Skip to content

More On The Talent

December 16, 2014

Very soon now, we’ll start crowdfunding for the national implementation of the Talent in the Netherlands, called the ‘Florijn’.

We will very much need every cent we can get to get things going so we can build a truly flourishing network, with many thousands of businesses and consumers.

It’ll be an opportunity for all to actually DO something about this most pressing of issues………….

Here’s some more input on the Talent’s specifications.

Money Creation:
Hybrid: some units created as debt free units, and sold for Euro. The euros are put in a ‘stabilization fund’ which can be used to buy up units on the exchange if there is excess supply/insufficient demand.

But most of the units will be created simply as mutual credit: double entry bookkeeping.

Business Model:
No transaction costs! Transaction costs discourage transactions. The last thing we want.

Businesses pay (typically) 10,- per month in the Talent based unit. Because of the convertibility that the Talent allows, the issuing organization can accept payment in Talent too, which obviously enhances both ‘liquidity’ in the network and the credibility of the unit.

Of course these costs are very, very low and it does mean that the unit needs a fair few businesses to be self-sustaining.

We use Cyclos software. A high end on-line banking system, created by STRO, a Dutch think tank in Utrecht. It’s a brilliant tool, allowing comprehensive and subtle configuration.

The on-line exchange, that allows convertibility, is our own software, as Cyclos does not support such functionality.

Modes of payment:
On-line telebanking, pay per phone (SMS). Paper money is optional.

Configured at 0%, but depending on the circulation of the unit in practice, the Talent is ready for it.


Interest-free credit:

Abundant money:

Secure against manipulation:
Full control within the network for the system’s management. Management can guard against speculation, rent-seeking activities, hoarding (with the purpose of sabotage and manipulation of volume) etc.
True: centralized management brings responsibility and risks of its own, but Bitcoin shows that non-centralized, user based control sees quick cornering of the money market.

And below a presentation, juxtaposing the Talent vs. the main architectures currently available.

  1. nazareneisrael permalink

    Norman B. Willis
    Apostle, Nazarene Israel
    Re-establishing the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints

  2. It is error to think of money as a thing. These artifical currency ideas, such as bitcoin etc, are not takng into account that credit, the origin of money is a shared belief. Somehow a cohort becomes entitled to make belief into a tangible tactile item called currency. This cohort is esteemed as bankers.Any attempt to make a substitute for money must take on the icons of the shared belief such as nationality or perhaps even race.

  3. Bravo, Anthony! I hope it runs smoothly. A very innovative model.

  4. zobatron permalink

    Hi Anthony, Thank you for your good work and your devotion to the righteous cause of helping people cooperate with each other (and hence love each other) better! I have been working toward educating my community in Beverly, Massachusetts about the perils of our money system with the goal of implementing a complimentary currency here. How do I look further into using the Talent system here in Beverly? How would we purchase it? Thanks again for your service to our planetary civilization. I look forward to meeting you, on this world or in the next realm! Cheers brother! -Benjamin Zoba

  5. Ross N. permalink

    Nice job. The stabilization fund is important. In one direction, debt fee is printed to buy national units (NU), and said national units go on to form stabilization fund. In the other direction, NU’s flow out to buy up excess talents being presented on exchange by the more “successful businesses.” These successful businesses need to escape talent system to NU’s because talent network is initially too small and hence these businesses cannot buy what they need as inputs in materials.
    I worry about too much outflow of NU stabilization funds because that has its ultimate limits.

    Being able to buy a talent for 90/95 cents in order to purchase $1 (or Euro) worth of goods should help the network grow, attracting new purchasing customers. Business may be able to write this off as a cost, similar to offering coupons or advertising? I’m curious about the write off, if indeed that is available- it would make it an easy sell to start the system.

    • There can only be temporary bottlenecks on the exchange Ross: all businesses in the red are constantly paying off on their loans (standard credit lines are revolving, they can respend what they pay back) and they have to acquire Talent for this on the exchange.

