Stephen, there seems to me to be many definitions amongst economists as to the nature of money, even ideal money. Also the idea of "Contract", sounds like a kind of promise which anyone might choose to honour or not. All seem to be human constructions with little analogy in nature, therefore are open to interpretation (and hence argument), in the presence of incentive to gain from such.

I know for sure you have the best of intentions, but of course we are vastly outnumbered by those still conditioned to have every intention of personally gaining from confusion.

It is true some people could misbehave by manipulating the markets in the same way as some things can block the sunlight of others in nature, and there are known instances of that happening in forests for example.

But the worst that could be done, in a market no longer constrained to work in the mode of controlled scarcity, is to temporarily cause pump-and-dump waves that might temporarily advantage troublemakers, but since all can see the actions of all others, and all have the same "skin in the game", there will always be financial penalties which are experienced by misbehaving minorities in the market, so I think the incentive to misbehave is already removed.

In truth, I no longer feel there is anything that needs to be specifically implemented or even legislated for, all that needs to be done is to educate, whilst the technolgy is unfolding, as to the incredibly unbelievable positive outcome of freeing money, as we can see much trepidation, particularly from those much invested in the old system.

The truth is, whilst their number is decreasing, and those forcibly divested from the old system is increasing, there appears to be an irreversible process happening which has one outcome.

To me it looks like a really good one!