Some additional details

Link to probability calculator for a bill being minted to include art

Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 4.07.18 PM.png

This system was originally designed as part of brainstorming alternatives to Proof of Work, the deliberately costly process which Bitcoin uses to reconcile ledgers, or disagreements about who owns what coin. With Bitcoin, the “winner” of two mismatched ledgers will be the one supported by the most expensive electricity expenditure, so an attacker would need to out-match the computing power of the entire rest of the network to engineer a theft.


GlobalChange was playing with moving the cost to the front of the transaction. The idea was that if either hashpower or any other honest and unfakeable cost were necessary to mint coins in the first place, then mismatched ledgers could be reconciled without new electricity expenditures. Instead, the ledger would win that was first witnessed by (vouched for) the most coins (in wallets), where each wallet has the voting power of its coins. This was called, in brainstorming, “Proof of Worth.”

Because any honest cost would do, instead of hashpower, destroying fiat would suffice as a means to generate coins (wasteful but harmless to the environment). Even better, sacrificing money by giving it to a charity would work just as well. There simply needed to be a true cost associated with new coins, for the sake of crypto security. The donations to charity were a mechanism of security, by providing a better (for people; for the environment) honest cost than Bitcoin’s hashpower.


Proof of Worth is maybe an interesting, but unproven concept. No matter. The concept of getting crypto in exchange for charitable donations takes on a life of its own. It is implementable on any number of existing blockchains, many of which are already far less energy-intensive than Bitcoin.


Get cryptocurrency reflecting the honest cost you have sacrificed to get the crypto. The crypto thereby can take a face value representing that cost. We can calculate that as a fixed fraction of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). If you sacrifice as much money as it takes to buy a certain particular set of goods, then you get a certain amount of the currency (say, 1 unit of that currency). Even if there is fiat inflation or deflation in the future, when you sacrifice as much money as it takes to buy that same set of goods, you get that same 1 unit of the cryptocurrency. As we are starting in 2022, and because we need some baseline, 1 GC forever equals, as best can be determined, 1 2022 USD = CPI/276.


Because we have a fixed face value, we are working like cash that we are used to. The value can be affixed to a movable electronic object, and that object can be anything. So, for usabiilty, let it be as cashlike as possible. Cashlikeness affords adoptability, as the currency fits people’s mental models of what money should be. Let there be denominations. Let there be “special editions” of the currency, like special edition U.S. currency - state quarters. Let artists supply art to give the currency additional sources of value.


GlobalChange can be more valuable than it costs. There is a fixed cost to get GlobalChange tokens: CPI/276 always gets you 1. But that token might happen to include rare artwork that an artist was happy to contribute. Each token is a bit like a lottery ticket. The way to get the artwork; to get the lottery ticket -- is to give fiat to nonprofit charities.
Gifts to nonprofit charities were, during brainstorming crypto security, the least-harmful way to sacrifice money to prove an honest cost, in a similar spirit as hashpower. Forcing a cost helps create value to people. There is an inherently limited supply of tokens minted in respect of gifts to charity, as there is a limit to how much money people have to give.


A side-effect of Bitcoin is an enormous energy usage - there are constantly the equivalent of multiple nuclear power plants powering Bitcoin mining. Using charitable donations, rather than hashpower, as the foundation of a cryptocurrency could, theoretically, produce a much better side-effect: massively over-funded nonprofit charities.
The prospect of a cryptocurrency with such a pleasant side-effect can itself help motivate widespread adoption of said cryptocurrency, in a “virtuous cycle.”

 

That side-effect of benefiting the nonprofits of the world, plus the familiar cashlike face value of the coin objects, might - fingers crossed! - let GlobalChange funnel enormous amounts of money to nonprofit charities, while providing users with a satisfying and useful currency to use for local and global transactions. GlobalChange is a pun on this outcome: Change the Globe; using change that works globally.

Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 12.23.13 PM.png

Why CPI?

0511-1008-3119-0830_Girl_Giving_a_Basket_of_Household_Items_to_Charity_clipart_image.jpeg

The Consumer Price Index is an empirically derived estimate of the cost of a fixed basket of goods

Let's say in 1800, the basket of goods this person would like to give to a charity would have cost $5.

 

In 1984, the same basket of goods now costs $100.

In 2022, now it costs $276.

 

That's just standard inflation.
 

1GC costs the current CPI divided by 276, so 1GC costs $1, in 2022. You give some amount to charity, you get that amount times CPI/276 in GC.

In 1800, 1 GC would have cost less than 2 cents!

in 1984, 1 GC would have cost 0.34.

No matter the year, it costs 276 GC to buy that basket to give it to a charity. So no matter the year, you can either buy that basket of stuff, or sacrifice the amount of money buying that basket would have cost you, by giving money to a nonprofit, and getting 276 GC.

 

This mechanism is intended to help GC resist inflation: you can always get more GC, by giving to nonprofits, and it "costs" the same, at least in terms of what they money you give away can buy someone.

Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 12.23.20 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-01-12 at 11.36.33 AM.png