Post by AIMCat Peter
Re-visioning Money and Banking Series
Practical Steps Back to a Functional Reality
In the previous Part 1 of this journey, we found that our present money system has become an unworkable corruption of an initially sound concept to enable exchange of goods or services for reliable “value token” notes, issued by banks.
We set out the requirements for a sound system, and highlighted 3 ways that banks had gamed and corrupted these sound principles for their own benefit resulting in the mess we experience today.
However, to return to a functional mechanism is not possible at the mere flick of a switch, with the corruption so ingrained and globally spread.
We need to start with a list of issues that need to be covered in the reversion process:
1. As the present system has evolved to benefit those who run it, there will be much in-house resistance to any change which removes those benefits.
2. Any new system restarting from sound practice must be able to evolve ALONGSIDE the current, and interact with it as necessary in the interim.
3. This will unavoidably involve greater complexity in the transition period, with the public needing to see clear immediate benefits to them overriding the upset of change.
4. Established law is built around the present structure, and so any new privately promoted “token” medium would have to be a form of cryptocurrency.
5. Not only sound and secure in itself, the mechanism would have not to detract from value invested in the current system, before it establishes itself.
6. The new development must be able to develop from a “standing start” through public approval and choice.
The following is a suggested start for consideration and debate:
Owner occupied property offers the basis for secure, stable cryptocurrency to be created by those owners, using the property market value as collateral.
Property ownership, property value, property insurance, and financial charges against property can all be recorded and verified, with blockchain security protection, and be updated as and when any of these items changes.
This secure technology* therefore now allows the potential for individual owners of property to secure and create transferable credit for themselves based on this value, in cryptocurrency units corresponding to conventional credit units, as (say) “property dollars”….” property pounds” etc.
As a starting point, it would be prudent to have an initial fixed ceiling to the creation of such crypto units of (say) 50% of the recorded market value of any property, in order to allow people to become accustomed to the concept, and practical process, in a demonstrably safe financial environment, not pushing the market valuation at any time to the extreme.
The cryptocurrency recording, and associated 50% cap, would be a blockchained entry on any specific property record, available for the owner to use and manage, or ignore if he or she wished. A dormant, or active resource at the discretion of the owner.
Once an owner had found another property owner with whom he had agreed a deal for the transfer of goods using the cryptocurrency, he would transfer the currency from his account over to the goods supplier’s account in the normal way, with blockchain security, so that now the goods supplier’s account showed he could “spend” more than his 50% property value, and the goods recipient’s account would show he had a corresponding amount less than his 50% value in his remaining account.
And so on……
The only further mechanism to consider is the arrangements to cover the eventual sale of the property, either by owner’s decision, or death.
When the property is transferred between owners, the transferor will either have the crypto account in it’s original balance, or in credit, or deficit with reference to it’s original balance.
If in original balance, the sale and transfer can be made entirely in the conventional way and the transferee will pay in full with conventional funding.
If there is a deficit on the original balance, then that deficit is transferred to the new owner, with that new owner having the benefit of a corresponding reduction in the amount he has to pay in conventional funding. The deficit remains until such time as he may return the crypto account to full original balance.
If in credit relative to the original balance, the transferor can transfer the credit amount to any new property crypto account he is buying. If he is not buying another property, he will have to transfer to another chosen property owner’s account, or let the credit remain for the benefit of the transferee.
These same options will apply to the property at death of the owner, or be subject to his Will provisions.
Under no circumstances will cryptocurrency credit or deficit numbers appear, or disappear, without a corresponding opposing deficit, or credit balance also occurring in the system in a naturally functioning way.
Those wishing to trade in this way would need person to person trading platforms, similar to Ebay or Gumtree to have the option to trade using the cryptocurrency, initially with their commission in conventional currency.
Clearly, once established and showing it’s benefits to trading parties, consideration could be given to raising the value limit percentage, in an organised review of the overall system rules.
With time and the accepted use of this means of exchange, housebuilders would have the opportunity to pay for building work in cryptocurrency, using any developing property value and applying the 50% rule.
Checking this Proposition Against the Original 6 Criteria Points Above
1. The only interaction with the present system is the potential reduction in conventional money where a property is sold with net cryptocurrency deficit. Existing banking business would otherwise be unaffected.
2.See 1. above – this mechanism can work entirely separately to the existing.
3. Initial buyers would be unfazed by a corresponding “loss” on future property sale, in order to have instant hassle-free goods or services. Initial sellers would have every confidence they could buy something with their crptocurrency “surplus” in due course.
4. Other private cryptocurrencies have emerged and thrived within the framework of law – this cryptocurrency has the added advantage of security against property value.
5. See 1. above. No problem here.
6. Time will tell, but once started there is no reason that this development shouldn’t go from strength to strength, allowing the raising of the 50% limit after time, if, and as needed.
Note from the Anonymous Patriots:
The asterisk * is because the American Intelligence Media has reported that BLOCKCHAIN technology is not secure at this time. There are ways to make it secure, but until the United States Patent Office is purged of British and foreign control, the engineers who have developed the new, very secure encryption system are not interested in offering their product for use. Personally, we would not digitize any of our assets, like property or wealth, on the blockchain until this encryption was included in the existing or new system. In the reports below, we busted Bitcoin as a CIA operation – and definitely NOT secure.