[PDF]Better Than Money

WHAT’S BETTER THAN MONEY?
Money as a tool and methodology


Without humans and their activities, money wouldn't exist. The purpose of money and
its methodologies are to sustain the individual, the group and society at large.


Through exploration of how humans have managed their activities and relationships
historically, we can identify two methodologies used to mediate interactions between
humans: complex and simple methodology. Simple methodology is known today as
money.


Simple money is the product of simplifying complex methodology to achieve scalability
with the introduction of the concepts of exchange of value(s) and trustless relationships.


Complex “money” methodology accumulates data on needs, capacities and links
(between entities) and provides knowledge of how to do things thereby informing
ongoing decisions and activities for sustainable development.


Complex “money” methodology

This methodology predates any other form of money methodology and has been in consistent
use since its genesis — proto sustainability. This section formally describes the elements of
complex “money “and its historical roots/foundations which exhibited the characteristics of co-
operation and sustainability.


This is the enduring methodology used in the main by families and, in some cases, is the
method of choice within and between small group entities and some companies.


The basic elements forming this methodology:
e Associated or Embedded Ledgers
e Capture of unique values


e Verifiable Links


A form of ledger is associated with human activities and used as a method of storing
individuals’ and group unique needs and capacities: how and when needs are satisfied and by
whom as part of the verified links between the various parties to communal activity. These
embedded ledgers are integral elements of the method for storing and retrieving knowledge to
sustain the family or group. This method constantly re-evaluates its stored values, i.e. needs
and capacities based on the knowledge generated.


The embedded ledger can be either explicit or implicit, ie. in human memory.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. Dec. 2021 page 1 of 8


One notable example of an implicit communal ledger of value taking physical, symbolic form
are Rai Stones.’ These symbolic representations of Value are representative of the Needs and
Capacities that sustained the community both within living memory and before, i.e. handed
down through generations of humans. Such implicit ledgers persist in complex
“money“methodologies irrespective of symbolic representation.


Rai Stones are early evidence of technology being used to extend the nuclear family proto
sustainable methodology to the wider community.


Trust results from satisfying sustainability criteria.


The community is sustained by trust developed and fostered within it. It is less about the trust-
worthiness of the individuals and more about the integrity of the data relating to individuals
and their unique needs and capacities that give rise to sustainability.


Open source software is a prime example of this sustainable complex “money “ methodology
that not only satisfies those consciously involved in creating and using such software but has
extended way beyond its community to the billions of devices and users across the globe. This
is also known as free software because it satisfies the criteria for complex “money”
methodology without reliance on current, exchangeable money.


How did this evolution occur? Through the use of available technology in the sense of the Greek
origins of the word.


[Technology ("science of craft", from Greek TExvn, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand’;
and -Aoyiaq, -logia) is the sum of any techniques, skills, methods, and processes used in
the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as
scientific investigation]


Complex “money” methodology is necessarily endogenous, i.e. an integral part of human
activity - informal accounting of the capacity to satisfy needs.


en-dog-e-nous (én-d6j'd-nas)
adj.
1. Originating internally.


2. Originating or produced within an organism, tissue, or cell: endogenous hormones.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 2 of 8


Attributes of Complex “Money” or The Sustainability Methodology


Attributes of complex “money” methodologies can be derived from the description of the
groups involved in the descriptions below:


Family signifies “the subjective meaning of intimate connections rather than formal, objective
blood or marriage ties” Silva & Smart, 1999 ?


A family is a group of individuals in which there is a generational connection present (1.e.,
a parent-child relationship is found). Additionally, family members provide close intimate
contact (usually characterized by deeply held commitment, trust, respect, and a sense of
longer-term obligation. It is assumed that sexual intimacy is an element of the
relationship between the parents and that this family group seeks to achieve goals by
acquiring, allocating and distributing resources (i.e., time, money, space, and
close personal contact) (Day, 2010, p. 14)°.


