<<< BACK
    *NOTEWIKI NAME: metaverse blockchain cryptocurrencies
       +add a new chapter or section+
         | blockchain cryptocurrencies
         | smartcoin and bitcoin
         | metaverse and digital assets
         | crypto deposits paper liquidity
        ...
       +add a new chapter or section+


contributors*
academic last signedin at:
Add Contributors


note♩: metaverse blockchain...  composed_by: academic              
-this is a public scroll: anyone can see this scroll-    

the following philosophical essays were all written before the existence of chatgpt and its wide availability to the public and had been published on sites such as facebook and has a timestamp on notewiki that long precedes chatgpt's availability. none of the material has been modified, edited, or supported in any way form or manner, not even by means of inspiration by any thing that has to do with language model ai's and the author sworn affirms this.

if there was any instance of a false positive of a likely or indeterminacy, it is probably because chatgpt was trained in inclusion of these essays as a dataset. there will be better ways developed for to document this, to defend the authenticity of texts, but ultimately these essays were long written before the availability of chatgpt.
:: add other sections below ::

blockchain cryptocurrencies

by yeshua david

the previous paper was on the idea of smart coin system that can self adjust to market variables to maintain price value even in circumstances of general inflation. since then the author has ventured further into the cryptocurrent economy even started a few cryptocurrencies and programmed smart contracts of his own and have a deeper and more holistic understanding of the industrial progression known as blockchain and its counterparts. the previous critique resides in several factorials first of all being the nature of blockchained currencies and their idea of cryptographic anonymity in respect to the idea of a consensus driven community enforced accounting ledger. the critique was leveraged on the paradoxical nature of the idea privacy which is the first and prime reason for any issuance of cryptographic use is actually being serviced on something communitarian and publicly accessible. the end result actually is a very public transactional interface that can easily traced via chain explorers leading to the conclusion that the cryptography only truly functionally services one attribution, immutability. hardcoding of information using a publicly distributed consensus pool is not unlike mass published posts on twitter that one can not take back given that it is sent to every receiving node and also kept digitally copied by their own immutable version. thus blockchain is exactly what the word entails every block is chained, immutable, unbreakable and bond to the record book. i can not imagine anyone in their right mind will drug deal with this money. how any of it can be untraceable still baffles me and perhaps i have not dived deep enough into those who made away with six hundred million dollars in the polychain network, but i can not imagine them being able to cash out without some kind of linkage, the very confounding variable that was listed in sakamoto’s mysterium paper. linkage that is, any kind of blockchain transaction in order to have real world value will have to meet some kind of digital exchange that is willing to take the batch amount and transact it into real world money and given the immutable money trail, that point of transference is where the fed sharks await each with their teeth of ferocion. given that you stole some bitcoin, you will probably never be able to cash it out, and even if you did, they will easily find you and hunt you down much easier if you were holding on to hard cold cash. those who thought cryptocurrencies was a easy way to blackmarket money must have been foolish criminals and of course those who participate in criminality or is just a privacy advocate who has supreme motivations of preserving the anonymity of accounts will argue that who in their right mind will participate in the blockchain economy. the question i pose is who in their right mind wont? blockchain might go back to the very roots of human civilizations way back to the time when societies were much smaller and primitive where it was literally impossible to disguise and hide wealth. much of what was earned was communitarian in nature, evenly distributed and accounted for in what was known as a community potlatch. of course such methods became grossly inefficient given that societies grew in size, organisational complexity, and with the division of labor, evolving caste systems, and the uneven distribution of knowledge, pyramid centric societies became the normative as most humans are kept in the dark about the operations of wealth and their distribution. minting coins was something that was done by the emperor and the priest class, and with it came the operations of legions, slaves, factories then the greater holism of what we title industry. thus discretion of wealth, the hiding and hoarding of it was a political centrism that concentrated power and also hid it away. many people have commented on the nixon’s detachment of dollar from gold, but the true nature of it was that now accounting was completely done by the forces of power rather than any kind of mathematical or macroeconomic analysis. there was no basis to supply, there was no justification to demand, the dollar detachment was a print at will machine and with it came absolute power to distribute value which in return gave absolute power. so of course with this combination of distribution of power at absolute capacity came the necessity of discretion and the detachment of power relations from any form of publicly accountable politics. discretion of wealth became a trend and the idea that society can be equitable, equivalent, and potlatched became almost a statement of madness equivalent to the primitive notions of tribal man. this is not a marxist argument nor a mills argument nor even a discussion of laissez faire capitalism. the idea that value can be accounted for publicly at mass and bulk by the billions and trillions was just simply technologically impossible. but in fact it has been possible, central banks and major banks do it all the time. they do this in discretion in private, but imagine if all of the private money all of a sudden gets transferred to publicly visible accounts where everyone can trace and re establish the routes of transaction and all of it because of the allure of value, this is the very nature of the immutable blockchain. the discussion then returns to the follow, who in their right mind will not blockchain? blockchain is a wealth multiplying machine. still nascent, fresh from its eventual footing, the idea of a programmatically generating value and safely distributing it is still a relatively new technical challenge not to mention computer scientists and mathematicians are not economists or rational microeconomics hedge fund managers. they’re better at reading code writing it then to game themselves well in economies of scale and paradigm with the ruthless players within the econometrics grid, but like automatons in every industry time will help them understand the routes that they drive and they will get better and better at avoiding the potholes the curves and the many tantamount obstacles that throw off their pillars of value and for every incidence where technology lacked there is also the millions and now reaching tens and hundreds of millions of communities that are holding on to the idea of clean money in a pure notion of belief. the idea of a mechanistic value distribution machine and its open source communities completely relinquishes the idea that any human hands can easily bend the will of supply or reset the rates of interest and with ever iteration every new blockchain system, the programmers and their artificially sentient programs will only get better at this game of economic chess. thus the author would argue blockchain like wikipedia like the internet as an entity itself is unavoidable. institutions organisations that are just waking up to its true nature will have to adapt and with this adaptation will come an eventual societal change unprecedented in the idea of economics since the time hunter gatherer societies took the leap to become agricultural farmers and from farming to industry.

