Libre currencies: comparison between the Ğ1 and the G.A.M.E
Libre currencies: comparison between the Ğ1 and the G.A.M.E
Comparison between two libre currency solutions.
In this article, I will inaugurate a working nomenclature in order to determine which solution is the most suitable in a given framework. It is a marking scheme, applicable on any design, that is based on the 7 synergetic criteria that I previously established.
Context
The various problems with official currencies (fiat) naturally lead to the question of whether there is a way to do better. Indeed, financial crises, inflations and shortages are almost always the result of an all-powerful monetary system over which people have no control, not of real problems of supply and demand (which always exist and are only waiting to meet each other).
Among the options available to us are the so-called libre currencies. This expression was first defined by Stéphane Laborde in his Relative Theory of Money in the 2000s.
As such, a libre currency must follow 4 axioms:
freedom to choose one's monetary system(s)
freedom to access resources (with Lockean proviso)
freedom to value things in the desired currency
freedom to exchange within the same currency
About the Lockean proviso
It stipulates that access to any resource can only be considered fair if this access does not reduce the opportunity of others to benefit from it.
This clause is theoretically interesting but laughable in practice for several reasons:
it is impossible to truly evaluate the possibilities of access to a resource for all people, at all times and in all places
it only makes sense if everyone applies it at the same time (which is impossible)
it denies nature (and human nature), which finds its innovations as much through collaboration as through competition
Nevertheless, the need to find monetary solutions that are agreeable to us is increasingly felt as the economic contraction progresses in our time.
The Ğ1 ("june")
The meeting of the theoretical work of Stéphane Laborde and computer developers gave birth to the Ğ1 ("june"), a cryptocurrency that is accessible online and meets certain specific criteria, such as allowing members of a trusted network to generate a small portion of the currency called a universal dividend every day.
The software on which Ğ1 is based also allows one to manage one's currency like almost any banking application.
I personally participated in the spread of this currency for several years and was part of the test currency that was put into circulation in France in a small network before the Ğ1 was launched in 2017.
A video presentation to learn more:
The G.A.M.E
On the other hand, another currency, a little older (created in 1998, also in France, by Daniel Fargeas), less known, has recently aroused my curiosity by its simplicity and its power. It is the G.A.M.E (Garden of All Manners of Exchange – originally in French: J.E.U - Jardin d'Échange Universel).
The principle is very simple, we note on a booklet the exchanges we make (in credit if we are the producer, in debit if we are the consumer). The evaluation of the values of what is exchanged is at the discretion of the people. A base of 60 tokens per hour of work done is often put forward but it can be weighted in various ways (notably by the scarcity of skills, in fact, an hour of sweeping the floor does not generally have the same value in the eyes of people as an hour of open heart surgery).
One of the particularities of G.A.M.E is that it does not have a floor limit, since a debt is recognized so it is possible to have its account in negative.
Here is an excellent video to know more:
In this article, I would like to compare the two solutions, according to the synergetic criteria that I usually use.
Efficiency
The efficiency of a currency evaluates the energy expenditure required for it to meet the needs it is supposed to meet.
Ğ1 (3/5): the efficiency of june is correct, as it is quite usable for exchanging goods and services, without restriction at this time. However, as a cryptocurrency, it needs technological objects with questionable energy balance (computers, smartphones, internet cables, relay antennas, all running on electricity).
G.A.M.E (5/5): to my knowledge, the only way to do this more efficiently is direct bartering, which is not always practical in case of cross-exchanges between several producers/consumers. The G.A.M.E answers this problem by leaving a note of the exchanges (most often handwritten on a paper). There is also no theoretical limit to the G.A.M.E in terms of exchanges.
Accessibility
The accessibility of a currency assesses the ease with which people who are concerned with the basic context (in this case, anyone on Earth) can actually access and use it.
Ğ1 (2/5): being an internet-dependent cryptocurrency that relies on technological objects made of relatively rare materials, june is not as accessible as it seems. In fact, the very fact that it is a cryptocurrency tends to contradict in practice the Lockean proviso clause that it is supposed to respect. Moreover, if its main software is free, the use of the internet that it requires is based on closed patents whose content is unknown and the few information we have suggests antagonistic (anti-synergetic) uses with respect to people wishing to use this currency.
