Economics as well as economies is a multiverse. Multiple economic semantic universes, multiple spaces exist defined by different semantic ghettos of a priori concepts. What is happening in one of the semantic spaces has already happened in the other or a number of others if we at least assume that they exist at the same timescale. Numerous phenomena cannot be explained not to say predicted because they are caused by the processes in other universes, or there is not only explicit but implicit order, or “synchronicity”.

To be on the same page people might want to rectify names constantly, to check all the time that they use the same set of definitions, that they are on the same page of the same book. It is far more common though simply to assume that it is so, or that there is only one “right universe”.

One of the benefits of blockchain-based economic solutions is that the very process of coding requires “rectification of names”, implementation of perceived economic algorithms and values in a programming language, which is very rigid in definitions, and exposes vagueness of concepts, differences between same terms of The Multiverse. Very soon it becomes clear that it is futile to try to mirror the existing multiverse and that what’s happening, when you describe phenomena in different language, is creation of new semantic space whether intentionally or not. As for any creation conscious intention is more likely to lead to success than chance.

In the case of bitcoin the value is not transferred or mirrored from the “the real word” but is created in the context of newly created semantic universe while the only algorithm between the agents is simple: transfer of different quantities of one and the same value from one address to the other. It is a problem not of bitcoin but of economic multiverse to deal with bitcoin.

For so-called social costs, environmental damages, natural capital, common resources problem it is far more complicated just because these resources and damages exist and have value in real world for the humankind, for our planet though in different semantic spaces are reflected in different ways. They are real even in the economic multiverse itself, which largely operates with “imaginary” assets starting with fiat currencies that do not have intrinsic value and might not have value at all in the parallel semantic spaces.

Since 2013, DAO IPCI concept and practical achievement is intentional creation and development of a new integral semantic space for any group, community, individual to enter and try to deal with social costs, environmental damages, natural capital, common resources problem independently of cooperatively on a peer-to peer basis.

One of the achievements of one of the universes, new institutional economics, is that it once again, after Engels et al in other spacetimes, has disproved the idea that “the tragedy of commons is inevitable”. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson.

Ostrom identified and discussed eight “design principles” of stable local common pool resource management and other ideas and concepts, which happen to be similar to some of blockchain economics ideas and concepts and design principles of some particular cases. The concept of self-organized governance systems, including effective communication, internal trust and reciprocity is similar to the concept of “decentralized autonomous organization”. Cautions against government interference and proposal of polycentric approach are similar to the concept of “decentralization”.

Most of Ostrom eight “design principles” have been applied in the design of the blockchain peer-to-peer solution for T4G Program of sustaining common pool of resources (CPL), i.e. indigenous forests in Papua New Guinea (PNG) by peer-to-peer interaction with PNG “commons” — Incorporated Landowners Groups (ILG). For example, the following principles have been applied for the design and now are under implementation:

1. Clear definition of the contents of the common pool resource and monitoring with the use of trusted hardware, IoT telemetry broadcasted to immutable public information environment;

2. A scale of graduated sanctions for ILGs who violate the rules;

3. Self-determination of the community recognized by government authorities;

4. Organization in the form of DAO with small local CPRs at the base level.

PNG T4G case is a striking example of different universe, different semantic space, adopting cryptocurrencies in parallel with shell money, and connecting through the portal to blockchain universe while sustaining traditional values.

PNG local semantic space is a member of the Multiverse. Today indigenous forests are largely considered to be not only local resource to be governed by local commons but a fundamental part of global pool of resources valuable for the humankind and everyone who cares about life on our planet. That’s why a peer-to-peer mechanism for anyone who shares the values to participate, influence, contribute and benefit has been designed.

Common pool of resources (e.g. indigenous forests) held by local communities is placed under Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) system with immutable data publicly available to global community.

The damage caused by economic activity, production and consumption (e.g. tourism) is compensated by the participants (travelers, hotels, airlines).

Considerate member of global community may contribute to the local communities to sustain the resource and, if it is sustained and grows, is entitled to receive part of the proceeds (e.g., tradable environmental instruments, carbon removals, REDD+ credits, etc.). In the context of quadratic model, if one pays with Mitigation token (MITO) they are directly represented as contributions, if other currencies (BTC, Ether) are used, new MITOs are issued as a result of a square root of contribution.