SNERX.COM/PERCENT Last Updated 2022/8/6 • Read time 17min • Discord ______________________________________________________________________________________ This page is about perfectly proportionate and relativistic systems, either in economics, physics, games, or whatever. We have experimented with all of the systems listed below and use them on our server or in games we play. Percent-Based Money: Percs, which we symbolize as '%', is an experimental currency we have developed for testing relative and perfectly proportional valuation systems. It is a dynamically scaling currency, minting and sinking itself in direct proportion to the number of users in the system, meaning this is a currency that experiences neither inflation nor deflation. We are testing the use of this currency in our server and several of the games we made.
In this proposed currency framework, every user gets 100 units of Percent upon account creation (one account per unique person). As accounts are created, so too is Percent minted (100 units each). As accounts are deleted, so too will Percent be sunk (100 units each). This means there will always be, and only be, 100 whole units of Percent per person in the system. We sink the currency by use of a communal account that doubles as a government funds pool made liquid by means of fees and a form of pseudo-taxation. Creating and destroying the currency in direct proportion to the actual number of people using it means the currency never loses its value as a monetary standard; purchase power and economic utility never inflates or deflates meaning demand-side will be relatively static forever. In this system, every person on average is always worth exactly 100 Percent. The currency symbol for Percent is %, and thinking of your money as a percentage of a whole, a perfect relative tally of how you score compared to the average, gives you direct insight into how well you have managed yourself, your time, and your relations to others in the world. Since you are given a perfectly average sum of cash upon entrance into this system, whether or not you increase or decrease your economic status is no longer due majoritarily to extrinsic factors. This is a system where individual merit is king, and your successes or failures are mostly yours alone. This is like a fair capitalism that starts in the middle of middle-class (obviating the need for a UBI). This does not mean everyone in this system will be rich, in fact we expect traditional economic distributions to emerge, but the distributions will be scaled proportionately rather than disproportionately like we see in everywhere else. Because everyone gets 100 whole units of this currency to start, and humans with good diets live around 100 years on average, this makes 1 unit of Percent approximate to 1 year of life. The saying that 'time is money' is literal for this experimental valuation system. This lets us treat Percent like units of time as well as a currency with %0.0001 equating to ~1 hour of time (or 52 minutes to be exact). There are lots of things that could be said about what follows from this collapsation between money and time, with obvious references to pop culture like the movie In Time, but without saying anything else too specific, paying people with time also means that if you own over %200, then you own an entire second lifetime of wealth in this system. Proportionate, dynamically-scaling currency also means economic instruments become far more reliable and market valves/pressure points become simpler to manipulate and maintain. Space and time are measured in relative frames, implying reality itself operates under a relative frame, yet we don't account for any regular system this way; we believe Percent will help transition cultures into relativistic value frameworks. Through a loan system or other mechanics, negative balances could be possible to attain. The way these should be handled are with spending lock-outs where a user cannot spend any % until their balance becomes positive again. This is crucial because if a user leaves the system with a negative balance, then the over-spent amount must be sunk in addition to the %100 that is normally sunk. For example, if a user dies with -%5, then %105 would have to be sunk to balance the average across the system. Separation of church and state was a good start, but we should also separate money and state. We predict that future money will not be issued by any centralized state power, but a decentralized, distributed, cryptographically secure, private, permissionless, open, and dynamically scalable protocol that was adopted by its resilience to attacks from everyone who has tried to steal, break, or manipulate it. Since cryptocurrencies comes close to this, we considered using one of them, but their unfair initial distributions, centralized early adopter distributions, and inherent deflationary properties (in Proof-of-Work) or inflationary properties (in Proof-of-Stake) have horrific economic consequences so we aren't trying to really emulate them. Securing % is substantially less computationally intensive than any PoW system, less even than a PoS system, so we should be able to leapfrog those technologies entirely. You could expand the use of Percent by creating artificial liquidity in a market and force it to become an arbiter medium of exchange in those markets, for example, if 100 people stake %1 in a pool, that pool can become its own autonomous account tied to a specific market or set of assets. 100 unique people staking money as a threshold guarantees a minimal level of activity around some asset(s) and also garuntees the perfect %100 balance per person in the system isn't disturbed. This autonomous account can be a smart contract that automates sales or movements of some asset or functions as a store of currency that accumulates over time - paying out the original stakers plus interest after some threshold of accumulation; the potential uses are myriad. I believe this also works as a game theory mechanic to deincentivize both market splitting and market accumulation. It can also serve as a reputation system for a store or market. Percent, like cryptocurrency, is technically infinitely divisible, but for sake of usability and efficiency of price-discovery Percent only has four digits of divisibility on our server (making the smallest transactable unit 0.0001), and only eight units of divisibility in the full version (since you don't need to divide time down further than that). Also like cryptocurrencies, you can instantly exchange Percent for Dollars or any other currency. Additionally, having wallet balances and transaction values displayed as four-and-four character representations, the same way timestamps, time measurements, user IDs, and many other values and tags we use for projects on Snerx are displayed, it brings a uniformity to this world where the most efficient, most streamlined, easily visually parsable standards and information are the ones that get used. Through this we present a possible version of the future in which people are not restricted by implicit cognitive bureaucracy and instead are efficiently promoted to do real work, creative pursuits, and live dynamic lives instead of being taught by tired economic systems that the most meaningful form of existence is repetitive wageslaving.
