Gregory Rader asked me to clarify a point.
I essentially think that investing in something because of its actual outcome is a quite attractive value proposition.
I define a currency as a transferable promissory note issued by an entity/individual and backed by its productive/creative capacity.
Currencies can be used to fund projects that equity or debt wouldn’t.
Debt/equity requires a discounting of future market value, that is to say an evaluation of the sacrifice that people other than the investors will be willing to make in the future. This is especially hard in a credit money system where your ability to sell in the future doesn’t just depends on your ability to produce, but also on the phase of the credit cycle. In addition, for the sacrifice to be possible, the wealth generated must be rival, which further limits the creative potential.
Currencies on the other hand simply require the investor to know how much they will value the wealth created. They only require the issuer to produce/create what they promise they would create. Since they allow wealth creation to be funded upfront, rivalry isn’t a requirement. Much easier.