Vril: The Ultimate Currency Project

I’m not sure who you are attributing the mentioned article to. It seems you are suggesting I wrote such an article, but I have never written any articles about HoloFuel on medium, and I hate those kinds of overblown titles “The World’s First…” and have tried to make sure they never come from anyone in this organization. But since I can’t find the article in a Google search or a search on medium, there’s no way for me to know who you are addressing.

However, you do specifically tag me suggesting your tip-off that I am trying to market fantasy crypto to gamblers is that I don’t understand banking, money creation, nor mortgage amortization schedules.

So, while I can’t comment on anything someone said in this supposed medium article, I can clarify some of these points.

If you are interested in learning how banking actually creates money, I’ll provide some proper references. And lest you think this some misinformed conspiracy theory blaming the wealthy, I will start by citing a paper published by a central bank. The following is a direct quote:

“This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans. … Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”

Bank of England paper entitled Money Creation in the Modern Economy

If you actually want to understand the strange accounting mechanisms by which this works, this paper traces the detailed approach by which banks perform this feat. One critical detail, is that banks do not list your deposits with them as a liability which they must repay to you (unlike would be done by your stock broker, for example) but as an asset which counts as their reserves in a fractional reserve banking structure. This is actually a known exception to standard GAAP available only to entities holding a bank charter.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276165891_How_do_banks_create_money_and_why_can_other_firms_not_do_the_same_An_explanation_for_the_coexistence_of_lending_and_deposit-taking

Okay, let’s look at the breakdown of mortgage payments (available on many online mortgage amortization tools such as the ones I included below.

Note the blue vs. purple in the graph above. Note how much of your payment is interest(blue) in the beginning and how much is principal (purple) at the end. This is exactly as I described, front-loaded for interest, back-loaded for principal.


Here you can see the same thing spelled out in the numbers on the amortization schedule. They show that payments are most definitely NOT doing what you describe as paying mostly principal first – less than 20% of your early payments contribute toward repaying principal. And you can see by where the lines in the chart cross that it takes almost 20 years before the principal portion of your monthly payment exceeds the interest portion.

And as I already illustrated with the Bank of England paper above, it is exactly because they are not repaying some government entity. When you repay principal those dollars literally leave circulation, just as they came into circulate as the principal of your loan. The banks want the money they can keep/spend first, not the money that disappears and they have to make a new loan to create again.

In any case, it sounds like you think the banks borrow their money from the Fed. You realize don’t you the Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by private shareholders, no more a government entity than Federal Express. And most the reserves that the Fed holds are actually contributed by their member banks. Anyway… this all works very differently than most people think or than how common sense might lead us to believe. But if you do some proper and sensible research it is all spelled out quite clearly.

Again, here you are saying it is MY medium article… and I’ve never written such a thing. I’d appreciate a link to whatever you’re talking about so we can find out if someone is pretending to publish under our authority. Sorry I can’t take responsibility for any rhetoric in that article.

However, I don’t agree that BTC or ETH or such are ponzi currencies the way that USD is. USD is issued by banks as debt which bears interest, and we have to issue more next year to service the compounding interest on what we issued this year. If banks need to make more loans to issue more USD, then we need to grow the economy to justify more lending. And note, all Ponzi schemes collapse when they reach their limits of growth.

BTC and ETH and many other cryptos have a different dynamic. They are certainly not issued as debt with compounding interest. But they have a whole other problem of speculative market dynamics where the ignorant get trampled by the whales in their pump and dump cycles… and to keep the price rising you need need to keep attracting more investment which means more innocents who often get trampled. But that’s a dynamic of being untethered from any clear value (not backed by hosting, for example) which has nothing to do with USD pattern of ponzi growth.

If you want to understand how HoloFuel having a net ZERO supply, where the active supply can both expand and CONTRACT based on real market dynamics is different than a steadily growing supply then I’d recommend reading the Holo Currency White Paper

Most of The-A-Mans assertions about HoloFuel and how it works are not accurate (a few parts are close though) but dialogue with him has generally proven too exhausting to try to clarify functional points, when he’s really arguing veiled ideological points. So I largely gave up on doing so in this thread. I do believe he is committed to his vision, he has shown good faith that he is learning things along the way, and he has published a few later corrections, so maybe it could be worth engaging again.

7 Likes

https://medium.com/h-o-l-o/holo-fuel-economics-101-c9631d63014a says:

First is the actual hosting price offered to publishers or applications on the network. This price is denominated in HoloFuel.

The HoloFuel price is the price to buy/sell a unit of HoloFuel on either exchanges or reserves.
The purchasing power of HoloFuel is primarily impacted by internal competition and supply dynamics.

However, this increase or decrease in hosting price does not automatically translate into fuel price movements.

Also, this medium article was written in collaboration with Art Brock, Mary Camacho, and David Atkinson (of whom only @artbrock is on the forum). [EDIT: Whoops! Looks like others are too; cc @marycamacho, @alastairong.]

