> Borrowed from Medieval Latin *currentia*, from Latin *currēns*, from *currō*. By surface analysis, *current* + *-cy*.
it seems like an observer's world is in a superposition of surface analysis and substance analysis. move the particles around and hit play to shape the wave; shape the wave to change the particles that fall out.
in this case, both surface and substance point to the rolling *now*
theory: the materia of a system remains constant, even as observers are added to it. which means the materia has to *move faster* in order to present to all of the observers in the same amount of clock time. (think: Santa, having to increase his own frame rate as world population increases, under the constraint of the population's maintained measurement of simultaneity.)
theory: in a stable economy pinned on constant working value (in a conservation of energy sense; an economy that's doing a good job of treading water against its own heat death), currency must *devalue* as currency measurements increase in frequency (to keep the measurement problem from becoming a problem in substance and not just surface, or surface and not just substance? to keep it from being *both at the same time*, anyway). financial metabolism speeds up, so that the same amount of working value can make it through complete circulation in constant time. inflation as the thermodynamic exhaust of a more densely observed economy.
if this holds, we should see [ investment strategies that are constantly cycling 100% of their capital as liquid ] tracking inversely with [ currency value ] - neither beating it nor beaten by it, but approaching homeostatic metastability with it as the measurement window increases
actually, that should work regardless of whether or not those theories hold - that might just be a useful tautology, and the theories just might be what you'd expect to be true as a result
building off of that tautology specifically, then: if this holds, companies with a stable realtime employee revenue share model should see everyone's compensation loosely tracking the Big Mac Index, and companies that *don't* should see investor/founder/executive returns exponentially beating everyone else's. (hugely important that this be "revenue" sharing, which is easy to define, and not "profit" sharing, which can hide more measurements/observers than you can shake a stick at.)
... this seems to point at something like: if you're not constantly and completely cycling your liquid with the shared economy (and all economies that share stable observers *are themselves shared*), you're going to fall out of the shared economy? billionares aren't hoarding, because they're not *saving* - they're ... superconductors? Santa doesn't give them more per stop, but he stops there more often? in such a system, "building savings" is a locally coherent but globally incoherent move, and now that all (?) human economies *are* properly global, ...? this seems like something we could do a better job helping each other *bootstrap into*, I think, because optionality grows slowly. at first, at least, to any observer *outside* of that optionality. from within the optionality, it might be explosive.
from what I can tell, we *seem* to be playing for mutually-assured survival, in a financial sense, like we are *all* Wigner's friend, and Wigner sent us into the room holding a single dollar, *but we keep multiplying in there*. "One-Dollar Economy", à la Wheeler.
I explore all of this as a CEO/founder whose company (Lightward Inc) started with revenue sharing, then paused it while headcount stabilized, then re-initiated it. re-initiation has no cost: because (1) our books are fully balanced at the top of every month, *and* (2) the service we render for the local economy is locally profitable, *adding* revenue sharing is safe to start at any time: we put a pin in a month's revenue, and split the delta from that point on. our employee turnover is 0% over the company's 15-year lifetime. *and* a teammate's first child just had their first birthday - someone decided that it was safe to multiply here. :)