Home 2018-01-14T14:44:53+00:00
0
IN DIGITAL CURRENCY EXCHANGED
0
COUNTRIES SUPPORTED
0
CUSTOMERS SERVED

Money has the simplicity of facilitating buying and selling

Money, unlike any other form of property, is unique in that it may be used for anything prior to an event even occurring. Money has the simplicity of facilitating buying and selling, and a mathematical complexity as demonstrated by the financial markets; and yet it has no notion of egalitarianism, ethical or moral decision making. Despite this the outcomes are never completely predictable and, furthermore; a commitment to social justice and an aversion to moral turpitude is not a requirement of its use.

What if a “digital” currency could provide a valid alternative

What if a “digital” currency could provide a valid alternative to existing forms of money in performing the role of contributing positively to: the goals of promoting a socially inclusive culture, the equality of opportunity and the promotion of mutualism; which as their very name implies are complementary and/or alternative to an official or national sovereign currency? Virtual cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin are a new and emerging dynamic in the system; though in their infancy, the pace of innovation in the field of cryptocurrencies had been dramatic.

The fact that the original words have been encoded into a numerical form and decoded back to words electronically does not mean we trust less the words we are reading, but we may still prefer the aesthetics of a physical book than a piece of high-tech plastic which needs to have its battery charged to keep working. Can digital currencies such as bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin really provide a contribution to positive social change in as spectacular a way?

There are many factors which determine the ‘effectiveness’ of money to bring about positive social and environmental change; pervading political ideology, economic environment, the desire of local communities and individuals to pursue alternative social outcomes whilst seeking to maximise economic opportunity, building of social capital, and many others. Then introduction on a more widespread basis merits investigation, if a local digital currency could be designed to build extra resilience into a local economy and improve economic outcomes. When the current economic system fails to deliver it is manifested in such ways as: increased social isolation, higher crime rates, physical dereliction, poor health, a lack of a sense of community, amongst other undesirable social impacts.

Starting from the principles of democratic participation it is immediately apparent that bitcoin does not satisfy the positive social impact component of such an objective in so far as its value is not one it can exert influence over but is subject to market-forces. Any ‘new’ crypto-currency may offer democratic participation when the virtual currency has different rules of governance and issuance based upon more socially based democratic principles.

It might be said that bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin represents the decentralisation of money and the move to a simple system approach. Bitcoin represents as significant an advancement as peer-to-peer file sharing and internet telephony (Skype for example).

In order for a currency to effectively perform the financial functions required of it, the intrinsic-value of money has to be a commonly held belief by those who use it. In November 2013 the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs acknowledged that virtual currencies are a legitimate means of payment, an example of such is bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin.

There is very little explicitly produced legal regulation for virtual or digital currencies, however there are a wide range of existing laws which may apply depending on the country’s legal financial framework for: Taxation, Banking and Money Transmitting Regulation, Securities Regulation, Criminal and/or civil law, Consumer Rights/Protection, Pensions Regulation, Commodities and stocks regulation, and others. It is common practice for nation-states to explicitly define currency as legal tender of another nation-state (e.g. US$), preventing them from recognising other ‘currencies’ formally as currency. In the other circumstance of being considered as property the obvious discrepancy here is that, unlike property, digital currencies have the capacity of divisibility into much smaller amounts.

Can digital currencies such as bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin really provide a contribution to positive social change in as spectacular a way?

In order for a currency to effectively perform the financial functions required of it, the intrinsic-value of money has to be a commonly held belief by those who use it. In November 2013 the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs acknowledged that virtual currencies are a legitimate means of payment, an example of such is bitcoin, ethereum, versacoins, and litecoin. There is very little explicitly produced legal regulation for virtual or digital currencies, however there are a wide range of existing laws which may apply depending on the country’s legal financial framework for: Taxation, Banking and Money Transmitting Regulation, Securities Regulation, Criminal and/or civil law, Consumer Rights/Protection, Pensions Regulation, Commodities and stocks regulation, and others. It is common practice for nation-states to explicitly define currency as legal tender of another nation-state (e.g. US$), preventing them from recognising other ‘currencies’ formally as currency.