I just want to dump another idea I had.
My main question will be: The concept I am about to explain seems to be at odds with the Holochain design principles. By that I mean Holochain does not encourage me to build fixed supply currencies. But I have reasons, why a fixed supply makes sense in this case. Is this application an example, where the advantages of Holochain do not shine? Or does the Holochain philosophy give a hint, how the concept can be improved (into a flexible supply currency)?
The concept
The idea is a currency that connect emissions trade with a universal basic income.
Those who pollute the atmosphere pay. To whom? Every human on the planet. (I know, not only humans suffer from pollution, butā¦)
Thus a global plan of how much pollution the planet can handle, worked out by scientists, say the 1.5 degree goal, is taken as a basis for a fixed supply. The amount of greenhouse gases for a certain period of time (say a month) are divided equally upon all registered human beings and granted to them as a universal basic in a new currency denoted in CO2 kilogram equivalent greenhouse gases.
Those people can sell this currency to companies, which then are able to redeem the currency for their emissions.
So two things are required: The central emission plan and an identity dapp, that tries to make sure, only real humans are registered, and with only one account each.
Now countries can include in their laws, that:
a) Emissions require an equivalent redemption of this currency. Otherwise they are illegal and shut down.
b) For any imports from a country, that has not yet adopted these rules in their law, an assesment guessing how much emissions happened for the production of that product (for which was not payed in form of the redemption of that currency) and this amount is required to be redeemed by the person importing it at the customs.
Discussion
First of all every human has an interest to register in order to get the free UBI. The system makes sure, that in the area of all participating countries (suppose the laws are enforced) emissions do not exceed the master plan (It may be even lower if people hoard the currency). The market sets a price for the emissions, that will increase the prices of products. Those people who consume less than an average sustainable human would be allowed to, would be net profiteers, those who consume more would be worse off. Some production would no longer be profitable. Poorer countries would surely support this system, as it would bring them a strong developmental aid, considering that their people under consume. Those countries in the West, where people over consume would not have a financial interest to participate, but hopefully a ideological one. The system can spread over the world county by country, it does not need to happen in a global agreement. There can be no carbot heavens (like tax havens) as long as the consumption takes place in a participating country. For the goals to be met, of course almost all counties would need to participate. Such a system, e.g. technologically implemented by dapps, would be at least provide an argument of āHere is a solution, you just need to commit to itā.
Flaws in the Philosophy
The approach is reductionist, thinks monocausal, not taking into account the complexity of the global ecosystem, but you need to start somewhere.
There is a āthe market solves it, just put a price tag on itā philosophy in here, which is more than debatable.
But much worse, there is a ācentral authorities dictate the truthā philosophy here. Namely at the point where the global master plan comes in. This results in a fixed supply for the currency, that is divided equally between all members. Both things Holochain does not naturally want me to do.
However, the atmosphere is a global thing, and its pollution should stay within sustainable limits, thus this design choice seems natural.
Therefore my questions: Is this application an example, where the advantages of Holochain do not shine? Or does the Holochain philosophy give a hint, how the concept can be improved (into a flexible supply currency)?