A family is “a psychosocial group constituted by at least one adult member and one or
more others who work as a group toward mutual need fulfilment, nurturance,
and development (Fitzpatrick & Wamboldt, 1990 quoted in Edwards & Graham, 2009,


p. 193).4


Perhaps in the broadest sense of the word, a family is a group of people who have intimate
social relationships and have a history together (Leeder, 2004, p. 25).°


The family and its historical success as an entity that uses complex money methodologies was
examined by people in the past in an attempt to rationalize societal dynamics or propose a way
of social order. In other words, such people were seeking to scale this family or group
methodology to organise a country or even the world.


Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels specifically explored these ideas, as explained in The Origin of
the Family, Private Property and the State: in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H.
Morgan’. The book is an early anthropological work and is regarded as one of the first major
works on family economics.


Some of their conclusions were fundamental in relation to the origins of Private Property
and the State:


“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State begins with an extensive discussion

of Ancient Society which describes the major stages of human development as commonly
understood in Engels's time. It is argued that the first domestic institution in human history was
the matrilineal clan. Engels here follows Lewis H. Morgan's thesis as outlined in his major book,
Ancient Society. Morgan was a pioneering American anthropologist and business lawyer who
championed the land rights of Native Americans and became adopted as an honorary member of
the Seneca Iroquois tribe. Traditionally, the Iroquois had lived in communal longhouses based on
matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence, an arrangement giving women much solidarity and
power. Writing shortly after Marx’s death, Engels stressed the theoretical significance of Morgan’s
highlighting of the matrilineal clan:


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 3 of 8


The rediscovery of the original mother-right gens as the stage preliminary to the father-right gens
of the civilized peoples has the same significance for the history of primitive society as Darwin's
theory of evolution has for biology, and Marx’s theory of surplus value for political economy.’


At the time of Marx’s and Engels’ discoveries, it wasn’t possible to apply the essence (data) of
complex “money” due to the lack of suitable technology thus denying those and subsequent
generations the opportunity to benefit from its implementation at scale.


Furthermore, global sustainability wasn't, at that time, recognised as an imperative.
Thus the choice remained within the understanding of a need for external, simple, exchange


money guaranteed and enforced either by private corporations or the state which is where we
remained, until today.


Simple exchange money continued to augment, as it does today, complex “money”


methodologies used by FSG (Families and Small Groups).


Simple Money Methodology


money
/‘mAni/


noun





1. acurrent medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and
banknotes collectively.


"IT counted the money before putting it in my wallet"


The dictionary explanation states that exchange is one of the attributes of money methodology
that underpins current money.


Humans, at a particular point of their development, with limited access to technology, alighted
upon the methodology of exchangeable money as a mechanism that was suitable to manage
relationships and activities beyond communities, where the family or community dynamic
involving trust and sustainability were neither visible nor achieveable.


Evidence of early use of exchange methodology comes from the early use of coins. From about
1000 BC, money in the form of small knives and spades made of bronze was in use in China
during the Zhou dynasty, with cast bronze replicas of cowrie shells in use before this. The first
manufactured actual coins seem to have appeared separately in India, China, and the cities
around the Aegean Sea 7th century BC. While these Aegean coins were stamped (heated and
hammered with insignia), the Indian coins (from the Ganges river valley) were punched metal
disks, and Chinese coins (first developed in the Great Plain) were cast bronze with holes in the
center to be strung together.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 4 of 8


The current formal money we call Simple Money is the product of simplifying complex
methodology to achieve scalability with the introduction of the concepts of exchange of
value(s) and trustless relationships (i.e. the medium of money is trusted rather than the parties
to a transaction).


All Simple Money is comprised of Tokens that are used to represent value in a fungible
(nonspecific) way. They may or not be recorded in a ledger and are external to the activity that
creates the value they express.


Some well-known examples of simple exchange money methodology are:
e Fiat currencies such as US Dollar cash
e digital US Dollar (commercial)
e other nation state variations of currency (Lex Monetae)
e¢ other non-Lex Monetae digital currencies, e.g. Bitcoin, Etherium, Cello, etc.


e CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies)


¢ Gold, Silver and other materials used for exchange, historically and today


Money Theory


¢ Money replaced barter


It’s very clear that simple money did not replace anything, it was introduced and coexisted
with the base complex “money” methodology; the idea that humans went from Barter to
Banknotes is a popular myth that was reinforced by Adam Smith’s claim in An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (published 1775). Smith claimed that money
replaced barter:


This division of labor, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the
effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it
gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain
propensity in human nature, which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to
truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.®


for which no empirical, archaeological or anthropological evidence exists. The advantages
claimed by Smith run counter to the facts in terms of actual sustainability and inclusion. What
he describes as “human nature” is the modification of human behaviour adapting to simple
exchange money methodology.


