No, this is beyond bartering. For example, the welcome promotion created for a new team translates to a 'donation' of support - paying for that is definitely not barter. Also, unlike barter networks that specify how much a participant or team receives in in-network credits, Tatag lets each team create its own spendable credits and planned obligations via its reported budgets.
Isn't this just a barter network?
How do you avoid inflation?
- Payments are not guaranteed to be acceptable, so there is an incentive for each team to maintain reasonable budgets. Otherwise, Advisor apps would generally reject payments coming from teams whose budget are evaluated to be not sustainable.
- Budgets get used up and do not 'circulate' or keep on increasing. A transaction cancels corresponding units of the payer's expense budget and the recipient's revenue budget. In combination with periodic budget issuance, transactions lead to a cyclic pattern on the total available budget among all teams. In this way, each team contributes to a decentralized regulation of currency activty. See the budgets-as-currency viz.
- For defunct teams that have excess unused revenue budget, the platform will develop a plan to pay those obligations with credits taken from one or more of the following: insurance-like system, collecting proportional credits from those who received payments from the defunct teams, etc.
Why would a seller refuse a payment?
One reason is similar to having coupon restrictions: a team would typically limit its commitments to the platform as far as providing goods and services. In fact, recipient tokens in Tatag are created with default restrictions on how often it's used by a user, team, or overall within a seven day window. A user may also be forced to wait a given number of hours before beign able to reuse a recipient token to initiate a payment.
Another reason is that the seller already has spendable funds via its expense budget, so there is not as much pressure to blindly accept payments regardless of the issuing team's reputation. A team can be more selective on who benefits from its goods and services.
Lastly, but most important, the ability to refuse a payment signifies a participant's power to influence the market towards sustainable activity. See the influence-the-future viz.