The Secret Plan For Illuminati Coin (Only Between The Illuminati)
An experiment to build the most adaptable, economically sensible, and democratic crypto currency.
Background: Illuminati buddies! Now is time for us to create the most democratic and money-like crypto currency of all. The current crypto systems, despite great technologies, remain mostly deprived of some sorely needed monetary designs. The current DAOs, despite some decentralization, almost all still require special operators or authorities. Let’s bring the mysterious monetary power back to where it should be. Annuit Cœptis!
Eye of Providence, the symbol used by the US dollar
As you might know, the original blockchain paper was aimed at describing a decentralized electronic cash system. Solutions for scaling were not clear back then, but it still represented a common goal shared by earnest crypto supporters and this project, which is to create a fairer currency system than the centralized fiat ones. Nonetheless, crypto remains far from what it could be, even after years of technological development.
The plan of this project, is to expedite this progression, and to first build a smart contract based coin, which fixes some of previous cryptocurrencies’ key design issues. And when there is enough decentralization, bridge the coin to its own blockchain and shard chains to allow as many people as possible to use it as a fiat’s alternative. The principal thesis here, is that the current cryptocurrencies, probably due to a lack of focus on economics, mostly put in place monetary codes that are not suitable for a long-term ubiquitous currency. As a result, compared to alternatives, they would act more like an asset than a currency even with improved technology. The distinction should not be drastic initially, but as things compound in the monetary world, such inconsideration would lead the whole industry to a place where it could not challenge some well-managed traditional systems.
Here I’d like to address two predominant crypto monetary designs that actually hinders a cryptocurrency’s ability to act and serve as a commonplace currency — always staying deflationary and predetermined network operator rewards. The argument against both involves some economic and psychological intuitions:
Re: Always-Deflationary Designs
Since blockchain’s inception, almost all projects, following their predecessors’ footsteps, have either implemented a very low, zero, or negative (transaction burns) long-term supply growth. As the world’s economy grows at 3–4% per year, it means that they will all be deflationary in nature. This may sound good or safe on paper, but it would actually do the contrary as it slowly erodes cryptocurrencies’ monetary roles, and would be especially detrimental when the projects mature.
In order for a currency to be commonplace, its usage needs to be desirable both by the money spenders and the money receivers. Gresham’s law, in economics, roughly states that ‘bad money drives out good’. And there is a solid psychological underpinning for that. Imagine two competing currencies, one with a fixed total supply(‘good’), and one growing (‘bad’) at exactly the same rate as the economy, how attractive would them be for a transaction? For most money spenders, they would choose to use the ‘bad’ currency, as the ‘good’ one would be perceived as being more scarce. But for money receivers, both currencies would be acceptable, as even the ‘bad’ one wouldn’t have depreciation issues as it keeps the same pace with the actual economy.
The phenomenon could be examined historically, when both United States Notes, which were not redeemable for gold, and gold certificates, which were fully redeemable for gold were issued. Despite some money receivers’ preference for ‘hard money’, a.k.a the gold certificates, the United States Notes dominated in day-to-day transactions and had a much higher market cap than the gold certificate counterpart.
As a matter of fact, individuals’ inclination to use or receive one currency over another has huge implications for the currencies’ macroeconomic development. In order to speed up blockchain’s adoption, it’s imperative that such usage limiting issue is addressed.
Re: Predetermined Network Operator Rewards
When a major crypto launched several years ago, I remember being put off by the common but really problematic miner rewards scheme, where a fixed percentage of supply would be minted annually for a group of block producers. The rewards amount was reasonable at the time, but what if the market cap declines? And what if the crypto ever serves to become a main currency, do they just hand over hundreds of billions of dollars for doing almost the same thing?
Unfortunately, it was just not set up to be future-proof. Distribution to the miners, especially amidst significant technological or economic changes, should take into account the size of the currency, as well as other pertinent and present situations, but the predetermined design will just never do.
It’s not just about a better distribution, however, as there are some much more severe implications. In effect, a smart rewards program can determine whether we could have a vital economy if crypto ever becomes widespread.
For example, many cryptocurrencies have a staking mechanism, where the founders set a high reward in hopes that the stakers just hold. It is a good strategy in the early stage of a project, but in the long run, without adjustment, hard-coded high rewards could badly damage an economy.
In a healthy economy, people should have good financing options, for things like startup businesses, tools purchasing, housing or etc. But a rigid rewards program, especially at higher yields, would incentivize locking up most money in a digital safe. Financing would be exceedingly expensive. And consumption would also be inhibited, leading to economic deterioration.
Some projects, including a great one planning to switch networks recently, indeed try to adjust rewards. But the process almost entirely depends on a group of core programmers or founders, which may not be transparent or democratic enough. Illuminati Coin will be the first coin where everyone, during voting seasons, could propose and vote on such changes, on chain and without censorship. The rewards could also extend to other community contributors along with stakers and miners.
Is the great Vitalik Buterin Illuminati?
I shall mention that by definition, the project’s purpose to expedite the advent of a true and fairer alternative to the old currency systems means that first, this cryptocurrency will be exceptionally money-like; secondly, newly created money, instead of first being directed to privileged friends of central bankers, or family associates of an authoritarian leader, will most likely go to community contributors, or public goods and services, as it is determined in a transparent and democratic process by the collective community. This almost surely will make our economy grow more efficient and better, so the sooner we achieve the goal, the better.
Here are the steps we plan to take to make that day come sooner:
Build A Token Where Anyone Can Verifiably Propose Or Vote On Policies
In order to make Illuminati Coin as democratic as possible, there would be no special roles either for the token or for the voting process. The proposals will be of specific formats linked to the voting contract, and be on chain. That means that the proposals would also be uncensorable.
Both the token and the voting smart contracts have been completed and will be launched on the mainnet. Some probably wonder why we should build a token instead of own blockchain. And the key reason is that any blockchain would need enough decentralization to ensure its immutability and security, which will take some time.
As the main function of the token is to serve as a currency than being political, voting and proposal submissions will only be available during the annual voting seasons. Interim voting could be customized if really needed.
Make Voting Convenient For Everyone
By default, anyone could vote directly through the smart contracts, but that’s not a great user experience. Also, as on-chain proposals need to be understandable for every voter, so we will also provide all the translations.
At this second stage, we will make sure to build intuitive and secure online portals for community members to view all proposals and vote on them with just a few clicks.
Foster Community Rewards
A unique thing about Illuminati Coin is that, unlike previous projects, anyone that has done relevant work could be included during community voting for rewards. This means that the community will collectively determine what public goods or services it wants, and what contributions it really needs.
This could be better than previous models, where a foundation controls all the grants. However, this also means that a place to post and discuss contributions is required. To provide an enjoyable and censorship free experience, we probably will build a forum for this. But we may also use existing platforms such as Discord or Reddit if they function well enough.
People would be able to post about their work, like code contributions, marketing, or getting a new vendor to accept the currency, for the community to check. The specific rewards would be determined during voting.
When the community is sufficiently diversified, the project will be bridged to its own PoS blockchain. There will be many security testings before the migration. The voting, proposal processes will remain the same. As there will also be stakers and block producers, the community will also vote on how much to reward to each group of the people.
so in short, the plan for Illuminati Coin is:
- Create a successful ERC-20 token with monetary voting mechanisms
- Build Apps to make viewing proposals and voting convenient for all
- Reward contributors and foster community growth
- Migrate to own chain to scale
(And remember not to admit being in the Illuminati.)