Comparison to Mutual Credit Systems

The following implementation scenario might help explain satconomy to those who are familiar with LETS, TimeDollar or mutual credit type systems:

Suppose that instead of individual trading accounts, members decided to organize into unit entities within a trading community or market. The unit entities would be known within the community by its brand. Each entity does not need to trade with other entities or borrow from others in order to issue currency. Instead, if an entity member has made a perceived contribution to the entity’s goals, then that member is awarded credits and the entity accrues the corresponding amount of debits. The amount of currency or credit-debit pairs that an entity could issue is self-determined within the entity – for example, by a supervisor, manager and other positions of authority that monitors the level of member contribution to its goals.

The member who earns the credits can then spend it on products in the market, or more rarely, redeem it for the products of the entity if those are not already provided as benefits to the members. Currency is intended primarily to be used outside the issuing entity. When the entity is able to benefit someone with its products, goods and services, its debits are cancelled together with an equal amount of the beneficiary’s credits.

In other words, satconomy may be implemented as a mutual-credit community where the members organize into unit entities, each with a declared market specialization. Currency is issued within an entity as credit-debit pairs, which translates to an entity account that has both credit and debit balances as opposed to a single net balance. Only the entity by itself could increase its balance amounts, and those balances have to increase by the same amount at the time of currency issuance. Finally, credits may only be used to cancel debits that are already existing.