      If there are longer term excess Talents offered on the exchange, than the supply of money is too big and we’ll be able to restrict credit limits. In the worst cases, we can ask 1/11th or 1/10th monthly repayments, drastically increasing demand on the exchange.

      Since every Talent is either backed by a NU or a promise to pay, everybody is guaranteed convertibility, the worst that can happen is that they will need a little patience.

  6. Enjoyed the video but still do not understand the system. For example, how does one qualify to borrow Talents? Is there something similar to a credit score available? What happens if someone defaults?

    • Normally established businesses qualify for a basic credit line, Larry, depending on their size. When they go in the red, they must pay back 1/12th each month. This is done by taking the money from their euro/dollar bankaccount. If they build up a good ‘reputation’ (that is, if there are no problems with the monthly payments) their credit limit can grow.

      For larger credit lines, a more thorough check (business plan etc) and collateral are necessary.

      Defaults are mutually insured and part of the cost for the credit.

      • Thanks for the info. What about consumers, how would they qualify to use the Talent in payment for their purchases? Would providers of goods and services extend Talent credit to their customers?

        • Not in the early stages. Not because I wouldn’t want to, but it would be very difficult to obtain any serious information about their seriousness and credit worthiness.

          So they can only acquire Talent either through buying them on the exchange, or through allowing a small part of their wages to be paid out in Talent, something we will be focussing on strongly.

          However, once consumers have acquired ‘reputation’ (through participation) and we get an idea of their behavior, credit becomes an option.

  7. jim koconis permalink

    for any monetary system ‘to work’ it must be understandable to the average human being who labors, day after day, with the innocent hope of supporting himself and those he loves. if the system has nuanced layers of engineering, however well intentioned, yet lacking in comprehensibility to the average man on the street – the system collapses.

    i, for one, have no idea what your system is all about. it’s very confusing. it somehow demands that i learn a new language which i have no time for.

    people only trust in what they can understand. the ‘talent’ system, like all alternative currencies simply adds additional layers of complexities to what should be a straightforward design.

    it should never be forgotten that the primary reason we use ‘money’ at all is because we do not trust each other. the use of money for exchanges tends to impregnate in our minds the idea that we are ‘getting’ a fair and equitable value for what we are ‘expending’. money is the great equalizer – or so we want to think.

    alternative currencies will only tend to attract those with enough expendable income to indulge in the risk of opting out of the corrupt status quo monetary architecture for the slim hope of something better – and what better means to people with expendable incomes is ‘more expendable income’.

    ultimately, the vast majority of those interested in experimenting with an ‘alternative currency’ are the usurers among us. they want more, more, and more. best of luck, anthony….@#$%^&*UJ

    we don’t need alternative currencies of any kind – what we need is less selfish human beings. honest human being will naturally generate an honest currency. an ‘improved alternative currency’ will never generate honest human beings.

    i offer this challenge….what is the proof that any monetary reform will ever work given the selfish and cunning nature of mankind?

    • Ross N. permalink

      Humanity is at a completed evolutionary phase. If you want new humans, especially those that create high trust societies, then you can do brain scans for psychopathology or breed for certain traits. Unfortunately, that is a form of fascism. That said, humans are fecund and can overrun the planet with enough energy inputs – the same as any other biological organism. Fecundity and excessive energy inputs will have to be dealt with soon. This is yet another reason for a new money system, as our current financial capitalistic system codes with usury, which means debt instruments demand constant growth to be serviced.

      Part of our evolutionary history, especially those tribes that made it through the fourth ice age, evolved forward thinking and high trust in order to survive. Those peoples had credit/debt relations and they simply remembered who owed who what. They used polished spheres of ivory, or notches on wood, etc. as a talley for remembering mutual debts/credits. People who abused their credit relations were ostracised or kicked out of the tribe.

