Notes on the future of token standards

Next generation of token standards will define cross-chain tokens, distributing efficiently the functionality between several blockchains or perhaps having even off-chain functionality. This will extend tokenomics and token based business models in the direction of multiply blockchains, or even blockchain and off-chain solutions. From a technological point of view, there is already several initiatives for realizing such a services, like Plazma, Loom network, Polkadot or Cosmos. 

On the need of tokenized business and computational models.

Inevitable to most natural style of designing a blockchain application is to imagine a kind of a token model as a basic working mechanism. For that however we would need both the missing theory and practice as well to work with tokenized models, like inventing tokanized business models and/or tokenized computational architectures. Examples include but not limited to:

- tokenized data flow
- tokenized Turing machine
- tokenized Neumann architecture
- tokenized accounting systems and tripple accounting
- tokenized business management
- tokenized business models
- tokenized business cooperation models
- tokenized machine learning
- tokenized AI
- ...

And last but not least we would need general frameworks to abstractly model and describe tokens and collaboration of tokens. 

On the fiscal and monetary policy of a cryptocurrency

Most cryptocurrency have at the moment something as a simple algoritmically specified token supply, which is pretty far from classical tools of a nations' currency. So let we examine if something similar to the classical monetary and fiscal policy can be realized with cooperation of a cryptocurrency. 

Classical monetary policy.

- Increasing monetary supply: increasing monetary supply simply means increasing the amount of tokens that are available in the circulations. That can happen in an algorithmic way, as it is usual in most of the cryptoruccencies, however it can occur as a result of a centralized or semi-sentralized explicit action.  

- Decreasing monetary supply: well this is not so easy. One option might be to somehow burn coins, however the major question is with this situation where should be the coins burned. If they are burned directly in the wallets of the customers, then probably the trust of the currency will not be huge. Another idea might be to have a standard inflation rate with a standard token issuance rate, so this issuance rate can be increased or decreased to zero as well.   

Direct counterparty involvements.

If the major focus is to influence or keep stable the changing rate on market, one possibility is to influence it directly with the help of a counterparty. The party will have an amount of funds to change the changing rate of the currency and can act consciously for a certain market situation at selling or buying. Certainly, this situation involves an explicit counterparty risk.   

Policy via token multiplication. 

If we consider not just the cryptocurrencies but the tokens financing projects or companies on top, we get a system that can be better fine-tuned. A token issuance can act something like a currency multiplication act, especially if we consider the tokens as part of the monetary basis. If we can motivate or demotivate the issuance of the new tokens, we get a system that influences indirectly both the monetary supply and the whole market readiness to create new projects or companies.   

Fiscal policy. 

Real fiscal policy is pretty difficult in a cryptocurrency context. It is probably because of two reasons: On the one hand crpytocurrencies provide just currencies and not necessarily a full or partial economy. Even if some economy exist behind, it is far from being a closed one. It is questionable if pure fiscal policies ever can be interpreted in the context of cryptocurrencies. 

Notes on general coin services - token as a service

Considering the current gold rush for ICO-s and different tokens, there are a couple of services that do not necessarily provide services on their own, but rather concentrate on giving general services for other ICO-s. It is generally the question which are these services. The mostly needed service is not just general consulting but the token creation itself and something that is a "trusted" communication for the cryptocurrency economy to convince everybody that the project is "kosher". Let we call such services as token-as-a-service.

However exactly providing these functionalities has some negative effects. A successfully project is usually much more than simply a token sale. They focus instead on creating fully decentralized platforms on which programming the token itself is usually just the first and easiest step. So, if a company or team can not succeed in even the easiest step, than they will probably fail to deliver anything at all at the end of the development plan. It means indirectly, that such a general coin services will attract all the scammers from the market. 

On the other hand, providing token as a service can attract multiplicative legal risk, as the company providing different tokens can be made responsible for each tokens. As the general token sale is basically a wild west at the moment, meaning different legislation at each country that is changing day by day, providing a token-as-a-service can a legal nightmare.

It is a general further question if such a services should be provided in a centralized way, or there is a possibility to do it completely decentralized.