G.A.M.E (5/5): a paper and a pencil is enough to use the G.A.M.E, one could even manage with a rock and a piece of wood!
Transparency
The transparency of money equals how much it is possible to know how it works.
Ğ1 (3/5): the open source software on which the june is based makes it transparent in theory, but you still need to have the skills to know what it's about. This is the main weakness of libre software, namely the technical limit that not everyone is able to cross due to lack of time or intellectual capacity. Moreover, as said before, the technologies of the Internet are not completely transparent, and the june requires the use of the Internet, so its transparency rating cannot be maximal. Another point related to transparency, and which also plays on our satisfaction score: all identities and transactions are public in the june. Of course, it is possible to register with a pseudonym and there are some third party tools that allow to offuscate the transactions, but this leads to a strong opposition between the transparency of the tool itself and the need of privacy of everyone.
G.A.M.E (4/5): in the G.A.M.E, everything in the use of money is very clear and transparent. The only possible area of doubt is that of cheating by one of the members (who would modify his booklet without the knowledge of the others). However, cheating in the G.A.M.E brings more problems than solutions, because there is no regulating authority in the exchanges, other than the community in which they take place, and the cheaters risk a lot (exclusion) without gaining much, especially because it is always possible to get indebted to one's community and thus there is no strong fear of ending up with 0 token. A cheater who would give himself 1000 tokens unduly would not gain any more exchange value than someone who would admit to owing 1000 tokens to his community. Moreover, the fact that a booklet only allows the recording of a limited number of exchanges makes it possible to forget past transactions (by only transferring the last balance to a new notebook and destroying the old one), which can be seen as a very positive point in terms of freedom and privacy, and does not reduce the level of transparency in our context, since everything remains transparent for the people involved in the exchanges, and can easily be made non-transparent for people who are not involved.
Predictability
The predicatbility of money is how we can anticipate what it will be in the future, how it will be used, by whom or where.
Ğ1 (2/5): the Ğ1 currency is relatively predictable in its creation since it responds to a freely accessible mathematical formula, dependent, however, on the number of members who are part of the trusted community. The universal dividend is also predictable and its mathematical formula freely available. The basic software of the currency is free, which is a positive point. But, and this is a big one, the current uncertainties related to the Internet and the way in which the governments of the world (not to say the world government) can without difficulty block the most diverse accesses to the Internet and even plunge an entire region into the impossibility of using it forces us to recognize that the the use of this tool is completely unpredictable. Secondly, and this is a circumstantial element only partially linked to the design of the june itself: the small number of developers working on the Ğ1 project supposedly increases the likelihood of it taking unexpected directions, or even suffering them in situations where the use of the june would be widespread and part of everyday life (the currency has already almost stopped because of an unresolved fork problem of the blockchain). Finally, relying on the IT tool to run the june allows any intelligence agency or state to fully scan the blockchain in use and the attached metadata to trace behavioral and community patterns and anticipate libertarian outbursts in order to better break them before they emerge (to make a long story short, the june's data is de facto accessible to any social engineering project). Maybe it is one of the reason that incited the French state to recently fund the software development of this money.
G.A.M.E (5/5): the G.A.M.E is in itself simplistic and totally predictable by the simple fact that it has no reason to evolve. The only unpredictable elements related to the G.A.M.E are the communities that use it, but this is not a criterion specific to the design of this currency. Moreover, the stability offered by paper and pencil pushes the uncertainties to the idea of catastrophe or accident, which is not dependent on design either but simply on the mere fact of living!
Simplicity
The simplicity of a currency is both the simplicity of its use and of its creation.
Ğ1 (3/5): june is not that simple, far from it, and this is something I have seen from explaining it dozens of times to hundreds of people. Even if it is obvious that some misunderstandings are more due to psychological blockage linked to the nature of money than to a real intellectual incapacity, it is important to admit that this incapacity is possible, because the way the june works mathematically is not so obvious. Also, a certain amount of computer literacy is required to use it and this is something that poses an immediate limitation depending on the individual.
