Pricing Mojo, Integrating PGP, TAZ, and D.C. Cypherpunks

[Anonymous]

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.