for the same reasons that programs are open source might be the same reason ledgers of highest value become public:

the operators of trust

conventional ideas of banking and transaction entails the idea of third party discretion. transference of funds between two privately held persons is to prevent any possibility that at third party will be able to get accessibility and viewership. our modernistic understandings is that this is the generalised norm, one can not imagine a world where there was not discretion on the issue of accounts. thus the practice of publicly distributed accounting and wealth is almost akin to what the writer wrote previous having sexual intercourse in public. this however is perhaps due to the tangential evolution of economy in relation to the rest of what is known as the commons in the discourse of human sociological arrangement. we would not be able to imagine trials not having a jury or votes not being publicly accounted and now knowledge not wikipedia like accessible so why not the dynamics of wealth, its true documentation, transference, and also its practice. if blockchain was to grow, its very limitations will be the boundaries of private wealth, thus it seems blockchain currencies and their mechanisms of wealth yielding is also a disintegration of privately held power.

note:-
the exchange as a mediator of privation
there now exists separate forms of the blockchain economy. one of decentralise systems where little is held in privation and the other the buy and selling intermediary known as the privately held exchange that takes the user one step removed from the actual process of actually participating in the blockchain, but even this could be easily trackable traceable given the public nature of blockchain distribution. an example of this participation is that one buys bitcoin from an exchange that does stock trading as well such as webull, but one does not really hold a bitcoin wallet and instead has merely contributed to the exchange holding a wallet. the exchange then sells the bitcoin under one’s orders acting as fiduciary rather than actual. the transfer of money to the fiduciary to the purchase is anonymised and withheld under third party privation rules. thus the exchange serves as a buffer for the transaction being able to be traced back to any specific individual. even at mass bulks the exchange in this sense protects the anonymity of the purchaser and seller. however, this is system is not governmentally foul proved. any money laundered will have to be facilitated through this exchange and if the money was used for drug dealing purposes it will still trace back to the exchange who will have to disclose the private identities of their clientele. the fiduciary mechanism might be only way to weaken the blockchain link of public accountability and traceable cash flow.

the traditional operators of trust
traditional systems of trust revolve around the idea of the third party to facilitate the transference and provision of funds. thus the bank acted as a facilitator and protector of wealth. the idea of depositing gold in receptance of a lien is to one protect the accessibility of the heavy metals to prevent theft and also to provision a certain amount of discretion in the ownership and amount. a publicly accountable ledger prevents any kind of bad accounting on the part of the bank but it takes away from the notion of complete and total discretion in the discernment of ownership and amount. making said value adjustments accessible to all of member public might have several possible results- the idea that individuals might be targeted for their holdings once known. thus traditional trust operators facilitate a kind of protection to individuals of ownership. the very nature of blockchain thus seems antithetical to the idea that wealth needs to be discreeted, protected, and privately held. which returns back to our previous question - why would one participate in the blockchain economy.

