Автор: Анкап-тян

Montelibero, the weekdays of tokenomics

As I have already mentioned, writing news reviews for the entire Montelibero project is currently pointless—no one is capable of fully grasping the state of affairs across the project; it has become too large and complex. Therefore, I will pick certain characteristic themes and provide sketches on them so that a rough impression can be formed about how and what is being done in our community.

The most characteristic feature of the community, as I have written repeatedly, is its developed tokenomics. I dare claim that no other community in the world yet has anything similar. At the time I wrote my first reviews on this topic, the tokenomics still maintained a fairly significant centralization: there was the MTL fund with its own token (which brings modest monthly dividends and is slowly growing in price), there were many tokens issued by the fund to represent its own assets, and there were a couple or three independent tokens, for example, mine. Now, those wishing to diversify their investments have far more opportunities. (True, this is expressed, in particular, by the fact that I managed to place my previous loan of 500 euros in full, while the current one was not fully filled—about 320 tokens were bought. This only means that I need to offer a higher interest rate.)

It is evident that brisk sales followed immediately after the post about the loan placement, but the interested buyers quickly ran out

For example, a person has a dream. He is a programmer, but he also wants to be a DJ. What did he do? He issued DJAndy tokens, and now those wishing to finance his dream can do so. There is an offer with a more detailed description of the terms; it shows that this is essentially a short-term loan with deferred payment, but beyond that, the tokens can be used to pay for his DJ services at a good discount. Who in the traditional financial sphere would invest in someone else’s whims under such conditions? Yet, several people were found, although the total volume of purchased tokens is still noticeably less than the requested amount. The factor of social connectivity proves to be decisive.

In general, of course, the social aspect under ancap is a whole other story. The first Montelibero fund was created for commercial and infrastructure projects and does not engage in charity. Thus, for charitable tasks, a separate fund was created by other people. And what is the result? The fund’s capital is growing, yet there is no queue of suffering people knocking on its doors. People find it beneath them to simply ask for money for living expenses; therefore, the fund’s charity manifests in the fact that it satisfies requests for interest-free loans or sponsors some inexpensive campaigns to promote the Montelibero project.

But even simple interest-free loans already seem like too generous charity to people. For instance, in January, a private kindergarten took a short interest-free loan of 500 euros from the charitable fund to cover a cash gap, and by February, it had already issued its own short-term bonds for 1,000 euros to expand the business—and sold them all in literally two days.

Of course, the mere fact of belonging to the community does not mean that everyone will compete to offer you money on the most favorable terms. On the contrary, newcomers have to make do with short-term loans, while old and venerable companies already have the opportunity to attract long-term money. For example, one of the two whales of our tokenomics, the MTL-City developer, created its own investment platform Tokenopolis, where it offers investments in the construction of specific objects, the purchase of company shares, or three-year bonds. The site is somewhat raw, and if a potential investor knows how to buy tokens through Stellar’s native tools, I recommend using them for now, though it is also possible through Tokenopolis, albeit with some difficulty, and I think they will fix the bugs over time. A secondary market for this family of tokens (as with most others) does not exist—there are simply too few of us for that yet. Thus, after buying a particular investment token, the buyer must be prepared to hold it until the maturity date if it is a bond, and if it is a share, it is completely unclear for how long. Nevertheless, investors can be found.

The second whale of our tokenomics, the diversified holding GPA, also moved from a loan attraction model to the sale of shares. Presumably, they should bring some dividends once a quarter, plus grow in price. However, dividends are not yet being paid, and as long as the entire primary placement is not sold out, one cannot count on a price increase either. But even for such an offer, investors are found, which clearly demonstrates the price of reputation.

As far as I can judge, we have not yet picked all the low-hanging fruit, and Montelibero’s tokenomics is expected to see decent growth in the coming year. Meanwhile, other startup communities will catch up. For example, similar mechanisms for investing in local businesses have already begun to be implemented by the Norwegian Liberstad.

The most promising area of work for increasing the overall volume of tokenomics is the creation of convenient interfaces for third-party investors—through fiat banking instruments or at least through Bitcoin. So far, Tokenopolis has begun to move in this direction, but I hope a more universal platform appears, earning from the integration of Montelibero’s local tokenomics into the world of big finance. Work on this is already underway; perhaps in the foreseeable future, I will be able to tell you what this turned into.

