, water, a partner.
Safecoin will be the first money with intrinsic value - storage of information but still only a shared fantasyâŚ
1 Like
Youâre more than welcome to construct your own thought experiment with your own definitions
They are just games.
Iâm not all that interested to be honest.
In non-game terms did you have a chance to watch Mike Maloney or read any of his stuff?
All true but it just so happens all people whether they understand it or not respect gold and silver at the end of the day. And have so for thousands of years.
As to biological organism there is a BIG difference between humans and a mudskipper. I think you know this. And gold/silver gets it value from being the best source of money there ever has been. Combine the best source with the best way to track it all (blockchain or similar) and you have the best monetary system.
This is just BS and you know it. You go from implying all organisms are the same and only food has intrinsic value to saying a non-existent cryptocurrency that stores info is somehow better than gold or silver which has proven itself for over 5,000 years, âcâmon manâ Joe Biden.
1 Like
It did seem like everyone sought to tokenize everything initially and I bet weâll still probably get there. The difference with four years ago is it was seen as doing an IPO and getting a bunch of value from almost nothing. In facebooks case a stock rise for being innovative (since Libra was to be a stable coin). Then the focus was coins and now it does seem more like tokens and NFTâs (non fungible tokens) which I still donât understand and havenât looked into. If anyone wants to define and discuss NFTâs that might be interesting.
I mean the point of a currency is a medium of exchange. If everything can be tokenized but still be exchanged fungibly then whatâs to stop that? But what is the exchange rate as you mention? Does that fluctuate? Do some tokens have value and some not? What gives them their value? Just thinking out loud.
The main point behind tokenizing everything I assume is actual ownership. You can verifiably own and control all of your digital tokenized assets. Maybe it morphs to becomes a form of control or tracking/surveillance? Token use and flow certainly could feed Big Data, IoT, AI, etc. So potentially many uses and pros and cons.
Not sure if I took the thought experiment completely off the rails 
but it definitely raises questions for me.
1 Like
If everything was tokenized, I think we would get to the point where you could have a commodity backed âcurrencyâ consisting of some large combination of a bunch of tokens. One âsupercoinâ would basically be a fund combining minuscule amounts of tons of other tokens so that we can have something that holds a (relatively) stable value for storing value over time.
1 Like
Yes that is called Bitcoin. Or the USD when it was backed by gold.
1 Like
Iâd imagine that the exchange rate(s) would always be in flux. This morning 2 McDonaldâs tokens bought 1 uber ride. By evening time there was a surge, so 5 McDonaldâs tokens bought 1 uber ride.
Taking it a step furtherâeach individual (almost like a node in a distributed system) could set their own dynamic price. Already the gig economy is quickly bleeding into industries and jobs that were formally consider very corporate. Imagine that essentially everyone is a gig economy worker and can choose to accept dynamically fluctuating payment for the services they render or the products they make. In such a world there could be marketplaces/exchanges where market prices prevail and then more OTC or P2P exchanges with widely divergent prices. It would create very interesting arbitrage opportunities. I wonder how the definition or understanding of âefficient marketsâ might evolve.
Some tokens may have no exchangeable value just as some art work canât be sold because no one wants to buy it even though the artist may value the work very highly. Similarly, a token that may have had a lot of value yesterday (say âBoy Band Xâ token) might have no value today b/c tweenagers donât care anymore. Or, a âNow Dead Artistâ token might rise exponentially because people all of a sudden see value in that token. In these examples the music token is backed by the ability to buy that bandâs music. The artist token is backed by the ability to buy that artistâs paintings.
Precisely! Tokenization could also allow you to own your own labor. It would be like a new economic model where theoretically no one need be alienated from their labor. Itâs not really capitalism in that the owner of capital governs the means of production, neither socialism in that the state is in control, nor communism where the people do. It would be a new paradigm. I also think itâs the logical conclusion of DAOs.
Ahh, crypto kitties! Actually, as I think about it further, NFTs are highly relevant to this discussion. So, if we think of NFTs as something thatâs absolutely unique and as such cannot be mutually interchanged, this principle or definition could be applied to an individual (or more specifically their labor). So, if I tokenize myself (or may labor) âSotros25â token would arguably be an NFT, exchangeable only for goods or services I provide.
Certainly governments would seek a way to implement some form of tracking and surveillance. I actually think that perfect surveillance is the logical conclusion of digital currencies. I can envision a future where cash is outlawed. Governments assign digital wallets (perhaps at birth) and have a copy of every private key. Thereâs nothing such as tax evasion and capital flight is an impossibility. Sometimes one wonders if thatâs the story behind the grand experiment that is bitcoin much like the State Dept funds Tor. >>ok, exiting conspiracy theory mode<<
I agree. Itâs hard to imagine a world without some form of common coin. It could be a world where mass tokenization coexists with something like BTC as the worldâs reserve currencyâfree from any centralized control. One wonders what that would mean for geopolitical stability. Intuition says that it would severely limit the ability to wage economic warfare.
AndâŚthis is what I meant about going way off topicâŚ
1 Like
I was with you up until the crypto being backed by gold part. To me that reads as a contradiction to âdecentralization is the futureâ. How would a decentralized crypto be backed by gold in a decentralized way? It also seems unnecessary when there can be a digitally native store of value like Bitcoin.