We’re Disruptors, Not Enablers

Photo: The United Nations on Unsplash.

Someone asked the question: why you would not use complementary currency as a bridge to the new economy?

There are many reasons why not using complementary currencies is crucial. I’m going to describe the main ones here.

Complementary currencies are fine, IMO, for local projects intending to remain local. I think that’s why they’re called “complementary” instead of “disruptive.” They offer a currency that complements legal tender.

Copiosis and its NBR system are not in any way currencies. They represent a disruptive technology designed to make ALL currencies obsolete. This is important to note. Some people still think Copiosis’ NBR is a currency. It is not.

I presume a complementary currency could rise in both prominence and use that it could rival a nation’s legal tender. But that’s not what they’re designed for IMO. So far, no complementary currency I’m aware of is designed in whole or part to eliminate legal tender. So that’s one reason we don’t use a complementary currency model.

Another reason is, such currencies are too similar in people’s minds to what they’re using today, thus they continue, even if in a tangential or subtle way, to reinforce indoctrination in the idea of a “medium of exchange”.

The “medium of exchange” is an old concept that is ready to be retired because it causes too many problems, including resource distribution bottlenecks, inequalities and more. They, all, of course have their benefits, benefits any economist would be happy to talk about.

But I think few economists are aware of problems inherent in every “medium of exchange” I’m aware of.

More important though, all complimentary currencies I know about have these same built-in troubles that legal tender has. When/if scaled, these currencies would continue negative results happening today with legal tender whether they supplant legal tender or not. These built-in troubles are:

  • Their transferability
  • Their amorality
  • Their uncontrollability
  • Their contribution to creating a zero-sum game simulation (with the exception perhaps of a mutual credit system)
  • They all foster creation of the buyer-seller two-way transaction which creates terrible consequences.

NBR is not a currency. Nor is it a “medium of exchange” because “exchanges” don’t happen in Copiosis. So NBR doesn’t act like a currency, can’t be used like one and has none of the five troubles above.

What’s more, NBR introduces a completely new way of moving things around, built into its three-way transaction. We describe it with this graphic. Notice not a single exchange takes place. Everything goes in one direction:

Another advantage NBR has over complementary currencies: NBR and complementary elements of the Copiosis system jolt people out of their indoctrination.

Complementary currencies keep indoctrination in place. We refer to this jolt as the “pshycho-social-cultural shifts” that happen to most people when they either participate in promoting Copiosis or participate in a demonstration project. Some of those shifts sound like this:

  • “Wow, you mean when someone gives to me, I don’t have to give them something back?”
  • “I can do ANYTHING and thrive?”
  • “I don’t have to pay for food or healthcare?”
  • “I can relax and enjoy my life on Earth!”
  • “I feel less stress knowing that I’m not in debt to anyone.”
  • “I can see myself living in such a system!”

These are just some of them. They are the source from which people become super-passionate about Copiosis. A complementary currency can’t trigger this because it’s “complementary” to the current system, not disruptive. So it doesn’t offer a compelling future.

We’re not interested in perpetuating our current system. We think disrupting it is a better idea. That’s what we’re for: a planet wide disruption that ends communism, socialism and capitalism.

Leave a Reply