We have accepted that usury is a part of money. It’s just how it is. We are also told that we need to be extrinsically motivated to do anything and that greed pervades all human motivation.

Despite the commodity aspect of currency, made possible through the fact that it is the only industry that attracts interest, we fight for change in overcome human nature, neglecting any research on what money itself does to human nature and our connections with each other. We forget the nature of how money is created and are sold on that it is an energy, but do we look at how that energy flows in its current construct? And what of the energy transfer of other exchange models?

At present, the fight is over Capitalism, but what does that mean? Does Capitalism mean free markets? Do we assume we are in a free market now? We evolve out of Capitalism into what?Communism the Marxist way — not to mention the furore over what that is and who practices it, if any? Or is it socialism the Scandic way? Great benefits, but then will we get arguments over rights of conquests, etc, that they do not have issues with? Unlike other governments, they are honest in following though looking after their citizens, over conquests of egoistic power.

As always, we forget the frameworks of what we want to achieve with what we have, and fight over the objects of politics as the answer. Based on what? Our perceptions of human nature based on fear based game theory like Prisoners Dilemma and all derivatives of that? This is a simple construct of why this doesn’t work. Any true game has to be neutral, unbiased. The Prisoners Dilemma frames 2 prisoners to either trust each other, or not. But would you trust a prisoner? What if it was the Noble’s Dilemma, or the Worker’s Dilemma, or a Chief’s dilemma? No doubt your preconceptions would change on all of these based on the characters of the people in the game. But we look at the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which changes the framework, and therefore the outcomes, entirely. Debt based currencies (DBCs), since its inception, has been built on premises of fear, of preserving wealth, and this has to come with a cost. Of a person’s labour involved with that, sure. But interest on the money itself?

This is why choosing the right exchange model to encourage trust, collaborations, sustainable innovations to create empowering experiences is so important. If we use an exchange model that promotes scarcity, compromise, shaky foundations for some kind of ‘growth’, synthetic or otherwise, then we will always choose to disempower at some point. Look at the time we spend not only on fear-driven industry, but even when we trust, we check to be sure that we will not be shafted in the future, and still fail at that. Because humanity is greedy? Would you not be if you are born and use an exchange model that perpetuates resource scarcity and dominion?

Resources are scarce, but are creativity is not. People say money and abundance go together, but what type of money, what type of abundance? Material abundance in a scarce world? Then our abundance is at the expense of someone else. So much for empowered purpose.

If Jesus did get angry at the moneylenders, he knew why: that owning money disempowers everyone else to do the things he advocated for: to love your fellow humans and treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Many people think this disconnects us for our native instinct for power. As we ask what type of money and abundance, so too we ask the same of power.

I will outline the parameters of highest capacity we want to achieve, for self only, as regardless of the purpose stories we are told to want in usury currency, the status to achieve, to be known that our work is useful, knows no bounds except for actual limits that cannot be changed. Then I will illustrate the best exchange model to achieve this.

Resources, both human and natural, are scarce, but our capacity to create is limitless.

We are all hungry for new experiences to learn from as this is the purpose of life.
To connect these together, the best experiences are created in the most sustainable way possible.
To flesh that out a bit more, the people who do this the best, who know how to create the best experiences in the most sustainable way possible, and in turn empower the most people to do the same, are the most well received and known: the real celebrities. As they should be. These people create the highest synergy in the most symbiotic way possible. Classy.

What exchange, and governing, model would facilitate that? There need only be one type of either, the foundation to be adapted accordingly to local conditions. For those that fear one type of currency, one type of governance, usury currency is universal, adapted to various types of governance for local conditions and cultures that still create lots of commodities in the most unsustainable ways possible to create work that no one likes but fight against to run an economy that empowers less and less people who own lots of resources used in the most unsustainable way possible. For the sake of power as we have always known it: the alpha who overpowers at any cost to own the distribution of dominion, the priority if that being in war. There are very few governing models, if any, in existence today not doing this, including Corporatism.



The fundamentals of money need to be addressed before the best model becomes obvious. We are not talking about characteristics of currency, but the fundamental parameters to define the type of currency we use for the greatest outcomes:


Money is not wealth. If we created nothing, money would have no value. In essence, this points to the creators being the wealth itself. So what type of wealth do you want to be?