      Money, since it is a bearer instrument (pay to the bearer) has no attachment to creditor or debtor. In other words we don’t know who originated the credit. This makes money ripe for abuse, especially abuse by those who create it, or those who game system to grab money out of supply through rents. Abusers cannot easily be kicked out of tribe because rent mechanism is hidden, usually in prices. Money, especially legal money, is relatively new phenemenon in man’s evolutionary history. Credit/Debt relations far preceded money. Money requires some sort of critical mass of law and a trusting population.

      Proof that monetary reform will work is available, as there are brief moments in history where it did work. Talley stick system in England, Franklin’s colony, Massachusets Bills, Canada 1938-1974, Guernsey Islands, etc.

      By- laws and systems can code for morality, especially as they are created in advance and are vetted. People managing a money system can be brain scanned before employement to prevent pyschopath invasion, and their history may also be examined. Empolyees should swear fealty to a moral code, and there should be regular audits. Paying a salary, and having no incentive to make “profit” in markets is yet another way to prevent abuse. A moral civil servant will be attracted to this position, not a profiteer.

      Anthony has repeatedly said that any money system design must code for moral (non-rent seeking) behavior. There are people on this planet who do think morally, and don’t desire to screw over their fellows. Since humanity is now immersed in an Orwelian phase of financial capitalism, where reality is inverted, it is hard to have faith. I submit to you that many civil servants, and many in priest-hoods, do subordinate and have a servants heart.

    • “for any monetary system ‘to work’ it must be understandable to the average human being who labors, day after day, with the innocent hope of supporting himself and those he loves…”

      Very few (1-%?) understand the current system. Henry Ford was right when he said “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

      “ ….what is the proof that any monetary reform will ever work given the selfish and cunning nature of mankind?”

      There are many who can provide unequivocal mathematical proof that the current system cannot be sustained – it was designed to transfer most tangible wealth (public and private) to the people who own and run the system along with an elite few power brokers and facilitators. We’ve known this for at least a couple thousand years.


      Where P=Principal & I=Interest

      Note that there will ALWAYS be more debt than money!

      More Proof:

      LETS Engineering Mathematics
      by John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

      Formal Stability Analysis of Common Lending Practices by Marc Gavin

      I share your overall skepticism as we’ve seen Bitcoin and others fall short of their promise but I think we also need to keep searching. I agree that a good system is one that the common man should be able to understand and maybe the Talent is that system. Let’s take a good look.

    • I’m convinced the current monetary system brings out the worst in people. It incentivizes predatory behavior.

      No monetary system can change human nature, it can only incentivize positive behavior.

      I believe that the vast majority of people are basically tender hearted. Stupid, superficial, easily distracted by bling, yes. But evil? No. Call me naive, but I need to believe this to do this work.

  8. great work,
    I am working for an organisation that would like to support you and your cause, we can fund projects like this!
    please reply!

  9. jim koconis permalink

    ross – the point i was trying to make is this….

    regardless of any corrective measures taken to improve the monetary architecture within the current paradigm or via re-engineered alternative currencies, there will always remain a fundamental problem with the notion that people are actually willing to make benevolent or even useful exchanges of goods and services. the mechanism by which these exchanges are tallied and accounted for cannot determine what, in fact, is being exchanged for what.

    any exchanges beyond the basic survival commodities are suspect. an economy built upon the exchange of conveniences and luxuries will, in short order, degrade the labor of those struggling for a bare subsistence. in other words, what matters most in any economy is not the nature and character of the currency used to tally the credits/debts but rather the nature and character of goods/services being exchange.

    once a society has met its survival requirements it axiomatically begins its unavoidable descent into a superfluous thirst for nic-nacs and charms. look around and see if you don’t agree. the monetary system, thru any form of careful engineering, will never check that descent.

    sure, the nature of money is important -even critical – but until the human population has the desire or intention to act with a ‘servant’s heart’ (to forgive – not to exchange) the purpose of money itself is of no account.

    at its core, usury much more than interest on money – it is the theft of the poor’s subsistence thru the EXCHANGE MECHANISM ITSELF hell bent on providing useless trinkets to the most cunning and selfish of our kind.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Jim, your point is well taken. Another way to look at is everything is Credit/Debt relations. A contract is usually between two people, often with a third party – the banker doing third party accounting, and sneakily taking usurious rents. Credits and Debts can be canceled with Goods or Services or with some sort of promis of future delivery.