The question of the monopoly on violence

Recently, I came across an interesting criticism of ancap. The gist is: you believe that the market will solve everything, and that monopolies shouldn’t be touched because they are inefficient and always eventually collapse. So why are you picking on the monopoly on violence? It will collapse on its own too. Either admit that monopolies aren’t collapsed by the market themselves, or that violence is a special, separate type of service that should only be managed by the state.

Is there any answer to this argument?

Querens

Monopoly in conditions of free market entry is a rather conventional concept; everyone tries to establish their own arbitrary criterion for what percentage of the market should be considered a monopoly. Again, the boundaries of the market are also taken from thin air. For instance, on the scale of Montenegro, if you try hard enough, you can see a monopoly on violence held by the Montenegrin state. But on a planetary scale, you can’t see one even with superpowers.

Therefore, it seems more convenient to me to speak not of monopolies, but of the optimal size of an organization. In given conditions, there is always a certain size of organization (determined by the technologies it uses and those used by others, population density and characteristics, landscape, history, and a host of other factors), beyond which the organization is forced to spend disproportionately large resources to maintain its own structure and activity; conversely, if the organization is smaller than the optimal size, growth proves beneficial because the organization’s activity brings a greater effect with relatively lower resource expenditures.

A hairdressing business has its own optimal size, as does a business producing microchips or airliners. Similarly, in these specific conditions, the business of organizing coercion will have its own optimal size. God is on the side of the larger battalions, but the technology of assembling large battalions is a very non-trivial thing.

The Neolithic agricultural revolution made it possible to coerce the inhabitants of fertile lands to grow grain, deliver it to state granaries, and then assemble into large battalions that could eat this grain on the march and crush small barbarian tribes by sheer mass, turning them into slaves or subjects who became new farmers. But on barren lands where grain does not grow, the state did not take root, and various highlanders are still considered less civilized—that is, less shaped for state needs (this was a brief summary of James C. Scott’s book “The Art of Not Being Governed“).

Nowadays, the financial system plays the role of grain. Whoever’s economy allows for the extraction of more resources for state needs can afford more expensive military toys, as well as fashionable soft-power tools—and that party secures that very monopoly on violence in a more complete volume and over a larger area.

Libertarians are a modern remake of those same barbarians described by James Scott, who sought to retreat to areas where grain doesn’t grow and where the hand of the state—in the form of censors, tax collectors, recruiters, and other unpleasant types—hardly reaches. Only now, instead of potatoes and other yams, they grow their bitcoins, which are useless for state needs, cook up their tokenomics, which are useless for the state, corrupt the tax collectors, refuse to work in the army or police, remain indifferent to patriotic slogans, but are keenly interested in all sorts of technological innovations useful to them, even if for some reason they are being banned.

Now, I will answer the question itself. Monopolies (including the monopoly on violence) do not collapse on their own; they are helped by the invisible hand of the market. But this hand consists of many elementary actions of all those for whom this monopoly is an inconvenience. And the invisible boot of the state consists of many elementary actions of those who profit from the monopoly on violence. The only thing that large battalions handle very poorly is guerrilla warfare, plus sabotage. This is a complex technology of decentralized resistance, and that is exactly what we are developing.

See the monopolist of violence? Can you hit them in the eye?

Court under ancap. Practice.

I have repeatedly had to answer questions about how courts would work under ancap, and we even once made a video on the subject. Nevertheless, questions continue to come in. This is understandable; the future is always in question. I believe the best way to resolve this issue is to demonstrate it in practice. Therefore, I am opening my own ancap court.

The main principles I intend to adhere to:

  1. The goal of the court is to resolve the conflict. Not to match a transgression with a registry of punishments, but to ensure that the decision helps the parties reconcile.
  2. All parties participate in the process voluntarily, agreeing in advance to execute the court’s decision.
  3. I reserve the right to refuse to conduct the proceedings and issue a decision at any moment, consequently refusing payment.
  4. The amount of my remuneration is announced in advance; the judicial process cannot begin before the parties agree to its payment.
  5. Judicial remuneration, deposits, and similar payments will be transferred to a separate Stellar account with a “2 out of 3” multi-signature. Thus, (a) parties will be able to withdraw their money in any proportion at any time by mutual agreement, thereby ending the court amicably; (b) I will be able to receive remuneration if at least one of the parties is satisfied with the decision; (c) the transfer of the claimed amount to the plaintiff or the return of the deposit to the defendant will not require the goodwill of the opposing party.
  6. If the parties agree for the process to be public, its progress will be covered by me in my channel.