If we are wealth, and money is the exchange mechanism to exchange wealth, then it cannot be wealth itself. Wealth that have relevance to human evolvement through experiences relate to key sectors: food, clothing, shelter, tech, healthcare, transport, discovery, and the creative arts in all its forms. To be sure, any creative capacity is artistic in some form. Think of these as electrons of an atom. The glues that sticks these altogether are energy and education, the protons and neutrons of the atom. While the electrons are the ‘workers’ of these sectors, the protons and neutrons are the governors, connected together helping the electrons stay balanced. If we connect one of each to the electrons, we have an 8e8p8n atom configuration. This serendipitously happens to be Oxygen. Breath. For us anyway, but then we are the only people that use money.


As money is not wealth, it should not have a cost to it. It cannot be a commodity, only the exchanger for commodities/experiences. Like any business, people working with money are paid, but money itself should not be paid. It is not an entity that requires payment. A business being an entity to be paid can also fine, but only as a distributor of money to people. It cannot be wealth itself. Working with money can be a paid job like anything else, but that’s it.


Any new exchange model has to be based on the strongest creators, not the weakest. As we have idolised fear, so it rules are decision-making capacities. Empowered decision making always has a ceiling where fear-based, disempowering decision making will always influence the best intentions, and waste lots of energy in protecting them. Look at how many times people argue that if we did not have money and gifted freely, no one would do anything, and so we have money that inadvertently has an increased debt attached to it, affecting all, good or bad. This is not the case. We are native creators, nurturers, protectors. We define ourselves by our creative capacity, adapted to parameters defined. This is human nature, adapting to the environment around us and succeeding against all adds. This is the purpose of life: experiencing this in the present. Anyone questioning this is selling something you wouldn’t want to buy (ironically).


As the ‘banks’ are really only transaction clearing houses, there is no desire or need to own them. As with governance, it is simply part of their tools to empower sustainable creation in the best way possible.


With the qualitative parameters of status presented, the exchange model’s main ethic is to promote creating excellence. The parameters demand using all resources efficiently, with higher points for using recycled ones. This also drives collaborating, not because one was told to as the purpose itself, but that this is a better way to create excellence, and be more greatly admired for this, to also be paid more for in kind.


To use resources efficiently, all governance promotes policies that promote peace. There is no other option. There is no advantage to prepare for war as there is no status in it. There is also an emphasis to use land efficiently with the objective using as little as is possible to sustain the world population and the experiences that interest them. Survival through dominion becomes redundant. Governance does not need to control resources absolutely, only be the medium for communicating who is proposing to use resources in the most sustainable way possible to create the best experiences that empower the most people. In kind, it does not need to tax to build infrastructure, only be the communicator of proposed infrastructure that private entities propose for the community and communities. If there is no support, it will not be built. Governance only administrates the dialogues for community to have their voice. On any infrastructure being supported, the private entity runs this. This may sound like the times of Thatcher and Reagan, but it isn’t because they did not have the currency we are proposing. In their case, it was an extension of Nixon breaking the tie between gold and money. Add the ‘free market’ paradigm that they were advocating, without governance ti control a debt-based currency, and a funnel is created taking away from the masses, empowering no one except the people that owned money. So the new model will marry sustainable governance and business to collaborate to empower all involved, which is the whole community. There is no status doing anything else.


There is a true, honest, free market with varying prices as demand sees fit. Supply is irrelevant as, again, by default of creating sustainably, nothing will be created unless there is a demand for the market. There is no need create commodities and then make the market to sell them. Creators sell experiences on how they answer the three qualitative elements: best experiences, that empower the most people one way or another, in the most sustainable way possible. This could be called the synergy or symbiosis factor. It will never be exact number, but will offer comparisons between creators making the same or similar things to find ways to best collaborate to be more efficient still. As this is not commodity focused, there is no need to follow production methods to create the same thing in the highest numbers. That type of efficiency prioritises the machines, and the borrowed finance that built them. Instead, each ‘experience’ is created customised on demand. If it turns out wrong, it can be made again, but there is no status getting the same thing made over and over in different ways. This wastes resources. As an example, there is no need to want 400 shoes, but what shoes one wants for the purposes they want them for. The ability of the creator is to be sure they have the right frameworks to get that right the first time, to the best of their ability. That doesn’t mean they cannot be changed in the future, just have a good reason that is reasonable for the creator and client. There is no need to reduce sustainability to subsistence. That prioritises sustainability at the expense of the client’s experience to be empowered. It is all about the synergy of these aspects. Of course, this is aria, and error, but so are startups, for less reason. Failure is fine, but not to support business practice to be still more unsustainable than it already is.


