Interoperability and Configurability

Would it be possible to reconcile the fundamental differences between the following two approaches:

“Currency designed for transactions between members of independent entities or brands”


“Currency designed for transactions between members of the same entity or community”

My doubts have resurfaced after reading some recent online discussions related to currency information systems. At issue is the importance of interoperability between different currency entities as supported by adhoc service providers.

With community-oriented currencies,  the expectation is for the majority of transactions to occur between members of the same currency entity, so the administrative system of one currency does not have to worry about understanding information from another currency system. This obviously has the advantage of freeing each currency issuer to configure their currency and transaction grammar as needed, without worrying about what other issuers are doing.

In contrast, expects that separation of concerns and scalability would inevitably lead to a majority of transactions occuring between members of different currency entities. Where each entity specializes in serving a particular market need, access to product diversity is only possible through interentity trades. Each entity could still configure currency settings and use proprietary messaging/record formats. However, the need for publishing and reporting conventions is going to be unavoidable under a scenario of global interentity transactions.

It was interoperability concerns that led to the development of Prowl as a potential starting point for discussing uniform representation and standardized accounting terms, while still allowing for variations in parameters and calculation specifications. Without interoperability, it would not be possible to achieve traceable and auditable currency brands.