Recommended Posts

Fedde said he wants to add Manna...

I like manna very very much. Currently They are the leading basic income currency.

I hope that Fedde will add Manna soon, i think Manna is very promising, except we finally manage to start our basic income project :)

Manna currently has only one exchange, if we add Manna now we could make freiexchange to the most liquid manna exchange!


All the good,


P.s.: Im in contact with some of them, and they seem to be very nice and welcoming!

Disclaimer, im for sure invested currently in Manna


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess manna will reach this year already 100.000  people if they manage to scale up to the demand.

Only thing i worry about is, that they have a similar problem like  we have with with the Freicoin Foundation.

Currently their Foundation holds a big part of the available manna (true market cap must be so 100 million already).

Also the current manna wallets are on a centralized server. both could be hacked....

Of course with one exchange currently its easy to make the hack undone, but would destroy some trust...



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they have a nice concept. But as i mentioned i am not convinced that it is adorable, since they use inflationary money with some of the same problems we have in our modern money system.

Inflation still justify interest what will still concentrate money. Though it is a little harder to concentrate money (the decades until the total collapse (like in the 1920s and nowadays) could increase. The problem will stay the same. Inflation will create ever growing prices and makes it impossible to track if a product is costing more than the UBI inflation or not. That alone makes it easy to manipulate and concentrate money within the hands of the few.

But hey people understand inflation, they do not understand demurrage, so maybe we need another generation of war and suffering to get from inflation to demurrage.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see here:

Inflation does not lead to higher wages. That means the prices rises but wages don't. The incentive to work will be even lower than in our fiat money system. Manna and circles will both create <1% super rich (early adopters) and a very small middle class, that will work for the rich. And the rest will live on basicincome. What will only be sufficient enough to provide the basic needs. The "dirty" and hard work would be done by those that have the intrinsic wish to help but this additional work won't be paid.

To me such a system is not fair because those that have no inner need to clean and to repair things will profit from those that have. A society would be created like a big cooperation, where you can be as good as you like but receive no higher wage. Its ok but it still prevent innovation from happening because there is no reward to those that innovate.

So Manna and Circles are easy to understand but without demurrage they are not sustainable long term imho.

What does anybody else think? Rik.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rik,

to inflation vs demurrage and the above article.

What is currently happening / not happening  in the system like wage increases cannot be compared to a system which distributes the newly generated money directly to the people.

I'm not so much talking about basic income, im talking about fair access to money.

Currently the newly generated fiat money accumulates with few people  because it is generated by giving out loans and by directly buying stocks and properties.

But simply giving out new loans does not increase the need for new products, because the money goes only to few, therefore does not increase product prices or product demand (except stocks and property prices), therefore does not increase salaries.

It even reduces the product prices, because currently there is low interest on loans, therefore the cost of a product which comes from interest costs (currently around about 1/3), reduces, therefore we don't see much rising prices even with the money supply drastically increased.

This is the current system, another system would be if the newly generated money goes directly to the people.

In this case the purchasing power of the people will increase, therefore the prices will increase or more products will be asked for, therefore companies will be required to hire more people (except the automation is too much influencing already) therefore the wages will increase.

This would be totally another system compared to the system described above.

Yes in this system there will be an inflation in the long run, but if the interest is near the inflation plus a certain risk for not getting the credit back, then this system could function for eternity, because money would not accumulate that much (not considering other tendencies that lead to money accumulation like property / stock income, thats another story that must be solved in a fair system).

The question is now, what is the benefit from a demurrage, vs inflation, vs fully price stable currency.


Demurrage would in the long run keep the product prices more stable, while an inflation based currency will increase the name value of the products slowly according to the inflation.

Therefore demurrage based money would be a slightly better unit of account, but this accounting effect could also be easily calculated in if you do accounting.

Using paper money in an demurrage based system could be tricky.

Another difference of demurrage money would be that salaries would not be by default inflated, therefore employees would not need to bargain to increase their wages each year to have the same after inflation.

Inflation based money would once in a while have to get rid of some zeros, while demurrage based money could have the need to add some zeros if the production grows.


I think the most fair system would be if the inflation is equal to the production / economy growth, in this case there would not be an price inflation at all.

