I’m proposing a standard for Non-Economic Tokens (NETs) - fungible tokens designed to resist financialization and speculation.
The goal is to provide a token standard for use cases where traditional ERC-20 tokens create unwanted economic incentives. NETs are designed to be consumed or expire rather than accumulated as assets.
You can find the draft here: Add ERC: Non-Economic Token by sewing848 · Pull Request #1088 · ethereum/ERCs · GitHub
This ERC complements my recently proposed Stateless Encrypted Communication Standard.
A working prototype of a decentralized messaging application has informed the development of these ERCs, as I seek to improve the blockchain-based components of the system. In this particular context, the Non-Economic Token is meant to provide user control over incoming messaging channels, and the Stateless Encrypted Communication contract provides the mechanism for fast, inexpensive, encrypted communication.
The current prototype uses a conventional ERC-20 token for the mechanism that gives users control over incoming messages, but I am in the process of refactoring the code to incorporate this Non-Economic Token standard instead. The app is functional on macOS but not yet production-ready. (More info: https://www.pyrrhoproject.com)
Some of the features of the Non-Economic Token standard include:
- Built-in decay properties to simulate impermanence and reduce utility as a store of value
- Naming conventions that explicitly avoid financial semantics
- Interfaces and contracts without
approve()
ortransferFrom()
to prevent decentralized exchange listings - Open or permissioned creation and distribution mechanisms not tied to payments or supply limits
While both ERCs are closely related within my project, they address distinct needs - one providing a standard protocol for encrypted communication, and the other a fungible resource that is clearly distinguishable in design, behavior, and intent, from financial blockchain assets. I have therefore created two discussion topics to allow for comments on each one separately.
All feedback and discussion points are welcome. I am particularly interested in thoughts on the decay mechanism implementation, potential circumvention scenarios, and how this might integrate with other applications beyond messaging.
Thanks for your input.
Scott