“Division of labour” led to an exclusion of “labour” from its place and purpose, manifested as
financial exclusion due to the shift of focus to maximise the external value that proxied the real
value of human activity.


Sustainability that was formerly underpinned by complex “money” methodology was no longer
embedded in all human activity.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 5 of 8


Goals Without Incentives
Financial Inclusion


As we see from the above, when labour is excluded from the sustainability methodology, it
excludes and disadvantages those who are represented by the term “labour”. The purpose is no
longer to provide sustainability for all involved but to optimise exchange and the related
universal proxy value, money. Exchange stops when the available services have enough
customers at the value determined externally rather than by need.


Those without access to money remain structurally disadvantaged irrespective of the
availability of bank accounts, unique identity and financial services. See DCGI-PG-I-051 Digital
Currency for Financial inclusion’


In contrast, complex “money” methodology excludes no-one because it captures the unique
needs of everyone as well as their capacities. The value is manifested either when needs meet
capacities or when knowledge is stored. The purpose is to satisfy everyone’s needs using
minimum capacity.


Sustainable Development


World trade grew through the latter half of the 20™ century into the new millennium but was
accompanied by the economic marginalisation of a growing proportion of the global
population. “International Development Targets’ were first adopted by the OECD in 1996 in an
attempt to bring the disadvantaged into the global economy as active participants. These were
succeeded by the more widely endorsed ‘Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs) agreed
during UN Millennium Summit in September 2000. Recognition of the failure to adhere to the
timeline of the MDGs led to the reinvigouration of efforts for sustainable development with the
adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. Delivery of these too, is lagging
behind expectations.


We would argue that the SDGs are focusing on symptoms of the current method of societal
organisation. This method involves the use of simple exchange money, as described above, in
which the division of labour seperates labour from sustainable human activity due to the
method’s primary goal of optimisation of exchange value. Meanwhile, there is lacking the
means to capture needs, capacities and links between them and thus there no store of
knowledge.


For human activity to be successful requires wisdom and knowlege that isn’t captured within
the current method of societal organisation.


The reason that many are unable to successfully adapt to their circumstances and environment
is because they are forced to adapt via simple exchange money methodology which sees their
circumstances and enviroment only through the proxy of exchange value.


Sustainable Development needs a clearly defined purpose and requisite data in order to
formulate and satisfy that purpose. We assume the purpose is sustainability for all rather than
only for those with access to simple, exchangeable money.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 6 of 8


The base premise of complex “money” methodology is sustainability for all irrespective of their
particular circumstances in line with the native human cycle of evolution, i.e adapt (to
environment), do (to satisfy needs), reflect (relay past experience).


In other words, no matter how challenging people’s individual limitations or environment,
their unique needs and capacities are captured and stored, thereby facilitating requisite
responses of others generating activity to make them sustainable.


Today, we have the understanding, the experience and the tools to transform the human
experience beyond servitude to simple exchange money.


Free, open source software has accelerated human creativity through the network effect"®
which, if applied to money methodology, will extend proto sustainability to the global family of
humans through co-creative learning’’ and development.


A Nikolov & C Menzies - Better Than Money 17. December 2021 Page 7 of 8


7


https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
Silva & Smart, 1999 quoted in Lindsay & Dempsey, 2009, p. 6
Day, R. D. (2010). Introduction to family processes (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.


Edwards, A. P., & Graham, E. E. (2009). The Relationship Between Individuals’ Definitions of Family and
Implicit Personal Theories of Communication. Journal of Family Communication, 9(4), 191-208. doi:
10.1080/15267430903070147


Leeder, E. J. (2004). The family in global perspective: a gendered journey. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London:
>>>