Anonymous via email:

I think that currently there is a place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds, perhaps even more than before. We now have social media, and if you save a stray kitten and share it on the internet, your photo could be on news websites, shared across the internet with millions, you could be invited to a TV show or even got some donations from others. People literally get paid for playing games and being entertaining. Or even better, people literally get paid simply because they are beautiful, I mean, the female twitch streamers or youtubers who have a lot of followers and income even though they are not a good player. People literally pay them money so that they will read their names on live stream.

The current financial system is actually based on the concept of individual's "pleasure/profit" from the action/service/product. I might be paying for some computer games simply because I like playing games and someone else might be paying for beauty products simply because they would want to look more beautiful. Now when it comes to the issuance, who is going to define the rules for getting paid and who is going to set the events classified as "beneficial for society"? I could say that I am playing games, entertaining depressive people so I should get some portion from that issued coins and someone else might say they helped a poor person so they should get paid. The issue here is that if I am the lawmaker, I would want to put "art/entertainment" under "should get paid" class, however, someone who has no interest in art/entertainment might say "nope, they shouldn't get paid". That's why every government have different rules and different social structure and laws. In US people get paid $600 because there is covid, and in some other country they don't. In Germany people get paid some money if they have a child (under the name of child support, paid by government) and in some countries no one gets paid for that. And in china, people are fined for that.

That's why, it is really hard to determine what should be considered as a feat, beauty or heroic or socially beneficial and that's why philosophers have been arguing for many many years. One approach here could be "find a peaceful religion, take all the good deeds from that and move on with it", or gather around and define 10.000 different events initially, ask people on the street what they think about each of these events/tasks and how would they rate them. But again, either we would be taking the word of some people who lived in the past, by the rules of past or some random people who are not even going to be part of our community.

So the only option left is that founders of community can agree on the good deeds initially, later make additions or changes to them. But again, this would give leverage to the founders. The response to that would be "no one joins their community then", so the founders have to agree on a fair, and acceptable list for potential future members. But again, this would be unfair to the founders because they have done all the initial hard work and they get no extra credit? It is really a grey area, and a matter of philosophy at this point.