Of course I agree we need to get to complete decentralisation. Sorry if that is not made clear in my articles. I think it is, explicitly in my earlier articles, implicitly in those more recent, but can understand if you haven’t seen or read much of them. I also thought I had clarified this with you in previous discussions, but could be wrong there too.
I am guessing also you have not read the linked articles in my last responses to you, those are all key to the solution.
The method of distribution is an automatic function of money requiring to have the “Shitty” characteristic of decaying in value.
That shitty characteristic is what automatically drives folk to spend it quick, before it devalues.
Thus it moves quickly from those who receive it first, at the highest initial value (but who need it least), to those who will receive it at lower values later in the chain of trading.
Sorry to again be relating to energy. That is a physical law of nature vital to all engineering systems. This is just another one of those, like all naturally occuring systems of nature, but this one is made by us. I trust you know Engineering is simply applying the physical laws of nature in the simplest way possible. For that, we need to know a lot about nature :)
I don’t agree that a sustainable economy is possible which is not also fully integrated with nature, and the energy of nature. Again, I see this as another facet of our biggest problem as a species; not seeing our natural place, in the system of nature. One could even say that our problem is actually spiritual, without getting too religious.
So I think of the power in continuously generated money as similar to a crowd receiving hot food; money coming in at any point has high energy; it is hot, on hot plates, so we will quickly pass it on into the crowd, knowing that it will cool, until usefully consumed by others in the crowd receiving it at useful temperature. The food we consume ourselves will always be received from others, having circulated and cooled for a while, to a temperature we like to consume it at.
Currently, only banks, and crypto-communities can issue formal freely printed money. But we can say that companies and projects also produce verifiable freely printed money tokens in the form of stocks and shares. The individuals in those organisations themselves and their closest associates receive it first. However, if it is rapidly decaying, they will quickly pass it on in return for whatever they might be able to exchange it for, which is useful to them personally.
As things stand, with assets like gold and even bitcoin also on crumbling footing, there is no safe haven for cash, therefore not much useful that can be purchased with it, by banks. So they buy government favor with it, handing it to governments whilst we still need formal governments. Governments though, have much it can be spent on, thus passing at least some of it down the chain.
The quicker it decays, the quicker it will be passed on.
The difficulties we once had of physically managing rapidly decaying printed paper money are gone now, with digital money.
Now it is just numbers.
In the best future, all people can (And should, in my opinion) issue their own currencies, freely, and only to themselves, with all being free to decide their own details and rates they wish to issue it at.
That is absolute decentralisation. It is also absolute democracy, and absolute freedom, of all people.
The single, decentralised force controlling all things is the worldwide “Hive”, networked as we are, all seeing, we miss nothing anyone says or does any longer, we can’t even lie to ourselves, and we have already began to express our evaluations of all peoples, and all organisation’s currencies accordingly in the market, itself freed already a little from the influences of “whale” investors.
People would take a dim view of anyone trying to game the system, and this would be reflected in the relative value of their free money in the markets, traded in by all people using free money.
I hope you can see by all of this that free money is something in the earliest stages of a process of formation, which could lead to a new world, the world that we need, but also which could be derailed, leading us back to the old world we’ve pretty much been destroying, with ourselves in it.
Such a derailing could occur if we somehow restore our mistaken view that amassed capital, such as gold stocks actually have great value, and that free money is somehow a bad thing.
On your 1.25 percent rule, I don’t see any reason it would not be given very fair consideration by the hive, if you were still proposing it in such a new world, there would be nothing to stop you from marketing its implementation as a project and creating a token to represent it, and you would be fully equipped to do that, as would all people, to market any project they wished.