In short, my owning a hundred units of HoloFuel doesn’t translate to me being able to redeem them for 100 units of Hosting (for example, 100 hours of hosting). That is surprising, no? Especially when Holo has been so vocal about how HoloFuel will be backed by Hosting.

Also, I’d have linked the youtube video too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DS23TMiVrQ) which mentions an equation that goes like purchasing-power (in hosting-units/$) = HoloFuel price (in HF/$) * Hosting price (in hosting-units/HF), but sadly, it got taken private a month ago!


So, the natural question follows:

On what grounds do you say HoloFuel is backed by Hosting?

Clearly, you’re all using the word ‘Backing’ (besides the word ‘Stability’) in a completely hypocritical sense! “Being able to be redeemed for” is not what you mean by “backing”, do you?


The Shortest Possible Yes/No Question:
Isn’t HoloFuel more like Fiat than like the Gold Standard?

Fascinating if this is the article that @noclue was referencing. I don’t see any claims in about being the “Worlds First Digital Stable Asset” or about anything else being ponzi schemes, or any of the rhetoric he’s saying was used.

I didn’t realize this article was published attributing me (or other nan-authors of it). I reviewed the slides in the slide deck as not having any glaring inaccuracies or anything that would get us in trouble with regulators, but the narrative text about the slides is Alastair’s, not mine.

In any case, let’s get to your fundamental question:

I wonder if you’ve ever been to a farmer’s market where the farmers don’t have the portable electronics for processing credit cards so there’s a booth where you can purchase “tickets” on your credit card and then go spend them with the farmers. There’s no question as to whether the tickets are redeemable for food, even though there is no single food unit they are necessarily equivalent to. Farmers price their food as they normally would… sometimes by weight, by volume, or by count. The fact that a ticket isn’t equal to a specific food unit doesn’t mean tickets are not redeemable for food.

Another example is a stock photo site where you need to purchase photo credits (largely because the site can’t afford to pay credit card fees on a bunch of $1.50 purchases so they make you buy at least $20 of credits that can be used toward photos). These photos are not all the same price, in fact, they change based on size/resolution and usage rights that you’re requesting as well as by other factors that I don’t know all the dynamics of. But there is no confusion as to whether the photo credits are in fact redeemable for photos.

Similar to the farmer’s market, delivering hosting is not a single unitary element. There are different patterns of usage by apps which place different burdens on the resources of hosts. A CGI graphic rendering app may be extremely compute intensive. A YouTube like media service may be extremely storage intensive. A real-time collaborative game or editor may be bandwidth intensive without storing or computing much. For us to force hosts into some kind of one-size-fits-all pricing structure because of the way you’ve defined “sane money” is not actually a sane business model.

Also, the cost of hosting can be very different for different hosts. Maybe you live in an area with cheap access to Gigabit fiber while others have expensive, slow and metered bandwidth. Or maybe you live in a place with free/subsidized electricity for compute power. How is it sane for us to a global standard unit price for those things? Isn’t that like the nonsense of the government forcing farmers to sell food at a fixed per pound price leading to horrible side-effects like everyone just growing potatoes to maximize dollars per pound? Enabling hosts to set their own prices for bandwidth, storage, and CPU time lets the real market benefit from real differences and enables hosts to set prices appropriate to their actual costs to continue to provide hosting.

Despite the real world fact of differences in unitization of Mb/s, Mb/week, milliseconds of CPU usage, there is no question that HoloFuel units are redeemable for hosting. In fact, that we enable pricing of these different dimensions of delivering hosting is exactly what makes it work.

On the side of using hosting, an app provider can profile their app to see how much CPU / storage / bandwidth they expect it to use. Then they can configure their host matching filters and thresholds so that we can show the current pricing statistics for correlated hosts such that they can estimate the HoloFuel costs of powering their app. This shows how far their 100 units of HoloFuel will go – which is what it means to have this currency backed by hosting.

In Vril, are you saying a farmer must have a single unitary currency even though they may sell flowers, zucchini, raspberries, and chicken? These all must be one price per gram? Or they must have different Vril units for each of their foods multiplied each of their measurement units? You certainly aren’t making Vril very usable if this is the scenario. I don’t see any farmer ever being willing to manage all that pricing configuration and navigate changing market dynamics for pricing that many products and unit metrics. Nor will buyers be keen to figure out the relative values between corn credits by weight vs. corn credits by ear vs. corn credits by kernel vs. corn credits by liter. It seems like you need some usability testing before you go attacking a system just because it doesn’t match the expectations of your ideological absolutes because it is designed to make things actually work for all parties involved in the frame that is familiar enough for them to use it.

You building logical fallacies into your definitions does not make us hypocrites.

The answer to your shortest possible Yes/No question is that you’ve created a false dichotomy – a mistake in your assumptions that forces both a yes or no into your broken frame, akin to “Is the reason you have no friends because you’re still lying to them about the money you stole from them?”

