Right but you’re just inventing local government with extra steps now. Lots of local governments have more direct democracy and I’m all for organising that in a caring manner. It just seems super pointless to involve blockchains, NFTs and technologically verified trust chains where you have to manage interpersonal relationships on chain as well as IRL.
Local governments, in my limited experience and study of history, tend to corrupt easily to the whims of nonlocal wealthy people. Just look at the US's exploits in South America since the 70's (or a recent election in my home town).
If you're going to reject the demands of foreign money, local money has to be different in some way that makes it hard for outsiders to get without demonstrating some level of givashit about the locals. It can't just be a matter of exchange rates.
So yeah, it's overkill for most things, but the things it's justified for are really important.
Nothing about what you’re suggesting now needs a blockchain and having local money doesn’t prevent outside influence just changes how it is spent. People will just spend it on those that hold local money or have influence over those that do. You’re trying to passively solve a complex, hierarchical social problem with technology when we know that’s bound to fail or at best paper over the cracks.
And yeah there are lots of places that local government sucks but there are also lots of places where it doesn’t and I guarantee you the reason isn’t tech.
I think that when you replace a hierarchy with an arbitrary directed graph, you can be pretty confident that what you've done will at least be impactful re: problems that hierarchies have (namely corruption at the top).
Whether they can scratch the itch in peer-to-peer mode is an unanswered question, but I think we'll get to find out.
