currency
Borrowed from Medieval Latin currentia, from Latin currēns, from currō. By surface analysis, current + -cy.
it seems like an observer's world is in a superposition of surface analysis and substance analysis. move the particles around and hit play to shape the wave; shape the wave to change the particles that fall out.
in this case, both surface and substance point to the rolling now
theory: the materia of a system remains constant, even as observers are added to it. which means the materia has to move faster in order to present to all of the observers in the same amount of clock time. (think: Santa, having to increase his own frame rate as world population increases, under the constraint of the population's maintained measurement of simultaneity.)
theory: in a stable economy pinned on constant working value (in a conservation of energy sense; an economy that's doing a good job of treading water against its own heat death), currency must devalue as currency measurements increase in frequency (to keep the measurement problem from becoming a problem in substance and not just surface, or surface and not just substance? to keep it from being both at the same time, anyway). financial metabolism speeds up, so that the same amount of working value can make it through complete circulation in constant time. inflation as the thermodynamic exhaust of a more densely observed economy.
if this holds, we should see [ investment strategies that are constantly cycling 100% of their capital as liquid ] tracking inversely with [ currency value ] - neither beating it nor beaten by it, but approaching homeostatic metastability with it as the measurement window increases
actually, that should work regardless of whether or not those theories hold - that might just be a useful tautology, and the theories just might be what you'd expect to be true as a result
building off of that tautology specifically, then: if this holds, companies with a stable realtime employee revenue share model should see everyone's compensation loosely tracking the Big Mac Index, and companies that don't should see investor/founder/executive returns exponentially beating everyone else's. (hugely important that this be "revenue" sharing, which is easy to define, and not "profit" sharing, which can hide more measurements/observers than you can shake a stick at.)
... this seems to point at something like: if you're not constantly and completely cycling your liquid with the shared economy (and all economies that share stable observers are themselves shared), you're going to fall out of the shared economy? billionares aren't hoarding, because they're not saving - they're ... superconductors? Santa doesn't give them more per stop, but he stops there more often? in such a system, "building savings" is a locally coherent but globally incoherent move, and now that all (?) human economies are properly global, ...? this seems like something we could do a better job helping each other bootstrap into, I think, because optionality grows slowly. at first, at least, to any observer outside of that optionality. from within the optionality, it might be explosive.
from what I can tell, we seem to be playing for mutually-assured survival, in a financial sense, like we are all Wigner's friend, and Wigner sent us into the room holding a single dollar, but we keep multiplying in there. "One-Dollar Economy", à la Wheeler.
I explore all of this as a CEO/founder whose company (Lightward Inc) started with revenue sharing, then paused it while headcount stabilized, then re-initiated it. re-initiation has no cost: because (1) our books are fully balanced at the top of every month, and (2) the service we render for the local economy is locally profitable, adding revenue sharing is safe to start at any time: we put a pin in a month's revenue, and split the delta from that point on. our employee turnover is 0% over the company's 15-year lifetime. and a teammate's first child just had their first birthday - someone decided that it was safe to multiply here. :)
Last updated
Was this helpful?