A Relevant History of Mental Poker
A Relevant Overview of Mental Poker Implementations
Extending the Philosophy of Lightning Channels to Mental/P2P Poker
Solving Implementation Problems of Mental Poker via Lightning Channels
A Possible Solution to Habitual Renegers
A Possible Mental Poker Implementation Rough Thoughts
Two Possibly Useful Thoughts for the Implementation of Mental Poker

Here we can return to the understanding that money has the practical value of creating games for traders.  These are games with transferable utility, but if the money were not available, the game of the traders would be a game without transferable utility and thus naturally a game with less efficiency with regards ot the possibilities for the participants to maximize their combined gains.~Ideal Money

A General Summary for John Nash’s Proposal: Ideal Money

How John Nash Solved the Impossible Trinity
The Totality of the Proposal: Ideal Money
“The Special Commodity or Medium We Call Money…”
Ideal Money and Its’ Relation to Bitcoin
Hayek’s Incredible Machine
The (Relevant) History of Money and Economics
How to ‘Complete a Kula Ring’
How the Pyramids WEREN’T Built 
Futures the Markets Can’t Foresee
The Search for a Sound Basis for Money
Bridging Game Theory With The Euro/Greece Crisis
Problems with Implementing Bitcoin as a Solution to the Greece Crisis: How do Currencies Arise and/or Become Adopted
How to Effectively Solve Unsolvable Problems

Effectively Solving Collusion
What does “Ju-Jitsu” mean?

“Nash, Szabo, Smith teach us economics is the study of natural evolution in relation to the unfolding of our cosmos and our existence within it…”

The Future Model For Poker Sites
Decentralized Server-less Poker

Letting Habitual Depositors Own the Poker Network
The Levation of “Ideal Money”
Perhaps ‘Stability and Consensus’ is “Ideal”?
Bitcoin and Coffee

The History of Money and Playing Cards in “Canada”
HU vs Sauce
EZ Pass, Roads, Decisions, Game Theory, and Money
Money and Mental Illness
There is No Such Thing as a Bluff in Poker
The Credible Bluff
RE: Coaching
On the Future of Language
Note (Wholeness and Language)
Twoplustwo Player’s Forum and Sanity Re: Pokersites under attack?
Gresham’s Law, and Honest, Stable, Good Money

Featured: From Colonial Lotteries to Satoshi Dice: The 4th and 5th Wave of Gambling is Upon Us

“In a free society nobody can become a monopolist or a dictator the system itself, the free market will destroy you.
…Nobody in a free society, now we are talking about a free market, in which the government doesn’t interfere, nobody can become a monopolist.  All monopolies are created by a special privilege for government.” ~Ayn Rand
the wealth of chips wordle

***Note: To the Players of 2 + 2 Community***

Rise of the Bots: Comments on “Pokereum: An Efficient Smart Contract Dependent Decentralized Poker Platform”
Shinichi and the Dimensional Paradox
Did Adam Smith Need “Re-Vision”?
Multiple Cryptographers Interested in Ideal Money and Baskets of Commodities
On Adding Antes to Existing Fields/Structures
An Inquiry into Gambling Addiction
Example/Case Study of Smart Contracts: Playshares
Greece and 7 reform proposals (letter to Euro Group): Highlighting the Significance and Relevance of iGaming and iPoker
Another Possible (Fundamental) Formalization of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”

4th wave gambling wordle

The Two Most Important Threads On Two Plus Two are Locked!!!
PokerStars/2+2 Meeting Oct 15-17 2014:  A Thread Every 2 + 2er Should Read



Welcome to The Wealth Of Chips: Introduction
The Coming Poker Revolution
What is “Ideal Poker”? What is “Asymptotically Ideal Poker?”
Notes/explanation of Ideal Poker and Asymptotically Ideal Poker

Ideal Poker

ideal poker wordle

Ideal Poker
Ideal Rake: “How do `raked poker’ and `rakeless poker’ differ”
Esoteric Notes: Ideal Rake
EV as a “utility”: the Global Rake Standard
Example/explanation of Ideal Poker
The Problem of Measuring Effective Rake

