Because the goal isn’t to impose my sense of morality on them. As I have explained above one CAN’T and since I believe in freedom I shouldn’t anyway. If they choose to buy and sell their reputation then they should be free to do so. I don’t believe it’s moral and personally I find the practice disreputable, ironic yes, but one should still be free to do it. Moreover I have also pointed out how simply buying one’s reputation would cost if not backed up by actual works. And I have also illistrated how playing the market would be difficult in a resource backed economy. The goal is to measure reputation gains or losses not prevent people from trading in reputation or doing subjectively disreputable things.
To use an anology if one was to create a Murdercoin and measure the investment of people killing one another that is not necessarily an endorsement to kill one another. It’s simply a gauge as to the value of what an assassination job, and therefore a life, is worth. We can all agree killing people is bad. That does not prevent people from trading death. Creating a unit of measure simply helps gauge the value thereof.
In short I am creating a unit of measure of something that is already being traded: reputation. I can agree that selling integrity is bad, just like killing people is bad, but likewise that doesn’t stop people from doing it. Creating a unit of measure helps gauge it’s worth. Moreover allowing people to easily trade reputation for works allows them to establish social bonds which is the original purpose of the coin.
Are you missing the part about there being a record of how many people are on the SAFE network? As it stands no one can say for sure how many people are on the SAFE network, what they believe, where they are, or what their voting history is. If anyone managed to match someone’s name to their token address then under your system they’d have the entire voting history. At the very least they’d be able to track demographics of the growth of the network. If you know there are x many safe users and y many are using this particular app that supports these politics then you can figure on the general politics of that segment of network.
Moreover how does this system help the individual? It’s just more politics.[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:120, topic:4755”]
Well, firstly, holdings would reflect support/investment in the project.- so it starts as being as fair and equitable as the crowd sale - it then gets more equitable over time. The issue you raise can be something that is addressed as the network grows - ie say each token is then “burned” in exchange for 2 or more newly named tokens to reflect the growing community.Also, the 1% deducted could be re-distributed as giveaways.
[/quote]
Okay so let me get this straight: You’re creating a “votecoin”? That is a coin to represent one’s political say. Okay here’s an obvious flaw in your logic. What if people just start selling them by the truckload? If they’re automatically redistributed then what if someone says “I’ll pay you to sell me your votes.” He then takes the votecoin and uses it to vote for some nasty politician? HELLOOOOOO CORRUPTED DEMOCRACY! Lobbying is in the house!
Because you’re creating a votecoin. Votecoins can be traded. Tradable things can be sold. Sold votecoins are the key to a corrupted and pointless democracy. I’d opt for a straight up anarchic free market over a democracy any day if for no other reason than you know what you’re dealing with and democracy is inherently corruptable and falls to oligarchies and fascism. As you have JUST demonstrated by proposing the creation of your votecoin.
Yes. To either utterly corrupt the naive ideal of democracy or try vainly to redistribute power in a finite resource system. The former being inevitable and the latter being daft.
OK…what is your goal?[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:121, topic:4755”]
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:121, topic:4755”]