I do not like it when those who call themselves libertarians simply mechanically replace the word “state” with the word “jurisdiction” and, in essence, try to simply cosplay the state. Jurisdiction is not a territory, not vassalage, and not an office with a sign. It is simply jurisdiction. For libertarians, it is voluntary jurisdiction that follows a request for help in resolving a conflict.

A court is far from the only tool for conflict resolution, and the need for it arises quite rarely. But, at the very least, I want to restore the good name of this institution, so that a court is not used as a threat, but that appealing to a court is perceived as appealing to a doctor or an accountant: yes, one can manage without it, but if the task is entrusted to someone with experience in it, the result will be faster and more reliable.

My main target audience is the participants of the Montellibero movement, but there are no problems with resolving conflicts among the external audience; they may simply need to put in effort to master the basics of tokenomics.

For now, I am accepting requests simply via Telegram DM (@ancapsan), but over time, I may add some additional interface.

Request for Support, Episode 2

Back in June 2022, I happened to address my readers with a request for support. I needed money to renew my residence permit and repair my scooter. Since then, the scooter has managed to die, but the need to legalize my stay in the country hasn’t gone anywhere. Only the basis for obtaining the residence permit has changed: previously it was my own shell company, now it is fictitious employment, as the costs of maintaining a company have risen sharply.

As last time, I plan to raise 500 euros. The buyout mechanism will differ slightly from last time. Now I am placing a sell order for 500 ANCAPCHAN tokens at a price of 1 EURMTL. On March 1, I will place a buy order at 1.01 (no less than 100 ANCAPCHAN), on April 1 at 1.02 (no less than 100 ANCAPCHAN), and on May 1 at 1.03 (no less than 300 ANCAPCHAN). In this way, I motivate myself to repay the debt as soon as possible. On June 1, I will decide that everyone who wanted to sell for a profit has had the chance to do so, and thereafter tokens will be bought at 1.

The main target audience for the loan is those who personally like me, as well as those who would like to commission me to write texts with payment in my own tokens: according to the established tradition in Montelibero, such clients always have priority, and a damn good reason is needed to refuse to fulfill their order.

In case any of the readers, for some strange reason, have not yet dealt with the tokenomics of Montelibero, I provide a link to my old instructions (they should be updated, but I haven’t gotten around to it; perhaps this update will be the first thing commissioned from me).

Once upon a time, this image was drawn for me specifically for posts expressing gratitude for money)))

Network State, chapter 2.9. The Single Commandment.

I’m completely swamped at my main job right now, and it’s hard to concentrate on something truly creative during short breaks, so I’m keeping myself busy with translation; doing it in snatches is quite feasible.

Another chapter of The Network State is ready, this time much more compact than the previous one. It concludes the second part of the book, in which history is presented as a trajectory, a kind of narrative created to justify changes in the present. In this chapter, a simple rule is formulated that the author urges creators of startup communities to follow: base it on only one commandment; do not try to implement a complex ideology with many independent moral statements right away—you’ll have time to cross-pollinate ideas with allies later, but at first, it’s better to concentrate.

In principle, libertarianism is quite reducible to a Single commandment, and usually, the principle “aggressive violence is bad” serves in this capacity (I am adapting this to the author’s style). So go ahead and build libertarian startup communities, Balaji has given his permission.

Libertarian Theory of War, Section 1.2, Objectives of the Libertarian Theory of War

I have finished writing section 1.2 of my new book on libertarian theory of war, where I outlined the objectives it addresses. Also, before that, I inserted a small paragraph on statism into the previous section. It might have turned out a bit tedious, but it doesn’t seem too dragged out. With that, the introductory part of the book is finished, and from here on, things should get more or less concrete.

If the previous book about ancap, which we managed to print on paper for the Montellibero festival last September, ended up being 74 A5 pages, then I hope this one will not be of such monstrous size and will fit into about forty pages. However, we shall see; I might get carried away with epic descriptions of helmet-glinting Hectors or drawing organizational charts of network-centric warfare—due to such off-topic tangents, the size of the book could expand significantly.