Relativistic Scoring, Ranking, and Names: We needed a new kind of scoring system that assigns points uniquely to players in a game so that no two players end up with the same score after any round. If there were five people in the system, then the system needs to assign points from 1-5, which is 15 points total between 5 people. If two people are to end up with the same number of points after a round, then special
conditions determine who gets that final score; e.g. if two people would somehow end up with a score of 3, but one of them had 3 the round prior and the other only had 2, then the one with 2 has improved while the one with 3 idled, so 2 would move up to 3 and the one who already had 3 would be bumped down to 2. Similarly, if one had 3 the round prior and the other had 4 the round prior, then 4 would be demoted down to 3 for losing a point, and the one with 3 prior would move up to 4 to occupy the empty rank. This is kind of like a normal scoring system mixed with an ELO-like system. This system is so simple that I'm sure it's been done many times before, but we couldn't find any major scoring system that works this way, so we just jerryrigged it here for our own internal purposes. Since this not only scores everyone but also keeps them ranked against each other, this is like an ELO system where playing will always modify you or your opponent's score (or both). But unlike ELO, all scores must be unique, no two people can have the same score, and further the point limit must be dynamic, since the maximum score you can get is the same as the number of people playing. This is unlike an ELO system and more like traditional scoring in that the score cap is dynamic and not bound to 3,000. The score cap is determined by the number of people in the system, i.e. if there are ten people then the score cap is ten, if there are a million people, then the score cap is a million. The way we ended up making this work is to have every round of a game or every whole game be worth 1 point by default. If you win you move up one rank, switching places with the person above you. If you lose, you move down one rank, switching palces with the person below you. Moving one at a time in a system with a million people would be very slow and cumbersome. To add a little more dynamicism, you can score or jump up to 100 ranks at a time. The way this is calculated is always from the higher ranked player, where an oponent within one-hundreth of their rank only results in a gain or loss of one point at a time, but an opponent within two-hundreths of their ranks results in a gain or loss of two points at a time, and so on. So playing and losing to an opponent that was more than nine-tenths below your rank would would result in you getting shuffled down ninety places from your position and them getting shuffled up ninety places from theirs. If the higher ranked player won in this example, they would only move up one rank and the loser would only move down one. The extra points only come from punching up, not down. This also incentivizes challenging people who are better than you so that you can move up faster. The scores you win from this scoring system thereby determines your rank against all the other players. Inactivity does not equally penalize everyone, since inactive players may rise up in the system if lots of other players around their rank lose a handful of matches. Inactivity would penalize the top ranked players the most since they can only go down from their position. This means the top positions are not as static as the ELO system. Additionally, a dynamic cap means your score/rank can be used to easily identify your performance percentile since your percentile is just your score/rank divided by the cap amount. If this system were applied to a site like lichess where hundreds of games conclude every minute, then the scores/rankings would be shifting so frequently that almost no one would keep their same rank after a couple minutes. However, if this system is applied to a site, server, or game that only concludes once a week or longer, then the ranks would be consistent enough that we could start using them as identifiers and calling people by their score/rank instead of by their name. You may be asking what use case this actually works for, and in most cases this is a bad idea, but for internal use on the Snerx & Diogenesis discord or other internal games, this ends up being quite useful and works decently for braging or taunting since a low-ranked person can be called by their low rank.
Relativistic Units of Time: Given the contemporary forumlation of spacetime, time decelerates as the expansion of space accelerates. This inverse relation allows for interesting frameworks to be built around how we measure and give time.