There is no need, or means, to own the works of creators or those that support them. Therefore there is also no demand for ac creator to trade with people they do not wish to. In any dispute, governance can conciliate to find where the problems are and how to resolve it. This depends on what values are at stake. The objective is always to empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible. However, there is no requirement for those of ability to give to those in need. No one is a slave to anyone else at any time.


At the core of the currency, in essence, all people using it are the bank itself. The bank itself holds none of one’s wealth: what is created. It only records the value of what you have received for it and the exchanges of what wealth you have exchanged with others.



With certain parameters, the model is very simple, and stays this way whatever situation needs support.

The 4 parameters of any currency are:


What it is based on.


The volume of currency available.


How it is distributed.


If there is a cost.

To achieve the primary, fundamental, parameters of creation, the best currency has these features:


Based on all work people do.


Therefore the volume of currency available is the same.


There is no withholding of currency in communities, so all monies created are available as soon a created.


There are no fees, interest, tax; no costs whatsoever. This is called a Zero Cost Exchange (ZCE)

This currency model is called Be You Exchange. BUX.

How this is possible is based on certain stipulations:


It is not relevant for all transactions to sum to zero. People working at the bank are paid from the bank entity itself which inherently puts it into negative balance. So far there is no better option to maintain the fundamental non-commodity aspect of the exchange model.

Education is not traded. As shared commodities, all people involved in any educational pursuit, no matter what role they are fulfilling, are credited a price. This helps people find what interests them at the time, and also offers changing vocation without sacrificing support. Indirectly, the negative balance of the bank actually sums the wealth of the communities using it in what is created and education exchanged (pretty cool, hey?).


Because ZCEs are neutral, the volume of money and the price mechanism are not connected. What is more important is the purchasing pawer of a currency, which makes prices for products or services incidental to the quality creators make. In DBC exchange, there is always an emphasis on the money, ultimately at any cost, and not all people can get it, which is inherently disempowering. With a ZCE, all people are, in essence, the kinetic energy of something ready to be made. So we are all wealth in the making. This creates a huge amount of competition that wasn’t initially there. This stabilises the pricing despite the increased collaboration. There is no status in increasing one’s price out of the market when your true status is the support people give creators to create. This keeps prices low, even getting lower, as the need for experiences changes and becomes still more empowering and sustainable. Some experiences will reach redundancy (diseconomy of scale) by no longer being required or innovated out of existence, while others will always be needed no matter how efficient they become. Either way, the price balancing is always the same as all of us are doing something qualitative one way or another. If ultimately most people have to do nothing, then it is the currency that will change to accomodate that, not people fitting the currency for its survival.




That people will value one’s creative qualities across the community, and communities, is obvious. This is the measure of status. For those people who say they are not interested in status miss the parameters of what status means. If you are acknowledged for being an empowering person who empowers others, that is still status, only the parameters are different. Status is not limited to dominion and the power to give people empowerment, or not.


As a result, all people are respected for who they are. However, it is up to each person to be as empowered as they want to be. Creators may support you in your journey, but they are not obliged to. As status is directly connected to reputation which has access to educate without costs, to be less than pursue your greatest will not reflect well on such people, and therefore may not get any fundamentals to pursue anything.


By default, you are responsible for your actions, but in a fully supportive environment. This is very different to being responsible within an economic framework that wants you to serve as they want before you can serve the way you want. What that would have been before would be quite different as you succeed further in one’s empowerment in such a framework. It easily boils down to getting the money to eventually give the money. As noble as that may be, what was created to get there? Also, regardless of your pursuit, the bank doesn’t care as it gets money one way or another.


DBCs funnel the most access to wealth to the bank itself. This is why so many people work with or in the finance sector. It creates nothing, but has the highest security for any type of access of access to wealth. The status of working in finance is also a drawcard. Therefore it uses the most of all resources. Pricing creation also wastes a huge amount of resources. Governance arguably comes second in wasting resources, making decision making extremely inefficient, swayed by changing parameters based on compromise due to scarcity, the highest support been given to defence. None of this happens in ZCEs. Resources funnel to the those that are truly the most efficient in fulfilling abundance in the 8 primary sectors mentioned in section 2.2, farmers being the primary priority of all of them. Because of this, it also makes farming cool as more people make the job easier. This is quite different to superpowers shifting status of a nation from labour-intensive agriculture to war related production, as Stalin did, killing a huge amount of people in the process. Instead, tech-savvy farmers now have many hands doing short work, applying permaculture methods to keep labour hours as short as possible, cresting the highest quality nutritional produce possible. Add seasonal festive events to this along with tiny houses that belong to the people who live in them, and you are on a winner.


Self-empowerment, realisation, actualisation … however people identify with this, is a spiritual journey for many. Many aspiring and cultivated spiritual leaders hedge on the weakness of humanity to increase their influence, usually at a cost. This externalises this inherently inward journey. The difference is the type of community supporting you. A journey to create, serve, give, in a community using ZCEs may still be spiritual, but the parameters around that journey is quite different, as serving you on your journey now has no connection to the need for money, and the banks behind this. Therefore all people are supported to be their best without compromise, except by their own beliefs. There is no need, no status, no value, no empowerment, in marginalising others. It practically makes no sense.


The need to fulfil identity reacting against disempowering frameworks also becomes redundant. Many think that the pursuit of happiness is connected in some way to never evolving past fear. People also mistake that no fear is an object to attain. Like competition is a worthwhile tool to achieve better collaborations (not the inverse), also knowing what to fear and why is a tool to exercise not being ruled by it. So many people build disempowerment in some way as a means to meaning in life, when this is more prevalent when ALL disempowering manifestations are made moot. This is the journey of self awareness. Understanding no fear is not a state of mind from which there is no action. It is the pace where there is the greatest, most empowering action possible. Creation happens with all others, not alone, not with some. With all. When people say we are all one, it is only in this space where truly can exercise this, and be self-empowered in our journeys at the same time, without compromise or conflict.


There is an inevitable, insatiable, need to create quality. This is the only status measure, not the best quality to a designated price market. This does not value creating the highest quality as sustainability as possible. This makes the best that was once accessible to a few now accessible to as many as possible, as much as local environmental conditions allow.



There are many types of alternate currencies, and designers of such currencies, in the pursuit of change. How effective they are is easily deduced by the parameters of a currency outlined in 3.1–3.4. Since Bitcoin, the market saturated itself with the ICO boom for crowdfunding or investment value. Either is commodity driven, so their capacity for substantial sustainable change is useless. New cheaper transaction systems are much the same thing as any bank, only changing the decentralisation of exchange, not the parameters of exchange for any effective change for the better.

Bitcoin is a unique currency model itself as it follows its own rules that no other crypto since has implemented with any similarity. Considering it as a new store of value is a short term look at its capacity and opportunity. To test the objective of any currency model is what would happen if the whole world used it? The long-term trajectory of Bitcoin is much less an alternate to gold but more what wood have happened if mainstream currencies were still supported by a gold reserve. What would have happened is currencies could not fractional lend as much as they have now. This means the price mechanism would have inverted and a new means of status would have to be found to incentivise producing, if it is not price for profit. In short, it would compromise the meaning of quantitative exchange and wealth in quantified values of dominion. Because the supply has an absolute limit to the point that it would be uneconomical to continue actively mining and the total volume would be falling, because everyone committed to using it, miners would have to forgo their fees to keep as much volume out there as possible, but this would only postpone the inevitable currency and price mechanism crash as prices would fall as purchasing power increases. If we were not so hell bent on believing cycles are real, we might learn something about new ways of exchange that are not dominion and scarcity based before a crash. Instead, people used Ethereum to blow out the volume of currency capacity, creating the ICOs for the greater good, or not, for people to invest in their commodity value. Like the, so people wised up to the ICO sham, but still didn’t learn anything new about currency modelling, purchasing power, or wealth. When Ethereum came out, I knew this would happen.

What were initially balance zero mutual exchange models become infected by administrators eventually adding costs to cover their time involved in building the model. It is fair that such people should, be paid something if a community is to use qualitative exchange, but perhaps a better way to do it is by donation if balancing to zero is important. However, perhaps this could again come from the negative balance of the mutual exchange entity itself. Therefore the community knows fully what it exact cost to run the bank itself.

