David Molnar writes:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Anonymous wrote:
It seemed that part of MojoNation's reason for backing away from mojo-as-money was the problem of fairly giving an initial allocation.
Do you know this because you've communicated with the Mojo team, are they on record about it, is this speculation, your inference from events, or something else?
It's inference and observation based on their changing policies and statements about mojo over the course of the project. At first it was going to be relatively hard to get and eventually be interchangeable with money. Then everyone got upset because they kept losing mojo, partially because of bugs and mistunings which allowed certain people to game the system and steal it away from others. So they made mojo easier and easier to get. Eventually they decided not to display the amount of mojo you have so that you wouldn't worry so much about losing it. The specific problem of how to fairly give people initial mojo wasn't the main driving factor but it was part of this constellation of problems that they ran into. If you've got to make mojo essentially free in order to deal with other problems, then logically it wouldn't work that well as a currency substitute. It is this last step which is inference, the rest is observation.
Please don't take that the wrong way - I don't doubt your integrity. It's an interesting suggestion and I'm just wondering where it came from.
Anonymous posters don't have integrity; that is a property of persistent identities. With anonymity each message must stand on its own, without the benefit of its author's reputation for integrity or intelligence.