Newly generated money should go directly to the people so that they have fair access to money and directly as zero interest loans to small / medium enterprises, and to buy properties (see below).

In case of an price increase the money from the loan payback could be used to reduce the money supply and therefore guarantee a stable money / unit of account with aimed 0% inflation or deflation.


In this system, money itself would not accumulate through interest. Of course accumulation of money / property through stocks and properties must be still fixed to have a fair system.

This could be implemented gradually through using newly generated money for buying up property and stocks. This property and stocks can then be rented out for X% with X guaranteeing that all people have fair access to property.


All other taxes, except for environmental / guiding taxes like on chemicals, drugs, advertisements, harming products could be abolished step by step.

The system itself would be self balancing, so no need for inheritance taxes or income taxes.

Thats it, hope not too long :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your reply,

i also see the effects you describe but i'm really not sure if adding a basicincome (or QE4people) -like many suggest- can do the trick alone. Because if it does i really could save my time and stop working on Solidar and Freicoin,  because Manna and Circles are much more popular.

My observation regarding inflation is that most  people don't want to argue with their employer about a higher wage only on the basis of inflation (because especially in our fiat money system its hard to measure), so demurrage (stable prices) makes it much much harder for the employer to push wages down without reason and make the discussion fairer. Most people want to work and with a basicincome (+inflation) people will work for less. Im afraid that this inner need could and will be abused and will lead in the end to lower wages and less productivity and therefore higher prices and lower buying power of the ubi. People will than demand a higher ubi what will only cause more inflation and make payed work even less attractive. In my eyes its a downward spiral leading to the opposite what ubi is naturally for. Giving a basic income to those that our money system abuse.

I like really to make things as simple as possible but i still believe that ubi alone is not enough to make it work.
Do you understand my point about inflation?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i agree, that in an system with price inflation people have to argue for higher salaries to get more or less the same while a stable currency or a demurrage based currency prices may stay more stable, therefore employees don't need to argue to get inflation increase of their salary.

To the other part, lower wages must not lead necessarily to less productivity, or higher prices, most likely its the other way round, lower wages would lead to more employment, because less cost and lower prices, because less money too spend (not counting the money inflation itself).

What an UBI would change is that more people would have access to money, therefore the money would not that much accumulate in certain regions / people, therefore salaries are expected to be more even in regions / city / land and globally (also it would even out between poor and rich communities).

I think in the end the UBI should not be financed completely from the demurrage or money inflation, instead it should be financed from the rent on property (stocks) as described above (see former post).

To the UBI itself, i dont know if it is good to give all the money out for nothing. I think we must make experiments what is the best way to give out the money. For sure people must have a guaranteed access to money, so that they can take part in the economy if they wish so.

Different possibilities to distribute the money could be for example:

1. Direct without any conditions

2. Require to do certain work

3. Give as bonus for buying products (see freipay project)

4. give as bonus for certain investments / credits (see freiinvest project).


Because its the easiest way i think its good to start with 1. and then slowly add / test other methods.


To demurrage or inflation:

Currently i think the best money system would be with neither demurrage or price inflation. Just take a stable currency as described in the post above.

In the beginning if the economy of this currency grows there is to be expected lot of money which must be generated to guarantee price stability.

Part of this money could be used to buy stocks / coins / property and then rent it out (for example on the blockchain itself).

This rent is then used to guarantee that all people have a fair access to money.

In case of price inflation, the rent could be used to buy back the currency and therefore stabilize the prices.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think demurrage is the best way to fund / distribute UBI because it can be decentralized efficiently unlike other systems that require more effort and planning.

I wish FRC did exactly that. Maybe the simple solution would be everyone who has a wallet / uses the coin gets UBI a capped or set UBI based on what is available from demurrage. Of course some has to go for transactions / miners but a UBI for users of the Kria makes sense to me.

The 80% the foundation holds should also be a UBI if you ask me. But hey that is complicated now given the tax issues.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2018 at 7:19 AM, Bicknellski said:

I wish FRC did exactly that.

i wish too...

still in the long run it would be good to bring also further properties into a freieconomy. Silvio Gesell vision was not just having a demurrage. There was also land property and so on.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now