Mutual exchange models taking costs out is another form of demurrage, negative interest, that is considered a tax paid in advance to governance to build infrastructure for the community. This has certainly worked, but as the objective is to spend money before it loses value, which is ultimately impossible, there is little incentive to create sustainably. There is still an emphasis in creating something for exchange, as opposed to creating as little as possible to still be supported to follow the creative paths of the people.

Whichever model you may use, these are all considered complementary currencies, based on the belief that trust is only something that is prevalent in communities we know and can trust. If a community currency becomes too big, then trust will be lost. With this inherent perceived, disempowering belief, currency designers perpetuate their careers keeping thing complex, despite everyone looking for simple answers in whatever creative capacity they work in. We want the simplicity, but then say it is complex. Many situations are different, but at least start with the most empowering framework possible, and go from there. Further, there has to be an incentive to give the best solutions to then do something else, not create less than the best solutions to keep one’s career going. This is why ZCEs are so powerful.

There are 2 currencies that have no cost currently in existence. They have different conditions and practices, but that the currencies have no cost is absolute:


The TUMIN originated in Mexico and pays 500 MX to joining members since its inception.

Outside of that, any currency generated is through transactions.

People running the TUMIN exchange are volunteers. No pay.

It is run purely analogue, which could make counterfeiting a problem, but people who use the currency know the value of it being neutral, so counterfeiting it makes no sense.

Unlike the limited exposure of mutual exchange currencies which seems to be 3000 people in 200 communities, TUMIN exposure is 250,000 people in 22 counties as at 2016.


NumeroSet is developed in Canada. Members are given a stipend to begin trading, but this is increased or decreased as velocity changes. This is very similar to the colonial scrip that Abraham Lincoln supported. This is only small, but that it values no cost on money is fantastic.

On looking at their modelling and BUX, the best of the different parameters will be applied and therefore keep the neutrality and empowerment of the exchange model intact.



People are easily confused not just with connecting blockchain and cryptocurrency to be the same thing, but that there is only one type. Even if they separate these, that blockchains are immutable and cryptos are ICOs also pervades the space. BUX would be built on the lowest energy secure blockchain system. At present, this is Holochain.

All the communities’ ZCEs will be connected with one app. As the parameters will be the same, the only difference will be pricing of similar products and services in different communities, depending on how easy or hard it is to make such things in their locales.

All exchange models begin with an agreement and endorsement. It must be able to scale naturally, with the benefits obvious to spread the word. It can begin as simply as 2 people exchanging once joining on the app. The neutrality of the currency is an easy attraction. As an exchange social media model that shows what people are buying for the quality of what they are, being transparent is an asset, but need not be if this is not warranted. It doesn’t really matter either way. People can share what they like if and when they want in any way they want. The point of BUX is to take out the commodity aspect of what is crested, so sharing anything will be from an authentic standpoint.

A currency is as strong as the number of people using it, so it is imperative to find businesses that use DBCs to switch to their local ZCE which, as the currency model is the same except by name, does not limit companies from accessing resources. Incentives in using ZCEs also affords personnel to use it, too, extending the network very quickly. This also allows innovations that previously could not be afforded to play a greater part in whatever sector a business is in to be more quality motivated and being sustainable at the same time.



It would be useful to run situations for how ZCEs would work and scale. However, unlike the usual research that only concentrates on negative frameworks, both should be considered and researched. If anyone is interested in testing this, please feel free to connect to discuss the modelling and testing parameters to check how failsafe it is in comparison to other community currency models out there.



There is no question alternate currencies are making inroads, but the parameters of these ACs must be assessed in detail to the objectives required, and even these objectives be assessed for how encompassing they are. here is further details in how industries will be affected so this as to be assessed with absolute fundamentals that can’t be compromised, and any currency models of any value MUST respect empowerment, sustainability, and symbiosis for industries to follow.

There is a much higher capacity with ZCEs to understand power with people instead of power over people. While people my point at nature and survival of the fittest (again misinterpreted for disempowerment’s sake), we have made ourselves masters over Earth. As the only cognitive animal to use such resources as no other, ONLY power though co-evolution is where true empowerment lies. It is no less alpha than in war, the objectives are just different to make conflict a redundant means of status, and make sustainable creation the new norm of value, status, and excellence.

Frederick Malouf

+61 403 993 699



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store

There are lots of currencies out there, but if they do not answer how to incentivise creating sustainably/regeneratively, they’re a waste of time. Mine isn’t.