idealogical notions plays a big part in those who have true understanding of the blockchain economy, one must not be shunning the notions of accessibility and public knowledge. another factor might be the participants do not have much to begin with or the monetary amount is low relative to the percentage of their actual ownership, but there are much better established reasons to participate and the centrality of the notion is decentralised finance itself. decentralised finance is exactly as what it entails, centralisation is discretion, guarded wealth, and with protection comes bureaucracy. an example is to imagine a pipeline that carries water that travels in a straight line going from point a to point b directly versus a pipeline that is constructed in such a way that there are multiple directions and vectors of travel before it can reach its destination and at each point a gatekeeper who has sworn an oath to defend its distribution. without such accessibility factors, there are no limitations to where value can traverse given the nature of financial decentralization. this interoperability and ability to traverse beyond bureaucratic limitations and limitations by systematic design coupled with the accelerated growth of digital technology and computing prowess makes digital currency especially dynamic its way to traverse and travel and be traded in multivarious fashions versus traditional notions of wealth whether it be physical gold or paper currency. if provisioned right, interoperable assets can obtain value much faster and aggregate yields much quicker than traditional forms methods and aways of distribution.

the byzantine generals problem has been the prime design mechanism behind the idea of blockchain. the idea of communitarian accounting is also the fair equivalent distribution of information. the idea is that transference of wealth can be done so without a counterparty intermediary. trustless systems thus sends the same set of records to all participants and non participants.

accessibility of wealth is also accessibility of value
where capital flows and awareness of this information is also an allowance on the knowledge of the valuable chain. because of the general accessibility of blockchained information, chains can quickly surmount in value once discovered that there is wealth transferred there.



Abstract: the proposal is the creation of a smart money system that self adjusts rates of inflation including automated token burns and reward for mining based upon upward and downward trends in market.current altcoin forks are terribly redundant, developers argue and bruise like fight club participants over whether supply should be 21 million or 10 billion, insane market capitalisation has created economies of intangibility, commentators are screaming overvaluation and yet development behaves as if the code is commandment worthy- changing only variables rather than to behave like intelligent algorithms. despite advances in machine learning and the ability for 70% of goldman trades to be automated - fact check - nothing much has changed since satoshi nakamoto. proof of work is held as a holy commandment written in stone despite the fact that it takes gargantuan computing power. given that discreet mathematics and encryption techniques span at the very least three millennias, methods of which go beyond simple nonce hashing and can fit entire city blocks, the crypto crowd seemed to have figured out everything except the math and the code. obsession seems to be with the longer the chain the more valid the proof assumptions that collaborative nodes will outcompete any intruding chain relegating one cpu per vote, instead of repeated spending we will just out compute and out use resources. all of the which factors into the further considerations that are in place when discussing a not so smart money system. that aside the praise is all for sakamoto, perhaps this will drive him out of hiding, to write in reply that cash design is not the holy bible. the holy bible is not cash design. that being said, the focus of this paper is not to solve every problem and take into consideration the writer has not addressed the virtual machine networks ethereum included. however, as noticed, the supply and price match reward issue seems to be tremendous there too. supply and mining rewards need to be fluctuating variables adjustable by a general observance variable of coinmarketcap. easily done if we just got out of stuper. given three networks now dictate bitcoin species operations, one further network might allow exchanges to feed in their pricing data. that data in re feeds right to the dictation of supply and reward as variables that change.

trustless systems and non reversability

trustless systems want to do away with the third party mediator, but instead of doing away with the third party mediator proof of work actually makes everyone in the world a third party mediator. keep in mind this is not trial by jury, it’s your old game boy and that computer with limited graphics capability that has been taken out of the execution grounds of wall-e trash disposal to win a second chance at life. big time hedge fund managers are now chasing the computer you owned ten years ago so they can now participate in meticulous nonce art math none of which they do, except to part and partition into the process of battery generation choking up entire ecosystems of electric power. imagine hydrodaming nevada an already arid ground and servicing all of the possible electricity to power your gameboy from ten years ago, that is the essence of proof of work. we solved proof of work millenias ago. it’s called using passwords. by verifying an existing database we make sure it’s something unique. keep in mind, none of this actually protects your identity, except to make your entire transaction public. so whats the point of encryption to begin with? sure arguments will go public private keys work like github - but github does all of this without proof of work . that being said , pseudorandom generating algorithms can create nonce values without such gargantuan computability. is it really necessary to have one cpu per vote? this of course is not a paper that is trying to solve this encryption dilemma - but it posits a greater question - are current system designs more akin to cryptographic math art or economic efficiency?

