And even that assumes rights and wrongs are a sort of fungible screwup-based currency where one can in fact cancel the other out.
An interesting concept to play around with though: You'd essentially need currency that has both negative & positive denominations. In addition, you couldn't have a "100 Wrong Bill" because wrongs aren't fungible. A single wrong will differ in magnitude than another. To accurately denominate wrongs, you'd probably have to ditch quantity bills in favor of magnitude bills, and likely on a logarithmic scale too because the magnitude can vary so widely. "Oops I got into a fender bender" is too far away from "Oops I accidentally cause the largest non-nuclear explosion"
Unfortunately it seems like it's easier for a single wrong to have an outsized impact than it is for a single right, so the negative denominations of this right/wrong currency would need to be logarithmic while the positive end would still probably need to be linear, and a sum of the two would still almost always come up negative.
I'm thinking about it as more of an abstraction layer for the direct exchange of benefits/detriments of right/wrong acts, where a modified version of normal spending-money currency still acted as the medium of exchange for goods and services.
Just a thought experiment really, about what a "moral" (for lack of a better word) currency could look like. Completely impossible and without clear definitions of a right or a wrong and ignoring the practical reality that a wrong can't really be cancelled out. As I said, just a thought experiment. Let's call it "The Moral Currency Conjecture"
A currency with negative and positive denominations directly built in, no separate system of debt. One where anyone could mint more currency through their own actions. Maybe the most value for an individual would be obtained by keeping their net worth as close to 0 as they could.
Normal currency would be a medium of exchange to affect & incentivize the transfers. As "wrongs" seem easier to produce, anyone with excess "rights" would be under pressure to divest themselves back towards neutrality to thereby ensure as many wrongs as possible were cancelled out. To incentivize this, the value of the normal currency would be tied to a person's proximity to a net 0 balance in the moral currency. Negative moral currency balance, less buying power for the same dollar. Same for positive moral currency balances, with the except that if the global supply of the moral currency had a positive net balance, then the normal currency value would increase in proportion so that a positive moral currency balance didn't incur a penalty.
Assuming there would always be more wrongs than rights, putting rights at a premium, however much money a person accumulated by doing wrongs would not be enough to purchase enough rights to get back to net zero, so you couldn't just steal or fraud your way into money and assume you'd buy your way clear. Meaning that in order to have a balance close to net zero a person would have to do at least some rights. In addition, debt with normal currency could be dealt with by doing more rights and selling them off.
The whole system would make it difficult to be successful by doing wrong things. Eventually it would shift the world through it's incentives to a net good balance gradually improving the world. Although at that point, normal currency might become more inflationary, and so the nature of the system might end up being a pendulum.
But to bring things back closer to reality, those with bad intentions and a desire to accumulate power might do so too quickly to have the monetary system catch up, giving them the resources to subvert the system in some way. Or you'd need massive public service projects to ensure that people with so many wrongs that they shifted their normal currency values below sustenance levels had a way back from that situation. It would also require a nearly perfect knowledge of rights and wrongs along with precise methods of assessing their magnitude, especially difficult when a right thing may eventually have a very negative and not easily foreseeable impact, e.g., proper recycling of harmful industrial byproducts back into something safe ends up causing cancers in the long term.
But ignore all that. This isn't a real proposal. (It's also not a problem for blockchains to solve.) It's just a thought experiment.
I put forth that it would have to be a non fungible token given that rights in general do not generally address any wrong; helping a grana across the street in Belfast doesn't help prisoners in Arizona suffering from a lack of climate control as an example.
