RE: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is available for comments

Within my daily work as a strategist for a bank, we tend to use the term non-traditional currencies. This is an easy term that could apply to non-fiat money, digital, virtual and cryptocurrencies, all the way to for instance loyalty points (transferable items that carry value and could be used for purchases). 

With near or quasi money, an unwanted macro economic connotation could be given to certain community currencies that are real money and legitimate tender, but not traditional. 

Moreover the term can also be used in case other forms of currencies may see the light of day in the future, that we do not know about yet. 

Just as a suggestion.

Best,

Floris



Sent with Good (www.good.com)




----- Message from "Joseph Potvin" <jpotvin@opman.ca> on 28-05-2014 18:20:30 -----
To: "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@w3.org>, team-webpayments-workshop-announcement@w3.org, "public-webpaymentsigcharter" <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is  available for comments

How about using the well-established "quasi-currency" or "near-money"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_money

The "crypto" part of "cryptocurrency" is a qualifier that refers to
just one of the interesting attributes of the BTC/XRP/etc units.  Lots
of digital stuff is encrypted -- so what? More interesting
systemically is its P2P character anyways. But speaking precisely from
the "payments" perspective, use of  "quasi-currency" or "near-money"
would be simple, clear and accurate within a W3C IC charter, without
any implication that the W3C is unnecessarily taking a side against
various legal and governmental decisions.

Joseph

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> I'm sure there will be some rolling their eyes by now at my apparent
> obstinacy on this!  Sorry, FWIW. I dunno, one you over near MIT should
> ask Noam Chomsky to settle this linguistic semantic issue. :-)
> (BTW, I'm actually not kidding.)
>
> RE: "electronic tokens" while neutral would hardly convey the meaning
> of cryptocurrencies
>
> Then...   those ones are "encrypted electronic tokens"?
>
> Can anyone find an online precise definition of the word
> "cryptocurrency" that does not define it as a type of currency or of
> money? That's the problem.
>
> Here's one:
> https://www.coinpursuit.com/pages/what-is-cryptocurrency/
>
> If long-term ambiguity and inter-disciplinary debate is the goal, then
> the W3C should use a word that is popular but known from the outset to
> be inconsistent with the legal and accounting environment within which
> it will be engaged.
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>> My 2cts (personal opinion, not with a chair hat)
>>
>> *"electronic tokens" while neutral would hardly convey the meaning of
>> cryptocurrencies.
>> *Some cryptocurrencies are not recognized in some regulations, but some are
>> recognized in others. therefore, it is not abut citing something which is
>> illegal. The objectives of this group imho is to provide technologies that
>> will fit with all regulations. Therefore, citing cryptocurrencies is a
>> perfect example, as we will have to deal with such cases where a given
>> payment solution is allowed in some countries and not in other. Therefore,
>> it is right to cite it in the list of use cases we will cover
>>
>>
>> steph
>>
>> Le 27/05/2014 17:53, Joseph Potvin a écrit :
>>>
>>> RE: "Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency,
>>> or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as
>>> “convertible” virtual currency."  Source:
>>> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
>>>
>>> Tobie,
>>>
>>> (a) Having worked a decade in a government central agency, I can spot
>>> a confused government bureaucrat pretty quickly.
>>> (b) The W3C needs to use language that comfortably spans jurisdictions.
>>> (c) Several jurisdictions incl China are explicit that BTC is a
>>> commodity, not a currency. Therefore buying something with it is a
>>> form of barter, like trading the rights to some of your digital photos
>>> in exchange for some egg rolls.
>>> (d) You did not say what you think of my suggestion of "electronic
>>> tokens" as neutral, routine, yet precise language
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The case of cryptocurrencies or digital
>>>>>> currencies is more problematic. i got your point, and i agree with it,
>>>>>> however, this is quite a generic name, independently of the legal
>>>>>> status
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a currency or not isn't it?
>>>>>> Is there a way we could mention these emerging payment options through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> use of a neutral word?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [JRP1:]  A neutral term could be "electronic tokens" which can be a
>>>>> type of "electronic media of exchange" regardless of whether or not
>>>>> they are deemed to represent a currency in and of themselves  I wonder
>>>>> if anyone from the Ripple, Ven, Bitcoin+derivatives communities on
>>>>> these lists might let us know if my suggestion would bother them, or
>>>>> if it's a reasonable compromise considering the W3C's need (well, I
>>>>> reckon it's a need) to steer clear or taking sides in the ongoing
>>>>> juridical interpretations worldwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cryptocurrency is the commonly used terminology. Event though the IRS
>>>> doesn't treat cryptocurrencies as legal currencies (which I suspect was
>>>> the
>>>> case you were referring to, Joseph), it still calls them virtual
>>>> currencies[1]. So, I really don't think there's any issue with using
>>>> cryptocurrency in the context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's
>>>> explicit.
>>>>
>>>> --tobie
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> [1]: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
>> W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
>> BP 93
>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>> France
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983



-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983



This message has been sent by ABN AMRO Bank N.V., which has its seat at Gustav Mahlerlaan 10 (1082 PP) Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and is registered in the Commercial Register of Amsterdam under number 34334259.

Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 13:52:46 UTC