That’s just a simple yes/no question, right? No weird assumptions baked into that question at all, right?

Fiat: HoloFuel is never created from nothing… so it is fundamentally unlike fiat. The total supply of HoloFuel is always zero. Zero supply in fiat means no currency units exist. So no… it is not at all like fiat.

Hosting is not priceable in a single unit like ounces or grams so it is not as simple as a Gold Standard. However, host prices in the appropriate units are pre-published by the host, and made visible using estimation tools, and HoloFuel is redeemable for hosting at those prices.

So it’s a lot closer to a Gold Standard if you need to measure some kind of “distance” from currencies that you are familiar with.

Not as satisfactory a response as I anticipated… Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. It’s much appreciated. Again, I do not wish to waste your precious time; I’m genuinely interested in being able to define HoloFuel properly (as part of my knowledge-seeking endeavour around all things Money; thus far, HoloFuel seems to be the most complicated thing I’ve come across, for better or worse…)…


A few things to clear:
I wasn’t saying that that was the article NoClue was talking about. I was just mentioning the contradictions I could spot in HoloFuel’s design (documents); I myself asked NoClue to reference the article he was talking about.


Another thing: the contradictions I’ve spotted in Holo’s statements have nothing to do with Vril; they are totally different subjects. Though I’ve already explained at length how HoloFuel could just as well have been modeled in Vril.


As for tickets:

Those tickets are BACKED by, let’s say, Dollars. That’s the point. At the end of the day, even if I found no interesting vegetable/fruits in the market, I can redeem my tickets for Dollars. That’s not what HoloFuel is (just the fact that HoloFuel’s price can fluctuate against the Holo reserve currency should be enough to prove this assertion; which is why you have the LIFO mechanism in place, no?); yet that’s what most people here assume it to be. Clearly, you are all mis-guiding innocent people into thinking that HoloFuel tokens are digital credits (i.e., pegged against Dollar or whatever). In fact, if that’s what they were, I’d call Holo a private bank that keeps Dollars as its reserve and issues digital Money-Substitutes that are easier (or rather, way easier) to transfer than the hard physical cash. In fact, I’d have been very happy with HoloFuel’s design were that the case…


The total supply of fiat too, as you have yourself pointed out earlier, is absolutely zero! Every dollar is backed by equal units of “liabilities” in the bank’s statements. [Though I don’t know the intricacies…] And at the end of the day (ignoring the contractual interests to be repaid, hence begetting further borrowing), all fiat monetary units can be cleared. Also, even Fiat is not created from “nothing”. Someone has to go in debt so as to create the Dollar, no?

Though I never though about it (and always assumed that it should be your task to figure this out), now when I think of it, maybe you’re right here… But what about a package that includes {1 hour of {1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, etc}} and another with different configuration, and so on. Plus, as far as I know, all HoloPorts are the same! Even better! So clearly, 1 unit of Hosting of a particular flavour of Hosting can be defined, albeit arbitrarily.


Also, you seem to be confused about the two terms: being “backed” means being redeemable (1 to 1) against the said thing that it backs, versus being able to be “bought” against simply means that you can buy something with it. “Back”-ability (or rather, redeem-ability) is different from “bought”-ability. Fiat, much like Holochain, is not backed by anything; but you still can buy all sorts of things with Dollars. Gold Substitutes (those kept by bullion banks and issued as digital tokens) are strictly backed by the corresponding amount of Gold; Gold may become worthless someday (making you unable to buy anything with it) but you’d always still be able to “redeem” your tokens with real Gold. HoloFuel is clearly fiat issued privately. If 1 unit of HoloFuel were to be truly backed by 1 unit of Hosting (as described above on what that might be), the HoloFuel note would say “I represent 1 unit of Hosting; the unit of Hosting means {1 hour of {1 GHz CPU time, 1 GB Ram time, etc}}”. Such a HoloFuel would be a proper Money-Substitute. If 1 HoloFuel is pegged by 1 unit of some other Money, it would be as good as that Money that it’s pegged against. However, 1 HoloFuel (as it exists) is neither pegged against some other Money (such as Gold, Dollar, etc), nor redeemable for 1 exact unit of Hosting; it’s like the Fiat money that banks create.


The core question remains. To repeat, the equation a * b = x has infinite solutions (even when x is a given, such as in the total hosting capacity available to Holo). You can issue very few HoloFuel tokens and have them be priced ridiculously high or issue many tokens and have them be priced cheaply. Thus, in a sense, you the Holo Organization control (or rather, would control) the price of HoloFuel. Isn’t it true? Again, I have not the slightest of doubt regarding your intentions; the question is purely epistemological.

Okay @The-A-Man, I guess the problem is that you still believe a lot of the mistaken things you’ve asserted about HoloFuel, so for your sake and for the sake of others now confused by them…

HoloFuel Corrections (1 of 6)

@The-A-Man puts forward his “stripped down” explanation of HoloFuel as if it is authoritative. While he gets a couple things right, overall it is pretty inaccurate, and laced with ridicule rooted in his ideological bias about Vril.