G.A.M.E (5/5): it is difficult to make it simpler. You just need to be able to read, write and count.
Reversibility
The reversibility of a currency is its ability to be converted into something else useful if we don’t need it anymore.
Ğ1 (2/5): the june is reversible in that it can be easily disposed of and because some of its software components can be useful elsewhere. However, it runs on a blockchain that can only be changed by consensus and will be useless the day we no longer need it. It will be good to throw away. The technological objects already mentioned are also not very reversible in the short term and generate various waste, sometimes polluting. The members' money is not recoverable to do something else with it, unless an exchange system is set up one day to convert it into other currencies.
G.A.M.E (5/5): everything in the G.A.M.E is reversible, especially if you use non-synthetic paper and pencils. Debit and credit acknowledgments can easily be reversed within the community if needed (as long as the people involved have something to give and are ready to take).
Contentment
A currency brings contentment if its entire design and use are perceived as satisfying, enjoyable.
Ğ1 (3/5): most of the members of the june seem happy to be a part of it, especially because of the social link it brings them, but for my part I have more than 6 years of hindsight now on this currency and it is obvious that two major problems arise almost systematically:
the use of computers generates frustrations and annoyances
the principle of the universal dividend tends to favor an imbalance between consumers and producers and the latter often feel wronged or do not see the point of continuing with this currency. This is due to the fact that the universal dividend is experienced by many as a passive universal income, which does not encourage them to produce value but simply to consume. This leads to community situations where there is no real producer but simply some sort of flea markets and exchanges that, for some, could have been gifts or simply would not have taken place at all in other circumstances.
G.A.M.E (5/5 ?): I have for the moment very little experience in the use of the G.A.M.E, even if I am in contact with people who use it often and for almost a year. At the moment, I have not observed any annoyance, disgust or disappointment related with this monetary solution. As far as the consumer/producer imbalance is concerned, it can potentially appear by the fact that there is no floor limit to the G.A.M.E and that one can therefore consume as one wishes as long as one finds someone who accepts this currency. On this point, the G.A.M.E remains superior to the june because it allows you to see directly, almost without calculation, if there is an imbalance by simply sharing your current balance. If some people end up with many more tokens than others, it means that they bring more to the community than the community brings to them (at least, inside the G.A.M.E accounting system) and it is then relatively easy to find a solution or to readjust the organization of the community economy.
Balance sheet
Ğ1: 18/35 ≈ 5/10
G.A.M.E: 34/35 ≈ 10/10
Promoting the G.A.M.E
As you can see, I have made the recent choice to focus on the G.A.M.E as a currency and to abandon the use of the june.
However, since a currency is only useful when people are ready to use it, it is advisable to make efforts to spread it and develop its use.
Because of its relatively impalpable nature (we just note on a piece of paper the exchange that took place, even if it is the same as any fiat currency, we are not accustomed to it), the G.A.M.E is naturally aimed at communities of trust at first. It is once again through this mean that I invite us to progress. Let's start locally, and in a tightly knit way. Later on, when this currency gains notoriety, it will be possible to create bridges between communities and why not think of intermediate and complementary G.A.M.E. In reality, everything is possible if we remain simple, efficient and do not lose sight of our objectives of freedom and self-determination.
At present, the G.A.M.E exists mainly in the French-speaking West, including Quebec. Let's not hesitate to develop it wherever we think it is relevant. The good news is that it is possible to use it as we want, when we want, without being accountable to anyone other than the people with whom we exchange.
Addendum on the subject of libre money:
This article highlights and critiques the Ğ1, the first cryptocurrency set up as a libre currency according to the Relative Theory of Money. This critique concerns mainly the current implementation of the libre currency principle but does not reject entirely the principle in itself (universal dividend following a mathematical law where the only really arbitrary element is life expectancy).
See my follow-up article of the present one, about the nature of money:
