Set or not to set some in initial conditions?

[onewhouse]

If we consider open money as an open and complex system that we collectively design for future optimisation, setting the right initial conditions could make an enormous difference in where the system will converge and self-organize on its own.

The question then we started to formulate with Sepp, is this:
Is it such an organic condition of old money everywhere - interest taking etc - that would facilitate the need to building in some kind of demurrage into open money, or not?

(If you don't know what demurrage is, refer to the top discussion, or look up Sepp's profile page.)

[onewhouse]

This one is a real life Aussie context for the pros:
http://openmoney.ning.com/xn/detail/1180168:Comment:12933

[Michael Linton]

"If we consider open money as an open and complex system that we collectively design for future optimisation..." then we are quite mistaken.

Open money isn't a matter of choice, any more than what gravity or free speech actually are is open to opinion. Of course, you can have all sorts of opinions about these, but your opinions aren't relevant to gravity, or free speech, or time, or open money.

Now, what anyone does with gravity, free speech and open money is up to them, and collective design is anyone's opportunity.

But open money itself absolutely ISN'T a matter of design, collective or otherwise.

[ernie yacub]

building interest into open money would be like building sand traps in an open field just because one thinks golf is the game that will get people out to play.

open money is an open field where one can play many kinds of cc games, and ones with sand traps will be avoided.

who would pay interest/tax/fees on their money if there were other free and open currencies available?

who would use a system run by a committee when they can manage their own accounts in any number of similar systems?

[onewhouse]

Thanks for taking the time, Michael and Ernie to joining in. I look forward to a very enlightening discussion. I respect very much your dedicated efforts to open up social capital in communities. That is perhaps a starting point where I hope we can agree on the validity of such an effort. Studying Michael's specification for LETS I detected a very careful methodology that was refreshing. That I hope we can agree was a kind of good design guide.

Now if I understand it well, you use the term open money as a kind of principium or force, and like gravity it is to be discovered rather than created. For someone who is anxiously awaiting what you are rolling out in the near future this year that will utilise this force - a methodology, a device, an application or an open source code or all of these - it is very enjoyable to see the development process.

In terms of terminology, it seems that the force you call open money and what you apply to it to use that force - this is what I so far called your design - do you also call that open money, or something else? It is interesting to see this aspects cleared up as we go. Thanks again for taking the time.