But since this thread is public and others seem to take his criticisms seriously, I guess I need to provide some corrections here.

[[Note: A consistent mistake @The-A-Man makes is to project Holo’s involvement in everything – every transaction and in the allocation of every unit of currency.]]

There is no central allocation of credits happening in HoloFuel. However, there are 4 types of credit limits for accounts in HoloFuel. (L for Limit)

  1. Basic/General Users: L = 0

  2. Holo: L = 177,619,433,541 (# of credits created in the ICO)

  3. Reserve Accounts: L = balance of deposits in the bound external currency account (at the price at which the HoloFuel was originally purchased)

  4. Hosts: L approximates to: for time window, average(Tx) * #Tx * #Unique_counterparties * Available portion (a simple formula derived from their last 3 months of hosting activity, with minor adjustment to make gaming of credit limits difficult)

That’s it. No centralized allocation or control of credits. Only transactions between peers with simple formulas for calculating credit limits.

So let’s look at the claim about the [complexity class] of the problem and time complexity of the computation of a credit limit.

  1. General users = O(1) constant time

  2. Holo = O(1) constant time

  3. Reserve = O(n) linear time to compute a simple running balance in a single pass

  4. Host = O(n) linear time for a single pass on one host’s local source chain to collect the variables for the formula

So the complexity class is so far below polynomial that it generally doesn’t even show up on the map of important complexity classes (because it is considered simple not complex), much less reaching NP (non-deterministic polynomial) or exceeding it.

Not to mention nobody ever has to compute ALL of these credit limits. Validation of a transaction typically won’t involve ANY credit limit computation because they typically won’t involve a negative balance (except where the spender is Holo or a Reserve).

To get a sense of the actual scope of the problem, let’s examine a busy host, with lots of bandwidth hosting 100 happs and billing daily. Over the span of 3 months that will be about 9000 transactions in their source chain. (Note: Their credit limit doesn’t need to be computed for any of those transactions because they’re RECEIVING payment for hosting, and the app provider paying them doesn’t have a credit limit.) Now suppose a host wants to SPEND some of their earnings to buy a Tesla with HoloFuel (since this is the first time a credit limit computation will even come into play). How long does it take to count those transactions, average their size, and count the unique counterparties? Likely less than 1 millisecond, even on a Raspberry Pi.

To confuse these simple calculations with a computation problem so difficult that it requires beyond polynomial time is to demonstrate that you don’t understand how the HoloFuel works.

It seems this stems from @The-A-Man’s frame that the Holo organization is some kind of central controlling puppet-master, and because he embeds this false assumption underneath all of his understanding of HoloFuel, he keeps manufacturing strange interpretations that are not only inaccurate but outrageously complex and upside down.

2 Likes

Oh yeah, I was wrong about the NP claim; I admit. My bad.

## HoloFuel Corrections (2 of 6)

In an actual complex system (like a hosting marketplace), thinking in linear sequences instead of feedback loops which can be entered at any point in the loop is the first mistake here. For example, the app provider/publisher may well have acquired fuel for paying hosts long before any hosting was performed.

But okay, let’s start where @The-A-Man chose to start with the host providing hosting. Yes, a host provides hosting before they get paid for it. That is the only accurate statement in his paragraph.

Hosts service web browser requests until they reach whatever billing/risk threshold they’ve configured in their settings (e.g. provide up to 2.5 HoloFuel billing units of hosting power before sending an invoice) This invoice functions as a “Proof of Service” which contains the security token allowing the payor to access the segment of signed hosting logs that is being invoiced for.

======================================

Brief pause to clarify roles and what they’re called since @The-A-Man plays pretty loose with terms.

  • An app developer writes software – the back-end DNA of a Holochain app and/or the app’s UI. They might not at all be involved in paying hosting fees for the app. Consider the example of a wiki or slack-chat style app, different groups are going to pay the hosting fees for their own community wiki or company chat to be served to their web users, just like the developers of MediaWiki don’t pay the hosting bills for your wiki.

  • An app provider is the one who pays the hosting bills to have an instance of a Holochain app be accessible to web users.

  • A Holochain user runs an app on their own machine and therefore doesn’t need hosting.

  • A web user has likely never heard of Holo or Holochain and just wants to type an address into their web browser to reach a web app.

  • A Holo host provides the computing power, storage, and bandwidth to service requests from web-users such that they can access the same kind of experience that a Holochain user can. Hosts get paid in HoloFuel for providing this bridge to mainstream web users.

  • Holo is the organization that keeps all this infrastructure running – the centralized aspects like DNS and routing, updates and tech support for host devices and software, and provides the funding for the app store, dev tools, and Holochain as the underlying infrastructure.