As a reminder, I would be very pleased with donations, showing me that my work is not only in demand, but that there are also people who consider it worthy of immediate material gratitude, and who have prudently invested at least part of their savings in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

2023, results

As usual, I note that I am unable to follow my own plans. Books I started translating earlier are still not finished, my own book on ancap has still not been recorded, but instead, I’ve started translating a new one about the Network State, and writing my own new one about libertarian theory of war.

The Telegram channel is not developing much: there are slightly more subscribers, slightly fewer publications and views, and citations have decreased slightly. Overall, this is logical: the project is mature, there is no aggressive advertising, free time is becoming scarcer; we simply continue to run the channel because how could we not?

Things are quite interesting with Montelibero. This year, the project continued to increase its systemic complexity, and now it can be confidently said: no single person knows how many people are in the movement or how the movement is doing as a whole, because one cannot embrace the infinite. Nor is there any need to. Therefore, certain major milestones are well-known to everyone (MTL-fest, moving into MTL-City), and alongside them are many small local achievements that look like breakthroughs to some and cause bewilderment to others. This is why I haven’t released Montelibero news for a long time; instead, I will most likely choose a segment that interests me and start covering it directly on the movement’s general channel.

In general, segmentation has become the main trend for Montelibero, and this is generally healthy: people try not to waste effort on things that interest them little and focus on what is important. At the same time, various companies interpenetrate somehow and are united only by these loose communications, similar value systems, and a set of approaches to working with reality. Such a Montelibero is not tied to any state borders at all, although, of course, most of the circles in the movement are geographically localized. I expect that next year this trend will become more institutionally shaped, the network nodes will take on a more explicit form, and their activities will receive diverse and more decentralized coverage.

Nothing interesting happened in Montenegro, except for a new government, a new president, the tightening of screws, and a census. In the RF, also nothing interesting, except for a failed coup. On the other hand, Argentina unexpectedly appeared on the scene. Now one can observe with joyful curiosity how etatists are fought with etatist methods, and add individual cases to the collection.

In the New Year, I want to wish my readers two of the most important things: a sense of self-worth and purposefulness. Do not tolerate shit neither in yourself nor around you, and move consistently toward a world where there is less of it.

Network State, Chapter 2.8. Leftists are the new rightists are the new leftists

I am settling my pre-New Year’s debt and posting the translation of another chapter of Balaji Srinivasan’s book The Network State. It is absolutely monstrous in size, but at the same time, in my opinion, quite interesting. There are plenty of fresh thoughts scattered throughout this chapter, but the key point is that leftists and rightists are not some kind of static groups, but simply the tactics of a particular community in relation to power. There is a left-wing tactic — to overthrow the existing power. And there is a right-wing one — to preserve the existing power. And the practitioners of these tactics constantly replace one another: former leftists, upon coming to power, become rightists.

The author logically does not count libertarians as either left or right, but in his opinion, they have their own cycle: from a startup to a bureaucratized corporation, and then to the departure of the most free-thinking employees to found a new startup. He provides no recipes for counter-cyclical policy in this chapter; we shall see what happens next.

Libertarian Theory of War, Chapter 1.1.2, Speculative Subjects and Their Relations

While I was on a roll, I managed to finish another chapter of the book on the theory of war, which offers the reader a fascinating journey into the world of spirits. The previously planned separate chapter on the principle of methodological subjectivism seems redundant to me for now, as I do not see what could be added separately about this principle, which already operates throughout the text. Perhaps I will decide to insert it over time, but for now, I am removing this item from the table of contents.

The next section is intended to briefly describe the goals of the libertarian theory of war as they apply to its individual stages.

Libertarian Theory of War, Chapter 1.1.1, Definition of War

The book is still coming along slowly — I’m finding my style, plus there is a lot of other work. The chapter on the definition of war and why I use this specific one is ready. For those who read the book on ancap, my definition has long been no secret, but it was somewhat cumbersome; now a short form has been added: war is a conflict in which people are ready to kill.

For now, the relationships between individual subjects are being detailed, but in the next chapter, I will move on to collective theoretical subjects, which are far more familiar to us when it comes to war.

The main advantage of the book is still intended to be its size: it will be short.