With symmetric swarm redistribution, credit lines could have the percentage that was "taxed" imprinted on them, and each person receive from the "pulse" based on their percentage in relation to others with credit lines to same person (same idea as earlier, just in the context of a symmetric design. )
The "trust index" that regulates the tax-rate, can be adjusted by people (agent-centric) and is selected for organically.
The swarm redistribution “pulse” propagates person-to-person, symmetric, each person forgiving an equal amount of debt to what they have been forgiven, and the balances are always only adjusted between people who actually trust one another.
The "trust index" that regulates the tax-rate, can be adjusted by people (agent-centric) and is selected for organically. People inherit the trust-index of those they make credit lines to (temporary, until the credit line has cleared), and the lowest trust index a person has (including inherited indices) is dominant.
In my idea for swarm redistribution, an interesting property is that with swarm redistribution set at 100%, you have a gift economy, and you can then decrease towards 0%, and you have just mutual currency + Ripple. I used to say it "scales from capitalism to gift economy" when I first had the initial eurekas in 2012.
That the credit lines are proportional to the "trust index" used is the feedback mechanism, incentive, to select tax rates that are beneficial both to people as well as to the network-of-trust as a whole.
The trust index, could also be called "taxeme" because they spread by selection similar to genes or memes, could also be in proportion to the credit lines, if you send an IOU of 100 RES to a person with a dominant taxeme at 2%, you inherit 100 RES of that taxeme (tied to the credit line), and it is "used up" as others inherit it further, or, as the credit line decays by swarm redistribution, or is cleared through the path-finding mechanism (Ripple).
To avoid confusion, "taxemes" could be the inherited values, and "trust index" the percentage each person sets for themselves.
Input/output in the swarm redistribution "pulse" could be proportional to the "trust index" of the credit lines (incoming/outgoing), too. The reason for proportional idea is that if a person has a credit line that paid 0 tax ("trust index" 0) then, they get nothing, so it makes sense that it is proportional going up from 0 as well.
How does swarm redistribution differ from demurrage, like this idea from alexjc?
Demurrage is more or less based on the arrow of time, money decays based on how much time has passed. In swarm redistribution, it's by redistribution, as in it's from people to other people, person-to-person.
In the original eureka in 2012, inspired by learning about Ryan Fugger's Ripple, each person gave to many other people over many credit lines, which as Dan Larimer pointed out here in 2017 had a problem with fake accounts. That feedback led to the idea to do "symmetric" swarm redistribution, entirely person-to-person, in some ways similar to Circles, a crypto UBI from 2014, but also different.
I re-branded the idea in 2014 as a "hard currency" as in a token (ERC20 token on Ethereum or similar) and used the word "dividend pathways" because no one knew what a credit line was, and with the idea to do the "pulse" symmetric and person-to-person, and more conversation about person-to-person ledgers like what https://holochain.org talk about, have shifted my attention back to using a mutual currency.