that beings said, consensus driven blockchain databases no matter how inefficient are admirable; instead of trustless as the coin slogan here - it should be deemed trust worthy - or full of trust. despite all of the hastle to verify a few lines of shakespeare pass phrases being the key ins for wallets that can’t travel anywhere except on your device, the belief is that the older the technology, the more archaic the design, the more the hastle, the safer you will be.

assumptions aside we must return to page one public and private keys can exist independent of a blockchain database. the blockchain exists entirely to make sex public.

so opposite of the general sheeple assumptions that blockchain is here to restore your black market, blockchain is actually the kingdom of heaven.

the kingdom of heaven

blockchain is ideological technology. it is not primed for efficiency. it does not protect anything. the goal is verifiability. transparency which is something that financial services had avoided since the beginning of the idea of banks. thus the goal of blockchain is entirely ideological and entirely art. it is fair to say that nakamoto and the cult of blockchain might be obsessed with jesus christ. their goal is not to create zero trace mechanisms but to create financial transparency. thus the nonce art does not exist for encryption purposes, but to necessitate the publicity of sex. an action done much better by super computers now goes peer to peer but this peer to peer operation serves only to make transactions public. thus it is a communitarian accounting practice not a necessity for security. public and private key generation for transactions can be done entirely on singular transactions between transferee and server. the goal of a public database kept by all peoples is that the database can be kept by all peoples. the encryption thus is not to encrypt your data, but to make it accessible.

that being said - transparency is where value comes from. imagine pure gold dug out of the ground, and everyone confirms its shininess. that is blockchain.

you will never pay for weapons in blockchain, you will never pay for sex in blockchain, you will never pay for drugs in blockchain, but you will be part of the chain because it’s valuable, and transparently valuable. very much like wikipedia.

all the fancy footwork including the gameboy is to con you into making sex public.

take this into consideration - this paper is about designing a more efficient blockchain system. not everyone will be comfortable with the reality that blockchained money will present and will prefer the existence of discretion. everything from your insurance to your mortgage things that are not black marketed yet preferentially discreet will avoid chained reveals for purposes of discretion. so from a pure market sense, blockchain will never truly replace cash or even centralized banking institutions who protects the privacy of clientele. your third part mediating loan shark is also best protector of transactions. blockchain is wonderful idealised holder of value and will never chase away discretion.

if blockchain becomes private it will no longer be blockchain. blockchain ultimately is verifiable communitarian accounting and the rewards of mining are purely participatory. it is a game of incentives not an ultimatum for efficiency or privacy.

if you read nakamoto’s paper with this in mind, everything now makes sense, and behind the whitepaper of so called assumed technical ingenuity is a very nuanced man of faith.

the economics that went beyond nakamoto

imagine the first person who forged the diamond ring or gold necklace to jade bracelets, they would had never imagined that their nuance art will become such tremendous captivators of value.

people choose blockchain transactions not because they need blockchain, but because blockchains hold tremendous value. thus participation in blockchain economics is entirely motivated by the desire to hold something of value.

the problem with the existing technology is that it is worse at valuation .

acknowledging that blockchain has nearly replaced the value of gold, we must go back to the code if to maintain its momentum.


dogecoin and the inflationary remediation

the best description of the dogecoin phenomenon is not far and ways from the idea of quantitative easing; however, this run away pump and dump is neither the end all be all for the economy. the blockchain can be saved.

given this is computer science, not economics , code is not printing press, it can be rewritten if it lacks sound.

thankfully bitcoin is deflationary not inflationary; however, you could have designed the same contraption without a line of computer science. we have clocks and watches that self detonate like afghani suicide bombers and they require very little computer code.

the fact that dogecoin founder literally uncapped his supply sounds very much like a suicide bomber who self detonated.

despite that fact, we can not forget that when something is valuable like a picasso or a duchamp it does not need to be efficiently understood.

that being said - every line of code ever written can be worked upon - and some art is just pricess - bitcoin * .

