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.
When I describe a community, the last thing in mind is an state or a country. The community is a collection of people in different sex, race, nationality and even geo-location. And the point is “People can interact with communities at different levels”.
That is the real virtue of system. People can be only user of the money of a community as a "medium of exchange" or as a "store of value", and do no more engagement. Pretty like using USD in other countries. The Americans can not stop others using their Dollar, instead they will be more happy if the other nations prefer their dollar! More demand for their money results more valuable money. Thus communities will propagate their money, they will do everything to show how much heir money is good and how valuable is -comparing other communities monies-.
The difference here is that USD doesn't grant any rights to the holder other than itself being a financial asset unlike the community idea presented on your articles. You mentioned that "get the money of one community, be part of it. Get rid of their money, leave their community and voting rights and other stuff." When a currency grants some rights to its holders, the value of the currency is not just determined by the amount of bread it can buy, but also the rights attached to it.