Money was metarepresented

by

Keeping Ownership Decentralized

A future commodity is represented by money. The only way to maintain this legitimate ownership and resulting decentralization is to charge for goods using metarepresented money. Any future ownership that would otherwise be priced will not legitimately remain decentralized.

But what exactly is metarepresented currency?

Direct Commodity Exchange

Let there be two owners A and B of commodities x and y, respectively, of whom A wants y and B wants x. Without any money — whether metarepresented or not — the only way for both people to obtain their desired commodities is directly from each other:


A --> y | B --> x

x _____ | y

y _____ | x

Otherwise, A and B must delegate their commodity ownership to someone who then redistributes it between them. Such a centralized approach would, however, at least in part contradict the same ownership, as it would take it away from its proper controllers. Hence, only a decentralized solution can preserve all commodity ownership legitimizing this exchange, by A and B exchanging x and y directly.

Individual Multiequivalence

Still, direct commodity exchange poses two problems:

  1. Let there be now (as follows) three owners A, B, and C of one unit of commodity x, one of y, and two units of y, respectively. Additionally, let A want the most units of y, while B and C want at least one of x each. Then, the available unit of x will be worth one and a half units of y. So either A loses value to B or C to A — since the exchangeable quantities of x and y are not worth the same:
    A --> y | B --> x | C --> x
x(1.5y) | y _____ | 2y
  2. Let (as follows) A, B, and C own a single unit respectively of x, y, and z. Additionally, let A want y, B want z, and C want x. Since none of those three owners have the commodity that the owner of their desired one wants, direct exchange cannot provide any of those three owners with their desired commodity. In order for there to be a moneyless exchange, at least for those who neither want nor have it, one of their commodities must simultaneously become the equivalent of the other two. So it becomes a multiequivalent, whether the other two owners also know of that multiequivalence or not. For example, A could give x in exchange for z just to then give z for y, this way making z a multiequivalent (as asterisked):
    A --> y | B --> z | C --> x
x _____ | y _____ | z*
z* ____ | y _____ | x
y _____ | z _____ | x

Likewise, this individually handled multiequivalence poses a new pair of problems:

  1. It permits diametrically opposed indirect exchanges. The same example could be applied to any two owners, or even all three. For instance, while A would give x in exchange for z (then z for y), B could rather try to give y for the same x (then x for z). To avoid this conflict, A, B, and C must delegate now their individual choice of handling multiequivalence to a public authority — whether to their consensual one or even to other people’s. However, such a centralized solution would once more at least somewhat contradict their ownership of the commodity by at least somewhat taking it away from them.
  2. Its indirectness increases the likelihood of that mismatch by requiring additional direct exchanges, in addition to allowing the exchangeable quantities of two commodities to differ. Let the same owners A, B, and C of a single unit respectively of x, y, and z want the most units respectively of y, z, and x. Additionally, let a fourth owner D of two units of z want at least one of x. Then, the available units of x and y will each be worth one and a half units of z. Finally, again let z be an individual multiequivalent. Now, either A loses value to C or D to A, then respectively B to A and A to B — since the exchangeable quantities of x, y, and z are not worth the same.

Social Multiequivalence (Money)

Fortunately, all those problems have the same and only resolution of a single multiequivalent m becoming social, or money. Then, commodity owners can either give (sell) their commodities in exchange for m or give m for (buy) the commodities they want. For example, again let A, B, and C own commodities x, y, and z, respectively. Still assuming A wants y, B wants z, and C wants x, if now they only exchange their commodities for that m social multiequivalent — initially owned just by A — then:


A --> y | B --> z | C --> x

x, m __ | y _____ | z

x, y __ | m _____ | z

x, y __ | z _____ | m

y, m __ | z _____ | x

With social (rather than individual) multiequivalence:

  1. No matter which commodities are owned or desired, there are only two exchanges (either a buy or a sell) for each commodity.
  2. All owners of commodities trade a standard (social) multiequivalent that eventually goes back to its original owner.

Finally, any two commodities can always be equivalent, even if their exchangeable quantities are not, provided that a social multiequivalent (money) is divisible into small and similar enough units. For example, let commodities x and y be worth three and two units of a social multiequivalent m, respectively — x(3m) and y(2m). Then, let their owners A of x and B of y be also the owners respectively of two and three units of that money — A of 2m and B of 3m. If A and B want y and x, respectively, but only exchange their commodities for m units — x for 3m and y for 2m — then:


A --> y _ | B --> x

x(3m), 2m | y(2m), 3m

y(2m), 3m | x(3m), 2m

Privately Concrete Money

The ownership of a future good must therefore always be represented by money. If not, people’s money would not always be able to represent their ownership of the things it can be used to purchase. These people must also share their money with all of the people they exchange it with in order to exchange it. Even though they may be buyers or sellers of various commodities, the exchanged money between people must represent their future ownership of commodities to all of them. This future ownership, even though it was purchased with the same money that was exchanged, belongs exclusively to one group and cannot be shared with the other. How are the two still able to split its representation between them, then?