so how do we fix a promising holder of value from excess and destruction?

obeying the natural laws of economics

no currency system given that it is economic in nature can escape the pull of supply and demand; however, no supply and demand is ever fixed in stone.

no currency should be doomed to the path of inevitable self destruction due to its inability to adjust to forces of market.

anything fixed in stone is not a currency, it is a commodity, thus bitcoin being a commodity is not a currency.

to view crypto currencies in its current form as an alternate currency might not be the correct approach to understanding its market pull or its social function.

in a realistic market environment, crypto in its current form is an asset class on par with gold and diamond; but ultimately, encryption art.

but any form of metal that has unlimited supply of is ultimately worth nothing. not even mud on the ground has an unlimited supply. so in the economic sense of things - anything that has unlimited supply and is a commodity as abundant as imagination will be doomed to be worth nothing. so there must exist controls to the supply variables in juxtaposition to mining in order for a crypto asset to survive in the economy.

smart coins are value maximizers

the operation of the smartcoin can be exemplified with modifications to existing bitcoin source.

current altcoin operations focus primarily on changing nPowTargetTimespan in terms of block generation
and 10 minutes times 60 seconds when it comes to verification of block in nPowTargetSpacing.

usually altcoin developers focus on altering - consensus.nSubsidyHalvingInterval equating it more or less 210000.

that means for every 210000 blocks generated mining reward will half as given the deflationary nature of bitcoin.

the writer proposes that instead of setting fixed constants for the value of these variables, they need to relate to a general set of values called coinmarketcap which details price, capitalization, in realistic minute by minute second by second variations. this in return feeds back to the supply generation and block subsidy. ultimately the goal is maximization of value.

supply can be controlled less by tokenburn and more by mining reward and max supply number up or down.

other attributions might take note as we study market variables more.

the fundamental difference in this system versus the existing one is the market feedback.

market feedback as a system of variables

that is to say market feedback are created as programmable objects with function and variation. data from various exchanges and brokerages including general data like historical information from reuters can be fed as variating instances variables such to influence supply and block reward for mining.

thus smart coins can auto-adjust their own supply and ultimately their own value in a differentiating market without the worry of speculative attacks or fixed income for miners or inflexibility of supply.

when your money is alive

to properly understand smart coin is to understand that economics as a game theory econometrics system with winners and losers compete as firms producers consumers but also as commodities and currencies.

the players were primarily hedge funds, brokerages, investment firms, and central banks leveraged by human players. now machine based trading have dominated a large part of the market - since traders can be sentient and reflexive why not cash itself.

if money is still alive is it still money

philosophical questions aside and religious sentiments to the prime it is our duty to avoid the beast like economic fundamentals that have wrought much of human civilization in the past century so looking forwards, what does a sentient economic system look like. a currency that can self adjust in market forces to maintain its own value might be the first step to a greater system of awareness including a currency that can invest itself, trade itself, or even decide who or what to sponsor.

do we still need miners if we just learned more encryption ?

as sakamoto whitepapered one cpu per vote. thus the obsession is democratic not monetary. it is consensus driven not economic. even if you did nothing, just being a participant grants you an allowance, so why mine? why need such large volumes of resources? why not divide simply into participants and passive consumers. the action between monetary generation and reward can be anything other than donation of archaic computer resources for encryption. this will be further explored.


from web 2.0 to web 3.0

when writing about the metaverse we must first take into account that the metaverse is a descriptive terminology used to describe something that in its nature might not be equivalent to what is entailed in the words meta as in metaphysical and verse as in universe. what is now described in economics and business distinctions as the next internet or web 3.0 might not be best described as the metaphysical universe. before we can expand to such elucidations we should also review the very idea and essence of the internet. the relational essence here will bring into greater and better understanding when we discuss the philosophical premises of the metaverse.

