Cryptocurrency Idea

I see that Dogecoin is trending, and apart from the obvious reason of Elon Musk promoting it, and that it is considered 'cool' for some reason, it could be useful due to liquidity. The number of coins in circulation isn't capped, so many are issued each year which keeps the price in check.

How about this idea for a cryptocurrency. Make it capped at a quadrillion coins. That's a thousand trillion. But make these coins hard to mine, not like gold or silver, or even platinum or palladium. How about equating this new coin to pink diamonds or natural sea pearls. The scarcity lies in the quest rather than coins being relatively easy to find but ultimately running out of puff. Along with this quest, once a coin is found then it becomes easier for a miner to find more near it. That's similar to real mining where you may find a rich vein. Just an idea.

Bitcoin Building Society

This is my answer to the problem of bitcoins being highly volatile in terms of value. I still think my formula for linking a digital currency to the real world has legs, whether it is linked to precious metals, or a basket of goods and services or even Caterpillar tractor output. 

However the solution below deals with things as they are now:-

1. A building society be formed that accepts bitcoin deposits along with other currencies both real and virtual.

2. The building society exists to lend to its members for the purpose of buying real property, but mostly real estate.

3. It is a building society with shareholders and members holding bitcoin balances. A member with a bitcoin balance need not be a shareholder, but all shareholders are members whether they hold a bitcoin balance or not.

4. When a member deposits bitcoins to the building society, an account fee is charged, one half of the fee to cover the cost of running the society and the other half to be invested in real property, precious metals, cash and cash equivalents for the benefit of members.

5. No fee for withdrawing funds.

6. The society will operate a platform whereby bitcoins are exchanged for cash. No fee for cashing in or switching currencies, apart from the quoted exchange rate.

7. Loans are made available to members, which may use bitcoins as security to cover part of the loan. If a mortgage is advanced, then the property would be secured as well as a bitcoin balance. 

(eg) A loan applicant wants to borrow to buy a $1,000,000 house. 1,000 bitcoins are held in the applicants membership account. Assuming income is available to service the loan, the applicant qualifies for a $750,000 loan, and as $650,000 is held in bitcoins, $250,000 of that becomes the equity in the house, a proportion of the balance is then locked up to provide additional security for the loan (suggest half of the balance, or 308 bitcoins, which would be 'advanced against' and thus could not be withdrawn but would still carry limited voting rights - those 'advanced against' coins could not vote on any policy influencing lending).

8. Repayments may be made in any currency but must always equal the minimum loan repayment amount stated in the loan agreement.

9. If the building society winds up, or bitcoins become unfeasible, then the amount payable from the reserve to each member will be pro rata the balance of each members shares, bitcoin balance, plus any other balance from the members accounts.

10. Shareholders and members have a voting right related to their shares or membership account held in bitcoins. The bitcoin balance is always backed by the reserves set aside in 4 above. Shareholders and members may transfer or sell their shares or bitcoin balance to anyone. If not already a member then any new shareholder becomes a member automatically. 

11. Voting rights for each member will be capped at 5% of the total bitcoin member pool (based on the idea that the building society starts with 20 equal members). There is no cap on how many bitcoins can be held and all bitcoins pro rata participate in any profit. However individual members can only vote up to a maximum of 5% of the total membership.

(eg) A member has been in the society for 13 months and qualifies to vote at the next AGM. The member has deposited a total of one million bitcoins, 500,000 upon joining, with the rest added over the following months. The AGM will have total member votes available of 20 million bitcoins. The member may vote all his initial stake of 500,000 bitcoins (2.5% of the total pool) but none of those units after as none of them have been in the system for over a year. If the pool is the same size the following year, and the member still has the same bitcoin balance, the member may vote all bitcoins possessed as they represent no more than 5% of the membership pool.

For the purposes of the example above, the 5% threshold applies to the aggregate of all accounts for that member, where the member has control of that account (being 50% or more control or power of attorney), and whether separate accounts exist (or not) for that member.