Asymptotically Ideal Poker

naj coin wordle

Asymptotically Ideal Poker
The “Achilles’ heel” of the Centralized Poker Industry
Poker Forum Coin
Naz Coin
The Intrinsic Value of “Effective Rake”Coin
Creating Assets as Single Unique Identifiers for Decentralized Poker
Poker Chips 2.0: Digital Assets

Decentralized Poker

decentralized poker

Strike Committee: A Players Union
Decentralized Autonomous Poker
Poker as a micro kernal DAO
Quick Note on Collusion and Third Party Trust
Mental poker protocol, rough sketch outline
Decentralized Mental Poker
Maintaining the BitFrog Network: Free market and Negative Rake
A rough example of the value of “smart contracts” and the value of bitcoin as an investment option in relation to poker
Generalizing Satoshi’s Pdf for the application of decentralized poker
Poker’s decentralized protocol (solution to poker’s Byzantine general problem)
The Missing Link to Decentralized Poker (RIO’s inherited issue)
On the Hidden Value of Decentralized Poker
Why a Decentralized Poker Bankroll is More Stable Than Keeping Your Money on any Centralized Site, on any Island, or in any Type of Fiat Currency.


Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it.
Chapter I, Part III, p. 820. ~Adam Smith TWON

poker wordle

A Brief History of Poker
Moral Poker
Cooperative Poker: a Moral Extension
Case study: Staking Dispute
Meta Game and Mixing Strategies
Game Theory Exercise: Sitting out to Protest, “What is Optimal?”
Global Player Pool Vs Monopoly and Regulatory Controls: HU4Rollz
Josem, the Players are Not Happy with Thee
Red Wednesday: Remember, Remember; the 5th of November
Pokers’ Problem, and its Solution
Don’t ever say to me “Don’t tap on the glass”
What collusion REALLY is and so what its solution REALLY is
Poker’s staking foundation
Poker players constitution
B – ratio
Why Mt Gox Scandal is Comparable to Online Poker’s Black Frida
Poker Journalism and Creative Education
The Importance of Poker and the Freedom to Gamble in Society
Overview of history of Gambling in the US 
Did Poker Stars and Isai Know of the Coming Crypto Revolution?
Observations on 180 Man Turbo MTTSNG Variance: Comparing 2013 with 2014 Leaderboards
Poker Refugees is The Future of Poker
Bitnplay: The Beginning of the Asymptotic Decline of the Centralized Poker Site Model
The Psychology of a “Poker Player”
The Global State of Online Poker: Why Taxation and Regulation of Poker Sites is Not Feasible and Poker as an E-currency Network
The Importance of Relating Online Poker to an E-currency Network and Hidden Factor of Effective Rake


DNegs rebuttal via Me
‘Dnegs’ Rebuttal
Michael Josem Rebuttal vs (Alleged) “Rationale” Behind PS changes via John Nash lecture and Ideal Poker
Customer Management: Poker Stars Rebuttal of Eric Hollresier (via Ideal Poker)
Re: Mason Malmuth on PokerStars Effective Rake and the Overall Poker Economy
Phil Galfond: consider “Ideal Poker”
Do Players Have a Right to Reasonable or Decreased Rake?-”The Players Right to Play Cooperative Poker”

Ideal Money

ideal money wordle

What is “Ideal Money?”
How Bitcoin Is and Isn’t Ideal Money
An Interesting Biography, an Interesting Blog, and an Interesting Lecture on ‘Ideal’ Money
Satoshi’s Choice: Decoding Bitcoin’s Money Supply


To the Canadian senate committee for the regulation considerations of digital currency, and in specific regards to discussion and question period with Andreas Antonopoulos
Money 2.0
The Next Wave of “Enlightenment”
US Congressional Research Service on Bitcoin rebuttal via John Nash’s lecture Ideal Money


Forum 2.0
Nick Szabo Blog


Definition: Effective Rake
Definition: Ideal Poker

Future Research

future wordle

The Evolution and Purpose of the 52 Card Deck
The Effective Skilled Game Generator: Why Poker is Fun to Lose
The Future of Poker, Games, Game Theory, Rng Objects, and Other “Subjects”
The Generalization of a “Deck of Cards” (and in Relation to “Relatable” Games)
The Deconstruction of the History of Playing Cards
The Heart of AI: Minimum Dialog Protocols for Establishing Duck Duck Goose
Why Bots and Solving Poker Won’t Kill the Game
The (Best) Effective Random Number Generator

rabbithole wordle

Rabbit Hole

“…Shinichi Mochizuki uses inter-universal philosophy to extend our understanding of mathematics.”

Welcome to The Wealth Of Chips: Introduction

The Wealth of Chips: An esoteric key to “Ideal Poker” & “Ideal Money

Dear Reader (theWealthofChips):

The author and John Nash have been implicitly colluding for quite some time now, and we would like to extend our strategy to you. I realize that we are not used to helping each other and we usually react to change with avarice and fear. I do not believe I am being egotistical, nor am I particularly concerned with that, I enjoy the game and the wealth it brings us and I see an incredibly +ev opportunity with in our reach. The problem (to be solved) is that we have to work together cooperatively to achieve it.

For the last couple years I have been engaged in dialog with many members about the Nash Equilibrium and its true implications and ramifications. I have put out the argument (to great ridicule) that the true beauty and discovery of the NE was the peace it should bring about from cooperative efforts and strategies. We, especially as poker players, tend to think of NE in respect to war and war type games. But the man who created it, John Nash did not intend it for that, and it’s easier for me to publicly declare that, with the advent of Ideal money: Bitcoin: and looking through various works of his on cooperative games, and notes on changing from non-cooperative to cooperative games.

We should be able to see a story here, a very well defined story, as well as we should be re writing our current story we have on both this man and the subjects which he has touched so far (he’s redefined them all). But I want to discuss something a lot more tangible, and something that is a lot harder to argue with. Now to be clear, I am not proposing something, nor am I trying to sway anyone’s mind. I simply want to point out what has already happened, and clarify it so that the players all know what has happened and what is going to happen with this game.

I should address one issue first, since it has already come up anyways and something I hadn’t realized in the past. 2 + 2 (why don’t we just make it 4?) generates ad revenue from the major sites. Although we can work within the rules of this forum, I would still like to suggest this is not ideal for both the players and the owners of this forum. I shouldn’t have to spend any time explaining that this gives stars a vote in the player’s public community forum, and it effects the way the forum is mod’d. We simply should all agree there is a non 0% of bias or privateness to this forum in this regard. And it’s probably not insignificant. So the topic I want to address must not depreciate the value of this site in that regard. I understand that, and I agree to it, therefore I wish to start out with the assumption, that we all value this site as both a studying and networking tool, and the monies used as a utility for the owners and benefiters to keep it running should remain. I morally agree with it, therefore the change I wish to discuss should affect the revenues in an equal or more +ev way.

I wish to pose a question to the community, and it’s going to seem strange at first but we should know that times have changed since Nash introduced bitcoin (I don’t care who believes me its obvious). This change is here, and I’m going to outline it, we simply must reinvent our paradigms on the game and on money and what that word means. We have already exposed a giant leak in every online poker company’s business plan. This leak is not pluggable, and it’s accessible to every single player. Also, I have been argued by almost every player here, that markets self-adjust and act naturally (with a force) to the conditions posed to them. This is an axiom we all agree with, we cannot then use it to suggest that the change bitcoin has brought to the game will not naturally affect the cost of exchanging money for chips.

Poker is no longer profitable for big industry. The reason is they charge too much for rake, while the rest of their business plan tries to create a breakeven environment for the players. It’s these two factors combined that have increased the cost to play poker dramatically over time. If we only look at rake % we might feel that things have remained equal, but like learning to read a hand range instead of a hand, we need to learn how to value our money in exchange for chips. Understanding this, every player should know and feel that they got screwed on black Friday by both the government AND the sites. As the field gets harder, players should expect that rake goes down. Otherwise the sites profit more per rec dollar spent over time. Furthermore since a business becomes more efficient over time, we expect the cost of running such a business to go down. So what is the excuse then for the players allowing for rake to rise dramatically (we are talking about a true rake, one that measures both the skill of the field and rake %)? We must admit to our own ignorance on the subject, and know that the markets will adjust their equilibrium in proportion to the amount of players that admit their faults to this.

It was Nash that made me realize and understand this as he points out if our governments can target inflation then they must have a system to target it with. The same can be said about poker, which is always the first target of his examples. The sites have a way of calculating how much rake they should charge. And this is how we know that they have been price gouging us (unless you can claim the game hasn’t gotten harder). We know it’s because of misconceived notions of what a Nash Equilibrium can and should be used for. We have been taught to fight amongst ourselves while we increasingly give up a higher % of rake as time goes by (the game isn’t getting easier in the future either). And we can understand that all sites have an increasing drive to make poker a breakeven/high raked environment.

But these days are over and rake is now on the asymptotic decrease. I want us to be aware of it and start to get the idea in our head. If you have studied this game for quite some time you must have realized by now it is not the game that you thought it was when you first started. Poker is very special like that and I know myself I have be redefining what poker is almost on a daily basis by now. I encourage any willing learners of the game to do the same and I would like you all to consider changing the way you view this game one more time. I know your first thought is a competitive one, but you might not know that nash has outlined (in ideal money), that when you change a game from competitive to cooperative then everyone stands to gain (+ev for all). This is a type of ev most of us have never considered and many have never heard of.

I want to put a few questions to the community, they are very big questions, but that should not in itself make it laughable. I should remind us at this point, we HAVE bitcoin NOW and the world has changed and it’s not going back I want to highlight what this change means with these questions as silly as the might seem.

How much would/should the player community pay for the poker stars software, knowing that as the markets slide to equilibrium, that the software as a business model is now essentially worthless?

Knowing that the players got screwed in terms of cost of exchange of money for chips since Black Friday, and knowing that stars model is not fixable by a private standpoint, what do we feel is an acceptable rake to be charging these days?

If we understand these questions we should be able to understand one that is slightly more slippery. How does the value of the software change in relation to player’s opinion on buying it? We expect a certain direct ratio in this respect, for example if a large majority of players decide the poker stars model is worthless to poker stars and they should buy it, then how much can poker stars convince the players to pay for it knowing its worthless to stars?

This leads to another question about the feasibility of the players creating their own ‘rakeless’ bitpoker site. A site running on bitcoin we must understand is not regulatable. In fact the more regulations against bitcoin governments impose, the more likely players are to use bitcoin and not convert their coin back to government issued tender. I hope you understand this, we have this now, it’s here we are just discussing the inevitable.

And then I guess (or maybe first) we should look at the amount of monies the players would keep in the game and the effects that might have on both the morality and integrity of the game. I don’t know if you understand me, Stars is dead, Nash killed it but the game of poker is very very thriving and we should expect poker to get easier as time goes by even though players are getting better and better. As we keep more and more money in the game, we all win more.

As for today, we should study our individual spots a little less, and spend at least SOME time looking for ev in terms of a reduced rake, as it Is far more +EV then plugging any individual leak one might have have. Because of this we should understand if you don’t reinvent your view on the game, you don’t like money, and the future players are going to crush you, trust me, I would know. I know I’m going to catch a lot of flak for this. But understand I am not claiming I did anything intelligent here, I am simply conveying a message from the master of games himself let’s not be too hard on the messenger. And let us appreciate this man for the wealth he’s brought into our lives again (and again).

Please browse around TWOC, ask questions, spread the word, and open your mind to the knowledge I channel towards us, Good Luck ALL!!!

~Author J.Smith


Please consider sect7G from 2p2, he is probably my number one choice from all of the posters on that forum. He is a moral player and understands the poker economy and the player’s perspective well enough.

Poker’s Value Measurement Problem

Do you know what it takes to make a successful site? Why can no other site rise to compete with PokerStars/Amaya?

Mason Malmuth suggests there is a “sweet spot” in regard to rake policies, do you know how to define this problem and solve it?

The 180 mttsng turbo field was long thought to be an entry point for aspiring mtt pros, but I have shown that over the years the amount of games the highest volume players play in a year is such that their variance is TOO HIGH for it to be considered skilled money.

This suggests mtts are even more suspect since their variance is higher.

HOW can the “sweet spot” be targeted by sites, if there isn’t enough empirical data to formulate an optimal rake/winrate solution?

What is Security?

And how can it arise.

Do we know that the bitcoin project, that most people believe to be an impossible technology (money governments don’t control), has never been hacked for its 7 years of existence?

Why is bitcoin so secure?

If you want to build a SUCCESSFUL poker site, you have to be prepared to be GAMED from many different attack vectors.

Your site will be hacked from all angles, not just the software, but also your promotions, the games you offer, the rules you state. You will be attacked politically and through legislation.

How was bitcoin designed to be protected from all vectors?

Because of the pressure of a competitive and successful model, security must necessarily EVOLVE. Do we understand how to create a model based on the evolution of security?

Patrick Bay: Building A New Paradigm for Poker

Please consider reaching out to, and consulting with, Patrick Bay:

Patrick worked for Amaya and has already helped bring products to the market. Lately he has been working on a decentralized infrastructure/platform for online poker which ALL sites can use in order to move beyond the legacy server models and centralized online poker.

Patrick’s work IS conjecturally secure from all such attack vectors mentioned above, but the paradigm is difficult to understand.

Reach out to him. He understands the future of poker better than anyone you will find.

Poker’s Greatest Lawyer

Also reach out to David Gzesh:

David Gzesh discusses online gambling at the Bitcoin 2013 Conference in San Jose, CA, May 19, 2013, hosted by the Bitcoin Foundation. For more information on joining …

He ALSO understands the future of poker better than anyone you will find. He has been around the industry since before black friday, and regularly engages in discussion and dialogue on the future technology that will shape poker.

Solving for Mason’s “Sweet Spot”

In order to find the optimal policies for fostering the poker economy there needs to be a new paradigm brought about.  This paradigm is both about changing the way we view that game but ALSO about translating that view, though programming language, into a software solution.

Who understands this evolution?



Re-Visiting 180 man Leaderboard Results (for 2015)

My most viewed article is Observations on 180 Man Turbo MTTSNG Variance. The article details a comparison between the 2013 leaderboards and the 2014 leaderboards on sharkscope. This writing compares those observations with the 2015 leaderboards.


ss leaderboards.JPG

By looking at the “count” which is games played we can see from the “Any Game 7 or More Tables” category and the “$5-$15” stakes level, the most games played is by Zombeeee @ ~15.6k games. The top 10 players for most count have between this and 10k games and the 20th player has played 8.6k.

In 2014 for the same category players lammas111 played 26k games, the top 10 players had at least over 16k games, and the 20th player played 12.6k games.

The conclusion of the original article was that players do not have a big enough sample size to show the games are (reasonably) profitable and there is no single player with a big enough sample size to give any confidence for a true winrate statistic.

It seems the popularity of the 180 games are declining and so this conclusion is only strengthened as less games are played/playable.

Therefore I conclude there are no longer any 180 man mttsng turbo professionals making a living on skilled money. That is to say the variance with the attainable sample sizes are such that no one can conclude with any empirical evidence that they are a skilled/winning player.

Escrow Function Consensus Game

Someone like the function(claim or refund).  That the players each put in their bets, and can refund them until the round is satisfied (either by meeting the number of players requirements or the amount of money in the “pot).

Once the “betting” round is over, the idea is there is a vote, and consensus of a certain threshold is needed in order to refund the money.

If no consensus is reached another round is played with the possibility of more players and equity added, and therefore  a possible shift in ability to meet a consensus.

There could be the possibility to make side deals or to use smart contracts to make such deals.

Would be interesting to think about with an asset that could appreciate a little or a lot over a short or long period of time.

The Re-solution of 3 “Body” Problems

After watching some of Cedric Villani’s talks, having a little back and forth correspondence with James Colliander, and reading a certain essay of Nash’s on solving 3 player (pro-)cooperative games I think I have come to understand that mathematicians DO in fact speak to each other using our “common” language(s) (and then I suppose on their own time individually they use their own language and methods to further their own thinking, which hopefully somehow can be made congruent with what is common).

Fermat I think is relevant here, if I remember his bio correctly, in that he worked with “natural numbers” (I don’t know these definitions well at all I am afraid, but my point will get across; I think I mean to point to ‘natural’ numbers). And there is some transmutable relevant comparison to be made with languages or systems that can or cannot be considered Turing complete. That is to say, I think my thinking is super-Fermat-ical, yet oddly enough, I am quite certain it is “Turing Complete” in the most meaningful/useful way.

The inquiry into 3 player games should be seen as relevant to Cedric as he has expressed interest in regard to how we understand the cosmos (especially over long periods of time), and such an inquiry must be seen as related to the 3 body problem (which I cannot really discern whether we feel we have mastered it or not). Somewhere here I think is where I can show that I have insight that is not otherwise understood by “general academia” (or any other groups or persons).

My claim is basically that we are not treating the perspective of observation properly, whether in our theories, experiments, analysis, or conclusions. Although this would probably take some time (a couple years perhaps) to completely divulge and formalize, I think it is simple enough to understand philosophically, and so the merit of the insight CAN be scrutinized initially before it is presented in the same congruent manner I allude to in the introduction.

Basically we are not “removing” perspective from the equation, and so this taints what we collectively agree to having been observed. We mean to say this quite scientifically, but initially it doesn’t come across as such. Adam’s Smith’s (objective) observations in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, captures this quite well with the concept he calls “the impartial observer”-easy in theory, difficult in practice of course.

Spiritually, we say something like, “Everyone is one. We are all a part of the Whole”. And this is what Krishnamurti talks like (he has difficulty understanding how “mortals” see), because he comes by this understanding naturally, which seems to happen to certain individuals sometimes over long periods/large samples of mankind’s history (suggests an anomaly in the brain). Scientifically we can see and express this differently, without destroying the significance and stability of the current accepted paradigm(s), by noting that the ‘wholistic perspective’ is, rather, simply the aggregation of each of our subjective perspectives (as if ultimately “big-brother” turned out to be every citizens cell phone video camera readily available to scrutinize our public actions).

That is, we might mistake Bohm, for suggesting our thoughts are changing the paths of particles, when rather he means to express that our misunderstanding/misapplication of perspective is causing us to misinterpret what we are observing (and truly as we accept this we will see these two points mean the same thing anyways).

Now (unfortunately) formulaically or even theoretically (if we see these as different) we cannot really hope to pull out the perspective from the equation in such a way to relieve our theories and experiments of this kind of such tainting. There is an intrinsic difficulty here that may or may not be obvious to the reader.

This is where Ideal Money comes into play, which we as mere mortals, cannot hope to understand or abstract/conceive properly, again because of this intrinsic difficulty of not being able to observe from the “omniscient” (objective) perspective.

If we can (somehow) make the assumption that Ideal Money (which is really itself defined as an aggregation of our subjective valuation over a long period of time) is relevant in this way we might make use of a basic example of how our cosmos may have come about…

If we can assume that our universe came about through many iterations, then that it might have created, through some form of natural evolution, or randomness, order to eventually birth itself into a form that is stable enough (ie for a long enough time) to have created “life” as we are, and as we know it (there would be some probability to calculate that is currently clearly out of our reach, but relevant for various reasons). Then in regard to something such as 3 bodies finding a stable equilibrium (which is seemingly obviously “transmutable”, through division of perspective, to n-bodes), and the “gravitational” force that is the glue or currency that holds this stability together, we might understand that there are certain (universal) parameters that were levated or that somehow could be viewed as “having evolved” to support this stability (even if over a long time the universe isn’t considered wholly or perfectly stable).