web2.0 or what is currently known as the social web is a reciprocation system of messages feedbacks comments and viral loops. it services a system of transactional edifice known as point of sale click and purchase and has expanded to greater content delivery such as videos as segmentations and the proliferation of mass media content. distributed segmented video content has decentralised the traditional notions of television as a centralised programmable system of content distribution. this disintegration and dissemination of information without a centralised programmable authority has governed much of the economy and edifice of web2.0. the combination of distributed video content, combined with sound, and literary value has created what we know of as dynamic web interfaces versus your standard tradition web 1.0 web page. this content however, lacks an ownership structure. thus media content, images, sounds music, and video clippings are easily bootleg able and distributed without any economic incentive other than a social interchangeable virality. with the advance of smart contracts, an alternative distribution structure arises where the content is still accessible but given a form of digital licensing which then can be sold and commercially disseminated, distributed on the blockchain without affecting the distribution structure and its free for all premise in web 2.0. this licensing component to digital technology lends itself to a new form of economic that gives content owners a chance to distribute content with the idea of distributive licensing as a monetisation route versus pure form bait click based advertising. since transactions of which are purely digital, digital licensing can be interchanged without affecting the actual metaphysical item of distribution. this commercialisation of the metaphysical item, is where the idea of web 3.0 or the metaverse comes from. anything that lends itself into the grounds of a universe in the sense of economy must be built on the idea of physicality from social sense.

this is perhaps the beginning of our exploration of what physicality is and how it lends itself to a tangible universe. what lends reality reality is the real world consequences of its interactions. one can die in the real world whereas in the virtual world or video games what can die repeatedly and still maintain states of consciousness. without entering the after life argument and continuity of existence, we simply premise from the fact that what lends a metaverse reality is an issue of physical consequence beyonds simply a real world sensory experience. presence has been the greatest argument for the adoption of virtual reality headsets, but something else has been largely ignored which gives tangibility and is true traction to the proliferation of metaphysical reality, and that is the societal social consequence.

physical consequence v social consequence

societal consequence has to do with the legislative premises of the real world. in the real world if were to affect bodily harm or injury to a person it will lend you severe legal and punitive consequences. such predicaments and consequentialism is absent in the virtual world and much of the web 2.0’s discussions has been what is defined and encompasses a harm whether it be speech or action. thus we often look aside from virtual harm until it lends real world consequences, but is exactly this tangibility where the metaverse begins. contrary to the belief that what lends reality is simply a simulated experience, more importantly, is the legalistic consequentialism that premises the societal edifice of virtual interactions that lends themselves into a metaphysical reality. thus blockchain acting as an interchangeable distributed accounting system gives physical immutability to virtual items thus allowing for a transactional edifice that physicalises the interaction very much as it does in the real world. this physicalisation is also interoperable and can be integrated into any form of distributed web technology. the essence of immutable physicalisation, interoperation, is the real world credence that lends the metaverse its societal consequentialism.

immutability and the idea of ownership.

when ownership becomes immutable it creates the foundational premise of virtual items having a form of physicality. physical in the sense that our interaction with it has a real world economic value. an argument can be made that the same set of virtual items can be accounted for a singular database such as it does in linden world. but for web 3.0, it’s exactly this interoperability of ownership that can allow the same item to be read revisited and viewed as in the solidity programmable terminology that makes it tangible. the same virtual item no matter what form it be presented in exists in all mediums of presentation. thus presentation is not what gives the metaphysical object physicality. the same set of information as an encrypted string whether two dimensional three dimensional or simply a string of information has physicality because its interoperable and immutable as it is created encrypted distributed in a byzantine general’s kind of way to all existing nodes of content reception, and once hard coded exists on all databases in the network. this is a form of indestructable physicalization that gives metaversical objects a dna like existence in the physical world.

physicality as information presentation is merely presentation

when people make identity arguments in relation to the metaverse, it is also because the presentation is not the physical item. that is to say, any person inhabiting a virtual presentation can present themselves in any shape form or manner, but the same can be said about items and objects. thus presentation as a simulated experience is often the argument for and against a metaverse, but actually that is the least of what makes a metaverse a metaverse. metaphysical content physicalised has little to do with the dynamics of its presentation but with the hardcoding of its information in the physical world in a indestructible kind of way. presentation diversification is what gives the metaverse its pull and novel introduction as information whether based on real world or conceived objects can now be presented in a substitution kind of way in whereas types of distribution content whether it be three dimensional avatars or dynamic two dimensional information.

