In May 1915, the British anthropologist Bronislaw Casper Malinowski came to the Trobriand Islands in New Guinea to study and discover all aspects of local Aboriginal life. They all revolve around an activity called “Kura”.
The core of “Kula” is the exchange of shell wabs (mwali) and shells ring(soulava).
The basic way of this exchange is to exchange the necklace with the arm bracelet and exchange the arm bracelet with the necklace.
In the “Kura” exchange, the arm bracelet flows in a counterclockwise direction, and correspondingly, the necklace flows in a clockwise direction. The two sides of the “Kura” exchange are called Kula partners. The “Kura” exchange is limited to the Kula partners. The more Kula partners, the higher their status.
One gets the arm bracelet from the upstream Kula partner and exchanges the arm bracelet to the downstream Kula partner. At the same time, the necklace flows in the opposite direction. Such a Kula connected the indigenous people of the nearby islands and formed the Kula ring.
The trans-island trading circle, which exists in the east of New Guinea, exchanges two items in a clockwise and counterclockwise direction. However, these two items do not have substantial functions, but the indigenous people are willing to take considerable risks. This exchange of infinite loops, in the eyes of most outsiders, seems unbelievable, but Malinowski believes that this exchange process relies on mutual trust, and the driving force of this trust is actually the exchange of other civilian resources: due to the islands’ materials are limited and depend on each other deeply, the trading process of the Kula ring can establish mutual trust and make other incidental transactions possible.
Trust is the foundation of society
The Kula ring of the Trobriand Islands can be said to be a simplistic society. The mutual trust between the Kula exchanges is like the various trust relationships in our human society.
In the social sciences, trust is considered a dependency. It can be said that trust constitutes the foundation of society. Human social relations and social activities are based on trust. Without trust, the whole society immediately returns to its original state.
You put money in the bank because you trust the bank to keep your money safe, and the bank lends you money because the bank trusts you to pay back the money on time.
You go to the restaurant to eat because you trust the food provided in the restaurant to be clean and not overcharge, and the restaurant also believes that you will pay it.
Everything around you is almost all about trust.
Trust is never mandatory
Trust is never mandatory. You can decide not to put your money in the bank and put the money in your home safer. You can choose not to go to the restaurant to eat, but choose to cook at home. Because of this, trust has always been dominated by moral constraints, and the issue of trust has always been attributed to moral issues.
However, just as the “world’s first evil” advocated by the Western world, moral issues are difficult to constrain, so there is a society ruled by law that restricts unethical behavior through law, but the law cannot restrict all unethical behavior. Can only condemn.
Trust, as a non-mandatory thing, is even more difficult to manage through the rule of law or moral condemnation.
In China, the problems surrounding trust have also stimulated the public’s nerves. The food safety problem has caused the public’s trust in food to wander on the verge of collapse. The Sanlu milk powder incident has caused the public to lose trust in mainland China milk powder products. Trust is becoming more and more a luxury.
Blockchain makes credit a mathematical problem
Moral issues are always unsolvable, or difficult to solve, and its boundaries are too vague.
Mathematical problems can always be explained perfectly with precise answers.
Blockchain technology has been paid attention to by the popularity of Bitcoin. The work of blockchain, time stamp, encryption and so on have also attracted more and more attention, but an innovative concept has been ignored. This is the destruction of CoinDays.
The emergence of CoinDays destruction will have a profound impact on today’s e-commerce, and even the human credit of all mankind.
CoinDays destruction is a very important concept of the blockchain. As the name suggests, CoinDays destruction equals the amount of each transaction (coin) multiplied by the time the currency of the transaction lies on the account (days), such as you took 10 coin of bitcoin received 100 days ago, and the CoinDays destruction of this transaction is 1000 CoinDays.
For example: in the current credit system to examine a person’s ability to repay, bank flow is an important consideration, but this indicator can be fraudulent. For example, if you have two bank accounts, and the total deposit balance of the two accounts is 10,000 USD, you can transfer to each other between them every day, you can make the monthly bank flow of the two accounts to 500,000 USD, but your account balance is still only 10,000 USD(assuming there is no transfer fee).
That is to say, if the concept of “CoinDays destruction” in the blockchain is introduced in the current credit system, no matter how you toss, the credit evaluation is almost unchanged! There is no practical significance in making fraudulent behavior by making big bank flows!
Correspondingly, if the CoinDays destruction is introduced into the credit evaluation of the transaction?
If the CoinDays destruction as a credit evaluation factor, the more CoinDays are destroyed in a transaction, the higher the credit rating. When the cheater tries to use the two accounts to repeatedly trade and evaluate, the evaluation of the first transaction is valid, but the accumulated CoinDays are destroyed when the transaction is completed. When the second transaction is made, since the accumulation of the CoinDays is very small shortly after the first transaction, the contribution to the credit evaluation is minimal, and the sum of the CoinDays destruction of all transactions is also very small. The user repeatedly uses the same money to do the transaction, no matter how many times he did it, the final result was almost the same as the credit evaluation brought by the first transaction.
Until then, the issue of credit will be solved mathematically. It will no longer be a moral issue, but a mathematical problem.