I blog over on the Hive blockchain and made a little game called "Wusang" (World's Ultra Simple Asset Numbers Game). It's a stupid-simple game with a pirate treasure story. A bot generates a random number, you maybe find a hidden treasure token.
This week I added #cashu #ecash as a "treasure chest" to be found. There are hidden bitcoin sats out there in the wild to be discovered. Find the ecash token, get the sats. Simple.
Info on this simple game:
#bitcoin #plebchain
Bitcoin ecash comes to Wusang β Hive
Bitcoin ecash sats have come to the Wusang game. by crrdlx
#bitcoin #plebchain
Gensler article: 
)
The paper reads:
>Imagine and economy, specified in continuous time, in which the government issues stock and pays a flow of non-negative dividends.
Three phrases stood out to me in that sentence.
1. "Imagine an economy" - I actually like this start. I'm nerdy enough to enjoy a good though experiment. And, "imagine an economy" is pretty good bait to hook me in. Economists often imagine places like an island or a prison or a remote village, all with limited resources, then go from there.
2. "in continuous time" - I think, "Huh?" Continuous time? As compared to time that is not continuous? Time that morphs back and around? Is this set our imagined economy apart from some science-fiction wormhole? I really have no idea what this term "continuous time" means or why they felt it necessary to specify this type of time up front. Immediately, I have a strong hunch as to where this is going...this paper is intended to be written with a academician's linguistic style that intends to confuse. Frankly, this style of writing is used as a weapon. It linguistic bullying toward a reader. This paper would write in such a convoluted manner where every sentence is contingent on, and qualified by, other statements or phrases. If anyone wishes to convey a point, write simply and clearly to convey that point. In my view, this paper would not do this.
3. "non-negative dividends" - Okay, writing gymnastics aside, now we're just making stuff up. "Non-negative dividends" paid by the government? Never heard it put that way. Usually, dividends to stock shareholders are simply called, "dividends." The very fact that they label them as "non-negative dividends" begs the assumption that there must be "negative dividends." I've never heard it put that way, but "negative dividends" <u>is what's called "taxes"</u>. And, yes, I guess governments do pay out negative dividends all the time.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm all for the government cutting back on its steady flow of negative dividend payments.
#bitcoin #plebchain