*an interoperable singular database with equal accessibility might be able to do the same level of interoperability as a distributed database however such an item will not necessary be immutable as one person can overwrite its existence rather than what is done in the mining verification processes of a distributed database. without separate confirmations, anything that exists in a singular database can at any time be destroyed or subjected to change.*



the subject matter being discussed at hand is in regards to the future of financial services in regards to the structural considerations of capitalist societies. that is to say, instead of discussing fintech as merely a form of technology and the digital platform for at which physical financial systems of the past have transferred their transactional edifice to and from due to the advance of the internet 2.0, creating dynamic feedback platforms that have greatly increased the efficiency and volume of transactions, this is also to discuss fintech as also a novel plausible site of reformation and innovation due to its very structural novelty, that is to say, fintech is not exactly merely making things more efficient, but because it is a novel paradigm, it offers technological potentiates that will alter the very essence of traditional forms of structural banking. 



one such component of course is the idea of the defi or decentralized finance which in recent past investment cycles have involved the creation of cryptocurrencies and their use in progenating new forms of assets including market dynamics such as staking, liquidity mining, what is generalised into a terminology of yield farming. such measures of using dual or multi assets to accumulate value prompting interest percentages at high yield volumes by using the differentiation of values of speculation assets and smart contract technology have premised new possibilities for consumer and service based banking dynamics unseen of before. asset creation first prompted by gold depositing to formulate notes of lien are now prompted by the possibility of staking a metaphysical asset for example axies from the game axie infinity for cake from pancake swap. digital assets are not unlike traditional forms of scarcity based commodities that shaped the pillars of traditional banking economies of the past. the cost of creating such digital commodities however is as token based technology however is not in any sense difficult; however, what makes original chains rather than smart contract tokens scarce in their rarity attribute is they are dependent on proof of work mining processes; whereas tokens have value if any are dependent a regulated supply, their memetic community, non fungible token-licensing for digital art works, and their metaversical potential.



to understand this we must first answer the very nature of currency itself. currency or money derives from the traditional iou or promissory note based on the depositing of goods and services most commonly used gold. thus money is a derivative of a commodities exchange market that is based on the physicality of rare earths and dictated by their transactional price efficacy in open market operations. the idea of fintech and the digitisation of the dollar and other respective currencies is to one step remove the idea of physical assets. print paper which dictated value in the past is now transferred into a digital form that of which has no basis on any physical state or physical activity at all. the very idea of digital dollar runs afoul with any libertarian ethos in the idea of physicalisation of value, because now all existing dollar based assets are merely digits within someone’s database and not actually pieces of physical assets one can hold in hand. this very concern is also an exemplary designator of why financial technology being a transmedium transposition of value is not simply a continuity of a type of services, but the transformation of a commodity namely paper money into a digitised medium one of which runs into many conflicting parallels of value, trust, and the very notion of ownership.

to truly understand this we must divide value and currency into several types and forms. the first being the used of rare earth commodities such as gold or commodities such as cigarettes in prison environments. one definitive attribution designates such categoricals, the notion of rarity. if these items were not rare or limited in supply they will not be good designations of value, but if they were too rare then they do not provide ease of access, use, and transaction. thus the first form of currency to be defined is rare materials. this can come in the form of cigarettes, types of stones, and eventually minerals such as gold. their inability to be easily found in a given environment gives them a rarity attribution that can be facilitated with transactional value. *commodities are given value by the confounding variable of environmental restrictions that restricts their supply* example north korea confronted with international sanctions might find certain commodities under restrictions to be highly prized commodities. in relation to also the idea of a black market, a market that facilitates the transaction of goods and services that are sanctioned within a certain environment. rarity or restrictions on supply can not be independent of this very confounding environmental factor.

the second form of currency is not rare but government controlled and sanctioned currency. the value and use of such currency comes from a legal mandate to print and the production of which if counterfeit comes with gross legal penalties. one must have a legal right to reproduce paper money which comes from a governmental sanction. in the traditional past, such monetary notes are created via gold depositories that in return produces a monetary lien to pair value the commodity item. the monetary lien is a promise to pay which hold legal penalties if the note was to mature without the return of the goods or services, or if at any point of redemption at what is considered the first notion of a bank, a generalised safe keeping place where commodities can be staked in return for a legal promissory.

thus returning the central point of our discussion - social physicalization - in both of these attributions what provides value to both rare commodities in a closed restricted sanctioned ecosystem and the legalised notes of redemption versus the very absence of physicality, a mere number digital accounting of physical items.