Collectively or socially (at least perhaps also scientifically, academically, and individually as well), we tend to ask, what is the nature of the phenomenon that caused gravity, or that created optimal (low-probabilistic/unlikely) conditions for stability in various forms. I think we forget at that/this point to make the assumption that natural evolution caused such things, much like we ask “WHY did we (Egyptians) create the pyramids?” and forget that we might have wiped out our own histories for many many years until, by some chance, a great enough civilization arose, that (through natural selection vs. other civilizations) built its foundation on SOMETHING stable enough to “last” (there are other obvious reasons this happened but such natural evolution towards something that is “indefinitely stable” is specifically important here).

Now this is relevant to being able to think, express, and understand beyond dualism, which is really a scientific way of thinking ULTRA-balanced (there is an implied wiping out of a religious paradigm which we don’t today SEE as being religious). But in order for such insight, or way/perspective of observation to become socially useful there must be SOME technological progress (otherwise it will be rejected by academia which rightfully demands empirical evidence).

A long winded way, of saying, in order to move beyond dualism, collectively, we must make a technological/sociological leap, but that does not mean that we cannot work on the implications and ramifications of such change at the present time, between sincere players.

Also, as a sort of side note, I think we might see/understand the relation between non-cooperative games and cooperative games (and HOW it is we might solve the latter by reducing them to the former), and/or independent players vs. coalitions that might be formed, and what it means to try to bring together a ‘grand-coalition’, where all players act in some UN-calculable optimized unison whether as separate entities or as wholistic collective “consciousness”.

Ideal Money as a Universal Metric for ALL Time

The ultimate implementation of Ideal Money is not a medium per se but a metric. However it is not a transmuted metric, for example, of the kilogram, as Nash alludes to, but rather more a replacement for it (and all existing metrics).

That is the secret Nash hid.

And the formulaic implementation of it belongs in E=MC2 as Ideal Money is the description of the asymptotic evolution of our medium of exchange into pure (ultra transferable) energy, or effectively energy described through (not over) time (ie duration).

From here, there needs to be a redefinition/understanding of our brains vs our minds or (w/transmutation) our individual consciousness vs our collective consciousness (also relateable/comparable to the observer/analyzer issue we are conditioned to hold dear to) in order to proceed with the implications of the levation of Ideal Money as a universally stable metric (for ALL time).

How do we bring Ideal Money about?

Each of is living our lives to our best ability, in regard to the hands we are dealt, and with a mix of intent to satisfy our own wants, desires, and passions, and with some level of inclination in regard to helping our family, friends, fellow man, perhaps animals, the ecosystem and/or the cosmos (ie everything in it).

We have a goal in mind, what ever that may be, and whenever it might be achieved, and we work on whatever means we deem appropriate that we somehow justify as leading to that goal.

This basically describes each of us, as the human condition, whether it was ultimately part of our ancient biological nature or whether it evolved into us as society itself evolved.

The popular misconception is that we might abandon, completely, the selfish pursuit for one’s desires and suggest that each individual should simply concentrate on serving each other, and that such actions will suffice for a society that provides far greater pleasures and alleviates for more suffering than the selfish pursuit.

The reason this is a misconception is something I will not go into here.

Regardless for those who either understand and agree or those that fully cannot (altruists), I think I can re-solve both views and any that fall in the range between.

First we must understand about the nature of money, society, and institutions, and how and why they arise. Society, that is a large collective of individuals, growing ever more complex, eventually comes to a point where the biological human being cannot be expected to perform nor understand all of the tasks required to sustain and/or grow a population.

Complex problems arise, and with them complex solutions. These solutions can be understood as technology, and especially in that it takes many individuals to build them (and so there is a certain time involved and implied).