Identifying any one role as “the consumer” fails to recognize that everyone is consuming different things from each other in this ecosystem. Web users consume site content from each other and hosting service from Hosts, who consume hardware and software from Holo, who consumes distributed data integrity software from Holochain, who consumes a portion of the transaction fees paid by app providers, who consume custom apps from app developers, who consume dev tools from Holochain and Holo… and so on.

======================================

Continuing with the payment cycle above… When the app provider receives an invoice, they use the security token it contains to harvest the signed service logs (requests signed by web users, and log entries signed by host). They pass the logs through a fraud detection system to make sure the traffic being billed for is legitimate, and then they pay the invoice (and accrue a 1% transaction fee owed to Holo as part of the transaction record).

Eventually they’ll hit a threshold where nobody will transact with them unless they pay the transaction fees they owe. At that point they commit an entry to their source chain which parks a fee payment in a fee payment box on the DHT. Holo periodically collects parked fees from those boxes. Holo is never party to transactions between HoloFuel users unless you happen to be transacting with the Holo org directly.

That’s actually the complete hosting cycle. Hosts don’t go into debt in the process of hosting. App providers don’t have credit limits so they can’t go into debt in HoloFuel (meaning have a negative balance). App providers could have acquired their credits in many ways (earning them from providing hosting, purchasing directly from a host, converting from HOT or a “filthy” national currency through a Reserve Account, purchasing them on an exchange, etc.) Holo doesn’t “mint” HoloFuel to pay the host and then later collect from the app provider, or any of that nonsense.

Also note that Holo does not plan to provide Reserve Accounts for BTC or other “Gold-like” currencies. They are too volatile to maintain reasonable pricing dynamics for our Reserve Accounts. So far, we expect the HOT Reserve Account will serve as our bridge to the world of hyper-volatile cryptocurrencies.

1 Like

Thanks! That’s much more precise. Though I’ve already read it all in the whitepaper…

## HoloFuel Corrections (3 of 6)

There’s a lot of feisty language in that paragraph, but nothing accurate. App providers are not in debt to Holo (as in negative balance), they have to acquire their HoloFuel to pay hosts from somewhere, but this is no different than anyone needing to pay bills in any currency. Maybe you want to call invoices they are receiving from hosts “debt”, but I think that is confusing the matter, the invoice may be fraudulent and the host may be reported for fraud, it is simply an invoice for service, you could call it Accounts Payable, and in that accounting sense it is a liability. But who runs a business without accounts payable and receivable? And why is the @The-A-Man turning the act of trading into an attack on HoloFuel?

Also, there’s no reason to insult hosted web users. Some may even be Holochain users who are traveling and away from their hardware that’s running Holochain. If we want decentralized systems to get taken seriously and go mainstream, we have to be able to serve mainstream users. This is a major barrier that blockchains have not overcome because of the hurdles involved in acquiring crypto to pay gas fees before you can engage with a blockchain.

This certainly shows he can only be talking about debt as negative balance because sending an invoice never changes a currency supply. The cell phone company doesn’t borrow money to send you your bill. And receiving a bill certainly doesn’t mean receiving the money to pay it.

So… just wrong here.

This seems to just be a projection of some kind of agenda about “modeling HoloFuel as an asset.” We actually model HoloFuel as simple accounting for peer-to-peer transactions.

The “asset” we refer to that backs HoloFuel is hosting power.

## HoloFuel Corrections (4 of 6)

This is just all kinds of confusion.

Host’s don’t “go into debt first.” In fact, host credit limits won’t even be available until the hosting network has operated for a number of months. Hosts provide hosting service, then invoice an app provider for it. Simple.

Again… projecting onto Holo some process of complicated “assessing prowess” and “minting” currency.

I think he’s confusing the fact that once host credit limits are active, if a host wants to SPEND HoloFuel on something (like a Tesla Powerwall to keep hosting during power outages), they may want to spend more than they have in their balance and draw on their credit limit. (You can think about this as similar to an interest-free overdraft loan on your checking account.) They have a hosting history that everyone can see to perform the calculation I described in a previous post which determines whether they can ‘overdraft’ that amount.

Holo is not involved in that transaction. Every node can do this computation for themselves. Hosts are never forced to go into debt. There was no other act of minting. A host only spends credits on something they want. Spending into the negative IS the act of issuing new currency in a mutual credit currency like HoloFuel, so if you want to say someone is “minting” something, it is the host that is doing so.

2 Likes

HoloFuel Corrections (5 of 6)

Finally, we have another part of a sentence that actually correlates to something that happens in HoloFuel before it goes off the rails again.

TRUE: Hosts can redeem HoloFuel via Reserve Accounts (like HOT, USD, EUR, etc.) that they have received as payment for hosting invoices.

TRUE: The price they can redeem from HoloFuel to an external currency is the same price as someone bought HoloFuel in that currency. And hosts get the most current market price (LIFO).

Unfortunately, the rest goes sideways.

