there is a curious passage here re 's *nonmonetary* value.
The idea comes from a general theory of currencies as having to have a quality beyond any given exchange value.

eg - the quality of a network.

this, imho, unintentionally slights nick land's view of as outlined in

land argues that 1 = 1 bitcoin and that forms a condition for exchange rather than a scatology.

ie - unlike, say 1 gbp = n gold that backs the value of gbp. (not true but works for the example)
land thinks that 1 btc is backed by it's own value - hence creating a condition for value oriented exchange.

as the point on nonmonetary quality of demonstrates -
* we have a quality in the network itself.
(eg the fact btc is in fact built upon a network - blockchain.)

and indeed - 1 btc is therefore NOT 1 btc since when in case i want to send You 1btc, one will need to add the network fees - aka gas fees - precisely because the network Is Not the ..

I suspect that in case we want a network that exits centralization the exchange we will find is that of qualities rather than values.

Qualities that justifies themselves, like liquid...

and therefore may require techne rather than techno? (or is this an ideological ask..?)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!