Percent-based systems are good for any relativistic framing, and as mentioned in the Heat Death section, this obviously applies to time itself since time is relativistic. We do not however use measurements of time that are relativistic in regular practice, and this is problematic because it means our system is only applicable to one place, that place being Earth. It doesn't work anywhere else and further it doesn't maintain mathematical base consistency. Our current system goes from base 60 for seconds and minutes to base 24 for hours to base 7 for weeks to base 3.5-ish for weeks in months or base 52 for weeks in years, and then base 12 for months in years or base 365-ish for days in years. None of this is consistent or useful on any other planet. If instead we used a base-100 system and counted things as parts out of a whole, then a percentage-metric accounting for the passage of time is perfectly universally consistent. A 100% year means a full orbit of a planet around its star, whether that be Earth or any other planet, so you no longer have to convert 365 days into its proportionate position in the orbit to find out how much is left for Mars. Granted, 100% of an orbit for Earth is not the same objective amount of time for 100% of an orbit for Mars, but again we are not using a narrow objective measurement here, this is a relativistic measurement. When giving time differences between planets, we give them as proportions anyways, i.e. we say one rotation on Earth is 24 hours compared to Jupiter which rotates once on its axis every 9 hours, 55 minutes and 29.69 seconds, making one day on Jupiter approximately 41.67% of an Earth day - a percentage. Using a percent-based system of keeping track of time also happens to map nicely onto the system of time measurement we already have. If a full orbit of Earth is 100% of the year, then 1% of the year is 3.65 days, and 2% of the year is 7.3 days, about a week, which we would expect because there are 52 weeks in a year and that is pretty close to half of 100. This means weeks can be measured basically the same and days pass three and a half or seven and a third's times per week. That may seem less obvious to keep track of than our current system, but look up and if three Suns pass and you want a day off work, call it the weekend and do what you want. Living your life based on how others keep an arbitrarily developed and executed time system that holds no actual relation to how the universe works is pathetic and you deserve to suffer if this is the path your ineptitude has not found a way out of yet. Anyways, 100% of a day means there are 100 units in a day instead of 86,400 seconds, 1,440 minutes, or 24 hours. This puts a single unit of the day, or one 'Percent-minute', at 14.4 normal minutes. This makes 1% of a day approximately a quarter of an hour. Measuring with 100.0 (factor of a thousand instead of a hundred) puts a single Percent-Minute at 1.44 normal minutes. Either way, this is a more human measurement as your body's internal clock follows these times more intuitively than the normal way we measure time. Measuring with 100.00 gives us Percent-seconds of 0.14 minutes or 8.4 seconds, and at 100.000 our Percent-seconds are 0.014 minutes or 0.84 seconds. The ideal form is to measure a day with 100.00 units since this gives us familiar and intuitive relations to our regular system as well as being displayed in a %##.## format. It also means we can give a time as an overall measurement for advancement into the year. For example, instead of saying this was being written on 2020/08/17 at 11:45:13 PM, we could just say 2020.63.01.98.97% or %63.019897. I believe there is also an important psychological component to reframing days and years in terms of percentages since waking up at 11 AM just means you slept in for most people, but waking up instead to see that 46% of your day is already over motivates you to change your habits quite rapidly. The same with seeing how much of the year has elapsed as a percentage - 80% of your year being over motivates you to finish up projects, a kind of reverse-new-year's resolution.
Consistent Formatting & Unique Identifiers: As mentioned in the first section, we are trying to develop an architecture for tracking things that utilizes a universal formatting. This means currency, time, and even names or unique identifiers. Below are the developmental notes stepping through the choice in formatting.
An identifier formatted as 1-2-3-4 numbers or 'N-NN-NNN-NNNN' allows for 1,000,000,000 permutations including full zeros. If we want to include more than potentially 10 billion unique people, then one more, as a 4-3-4, 'NNNN-NNN-NNNN', allows for 10,000,000,000 perms. If we wanted to be able to include unique device identifiers and possible other intergalactic civilizations' citizens with potential room for error or redundancy, a 3-4-5 format allows 100 billion perms, at base ten. If we include A-F to get standard base 16 we can get a similar ~1.1 trillion perms with only 10 characters instead of 12. At base 36 (0-9 & A-Z) we get 2.8 trillion perms with only 8 characters. So a 4-4 format, or 'NNNN-NNNN' gets us almost 3 trillion perms. This is what we settled for, but it should be noted that adding four more symbols gives us base 40 with 6.5 trillion perms at this length. If every individual person has 1 identifier (sub-parsible for unique identifiers for their properties, devices, misc), then we only exhaust ~9 billion IDs. This leaves plenty of room to add alien civilizations' citizens as uniquely identified in the same system. Your entire life, or any permanent unique identifier, fixed to 8 characters also means it is very easy to memorize. Normally random looking characters are hard for Humans to remember, but people memorize their credit card number after having to enter it a few times a day, and the idea behind this system is that your public ID would be used for everything so it's the only number you would have to consistently enter on any paperwork or digital document. You will end up memorizing it. If this is set up as a standard two-key encryption system then the ID is a public address that can be pseudo-anonymous (possibly with fully anonymous private masks like how Monero sets up address distinctions) and only accessible with a private key that no other living soul has access to except yourself. With a proper API, API tokens and API hooking can be done to allow access to information granularly (like how EVE Online does it), e.g. if your doctor needed access to your medical records you could generate an API token that can read medical info stored on your account but nothing else. All together, with ID, balance, and %-based time, it could look like these: 2020.63.01.98.97 2020 63.01 98.97 ID: A2C4 -- E6G8 OR A2C4-E6G8 123456 P%: 100,000.0000 %100.0000 123456 This is highly compact and even leaves room for other information. This makes it possible to display an entire person's state of affairs, their current being, in a 16x3 character space. If you are traveling between planets, you can fit the destination planets' relative date and time underneath the origin planets' for a 16x4 character space.