There is no voting or politics in setting the price. There is an algorithm for setting prices in each outside currency that people can buy HoloFuel from a Reserve Account. We derive most the inputs to that algorithm from hosts (their actual behaviors in redeeming currencies, which reserve currencies they redeem to, at what prices, their hosting settings about the currencies they want to redeem to, at what minimum price, etc.).

Let’s be clear – Holo is a hosting business. It does us no good to sell hosting services for less than our network of hosts will provide service for. Therefore, Reserve Prices are driven by host data and will converge toward the actual costs involved in providing hosting. How do we know that? Because people won’t sustain hosting at a loss, and since we provide consumer-grade / plug-and-play devices for hosting, if they charge too much, then new players will happily jump in to increase hosting supply which forces hosts to choose competitive pricing to attract any traffic.

This is where he totally gets the last part wrong. Hosts don’t set their prices in Dollars, Euro, or HOT. They can’t change those prices. They set their prices for bandwidth, storage, and processing in HoloFuel. And if they set their prices too high, then the matching algorithms which set up the routing patterns to match the needs/priorities of app providers to hosts, won’t route any traffic to them, so they won’t have any credits to redeem at any Reserve Price.

A host can’t start at a negative balance.

A host can only REDEEM credits they actually have at a Reserve Account (from a positive balance). A host can SPEND their credits however they like to go negative – but they can’t also redeem the credits they’ve already spent.

This part isn’t so far off-base if he wasn’t using negative numbers in the balances. He is suggesting Holo has flipped this all upside down, but it seems to be an inversion of his invention.

3 Likes

Precisely!

If that were true, you could simply have created Holochain digital Money-Substitutes of Dollars (or whatever), i.e., a currency pegged against the Dollar (or Gold, or Bitcon, or whatever) and have used your digital tokens to power the microtransactions Holo requires, which the Blockchain systems, for instance, are inferior at powering.

How do you reply to this?

That’s all that interests me basically; and you’re just saying “once credit limits are active, blablabla…”! Isn’t that process, the process of granting credit-limits, the one that requires KYC, the hardest task?

HoloFuel Corrections (6 of 6)

We never ask you to fight against anyone. Not against national currencies. Not against blockchain currencies. Not against surveillance corporations. Since those things will collapse under their own dysfunction, nobody needs to waste energy fighting them. We are focused on building viable, functional alternatives. He is projecting his fight onto us and telling us we’re not doing it right.

Again… upside down. Holo has a negative balance (at least until we’ve earned enough transaction fees to pay it back, which may not even be possible if the value of HoloFuel rises). And Holo isn’t minting anything in any of the places he has suggested. The only time Holo issues currency is when it SPENDS into the negative against its credit limit.

He is still projecting some kind of complex puppet-mastering of allocating credits and assessing prowess. The basis for determining whether a host is likely to be able to repay a negative balance is to perform a calculation on their past few months of hosting as a projection of their next few months of hosting. This is neither difficult or unjust.

And besides, Holochain already provides the completely decentralized solution with no payments required!!! Just use that if you don’t like Holo trying to make sure prices align with the needs of hosts. Then you can also go figure out your own way to reach mainstream users.

HoloFuel is not trying to be the one, perfect, righteous, and fair currency that solves all tragedies of the commons and economic injustice on the planet. HoloFuel is for running a hosting business and providing an example of a truly P2P, secure, anti-volatile currency that can operate at speeds and scales that blockchain can only dream of.

That is value enough from HoloFuel because it will enable many more currency variations to be built on Holochain which can tackle some of those other problems that HoloFuel doesn’t solve.

I’m inclined to stop the corrections to this lengthy post about HoloFuel here because all the later assertions are built on the mistakes of the earlier assertions plus some other bizarre notions (like DNA-sequencing is the only defense against Sybil Attacks).

@The-A-Man, I don’t mean any of these corrections as an attack, but since this thread does show up in Google searches and based on responses below your story, some people are taking this critique seriously, I needed to address the inaccuracies about HoloFuel. I would have preferred to just let all this slide as part of your early learnings here.

8 Likes

Wow! Tthere’s a load of new information in this post! Would re-read it a few times…

Absolutely true. I accept I was mistaken about a few things… My earlier posts should be taken as just that, “my earlier learnings”… Also, your rudeness here (if any) is totally justified. I should’ve known better and have resorted to a private exchange on the subject of HF… Sorry… Would mark your post as solution for some time so that future newcomers may be led to the truth…

2 Likes

Thanks for the time, Art. It’s fully appreciated.

2 Likes

As for my latest concern,

@artbrock: [extrapolating from your statements…]
Basically, the hosts COLLECTIVELY make all the decisions with the aid of a few smart and distributed ALGORITHMS. In that sense, Holo has little to no control over the variables (such as the total outstanding supply of HoloFuel). Thus, the whole of the Holo system (and HoloFuel) would tend to be stably backed by hosting, and the HoloFuel’s price (in $/HF) and to some extent the hosting price (in hosting/HF) would tend to be the same throughout the lifespan of Holo.