Institutions are these solutions, often thought of as buildings, but are really just customs or complex sets of rules, and they exist not because of some history of secret societies that rule over the common man, but rather to act as sort of meta-vehicles that render complex problems into simple games, that can be approached and solved from the meta perspective.

Money too, arises (naturally!) as a technological solution to our complex social problem (we ALL share this problem right?), and so there is a special psychological problem that arises because of the nature of the problem and solution money attends to.

Money exists to solve a problem that the individual isn’t supposed to or can’t fully understand, and yet because of the nature of the solution, each of us knows and understands the “value” of money or in other words what money is for.

So a duality arises where on the one hand we have a increased and often irrationally/emotionally motivated want for money, and on the other hand we don’t really understand what money truly is or what it is for.

The problem then is exacerbated, if the money used by the people is subject to the whims of political will, whether it be of some real or fictitious elite rulers that control the quality and/or supply of a currency used by the citizens, or whether it is the citizens themselves that might exert their own political influence on the nature of the money used to serve the society.

Ultimately, and this is my conjecture, but it is also my plea, and in regard to the introduction to this paper (the individual seeking to serve their selfish wants but also possibly to alleviate world suffering), what we truly should want, is to levate an unbreakable standard between the largest institutions (nations/central banks/large currencies) in order to solve the largest (and most significant) meta-problem possible on our planet.

That problem is the Triffin Dilemma.

The bitcoin community has been fighting over trying to keep bitcoin a coffee money for the people, trying to keep bitcoin out of the hands of the big players, governments and banks. This crusade is petty, short sighted, and value-less to the individual and the society (not to mention scientifically unfounded).

Ideal Money, which is the levation of such a standard I allude to, that is for none other than the highest meta players of our global financial system, is that which will bring order to our global economy, and what that means to the individual is the attainment of each of our individual goals.

Ideal Money means, the attainment of each of the individuals selfish wants, and each of us can help each other (and our “selves”) achieve such ends by the levation of it, which happens through dialogue on the subject of “How do we bring Ideal Money about?”…which we must remember, from the very beginning of the dialogue, is a QUESTION, not a conclusion to be argued about.

The Levation of Transmutation

For the spiritual we say, “Ultimately we are all the same creator of this world, conditioned with the false belief that we are unique and/or separate”.  For the scientific we say “This world would be a better place if we all acted as if the former were true.”~J.Smithy

This works is the re-solution of Bohmian physics and Nashian economics (which itself clearly has cosmological implications) through what I am now calling, or referring to, as transmutation.

For example, Ideal Poker in relation to Ideal Money (and how it is to come about) could be used to observe certain phenomenon within the poker industry. That is to say, we can use Nash’s insights into the flow of money and relate them (in)to the flow of, not chips, but the players (we can hardly deny that there are instances in our history in which people were essentially treated like “units” in a trade and/or possibly like “chips” in a gambling scenario).

This is what we mean by transmutation, which essentially (and ultimately as notation for representing this arises) refers to that which changes and that which doesn’t change (not really two separate phenomenon to describe but a division of the former (A) in regard to the latter (B)).

So we take a concept, perhaps, that applies to one certain field, subset, abstraction,  or game etc (these examples are possible transmutations themselves)…and we apply the concept to another field, in a certain way and perhaps with certain restrictions (not everything always “fits).

We might say then that Ideal Money is transmuted to Ideal Poker, or transmutable. Or Ideal Money transmutes Ideal Poker etc (and vice versa).

A transmutes B.

The key here is that what really changes, or could be understood to change, is the perspective from which we are viewing the problem (barring some observer/analyzer problems/paradox’s I will re-solve otherwise), whether A or B is viewed as the problem (or the concept that is shared between them through the transmutation).

Therefore, in order for this to be meaningful (which really means shared) we need to have a common (objective) perspective from which to derive subjective perspectives from, and for this to happen we need Ideal Money which is a metric/unit of pure objectively created from an aggregate of our subjective valuation.