@Red
Here are different kinds of LETS. There are Credit Limited LETS, with for instance 1000 for each, -500 / +500 limits of money for each individuals, and of course UD.
BitCoin as (his first money system that should take another name than the P2P tool itself) is a limited Credit LET like.
But
SCEC is much more near a DU since it give a fixed amount of money to each participant (so much more than 5% / year, but with decrease in time).
In fact to reach 5% / year, with a fixed amount of money f, it needs :
f / (f * y) = 5% => Y = 1 / 5% = 20 years to reach it...
See graphOf course LETS users understand quickly what is a DU, but they stated often from just a few years with few participants, the initial fixed amount of money is enough without visible problems, since 5% / year, only double the monetary mass for a 15 years period (1,05 ^15 = 2).
It depends generally of the SEL system, number of members, period of existence etc... Each money system has his own history of experience.
I am confused about your post, but it is clearly my ignorance not a defect of your communication skills. Most of my confusion is for abbreviations I do not understand.
I agree that Bitcoin is "like" the "limited credit LET" you describe.
I don't know of SCEC and the site appears to be in Italian. I'm not sure what "much more near a DU" means. Is DU = UD?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the graph. Given the scale and resolution, I can not derive the functions behind them.
Do they say, create a linear amount of currency until you reach a total amount of X in year 13. (parabolic part of the rate graph)
Then create a parabolic amount of currency 5%? (linear part of the rate graph)
I don't know SEL. Is that an abbreviation for "selection system"?
---
However, everything you have written here is addressing a case that I did not propose. I know that the example I gave is not bitcoin-like at all. So I'm unconcerned with how this relates to the bitcoin project.
The example LETS I described uses a zero initial starting balance. And it allows each participate to review the behavior of other participants and individually decide if they want to advance them credit in each particular transactional situation.
For example if Fred had a negative balance and he asked me for Food because he was starving, I might give him food on credit (increasing his negative balance). However if Fred asked me for beer in exactly the situation, I might decline him the credit. Each transaction is an individual judgement. Not a community mandated one.
Modifying your statement, I'll call it:
It is a Negotiated Credit LETS, with for instance 0 for each, -inf / +inf system limits. However, it is not community mandated to trade in EVERY negative balance circumstance. Transactions where both participants balance remains positive might be mandated. (No arbitrary discrimination in trade) But transactions that increase an individual deficit must be negotiated between the participating parties.
It is for this particular case I'm interested in understanding the benefits/justifications for UD. I do not see any.