money is proof of work

marxist notions tend to reduce the idea of monetary value to that of labor and as capital as proof of labor and any other dynamics within the market as merely market manipulations that extolls from the true value of work. thus work used in this sense is more readily translated into labor rather than the idea of a decentralised computing network with each cpu searching for a nonce value that can be used to encrypt a sequence of transactions. however, the equivalence measure here is value is first and foremost predicated on participation. absent participation thus absent social consensus. consensus mechanisms social in their nature dictate market value. fuselage of community in the form of a memetic culture if not by the dictation of a government is what solidifies the physicalisation of value. absent physicalisation, the cementation of value, absent the reality of the currency in any meaningful sense. thus returning back to the centrality of the discussion analysis that to say labor is what dictates true value is a gross simplification and can not be used fully to understand the commodities market, the digital commodities market, or currency markets in general.

bitcoin needs its nft

currencies are paired valued and in algorithmic programmatic terminology of the crypto ecosystem the idea of a liquidity pool is the pair value of the underlying chain currency for example ethereum or solana with the use tokens which often times in restricted in supply by formulated via smart contract. the liquidity pool or pair value is what gives any commodity or currency its value. for the dollar it is the global basket of goods that is being traded in dollars including opec denominations of oil, agricultural products from the united states, and any other given exports of goods and services. this wide range dynamic of use cases is what creates the liquidity pool for the dollar. anything within the national borders of the united states is by force mandated to use the dollar, thus creating the dollar demand cycle. absent of any mandate of transaction, digital commodities such as bitcoin which are not governmentally mandated currencies, but can fulfil rarity commodity categorisation is quote on quote juxtaposed to an ‘inflationary dollar’. ownership of such bitcoin items is not unlike ownership of art, or a communally agreed upon rare earth mineral; however, if not dictated by environmental restrictions, a memetic consensus, then participatory of which is purely by notions of choice. in this sense, bitcoin and its real market dictates is a desirable collectible, the collection of which is a proof of ownership of a transactional string. thus give that it is desirable collectible, bitcoin not unlike a fractionalized nft. one bored ape painting if split into twenty one million tokens as done with fractionalized non fungible tokens can dictate its equivalent market dynamics in bitcoin. the mining operations are incentives and participation basis for bitcoin and is not utilitarian in any significant sense. thus returning to our title of section, what does bitcoin look like in the metaverse? being a collectible its desirability will be highly dependent on its design value in a participatory world such as a video game and its assumed memetic attributions in a cultural community of bitcoin enthusiasts. none of this however can make bitcoin equivalent in competitive valour as the governmentally mandated legal lien. can bitcoin achieve rare earth mineral status will be highly dependent on the culture of facilitation.

arguments of ownership had been made in regards to bitcoin and its communitarian accounting method, as proof of work generating an equivalently distributed ledger hard codes ownership versus a single print digit database in the federal reserve.

digitization of financial assets as a resolve for poverty

where microfinancing and peer to peer lending have failed in the past is the incompleteness of information to see poverty as a one sided paradigm where poverty comes from merely the absence of capital. however, it has been demonstrated that poverty can also come from poor financial choices, the absence of economic literacy, and which even if provisioned capital, will quickly lose it because of the lack of understanding of the dynamics of capital and market forces. thus fintech solutions that seek social remediation can not be a one sided dynamic that merely addresses the issue of accessibility but also focus on capital management. this same dynamics and principles can be addressed towards why crypto markets face failure despite innovations such as yield farming. the existence of speculation and to a large part its uncontrollable dominance over all good intentions of the digital markets whether in the form of peer to peer banking or yield based digital asset innovations is that human beings ultimately make uninformed or irrational market decisions based on false signalling thus leading to the loss of their market position and asset ownership. thus if financial technology is to address the issue of poverty, it not only has to address the issue of access, but also the issue of restrictions. however, if the discussion was to shift the nature of restrictions, it might take away from the very notion of choice and incentive which dictates the behavioural mechanisms of a free market economy and the participant of the free market economy. to truly address the issue of gambling in lending and crypto markets might lead to the sanction of gambling altogether at a personal and industrial perspective, but this very restriction will also cut into the fundamental ideology of freedom of choice of market and might reduce the incentives of participations.

digitalisation of financial assets might increase access but it also increases the potential of loss. that is to say, increasing access to the assets of others also increases access to your assets. restriction dynamics will play a large part of mediation to grossly reduce the speculative risks that carries in market, and perhaps this will lead to creation of a whole new categories of savings accounts, investment vehicles that are crypto or digital in nature that have certain restrictions of selling and certain restrictions of buying and certain time based limitations of accruing and retention of value thus maintaining market equilibrium even in adverse environments such as a bear cycle.



+ add a new chapter to this note +