      For centuries in Venice, they actually inspected the debt/credit contract. There were rules, for example unscrupulous creditors taking advantage of prospective debtor widows was not allowed. Or creditor had to take a large risk in ventures, say going out to sea to catch fish. If the venture failed, creditor took it in the shorts as bad as did debtor. Contracts were legal mechanisms and they were inspected to prevent usury.

      Eventually Venice became corrupted, which confirms your case that man is part of the problem. The Doge of Venice used to be elected in an elaborate system designed to make sure he was not part of an in-group Oligarchy.

      Rents can be buried in the exchange mechanism, and this can be outside of money. For example, we have a island and I use my tough brothers to control the fishing grounds. I make fish scarce, and then take your daughter in exchange because my fish price is so high – and you are starving. No money involved, yet your daughter for my fish as exchange, is clearly usurious due to my family’s manipulations.

      It always devolves back to the law, and how we humans decide to treat each other. Relgion is important as one of the pillars of civlization. Predatory religions should come under withering attack as they restrain man from evolving to his higher self.

      A moral money system, as Anthony envisions, would be a constant rebuke to the predatory system we have now. Our predatory system gets much impetus from the Kabala, Talmud, and other ancient rent seeking thought processes.

      There are contracts, or law, buried in Anthony’s system. He mentions the contract. There has to be an agreement for certain type of honorable behavior among participants.

  10. Anthony – it would be most helpful if you would present a basic primer or FAQs that explain how the Talent works. And/or, some examples of actual transactions.

    • Basically it comes down to this Larry:
      – 1 Talent = 1 Euro (or Dollar)
      – Someone buys Talent on line. The Talent is deposited in his account the minute the transaction is complete.
      – He goes into a shop and buys his groceries, paying via his phone.
      – The business man can spend his turnover at other firms, paying either with his phone or the on-line telebanking system.
      – He can spend more than his turnover by using his credit line.
      – If he turns over more Talent than he can spend in the network, he can sell his excess Talent on the on-line exchange for max 95 cents.

      Money creation is 90% through credit, 10% through debt free money, sold by the Foundation for dollar/euro.

      I know it can be a little tricky getting your head around this thing, but it’s really as simple as this. Go ahead and ask specific questions for elucidation!

  11. jim koconis permalink

    thank you, ross, for your thoughtful comments.

  12. Reblogged this on Jana Murray.

  13. Hi. If your in needing “buying” talents before issuing them into circulation. Is not this like the CC method of creating them them? Why not pay them into circulation? Please clarify.


    • Yes. The Talent is a hybrid so we create money both as mutual credit, and by selling them. The buyer of the unit pays it into circulation.

  14. Thanks for very interesting reading!

    Fundamentally I still do not see any problem with making legal tender simply non interest bearing currency that we have and replacing all existing social debt with this new “currency” and what you have so well put forward is a wonderful way of doing this which at the same time addresses the whole issue of usury which is caused by artificial scarcity 🙂

    The issue is one of breaking the existing paradigm of those that are benefiting as well as those that are being used through the current design of the system.

    The more I have looked this comes down to a choice about taking responsibility of personal actions versus blaming others for our problems.

    People in general are driven into apathy due to human nature of doing as little as possible for as much as possible which results in society being adapted to benefit those with least apathy to design power for their benefit.

    This is where I feel the change needs to come from – we all need to accept if we want to benefit from being in society we have a responsibility towards maintaining that society and that means we must be involved in the social system.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Exciting Times! | Real Currencies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *