Anonymous via email:

On article, basically you have defined a country (or a state) actually and named it a community. As you know, the problem with nationality is that you can't change it easily. And due to known reasons, countries tend to not allow people to immigrate to their country without valid reason. The online communities (such as gaming, chess, tv show ones and soccer etc.) are accepting new members easily simply because those communities are not actually effecting the community members' lives. On the other hand, some communities like "freemasonry" are really picky in terms of having new members because the community, or part of being their community is effecting their lives a lot. Same goes for family too, even legally, adoption or marriage are things that take time, some paper work and some commitment and promises just because of their effect on individuals' lives. Now the same would go for a new community model. At one point, if the defined currency on the article starts effecting members' lives (it will be effecting because at the end, it's the financial value that they afford their lives) they will be picky and changing communities, or even joining a different one will be a huge problem just like changing our nationalities.

I think you should first address the issues about how people form their relations with others, based on those others' effect on one's life, then the community idea could be further developed. Plus, as an example, legally I can't pay my taxes in any other currency than our national one. So I will have to exchange that community's currency to my national one at some point (just like Bitcoin exchange to fiat) because at the end, my government is the one that is building the roads and funding the army as well as feeding the stray cats. A community based online future would require community members settling down together at some physical location due to humans being a physical matter and not entities on the internet, and again, would be forming a state/country.