1. Dr. Smith insists strongly that Ethereum should have an algorithmic Taylor Rule which will target short term interest rate lending using ethereum based solely on the value of transactions within the entire Ethereum Network and the changes in prices (inflation) of all goods and services purchased on Ethereum. That is to say, he is once again being a broken record on the Taylor Rule:

iEth,t=iEth,t-1+yyt-1+t-1

Where iEth is the short term lending rate, y is the growth in the value of transactions, and is the changes in an overall aggregate price level of Ethereum goods and services. The values are the weight of importance placed on each of the variables and will be determined at the discretion of a committee of Ethereum stake holders representing users of the four services of money: medium of exchange (Ethereum consumers), store of value (regulated Ethereum banks), unit of account (Ethereum academics), and speculation (unregulated Ethereum financial firms). This committee will meet in Basel, Switzerland, each quarter to re-evaluate the weights.

1. Critique Dr. Smiths money rule on grounds similar to the arguments in Salter et al (2021) and Campbell et al (2022).

2. Criticize Dr. Smiths rule on ethical grounds. Consider the stakeholders of Ethereum (not just those on his vaulted committee): money users, firms, banks, contract makers, lenders, borrowers, speculators, etc. Consider the harm/benefit that could come to these stakeholders from such a rule. In other words, is this a good rule? Or a bad one?