[tpfour]

What is this... jotting down some notes? I guess this will generate discussion because Sam wrote it, but it is probably one of the most boring and banal ideas in the space. And the exposition is very... shallow to say the least.

"A tricky part of this would be how to balance letting the network have control over itself and letting the government have some special degree of input on ‘monetary policy’. It’s certainly ok for the government to have some, but I think the network needs to be mostly in charge (e.g., the government couldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily inflate the currency when it wanted to)."

This is how the current monetary system works. The "government" can't "arbitrarily inflate the currency". I'm surprised at the lack of depth of this article, is this a brainfart? Haha.

[stale2002]

"The "government" can't "arbitrarily inflate the currency"."

The US government can literally do this. They can print as much money as they feel like. It would be 'dumb' for sure, but the US treasury is indeed allowed to do this.

There was even talks of solving the national debt crisis by having Obama create a trillion dollar coin a couple years ago.

[thisisit]

There is a more complicated relationship going on than central government printing money:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/082515/who-decides-...

The myth that the central bank prints money became prevalent following the Great Recession, when many were concerned about the unconventional policies of the central bank, which included intervention in the commercial paper market, mortgages and outright purchases of debt to keep the system from collapsing. By the end of the recession, the Federal Reserve had expanded its balance sheet by nearly $4 trillion.

[kolbe]

If the US Treasury did that, it would be illegal.

The coin thing is a hack that would probably be challenged in court, because it's illegal for the Treasury to arbitrarily print money, except when it's silver.

So, you're not wrong in that the treasury can physically do those things, but it's in the same way that you wouldn't be wrong if you claim North Korea can do the same by illegally counterfeiting endless dollars.

[dragonwriter]

> The coin thing is a hack that would probably be challenged in court,

Probably on some basis, but it would also probably survive the kind of challenge you describe.

> because it's illegal for the Treasury to arbitrarily print money, except when it's silver.

Platinum, actually, not silver. [31 USC § 5112(k)] Which is why minting the coin as a platinum coin was an essential component of the idea.

[freeone3000]

Why wouldn't north korea counterfeit endless dollars in order to get a liquid cash supply? It sounds like a pretty great plan.

[davebryand]

I think he was positing that they couldn't inflate in a future world of a GovCoin.

There is actually an interesting nugget in the Obama idea. The "trillion dollar coin" thing completely misunderstands market dynamics, but the idea of the Executive taking power back from The Federal Reserve is interesting.

[tpfour]

Well there are rules they have to follow. Just like there would be rules to follow with the crypto coin... Not sure what's the difference.

[kolbe]

Well, it is just a few hundred words. If he were taking it seriously, the topic would need to be addressed in length with more justifications than a bunch of "I thinks." But it seems everything Sam writes outside of business are just the sorts of essays a smart 18 year old who's really high might write.

[bobjordan]

Yes, seems more like a discussion starter to me. And that’s OK and perfectly acceptable. Whereas, your comment comes off as an overly critical meaningful discussion diverter. Better not to say anything at all. Now, I’d better follow my own advice.