So, despite the fact that an equation like purchasing-power (in hosting-units/$) = HoloFuel price (in HF/$) * Hosting price (in hosting-units/HF) has infinite solutions (even with the total purchasing power, i.e., the total capacity being a given), the system would (thanks to radical decentralization) tend to keep the later two prices relatively stable too, because it would tend to keep the Hosting-Price stable (thanks to competition between hosts). Also, there’s no one “Hosting Price”, just as there’s no one “Hosting Unit”; there are different flavours (or rather, scales or combinations) of each.

That’d suffice for now.


Summary:

HoloFuel is a hosting-backed asset, hence a Money-Substitute of real wealth (i.e., real Money), and is thus good enough (at least as long as the Holo system can keep the purchasing-power of 1 HoloFuel (in terms of Hosting) stable enough). The distributed design of HoloFuel (and Holo) attempts to keep its purchasing power (in terms of holo-hosting) stable over time. The only centralization is at the Reserve level over which Holo gets to have no say; their job is to simply make sure their books (in the reserve) have the sufficient amount of currencies that they’re supposed to have; plus since only HoloFuel earned by hosting is redeemable at the reserve, that further guarantees that HoloFuel be “backed” by hosting. Also, re: Holo cannot dictate HoloFuel Price simply because it cannot dictate the Hosting Price; nor can it manipulate the supply at its whims, only the distributed algorithms can; all it can do is be vigilant in granting to new hosts their initial credit-limits, even which, when done leniently, won’t have that big an effect (due to the above).

That closes the chapter on HoloFuel.

Bye.

1 Like

@The-A-Man Thank you for taking the time to read, consider, and learn from our interchanges. I’m glad that HoloFuel is making more sense to you at this point, and I’m sorry you’ve found it frustrating to track down the information you needed to understand it.

Since I’ve been posting corrections, I think there’s just a few more things I’d like to clarify that seem to be loose ends from above.

Credit Clearing vs. Mutual Credit

I agree that many people are sloppy about using these terms interchangeably, but I believe the distinction between them is both useful and simple to understand.

Credit clearing is like the tale of the $100 bill and is about clearing debts owed to specific parties (e.g. where Alice owes Bob, Bob owes Carol, Carol owes David, who owes Alice, so they can all settle debts between themselves without needing to borrow outside money from a bank).

Mutual Credit issuance is about creating money when you spend it such that you end up with a negative balance (which is not owed to any particular party, but essentially a promise to the network that you’ll accept this currency for future value you provide in order to clear your negative balance).

Stable in Contrast to Volatile

When I designed Holo in mid 2017 and wrote the currency white paper in November 2017, the term “stable” had not yet been hijacked by stablecoins to mean pegged to an external value reference. I used the term in contrast to the massive volatility of all the baseless speculative cryptocurrencies which dominate the space.

The price of HoloFuel is stable (anti-volatile) in that it will converge toward the cost of hosts delivering hosting. It is not FIXED. The cost of delivering host will change over time (typically decreasing) with advances in hardware, bandwidth, and renewable energy. That means the buying power of HoloFuel units will slowly / stably increase over time as they can purchase more hosting with the same units of HoloFuel.

Again… it isn’t static or pegged, but correlated to the cost of delivering a real world service, and that cost is not crazy volatile like the roller coaster of speculative markets.

Why not just a Wrapper around BTC or Dollars

As I mentioned a few posts ago, all Ponzi schemes collapse when they reach their limits of growth. I perceive debt issuance of dollars as approaching those growth limits. And I believe that the the performance of Holochain will come to so overshadow blockchain that it will put all global consensus currencies out of business in time (yes, even the original BTC).

So there’s no way that it makes sense to tether our hosting currency to one of those sinking ships. Part of the purpose of the asset-backed currencies I’m working on (backed by hosting, energy, food, transportation, housing, etc.) is to provide the transitional infrastructure that is stable enough to keep civilization going while Industrial Age finances and economies unravel.

It is perfectly adequate to have the value of each of these currencies be correlated to the cost of the goods/services they deliver.

Sybil Attacks and the Challenges of KYC

First, please note that Holo LTD is a regulated entity. We are regulated by the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission for compliance with fiduciary standards involved in delivering services connected to a DLT (Decentralized Ledger Technology) and have oversight of our management of assets, company reserves, Reserve Accounts, and ensure we don’t engage in price manipulation or other unsavory activities.

This also means we must comply with AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations which include KYC requirements. So whether it is a hard problem or not, we already have to do it with our hosts and customers (app providers). Hosts are the only type of account not managed by Holo and or regulated banking/asset management protocols, who get credit limits. So the main KYC requirements of the regulator seem to focus on them.

