Metarepresented Money

Keeping Ownership Decentralized

Money represents a future commodity possession. However, the one method of protective this possession rightful, therefore suburbanised, is to cost commodities in metadiagrammatic cash. Any in any other case priced future possession won't stay truly suburbanised.

Still, what's metadiagrammatic cash?

Direct Commodity Exchange

Let there be two homeowners A and B of commodities x and y, severally, of whom A desires y and B desires x. Without any cash -- whether or not metadiagrammatic or not -- the one method for each common people to acquire their desired commodities is straight from one another:

  
A --> y | B --> x  
x _____ | y  
y _____ | x

Otherwise, A and B should delegate their commodity possession to soul who then redistributes it between them. However, such a centralized answer would at to the last degree part contradict the identical possession, by at to the last degree part taking it away from its rightful controllers. Hence, entirely a suburbanised answer can protect all commodity possession legitimizing this alternate, by A and B exdynamic x and y straight.

Individual Multiequivalence

Still, direct commodity alternate poses two issues:

Let there be now (as follows) three homeowners A, B, and C of 1 unit of commodity x, one all told y, and two models of y, severally. Additionally, let A need essentially the most models of y, whereas B and C need at to the last degree one all told x every. Then, the accessible unit of x shall be value one and a half models of y. So both A loses worth to B or C to A -- because the exchangeable portions of x and y aren't value the identical:
```
  A --> y | B --> x | C --> x  x(1.5y) | y _____ | 2y  
```
Let (as follows) A, B, and C soulal a single unit severally of x, y, and z. Additionally, let A need y, B need z, and C need x. Then, direct alternate couldn't give any of these three homeowners their desired commodity -- as none of them has the identical commodity wished by who owns their wished one. Moneyless alternate now can entirely occur if one all told their commodities turns into a concurrent equal of the opposite two, at to the last degree for whom neither desires nor has it. So it turns into a multiequivalent, whether or not the opposite two homeowners additionally know of that multiequivalence or not. For instance, A power give x in alternate for z simply to then give z for y, this manner making z a multiequivalent (as asterisked):
```
  A --> y | B --> z | C --> x  x _____ | y _____ | z*  z* ____ | y _____ | x  y _____ | z _____ | x  
```

Likewise, this separately dealt with multiequivalence poses a brand new pair of issues:

It permits for conflicting oblique exchanges. In the identical instance, any two and even all three homeowners power at the same time attempt to deal with it. For occasion, whereas A would give x in alternate for z (then z for y), B power quite attempt to give y for a similar x (then x for z). To keep away from this battle, A, B, and C should delegate now their particular soul selection of dealing with multiequivalence to a public authority -- whether or not to their accordant one and even to different common people's. However, such a centralized answer would once again at to the last degree part contradict their commodity possession, by at to the last degree part taking it away from them.
In addition to permitting the exchangeable portions of two commodities to not be equal, its indirectness will increase the chance of that mismatch, by requiring extra direct exchanges. Let the identical homeowners A, B, and C of a single unit severally of x, y, and z need essentially the most models severally of y, z, and x. Additionally, let a fourth owner D of two models of z need at to the last degree one all told x. Then, the accessible models of x and y will every be value one and a half models of z. Finally, once again let z be a soul multiequivalent. Now, both A loses worth to C or D to A, then severally B to A and A to B -- because the exchangeable portions of x, y, and z aren't value the identical.

Social Multiequivalence (Money)

Fortunately, all these issues have the identical and entirely decision of a single multiequivalent m dynamic into social, or cash. Then, commodity homeowners can both give (promote) their commodities in alternate for m or give m for (purchase) the commodities they need. For instance, once again let A, B, and C soulal commodities x, y, and z, severally. Still assumptive A desires y, B desires z, and C desires x, if now they entirely alternate their commodities for that m social multiequivalent -- at first closely-held simply by A -- then:

  
A --> y | B --> z | C --> x  
x, m __ | y _____ | z  
x, y __ | m _____ | z  
x, y __ | z _____ | m  
y, m __ | z _____ | x

With social (quite than particular soul) multiequivalence:

There are entirely two exchanges (both a purchase or a promote) for every commodity, regardless who owns or desires which commodities.
All commodity homeowners alternate a standard (social) multiequivalent, which finally returns to its unique owner.

Finally, with a social multiequivalent (cash) divisible into small and related decent models, any two commodities can all the time be equal, even when their exchangeable portions aren't. For instance, let commodities x and y be value three and two models of a social multiequivalent m, severally -- x(3m) and y(2m). Then, let their homeowners A of x and B of y be additionally the homeowners severally of two and three models of that cash -- A of twom and B of threem. If A and B need y and x, severally, yet entirely alternate their commodities for m models -- x for 3m and y for twom -- then:

  
A --> y _ | B --> x  
x(3m), 2m | y(2m), 3m  
y(2m), 3m | x(3m), 2m

Privately Concrete Money

So cash should all the time stand for a future commodity possession. Otherwise, common people's cash couldn't all the time stand for their future possession of someaffair it will possibly purchase. Additionally, to alternate their cash, these common people should share it with any of these with whom they alternate it. Indeed, common people's changed cash should stand for their future commodity possession to all of them, although of various commodities as both consumers or Peter Sellers. However, regardless of bought by the identical changed cash, this future possession girdle unique to both group, which therefore can't share it with the opposite one. Then, how can the 2 even so share its illustration between them?