12. As the building society exists for legitimate reasons, and is principally there to provide member benefits, there would be no problem getting banking facilities. The bitcoins form the members but in every other respect the organisation is exactly the same as any building society.

**********

The are hurdles to cross in respect of gaining regulatory approval to accept deposits. These are not insurmountable. 

Why not form a credit union? That would work too and I read about an attempt to do this in the USA. Credit unions are smaller and have a lower threshold, but by contrast a building society can offer bonus issues by ballot in New Zealand (a form of gambling).

An advantage of my approach - the problem of bitcoins being a poor store of value is addressed.  Members with a significant balance of bitcoins in their membership account would have a reserve backing up their bitcoins. The coins held within the membership account would always be worth more than zero. Bitcoins outside of a system like this can indeed be worth nothing.

A possible flaw I can see already I've addressed in 11 above. Not all bitcoins in member accounts would be equal. Someone may have been a member for ten years, while another member only a year. Having said that however, their bitcoins rank equally for distribution of reserves or profit after the qualifying period. 

The above problem is addressed in two ways, firstly a minimum membership term must be established to begin with, say, one year (see 7 above). Then secondly, beyond that each member receives a share of the profit, provided there is a profit to distribute from the society. Thus, a member for a long period of time should build up significant equity.  If the society was wound up, new memberships would be closed off so new subscriptions could not flood in to pounce on those reserves.

If anyone is interested in this, by all means contact me to discuss. There is a contact form to the right under my photo.

Ken Horlor's Digital Currency

Okay, after criticising  bitcoin yesterday, what would I do?

The following is my outline.

Link a digital currency to the production of silver. Silver is a finite resource that is readily mined. We know how much has been mined thus far, and how much can be produced each year.

If you like, this system could work in a decentralised way, with the bitcoin type of mining operation. Alternatively it could be centralised and run by a charitable foundation. Either way works, but I'll go with decentralised for now, just to describe what I'm thinking about:-

1. There have been 40.5 billion ounces of silver produced since the beginning of time, according to the US Geological Survey. We take a small proportion of that to form the core of what may be mined virtually. Let's say 40,550,000 ounces or coins.

2. Each coin at the current price would be nominally worth $17.22, which is the current silver price each ounce. 

3. At current rates of extraction silver is mined at about 887 million ounces a year. This forms the rate of inflation, on top of the starting figure of 40.55 million, 887,000 coins (or ounces) would be added each year. You'll notice that I'm dividing production by one thousand.

4. This is where it gets interesting, I'd link the success of mining these units to the actual cost of mining the same resource in the real world. Overburden ratios, process costs, distribution - the lot. The more scarce silver becomes or more uneconomic to mine, so too goes the digital currency. If real output of silver falls globally then the amount of inflation of the virtual currency reduces.

Also, mining the virtual silver would have a skill factor included. This is so that those with just computing power could not dominate the 'industry.' Just as in real life, a small operator who is a good miner would be able to produce.

5. Then the secondary market kicks in and the currency is traded and exchanged amongst users.

With this decentralised model, the digital coins are created by virtual miners who are faced with the same uncertainty real world miners face. I'm starting with a figure to reflect where civilisation is at to this point, but adding to it each year to reflect progress. There is an element of intervention, in the case of how many coins to add at an anniversary each year, but this could be done through an auction or consensus model, and of course this wouldn't take too long as it only involves determining how much silver has been produced the previous year.

Derivatives could come into play as well. Miners could sell their output forward just as real miners do. This would create price stability.

What about tangible backing for the currency? In the decentralised model this would be very hard to achieve. But if centralised, then a charitable foundation could tax the miners and create a reserve of real silver and of derivatives. The proceeds of the charity could go towards anything worthwhile.

The underpinning of any system like this is trust. My model attempts to establish trust by pinning the creation of the currency to real-world values.

We could call this digital coinage bitDenarii. Derived from the Roman coin.