Ah, this solves the replication system within forward looking systems.
In general I do not like utxo models, as you can not easily build smart contracts on them. Referring to some number stored in the realitytoken contract is so much easier than referencing to many utxos and splitting them.
But the idea is good. Currently we are storing balance_changes(address=>amount), maybe we can store them differently balacne_changes(address=> arbitrator=>amount)
... hm just thinking out loud
I am currently reading the book, the intelligent investor from graham, a very old classic. He keeps on pointing out that investing in assets such as gold is not so favorable, because gold is just a collectible and is not "working for you", as stocks do.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are in some manner also just a collectible. The thought, which is kinda stuck in my head, is that actually, we do not need any cryptocurrency to keep a decentralized worldcomputer running.
We could also create a decentralized index fond (DIF100) on ethereum, which would hold the top 100 most valuable ico's ( like the Nasdaque 100). This DIF100 could be a smart contract that holds these top 100 ico coins and issues DIF100-tokens representing an owernship in all the top 100 tokens.
Now, these DIF100-tokens could be used for staking and for paying fees on the blockchain. And suddenly there is no longer any need for any cryptocurrencies.
I think this is very valuable idea, as index fonds are just the better investment compared to a cryptocurrency, a collectible.
Why do I write this to you? Because it also applies to the realitytoken concept. We could also create an index fund of companies, which profit from some oracle businesses. All these companies could issue some kind of token, which support the fork-economics protocol. I.e. they are easily forkable on the blockchain using subjectivocracy. These companies could be bundled in a decentralized forkable index fond (DFIF100). The tokens of the DFIF100 could then be used instead of realitytokens. This would give users of the eco system a much better protection, as DFIF100 would be a better investment as realitytokens.
Okay, I came up with a new reality concept based on forkonomics. I think it is better than a pure RealityToken concept, as it is not only currency , but also an indexfund generating static value.
I imagine it in the following steps:
After the ecosystem has grown ( maybe in 2 years):
After some more years:
I cleaned the code from London and put it into a form, such that it supports a RealityFund. You can take a look over here:
Basically the RealityFund token is used to decide about the arbitrators, create new RealityBranches etc. And each ForkonomicToken, one of them is RealityToken, uses the branch structure of the RealityFund to handle it's own balances.
Cool, please don't look to close, as there are still small bugs in the code.
I am rewriting the plan, due to all these language mistakes:
After the ecosystem has grown ( maybe in 2 years):
After some more years:
The RealityFund will hopefully support a variety of different ForkonomicTokens, spreading the risks of valuations out to many companies. Only a fraction of this fund is made up by the initial RealityTokens. This should give the RealityFund token a "predictable" value backed by real company shares. Hence, it is would be a great collateral token to use in this new oracle ecosystems.
RealityFund-tokens do have value even for people not believing in new currencies/ utility tokens
Forking or splitting a company is much harder than just forking a utility token. New company leaders need to be chosen and the duplication process of company resources should not be hindered by licenses and copyrights.
Hopefully, we will see that the RealityToken system anyways will not split for a longer time period - only temporarily - and hence the ecosystem would very very rarely go through the pain of splitting companies.
If you like this plan as well, I will put more focus on the coding effort
So the RealityFund is a token backed by a bunch of other forkonomic tokens?
Yes, at some later point in time.
I hope that these forkonomic tokens are more structured as a security/stock token, ie. the issuing companies generates some profit and then distributes this profit to tokenholders. In contrast, utility tokens or currency tokens do not generate value and do not distribute dividends, they are just useful in some ecosystem.
But many people believe that security tokens have a much better value proposition as utility/currency tokens, as they are generating value and are backed by real goods and services. Their value can be calculated. In contrast, the value of currencies tokens depends heavily on the perception of people and very often we see that their value depends on some adaption cycles.
All I am trying to do with my proposal is to merge the benefits of the "old financial structure" of stocks with this new concept of a currency token. I think it has very beneficial, if we start with simple currency tokens, but keep the door open for the transformation to a fund
Take a look from this perspective:
If we ask the usual bettors/market participants of the subjectivocracy system to take over all the system platform risk ( basically the volatility of the realityToken value), then we need to make sure that this risk is as low as possible and that people are comfortable holding this asset.
Now, lets look at the global markets and the asset that people are comfortable holding: It's clearly ETFs. They have the best value proposition and they spread out risk well.
=> My conclusion: Let's try to make realityFund as close as possible to an ETF. Because then the systemic risk is as low as it can get. THat is why I want to build it as a fund.
The average person holds his wealth in ETFs. People need to invest in funds, as they are a means to protect against their wealth against inflation. Hence, there will be an interest to invest in a kind of RealityFund, which is made out of companies, anyways. And if people are invested in RealityFund anyways, then there is no disadvantage to use it in any kind of betting market.
I am 100% convinced that a realitfund is - on a theoretical level - better than a just a realityToken. But whether this is realistic from a regulatory point of view, is another good question. But we should at least try it out!
I am very curious about your opinion. Maybe we wanna do a call?
Here are two examples of companies where the creating a forkonomic token model makes sense:
Imagine company A has built a peer-to-peer insurance platform where insurance police buyers and sellers come together. The buyer can create request for an insurances policies to insure his house against some damage [ think of floods, storms, etc]. Then, a police sellers could make a offer for provide for the buyer the insurance policy for a certain premium. If the buyer accepts an offer of a seller, the contract will be created by the platform, a small fee will be charged and his house will be insured. Now, if the fee is charged within RealityFund tokens on a certain branch, company A could force itself to use these generate fees to support their own forkonomic tokens value by buying up and burning their own tokens value on the same branch, as the fee was provided.
Using this model, the business model copies itself easily over all branches in a split of the system. That is exactly what we want for the system.
Imagine company B's business model is to insure people and act as a market maker on the insurance platform of company A. I.e., the company B screens the asks of customers on the platform for policies, calculates for each policy premiums for which they would insure the houses and the creating the offer. If company B makes the premium calculation correct, they will profit in the long term.
Probably the company B would make the profits again on some certain branch of the eco system. If they use these profits again to deflate their own forkonomic token on this branch [ enforced by smart contracts], then the business logic splits well over all branches of the system.
But most likely such a company B would not like to be forced to use their own profit directly to deflate their own forkonomic token with a built-in system. Then they would have a choice for distributing their profits on any branch. They could bundle their winnings and distribute it on a branch, which they prefer. These companies would still have a huge incentive of sticking to the most active branch, as otherwise their reputation and network effects are lost. If they don't do it and distribute their winnings on some weird non-used branch, the realityfund could still decided to sell the companies share on this branch and use the money to rebuy another forkonomic-token.
If the RealityFund is filled with different companies - some of which split natural in the system and others that don't - , I feel that the realityFund would have nearly the same properties as the realityToken during a split.
You know how we made a separate tree to keep track of data on behalf of contracts? Maybe there's a generic design where you have an extra parameter expressing your token - basically just add a layer to a mapping. Then another contract could issue a token, and it would automatically work like our subjectivocracy token
Took me some time, but I came up with such a principle:
ForkonomicSystem is the backbone for all tokens. It just takes care about new branches and the arbitrator whitelist.
Any token can then be added later by inheriting the ForkonomicToken.sol
The ForkonomicETF is an example how the ForkonomicToken.sol structure can be reused:
Code compiles but there are small bugs in it.
I am very happy with this design, as it is build on several layers:
I am advancing the code on the master branch now,
as I am so happy with the construction.
I also edited the https://github.com/josojo/subjectivocracy/blob/master/Forkonomics.md . Looking forward to get some feedback