How power cash be at the same time shareable as that which represents a future possession and ne'er shareable as every future possession it represents?

Is all cash entirely shareable as a substitute of additionally not shareable, by entirely representing an indefinite future possession as a substitute of additionally a particular one? Yet how power cash entirely purchase unspecified commodities? It can't, since common people can't purchase someaffair with out specifying their future possession of it as diagrammatic by their cash to the vendor.

Still, regardless how the illustration of one affair not shareable can stay shareable:

Anyaffair is just shareable by leftover concrete.
Anyaffair is just expressible by leftover summary.

Consequently, since a future commodity possession is just shareable whereas diagrammatic by one affair concrete, it should be straight summary. Likewise, for its concrete illustration to be additionally expressible:

It should turn bent on be as summary as (not concretely distinguishable from) that future possession it represents.
Unlike the succeeding summary, intermediate illustration, its fresh undiagrammatic one should stay concrete.

Then, cash may very well be at the same time concrete, therefore shareable, and summary, therefore not shareable, severally as its undiagrammatic and diagrammatic representations. Indeed:

Abstractions are entirely shareable whereas diagrammatic by one affair concrete.
Indirect representations of someaffair should embrace its summary illustration by one affair else.

However, even when diagrammatic, therefore summary, someaffair representing cash should stay shareable, therefore concrete. Yet how power now an intermediate illustration of not directly diagrammatic cash be abstractly concrete? Only by having its concreteness privatized by a public business enterprise authority. Then, it turns into in public summary by leftover in private concrete to it authority. So:

If already privatized, this in private concrete cash should be diagrammatic by one affair in public concrete. For instance, when common people value their future commodity possession as gold entrusted to a public authority, this business enterprise gold is just shareable whereas diagrammatic by a in public concrete certification of that entrustment.
If not but privatized, the identical in private concrete cash should stand for its false privatisation. For instance, when common people value their future commodity possession as gold not entrusted to anybody, this business enterprise gold is just shareable whereas representing its false entrustment to a public authority.

Still, no non-public concreteness is expressible as cash until it's already cash, which should be at the same time shareable and ne'er shareable. So even to whom it's in private concrete, cash should at the same time be straight summary, yet how? Only by representing a future enhance in its present quantity. There isn't any different method for its entire non-public concreteness to turn bent on be straight summary. Finally, no in private concrete cash can depend on its future enlargement, to then turn bent on be as summary as its elevated future self, until it represents a debt. Indeed, all this abstractly self-expanded cash should finally turn bent on be concrete:

In its summary extra over its already concrete sum to whoever holds it.
In its the rest to whoever owns it.

Then, its future enhance and current amount are liabilities, severally, of its homeowners to its custodians and conversely, so cash turns into a dual-principal debt. However, all non-public concreteness of this cash should even so be straight summary. By which even its already concrete half should turn bent on be an extra yet now single-principal, interest-paying debt of individuals not proudly owning it -- whether or not holding it or not -- to its custodians.

This method, each public authority with any non-public direction of different common people's cash should increaseparately contradict their future commodity possession, by taking it increaseparately away from them. For instance, a gold trustee will cost a charge to retail merchant business enterprise gold belonging to a different particular soul. Additionally, this entrusted cash will finally turn bent on be a legal responsibility of one more particular soul -- regardless whether or not because the precise bimetal or not -- so storage charges turn bent on be curiosity finances on lent cash created all from its lending.

Metadiagrammatic Money (Metamoney)

Still, whether or not increaseparately centralized away from its rightful controllers or not, the business enterprise illustration should all the time be:

Concrete, to let consumers and Peter Sellers share it.
Abstract, to forestall consumers and Peter Sellers from sharing the altogether different future possession it represents to both group.

Then, learn how to reconcile its concreteness and abstractness with out permitting its concrete privatisation by a public authority?

Fortunately, regardless of essentially shareable by being concrete to all common people exdynamic it, or socially concrete, cash can quite be not shareable by being summary to every one all told them, or separately summary. Indeed, its illustration by the identical particular soul can at the same time:

Remain shareable as a part of a concrete course of.
Become not shareable as simply an summary object.

For instance, cryptocurrencies -- like Bitcoin -- use uneven encoding to stand for cash as a straight non-public though not directly promulgated quantity. So cash turns into metadiagrammatic, or metamoney, because it now not in public represents its entire in private diagrammatic self. However, for such a strictly summary (numeric) cash to stay shareable, the method of certifying its previous proceedings or balances should turn bent on be a consensus amongst all its homeowners. Otherwise, they power be unable to agree on its future proceedings or balances, being thus prevented from utilizing it. Additionally, to certify someaffair of their shared historical past, any consensus amongst these common people should be public to all of them. Consequently, the quite non-public representations of their metadiagrammatic cash are all the time straight uncertified. Then, regardless of leftover socially concrete as its in public licensed, accordant metarepresentations, cash turns into separately summary as its in private uncertified, nonaccordant representations. While conversely, to in public certify common people's cash as metadiagrammatic of their proceedings or balances, that very same consensus course of:

Cannot publicize their direct representations of this cash, that are non-public.
Must stay suburbanised, for all these common people to agree on the identical proceedings or balances.

Only this manner, no public authority can in private direction different common people's cash, or then contradict the rightful future possession it represents, which as a substitute should additionally stay suburbanised. Therefore, entirely metamoney can perfectly obtain the unique goal of cash, by protective not entirely common people's purchased or bought commodity possession truly suburbanised, but additionally their priced future one.