Luckily, since the first generation hosts are people we sold HoloPorts to, we already have their name, a verified means of payment (via a bank or credit card who performed KYC), a shipping address, a verified email address, and consistent monitoring of their IP address to be able to route hosting traffic to them. That’s already a pretty high KYC threshold before even doing anything else. So the regulators seem pretty happy with that as a starting point.

But we also are creating relationships with outside KYC service providers who do the weird stuff where you hold your IDs up to the webcam and such. They charge a fee for doing the KYC, so you also look at it as a staking process which involves paying a KYC provider and investing 20ish minutes of time in getting approved. Even just those factors create a significant barrier to Sybil Attacks on HoloFuel. It certainly makes it very hard to manufacture a few hundred accounts to attempt to control the few DHT neighborhoods to attempt to get one bad transaction to look valid even for a few minutes. Luckily DNA sequencing is not required for AML compliance.

We opted to be a regulated entity (instead non-regulated crypto wild west) for a few reasons.

  1. So our hosting customers would know we can’t just pull up stakes and disappear after they purchase credits (We have to hold 24 months of cash reserves for responsible wind-down and settlement with creditors.)
  2. So hosts would know we’re in the long game and it’s worth buying hardware that will earn money over time.
  3. So developers and app providers will know the infrastructure they’re betting on for running their apps is stable and accountable and worth building a business model on.
  4. So that inexperienced newbies to the cryptocurrency realm would know that HoloFuel is safe and stable (anti-volatile) in case they need an alternative to collapsing national currencies or cryptocurrencies.

Fiat is not Net Zero

No. This is not accurate. Fiat debts cannot be cleared.

First, as even the central bank article admitted: “Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”

The reason this is “new money” is because the bank was not debited for the funds deposited into the borrowers account. Those funds got created out of thin air, by act of FIAT (speaking into being by an authority) in the same way that Bitcoin mining rewards come into being with a new block and nobody got debited for them.

The weirder part is that because the accounting loophole for banks, BOTH the promissory note AND the funds on deposit are counted as assets, instead of the deposited funds being a liability that they owe you. This is the creepy and weird part of banking that nobody seems to follow, because our common sense says “If the bank transferred funds into our account for a loan, they must have come from the bank’s account” Strangely that isn’t how it works.

Anyway, the reason dollar debts can never be settled is because only the principal gets created, never the interest. In order to repay the interest it must come from someone else’s principal. This is precisely the formula for keeping fiat money scarce even though it can be made from thin air. There is always more owed than exists.

For every dollar created, a dollar plus compounding interest is owed. The interest can’t be cleared because the funds were never issued.

So fiat money supplies actually do exist (Look up M0, M1, M2, M3, etc.) and if issued as debt with interest, they can never be settled because the money supply is always lower than the debt, so the that the money continues to be scarce no matter how much is issued.

8 Likes

That (explicitly) resolves all my confusion around your usage of the word ‘stable’; I always thought you were attempting to keep HF stable against the Dollar or whatever (which would have been crazy). Thankfully, by ‘stable’ (as opposed to ‘static’ or ‘pegged’) it is meant “stable with regard to its purchasing power in hosting-units”. So, for instance, a paper note issued by a bullion bank might say “redeemable for EXACTLY 1 gm of Gold”, your HoloFuel tokens would say “redeemable for ROUGHLY/STABLY AROUND the same (or more) units of hosting as it would have redeemed you when you first acquired these tokens”. Makes all the sense, especially since “hosting” (a service) is so different from Gold and Silver (naturally scarce commodities)…


I’m against neutral money too! I see real_wealth-backed monies (such as commodity money, and even your one-step-ahead service-backed monies such as hosting-backed money) as the future.


Precisely. [I remember hearing that elsewhere too…] Spooky really… But just the fact that fiat is “pure numeraire” (numbers as money, i.e., neutral money), unbacked with any commodity (or service, for that matter), and (most importantly) requires the suppression of the free market in the sector of banking (i.e., the suppression of free-banking) is enough to prove its inferiority (from a utilitarian perspective)…


Although KYC generally turns me off, I guess for our use-case (of “money-fying” hosting (a service which can’t be stuffed in vaults like Gold bars can be) to be used as a payment/settlement method on the Holo network), it’s pretty understandable that hosts (the existing HoloPort owners (who coincidently already are KYCed; wow)) be thoroughly KYCed, and Holo LTD be certified by well-reputed auditors… Plus,

meaning that not every individual who wishes to be a host would have to be thoroughly KYCed so as to just start hosting! Only when they wish to go in debt (for whatever reasons) do they need to have a history. That’s pretty cool; that’s also the part I got wrong (and went on to say that assessing my credit limit and that of everyone like me would be an NP problem, blablabla). So, yeah, it’s not as challenging as I first thought it to be…

Again, thanks for the intricate details around that. Also, loved your distinction between credit-clearing and mutual-credit; it’s very helpful to have clearly defined and well-established boundaries between such related categorical terms…

1 Like