The proposed network economy
Read the whitepaperFamiliar rewards.
Shared infrastructure.
JURNE is designing a network where a reward earned with one participating operator can be used with another. Riders see points and benefits. Underneath, a token layer would coordinate programme permissions and reward records, while separately funded reserves pay for the benefits.
Ride payments
GBP / supported USDC
Fares and earned compensation.JURNE Points
Customer-facing benefits
Funded rewards, with clear terms and expiry.Network token
Proposed coordination units
Programme authorisation and shared records.Points sit above the token layer. They are not automatically exchangeable for network tokens.
Follow one funded reward
Earn here.
Use it over there.
Two fictional operators. One shared programme. Move through the model to see exactly where the money, points and token units go.
- Programme cash
- £0.00 £0.00 committed
- Available points
- 0 0 reserved · 0 redeemed
- Tokens in escrow
- 0 1,000 available
- Owed to Operator B
- £0.00 No unsettled payable
Operator A
Earn here
Example participant
JURNE
Shared programme
Awaiting fundingOperator B
Use it here
Example participantThe full £20 remains the driver-compensation basis. The reward programme funds the £1 difference; this is not a driver-pay rate.
- Fund
- Travel
- Earn
- Reserve
- Fulfil
- Settle
First, fund the programme.
Add £10 of settled programme funding. The example already has 1,000 controlled token units available.
Start with settled programme funding. Nothing leaves this model.
Driver money stays separate. Existing synthetic earned balance: £50.00. Points expiry and token burns cannot remove it.
Try a different outcome
Reset to compare paths from the same starting point.
Funding and provider risks
Separate accounting does not guarantee available money. Remove the £10 funding or make the provider unavailable to test what remains owed. Existing obligations stay recorded; the model blocks new unfunded rewards.
Eligible liquid funding: £0.00 · Funding shortfall: £0.00 · Provider: available.
In this GBP fixture the selected fee/risk buffer is £0 to isolate the mechanism. A production programme needs its own funded buffer, safeguards and provider arrangements.
Ledger, model events and accounting checks
Supply and entitlements
- Current token supply
- 1,000
- Token units burned
- 0
- Points issued
- 0
- Points expired / reversed
- 0 / 0
- Outstanding reward obligations
- £0.00
- Uncommitted funding
- £0.00
- Model time
- Day 0
Invariant checks
- PassToken supply reconciles
1000 supply = 1000 available + 0 escrowed; 0 burned.
- PassEvery point has one state
0 issued = 0 available + 0 reserved + 0 redeemed + 0 expired + 0 reversed.
- PassEscrow and claims reconcile
Escrow covers available/reserved units and separately pending burns; each active claim owns its allocations once.
- PassFunding accounts reconcile
Programme cash equals source-operator contributions less their attributed payments and losses; one funder cannot silently cover another.
- PassLiquid funding covers obligations
GBP 0.00 eligible funding against GBP 0.00 points + GBP 0.00 payables + GBP 0.00 buffer. Source-operator allocation shortfall: GBP 0.00. Overall shortfall: GBP 0.00.
- PassBalances are non-negative integers
Money uses integer pence; points and tokens use integer units.
- PassDriver earnings remain separate
Rewards never reduce the full-fare compensation basis or change separately earned money. No driver-share rate is assumed.
Model event history
Local model IDs, not Solana transaction signatures. Replay cannot issue a second reward or send a second payment.
No events yet. Fund the programme to begin.
100 points → £1 discount → 100 token units in controlled escrow is a synthetic programme authorisation rule, not a token price or GBP peg. Actual voucher/VAT treatment needs separate accounting review. The £50 pre-existing synthetic driver balance is separate and is not a pay-rate calculation. State resets on reload; there are no wallets, live transfers or stored registrations.
Separate promises. Separate records.
The reward travels.
Its backing stays.
A completed journey could earn a points lot only when there is both uncommitted funding and available token inventory. A redemption reserves that entitlement; fulfilment moves it to an operator payable. Payment clears the payable before the controlled token allocation is burned.
Explore the proposed mechanismMoney funds the benefit.
During a reimbursement delay, the operator is still owed the money and its backing remains committed. Failed settlement never becomes a paid result.
Expiry ends an entitlement.
Unused points can expire under their own versioned terms. Expiry can release the funding commitment. A later authorised action can burn the associated escrow units. Cash does not appear when points expire.
Earned pay stays earned.
Driver compensation sits outside the points programme. Rewards expiry and token burning do not erase driver earnings. One eligible verified driver, one vote remains independent of token wealth.
Independent businesses. Shared services.
Open to participation.
Accountable by design.
Independent operators that meet applicable licensing, safety, technical and commercial requirements could seek admission. They would keep their own businesses and identities. The contracting operator must be clear before the passenger confirms a booking.
A controlled pilot would start with one operator, then a second genuinely independent operator to test whether rewards portability creates useful demand. Membership would not confer ownership of drivers’ cars.
The questions that matter.
What creates demand for the network token?
Useful access to shared rewards and operator services is the candidate. An operator could receive a controlled programme allocation, or access units through a permitted service adapter. Freely allocated or recycled inventory does not itself create recurring market-buy demand. The pilot must demonstrate that the shared rules justify the token layer’s added cost and complexity.
Who would hold or acquire it?
Participating operators and programme administrators are the proposed users. Riders would see points, and drivers would see earned compensation. Neither would need to buy or speculate on the network token to travel or work. A future GBP/USDC service adapter would need clear fees, permissions and responsibility for holding units.
What actually pays for the benefits?
Settled operator contributions, an affordable JURNE budget or an explicitly funded sponsor allocation. Issuing or burning a token creates no cash. Driver earnings are separate from reward reserves. A token balance alone cannot demonstrate that money exists or is available to meet a claim.
What if the token’s market value fell 80%?
The example’s separately GBP-funded £1 benefit and earned driver money would be unchanged. That is a stress assumption for an externally transferable variant, not a listed token or forecast. Lost funding, provider failure, insolvency and liquidity problems still matter. USDC funding for GBP benefits would also introduce USD/GBP exchange-rate, issuer and custody risks.
Why use a token when a database could do this?
A shared ledger could let independent operators inspect common programme rules, allocations and settlement records without relying entirely on one operator’s database. A central clearing database could be simpler, cheaper and easier to correct. JURNE proposes testing reconciliation effort, portability and operator trust before retaining a token layer on that basis.
What is still undecided?
Supply limits, future issuance, mint and upgrade authority, rights, legal classification and external transferability. A bounded operator-network instrument and an externally transferable asset are different designs. There is no token sale, launch tariff, ticker, exchange listing or promised appreciation here. Token holdings would not purchase driver votes, equity or revenue rights.
Read the thinking behind the journey.
Version 0.1 develops the operating model, token mechanism, responsibilities and tests that a controlled pilot would need to meet.
Open the whitepaper