tar

Again, you talk past me as this is an employment contract from whereof you emit, which means that my liability to work would be your collateral which you use to emit claims against yourself (your obligations). If I won't work, your collateral is gone and then my claims against you become worthless, as well and therefore this whole construct makes no sense. In this concept it would be easier for me to arbitrarily emit obligations myself and just pledge my work for it (e.g. 10 tar token equals 10 minutes of work). You can guess how much that is accepted by anonymous others (as payment) in the real world. Exactly: it is not accepted and that is why one needs to go to a bank which checks his solvency and provides liquidity (= genuine claims) for him after agreeing on a credit relationship. So back to real life: you need to have genuine claims by collateralized credit contracts in order to pay. In your example it is completely arbitrarily which does not work as I won't accept your arbitrary emission as payment (as you won't accept my emission explained above) and so we will not come to an agreement on an employment contract. Back to banks: their obligations are liquid by themselves (for private parties - not for other banks) as long as they are seen trustful (by private parties) and therefore exist several legal regulatory requirements that a) ensure that their obligations can be trusted and b) have to be constantly rechecked on the particular bank(s).

It is a legal relationship with liabilities. Otherwise, welcome and give me those trillions you are dreaming about and I won't hesitate spending them without having to fear any consequences. The real world looks different. You are talking nonsense: self-funded and based on credit are two different things. On every due date you can observe how much "nothing" this really is.

At first, an one-sided arbitrary emission is completely different to a two-sided collateralized credit contract. A bank actually is only able to "fulfill" a purchasing contract with its obligations if the seller agrees to give them credit (= to hold claims against them = have a positive deposit account at the bank). Therefore the seller needs to thrust into the solvency of the bank. Otherwise he risks his own net wealth. Here, when the bank declares the loan unrecoverable (= the borrowers collateral was bad) , the bank reduces its own net wealth as the bank is still liable for the corresponding deposits the "borrower" used to pay something (whereever). It depends, how far this affects the overall solvency of the bank -> if it will still be seen as reliable and trustful regarding fulfilling its obligations. Remember: there is no free lunch.

Unconvertible? What the heck... if you arbitrarily issue a trillion (what nominal: USD, EUR, XRP, sheep?) obligation against yourself in favour of me I guess you are instantly insolvent.

What type of connector? I mean you need accounts on a bank or on an exchange or actually be a bank or an exchange to be a connector, don't you? And if you become an exchange you need to adopt the regulation processes.

Huh? 1) Why do claims/obligations have no value, per se? Their value depend on the solvency of its particular debtor. 2) Nobody can create an infinite amount of claims/liabilities without hurting the solvency of the particular debtor (you could argue in favor of the central bank and state, but this is a special topic). Here, the banks are in a credit relationship for which the debtor is liable for its obligations, of course. Why?

Your assumption of balanced flows is unrealistic as credit relationships always have involved risk. The regulation for private parties is managed by the regulation of the bank/exchange they have their account on.

Technically yes. I am not sure if they handle that as usual bank deposits account or just as special (clearing) account.

Any bank can have direct business and credit relations with another bank (e.g. by vostro/nostro) - i.e. that they do not necessarily need the central bank for settlements.

5 years (@ 2:37:02)? @XRPto50dollars you should adjust your timeframe

Indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)#Power_theory_of_value ... and reflections from the Debitist perspective.

I would not say value = price and explained the difference above. It is obvious that your personal child toy has more value to you than to anybody else. The same applies to your valuation of your family members etc. and the thereof resulting implications (apply force on others).