Accounting thoughts, Transformative potential and the third dimension

Every transactions or journals could be looked at from the glasses of transformative potential. For example you exchanged a chair for a table. A chair has transformative potential of $50, $50 could be transformed to 5 trays of Pizzas, so a chair has the transformative potential of $50 because the ownership of it could be expended / transformed into the ownership of 5 trays of Pizzas. 

Now a table could become 10 trays of pizza, so exchanging a chair and a table gives you $50 profit, which from the point of view of transformative potential means you got $50 extra in transformative potentials. 

So that's profit and loss... you could say that the shift from historical accounting to fair value accounting is objective because of this. Just because you bought an asset for $100 doesn't mean that currently the asset still has $100 worth of transformative potential, could be more could be less. 

---------------------------

There are many directions to take from here but let's shift to another topic:

The first dimension of accounting is the debit side, the second is the credit side, and the third is something... let's call it the mehbit side. 

You could, probably fit in the transformation potential dimension in the mehbit side, or you're already good with p/l so no... ok. For me I'd put "Documentation" on the mehbit side.

Each debet - credit speaks existence of a source document, we could put the a dollar amount to that document in respect, and put that to the mehbit side. Every single transactions would increase the attributed dollar amounts not decrease, why? It supposed to work like history where data keeps on expanding instead of contracting. 

With this info we could check on the weight of documents of operations, a million dollar company might only had a 2 million dollars worth of documentation while a 500 thousand dollar company might worth 8 million dollars of documentations. 

Like the cash flow statement the types of documentations would be classified into different types. For example: internally generated and stakeholder based, so if you wanted to see only the stakeholder values you would be able to (internally generated provisions might be abusable/easy to manipulate). 

Now, documentations could be redundant so this is where things get "block-chainy"

Every correspondent transactions should be classified into a batch of documents, so instead of attributing the dollar amount to each documents/invoices/receipts, all of those documents would be grouped into the same batch because they speak of only one transaction. 

Miners could deserve rewards for removing redundancies from publicly available transactions, professional accountants who had access to private transactions would surely deserve appreciations for removing redundancies in the private situations.

The weight of the documents reflects the complexity of the nature of the company, the effectiveness/efficiency of the management, the network/relationships that the company's in (community contributions), ratio of the weight of documents with the transformative potentials, maybe good for tax purposes as well, if differenciated between positive/negative (relative to p/l) could be another confirmation for the accuracy of the whole accounting, what else?.

----------------------------------

In terms of transformative potentials you would want to classify the dimension of time. Sometimes it seems that a transaction brought you to a higher potential, but actually only for a short while. I mean you could tell just from the news, given ceteris paribus, the magnitude of one's potential at different points in time. 

So in the statement of transformative potentials you could arrange for the dimension of time as well. Definitely a tool to measure sustainability, but personally I like a targeted purpose for assets instead of going concern. But that's for another context.