- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:54:42 -0400
- To: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSrorDQaO28R0Qnhyc2SsdxPf5gEejmyZ4UNe2y5Tv5zMA@mail.gmail.com>
RE: Spot exchange rates... in a way that treats precious metal certificates and legal tender and non-legal-tender fungibles in the same way. David, Please take a look at my message yesterday, and http://projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/free-libre-commerce/wiki/UseCase%E2%80%93PriceIndexing Published "spot exchange rates" constitute just one of several ways to handle multi-currency contracts in a generic web payments system. My most important recommendation for the W3C Web Payments Community Group is to avoid hard-coding into the standard and into reference implementations the "official" spot exchange rates as THE index for variable pricing. If that's done, we will have only liberated the payments "courier service" from credit card companies and related moneychangers, but we will have still locked vendor-purchaser "pricing" to the speculative forex market. Want to see *who* that is? Look here: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3196124/FX-survey-2013-Results-index.html Basically it's: Deutsche Bank (largest for past 8 yrs) Barclays Capital UBS AG Citigroup Inc. JP Morgan HSBC Royal Bank of Scotland Credit Suisse Group Goldman Sachs Morgan Stanley BNP Paribas SA Nomura Holdings Inc. Société Générale SA All I'm recommending is to ensure that vendors are free to choose whether their prices shall be indexed to the speculative forex market, or to something else, and to provide an API for those choices. For a vendor and a purchaser to have autonomy over their transaction(s), among other things they need to be free to (a) choose their transaction currency(ies), and (b) negotiate their price(s). In multi-currency contracts, the parties must see prices in two or more currencies. They may well agree to externalize inter-currency valuation to an external third party, or instead they can choose to "be the currency market" for the purposes of that transaction. (Have you ever autonomously negotiated inter-currency valuation on a streetcorner or at a hotel front desk in a country with controlled official exchange rates? The derogatory term is "the black market" for currency. The respectful term is "the free market" for currency.) Vendors and purchasers of products and services have a different inter-currency use case than currency speculators. Vendors and purchasers want inter-currency price stability. Currency speculators want inter-currency price volatility. To the extent that a vendor or a purchaser seeks to gain an advantage through expected inter-currency price volatility, they are to that extent forex speculators. I don't care, as such, I'm just distinguishing the inter-currency speculation market from the products and services market per se. Published exchange rates amongst central bank currencies are driven by the $5-trillion-a-day speculative forex market, and also published Bitcoin exchange rates at Mt.Gox etc. are just as speculative. Any autonomous community currency that is set to par against its national currency is tied to the speculative value of that national currency. That may be good enough for the community members since their currency's geography of use is entirely within their national currency zone. By freeing vendors from the requirement that credit card companies and other oligopsonist moneychangers must handle online payments, the open standard peer-to-peer web payments system provides a venue for vendors and purchasers not only to manage their own money transfers, but also to "be their own currency market" within the scope of their business, and to decide to step outside of stormy speculative markets if they wish. There are a few ways to accomplish this, but a way that I think has multiple advantages is to permit vendors generally to publish fixed, OR variable OR negotiable prices. If the vendor chooses variable, they would need to also declare a reference against which their prices would vary. This is useful both in single-currency and mutli-currency scenarios. For example take a single-currency case: a chocolatier could say that the published price of their final products, even when sold only in EUR's, will vary with the actual prices in EURs of cacao beans and of sugar at the port, i.e. the two highest value intermediate inputs they need to deal with. Why vary their published price against those inputs? To protect the chocolatier's business from manipulation like this: http://about.bloomberglaw.com/legal-news/commodity-prices-wrong-as-often-as-27-of-time-for-traders/ and from shocks like this: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/uk-brazil-sugar-fire-idUKBRE99H0UX20131018 Meanwhile, the custom chocolate creations they offer to make, are priced based on the requirements: "Call us for pricing". So the clients eat both the chocolate and the risk. By handling the whole inter-currency valuation matter this way too, as just one of the variable price indexing options, we can keep everything within the realm of contract law, and steer clear of international trade law which you get into when dealing directly with "exchange rates". Trying to come up with some autonomous exchange rate system for both legal tender and non-legal-tender fungibles -- beware: that's a very prickly place to be. My strong recommendation: keep the whole thing under contracts law. Let vendors control prices for their products and services. So, let's say the web payments system enables vendors to publish fixed, OR variable OR negotiable prices. And, let's say that when the variable price option is chosen, they need to choose a pricing index from a list of properly formatted indices. Suppose the vendor can simply choose one from a drop-down list, as explained in my previous post: (a) "Official" spot exchange rates base on the WM-Reuters forex index http://www.wmcompany.com/wmr/Services/ClosingSpotRates/index.htm and sources such as https://www.mtgox.com/ (b) The World Price Index http://www.worldeconomics.com/WorldPriceIndex/WPI.efp (c) Official Consumer Price Indices http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG (d) An index linked to market capitalization http://www.world-exchanges .org/statistics/monthly-query-tool (e), (f), (g), ... etc. One of these I hope would be the Earth Reserve Index under development. One of the options, could be "Vendor-defined", and if some other chocolatier wants to index their prices inversely to the Happy Planet Index, go for it. http://www.happyplanetindex.org/ Now in this approach, the vendor retains control over both their payments courier and their effective prices. Joseph Potvin On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 5:04 AM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've got two things to add > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote: > > >> External Payment Initiation - We've been talking with a few >> organizations that do payments that would like a way to initiate a >> payment within the browser and then hand the transaction execution off >> to an external application. The general concept needs to be worked out, >> and we need to find editors for this specification. If we can get >> something together for this in the next 4 months, we stand a good chance >> at getting a first draft ready before the Web Payments WG is chartered. >> > > This feature does *not* require any browser extensions, as a > locally-running "external application" would use the same protocols (JSONP, > probably) as an equivalent application > running elsewhere on the network. > > >> So, what did I miss or exclude that probably should be included? There >> is a lack of Bitcoin-related specs only because we haven't had anyone >> from the Bitcoin community step forward and propose a set of specs to >> take through W3C. The same applies for Ripple at this moment in time. >> >> Are there any specs that should be added? Should some be removed? >> Thoughts and general debate on the direction would be appreciated at >> this point. :) > > > Spot exchange rates at vendors and at intermediaries, in a way that treats > precious metal certificates and legal tender and non-legal-tender fungibles > in the same way. Ripple and Bitcoin are in the third category, so are Gift > Certificate and In-Store Credit Balances when transferrable. > > > > <http://goo.gl/Ssp56>
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 12:55:31 UTC