FORM_h

crpp

- no consensus on timing (Liveness)
- no consensus on naming (e.g. universal things)

/////////////
t= derived basic unit
//////
Cardinality (Risk)
Iterativity (Incentive)
Consensus (Cost of insuring against ϕ)
ϕ
//////////////
             ////
Sublate this standing into the sheaf layout — along with its name-space
into petri net time-space

tokens[t]=attestations in time

Presence nominated into namespace

λ[13 Oct 2018 15:20:10]:= ϕ(n)-Capaciousness(t)

gistfile1.txt

Cost Risk Price Progression

Ithakrash Numberfud, [18 Jul 2020 at 23:26:16]:

Insofar as every commodity has inate substance and value, the measurements are particular and, in most cases, non-fungible. Contracts are ascribed, free of any equalising constant — out of tradition — in amounts determinable only by way of price (the sole unifying reference).

As FORM_h supplants the static sense of full-fungibility (e.g. USD pricing between contracts of a particular order) with a fluid sensibility (e.g. multi-dimensional pricing), the ultimate denomination for any commodity — the effective underlying asset through which to reconcile — is entirely arbitrary.

The reckoning of a commodity contract doesn't necessarily relate to the parameters or substance of another contract outside of the final transaction — to calculate the bearing between the metrics of delivery and to fulfill the terms of the contract. If we consider the bushel vs. the ton, the pound vs. the short ton, the troy ounce vs. the gallon or what-have-you: all are partially fungible.

Furthermore, we must also consider the fungibility of the material substances themselves, as tallied by way of the unit operations — that is, of the commodities in microspect (contract or no). At the end of the day, a grain of corn can be counted alongside a grain of gold or half a bean of coffee. Each of these examples would be multi-fungibile —and outrightly so.

For the fluid commodities, gases, mixtures and so on, the relationship becomes something akin to a bonding function; the composition of the equation is a measure of economic "density" – bringing us one step closer to the monotonic relationship between the value of a substance and the stability of its merchantibility (and, by multivariate implication, its fungibility). The strength of this definition increases hyperbolically when we consider the "hard" commodities — especially, of course, the metals.

In short, it's entirely plausible to exchange one thing for another — directly — without enforcing the reconditioning process of strict fiat pricing. That is to say, it's possible to exchange one commodity for another despite the disparate measurements — without additional reduction, without further artificial abstraction, conversion or transformation. Therefore, multiple paradigms are not only a necessary fixture for a free market but are also essential for any valid economy lest all commodities be considered homogeneous.