Naming Sufficiency Currency


by Grace Rachmany

December 23, 2020

Latest Blogs
Join telegram group
No Tweets available. Login as Admin to see more details.

In this call, we discuss the pros and cons of the name “Sufficiency Currency”. To summarize:

  • The terminology Currency comes from the Metacurrency Project, most notably Arthur Brock’s work on what he calls “current-sees”, that is, any type of flow (current) that you can measure (see) as an indicator of a desired or undesired behavior that the group wants to alter or monitor.
  • In the Currency Design space (yeah, that’s a thing), most people understand this terminology.
  • Most people don’t even know what the currency design space is, so it’s confusing. When people hear “currency”, they almost always think it’s a monetary currency, and the Sufficiency Currency is not a monetary currency.
  • Calling it the Sufficiency Currency has the advantage of causing the project to feel like it belongs to both the cryptocurrency/decentralized movement, and the community currency movement. That is a correct categorization of the project, as far as we are concerned.
  • A variety of names were proposed. The chat is posted below.

Quality of the video was sketchy, so the audio only is posted here.

Suggestions from the Chat:

MM:  sufficiency community => support people=> “supportable(s)”?

MML  commonwealth + community => commonities?

ML:  support network

HFH: Maybe we should not put in money. what we should put in economy instead

ML: yeah could be something simple like regenerative sharing economy

ML: distributive sharing pool

ML: community sufficiency currency

ML:  regenerative sharing commons currency

HFH: Exchange money is {1}:{1} bilateral relations

MM: divisibles,

MM: distributables + exchangables

MM: distributable good go to pools

MM:  exchangables are surplus value, to be traded as a community

ML: in our family budget system, we’ve renamed traditional financial terms to be more warm feeling rather than cold and calculated — we renamed “expenses” to “thrives” for example

ML: renamed “income” to “joy”, etc

MM:  that’s a good point about power (and potential fallacies) of language!

MM:  changing the name of a thing doesn’t usually change it’s nature, but it can alter perception drastically

HFH:  Quote1: Johann Karl Rodbertus wrote: The division of labour could just as well called the division of the result, because this concept is only the necessary complement to the former.

HFH: Quote 2: Gustav von Schmoller stated this: Mainly, however, if a full division of labor is to take place somewhere, social institutions must provide maintenance, food, clothing and housing for those, who devote all their labor to others.

HFH: (((money gets the purposefom economy) gets the purpose from society) gets the purpuse of the purpose of mankind)

HFH: Both money and economy lost the connection to what is it meant for: give men free time for relations and culture.