[aethertap]

I can't speak for others, but in my case, if I came to possess some of this currency I would immediately seek a way to convert it into something that would not decay as I kept it.

I think that saving money for both unexpected problems and future investments is an important part of social responsibility, and I would not adopt a currency that was deliberately designed to make saving difficult unless it was forced on me. Even then, I'd probably try to turn it into some kind of commodity that I could sell again later in order to dodge the losses.

There are a few assertions on the main page that I find interesting, in particular the one about money value vs goods value being "the underlying cause of the boom/bust cycle." I don't have time to read the linked book about it, is there a quick version of the explanation?

[khuey]

Yes, the point is to get you to convert the currency into something that doesn't decay. That keeps the money supply flowing and encourages you to invest in productive assets, both of which are good for society. A deflationary currency encourages you to stuff all your coins under your mattress.

[aethertap]

How does it improve the situation if I'm just buying something else to stuff under my mattress (e.g. silver)? I guess my issue is that it seems like even with a system like this implemented at a national scale, over the long run you'd end up with people rushing to convert the currency into "real" money, that being whatever commodity people land on as being most easily traded/stored/etc. At that point it seems like the commodity becomes the currency.

[maaku]

Because the assets you're holding under your mattress aren't affecting macroeconomic factors derived from the supply and demand of the currency of trade. More simply, you are conflating money as store-of-value and money as medium-of-exchange.