How is it possible for money to be both not shareable as each future ownership it represents and shareable as that which represents a future ownership?

Does all money only represent an indefinite future ownership rather than also a certain ownership, making it only shareable rather than also not shareable? How, then, could money only be used to purchase arbitrary goods? It cannot because no one can purchase anything without indicating to the seller that they will eventually own it in exchange for their payment.

Still, regardless of how the representation of something not shareable can remain shareable:

  1. The only way to share anything is to keep it concrete.
  2. Only by staying abstract is anything even representable.

Therefore, since a future commodity ownership can only be shared when it is represented by a concrete object, it must be directly abstract. Likewise, for its concrete representation to be also representable:

  1. It must become as ephemeral as (not distinguishable in concrete terms from) that future ownership it represents.
  2. Its newly unrepresented counterpart must continue to be concrete, as opposed to the resulting abstract, intermediate representation.

Then, as its unrepresented and represented representations, respectively, money could be simultaneously concrete, thus shareable, and abstract, thus not shareable. Indeed:

  1. Only when they are accompanied by a concrete representation are abstract ideas shareable.
  2. Anything that is represented indirectly must also be represented abstractly by something else.

Anything representing money must nevertheless remain shareable, therefore concrete, even though it is represented, therefore abstract. Yet how could now an intermediate representation of indirectly represented money be abstractly concrete? only after a government agency in charge of money privatizes its concreteness. It then becomes publicly abstract while still being personally concrete to that authority. So:

  1. If already privatized, something concrete must be used to represent this privately owned money in the public eye. For instance, when people value their future commodity ownership as gold entrusted to a public authority, this monetary gold is only shareable as long as it is represented by a publicly visible certification of that entrustment.
  2. If not yet privatized, the same privately held concrete money must represent its fictitious privatization. For instance, when people value their future commodity ownership as gold not entrusted to anyone, this monetary gold is only shareable while representing its false entrustment to a public authority.

Nevertheless, unless something is already money, which must be both shareable and unshareable, no private concreteness can be represented as money. Therefore, even for those to whom it is privately concrete, money must also be directly abstract. only by illustrating an increase in its present value in the future. There is no other way to directly abstract its entire private concreteness. Finally, unless it represents a debt, no privately held concrete money can rely on its future growth to eventually become as abstract as its increased future self. Indeed, all this abstractly self-expanded money must eventually become concrete:

  1. To whomever holds it in its abstract excess over its already concrete sum.
  2. To whoever owns it in the remaining portion.

Then, the money becomes a dual-principal debt because both its expected growth and the amount it currently has are liabilities of its owners to its custodians. All of this money’s personal concreteness must nonetheless remain purely abstract. By which even the portion of it that is already tangible must become a new, single-principal debt owed by those who do not own it to its custodians, whether they are holding it or not.

By gradually taking their future commodity ownership away from them, every public authority with any form of private control over other people’s money must increasingly contradict that ownership. To store someone else’s cash-related gold, for instance, a gold trustee will charge a fee. Furthermore, this entrusted money will eventually become a liability of yet another person — regardless of whether it represents the actual metal or not — so storage fees become interest payments on lent money that was created entirely from its lending.

Metarepresented Money (Metamoney)

Still, whether increasingly centralized away from its rightful controllers or not, the monetary representation must always be:

  1. Concrete, so that buyers and sellers can share it.
  2. to stop buyers and sellers from sharing the various future ownership it represents to either group.

What should be done then to avoid allowing a public authority to privatize its concrete aspects while maintaining its abstract nature?

Fortunately, despite necessarily shareable by being concrete to all people exchanging it, or socially concrete, money can rather be not shareable by being abstract to each one of them, or individually abstract. Indeed, its representation by the same person can simultaneously:

  1. Remain shareable as part of a concrete process.
  2. Become not shareable as just an abstract object.

Asymmetric encryption is used, for instance, by cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin to represent money as a directly private but indirectly publicized number. So money becomes metarepresented, or metamoney, since it no longer publicly represents its whole privately represented self. But in order for such purely numerical (abstract) money to continue to be shareable, all of its owners must agree on the procedure for approving its past transactions or balances. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to agree on its future transactions or balances, which would prevent them from using it. Any agreement reached by these people must also be made known to everyone in order for it to be certified as part of their shared history. The rather personal depictions of their metarepresented money are thus always directly uncertified. Then, while still remaining socially concrete as its privately uncertified, nonconsensual metarepresentations, money transforms into an abstract concept on an individual level. While conversely, to publicly certify people’s money as metarepresented in their transactions or balances, that same consensus process:

  1. cannot make public their private direct representations of this money.
  2. Must continue to be decentralized in order for everyone to accept the same transactions or balances.

Only in this way can no public authority contradict the legitimate future ownership it stands in for, which must instead remain decentralized, or privately control other people’s money. Therefore, only metamoney can fully realize the original intent of money by maintaining not only people’s bought or sold commodity ownership but also their priced future one in a decentralized manner.

Leave a Comment