Chapter 2: Core Problems and Approach
2.1 The Full Problem Landscape
The core problems facing the post-currency era can be distilled into one fundamental contradiction:
When survival is no longer the motivation for labor, how does society incentivize contributions, record contributions, and govern based on contributions?
This fundamental contradiction decomposes into four sub-problems:
Problem 1: Incentives
Without monetary returns, why would people still contribute?
Answer: Social recognition. Humans inherently crave acknowledgment, respect, and influence. GMC transforms contributions into visible, quantifiable social recognition (MeriToken) and endows it with real voting power.
Problem 2: Measurement
How can contributions be recorded and measured fairly?
Answer: Decentralized consensus-based recording. Leveraging blockchain and cryptographic technology, an unforgeable, tamper-proof, undeniable contribution record network is established. No single institution can distort the records.
Problem 3: Governance
On what basis should voting power be allocated?
Answer: Dynamic allocation based on contribution. Voting power derives from MeriToken's share within a community, and MeriToken decays — meaning voting power must be maintained through continuous contribution; permanent privilege does not exist.
Problem 4: Human-Machine Collaboration
When Fay handles most of the work, how are human and Fay contributions measured fairly?
Answer: A unified measurement system. Humans and Fay are recorded and measured within the same system; Fay's contributions are attributed to its human archetype or affiliated organization.
2.2 The Approach
GMC's approach can be summarized as:
Contribution → Recording → Measurement → Voting Power
- Contribution occurs: A human or Fay performs an action of value to society
- Contribution is recorded: Through consensus mechanisms, the contribution is immutably recorded on-chain
- Contribution is measured: The contribution is converted into MeriToken, with decay and a floor value
- Voting power takes effect: MeriToken share determines influence in community governance
2.3 Six Design Principles
| Principle | Meaning | Problem Addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Unforgeable | Contribution records must pass consensus verification | Prevents fraudulent contributions |
| Tamper-proof | Historical records are permanently preserved and cannot be modified | Ensures record credibility |
| Undeniable | Contributors cannot deny their own actions | Enables accountability tracing |
| Decentralized | Does not depend on any single institution | Prevents power monopoly |
| Dynamic measurement | Contribution decays over time | Incentivizes continuous participation |
| Universal participation | Open to all humans and Fay | Fairness |
2.4 Fundamental Differences from the Currency System
| Dimension | Currency | MeriToken |
|---|---|---|
| Essence | Medium of exchange | Contribution measurement |
| Driving force | Survival needs | Social recognition and self-actualization |
| Tradability | Freely tradable | Non-tradable, non-transferable |
| Era context | Era of material scarcity | Era of material abundance |
| Distribution logic | Allocates resources by purchasing power | Allocates voting power by contribution |
| Accumulation effect | Can accumulate indefinitely (wealth polarization) | Naturally decays (prevents ossification) |
2.5 Discussion Notes
Logical framework established in this chapter:
- Starting from "the fundamental contradiction of the post-currency era," the necessity of GMC is derived
- Four sub-problems (incentives, measurement, governance, human-machine collaboration) constitute GMC's design objectives
- "Contribution → Recording → Measurement → Voting Power" is the core flow logic of the entire system
- The fundamental difference between MeriToken and currency: currency solves the distribution problem; MeriToken solves the recognition and governance problem