1) I didn’t invent the term, nor am i asserting that it is the appropriate term to define Nostr, nor am I claiming a BCE is necessarily even desirable.

2) The thread was kicked off on your claim that Nostr was not a “circular economy” supported by your evidence that you hadn’t received as much BTC as you had sent. However,

3) A Bitcoin circular economy does not depend on every member of the BCE receiving back an equal amount of BCE as they sent. In any economy, individuals will have trade imbalances between each other. This isn’t a problem. You have a trade imbalance with every store you use in any currency. Your employer has a trade imbalance with you. Presumably your purchases and sales are done voluntarily. So you presumably are getting something of equal or more value in your btc transaction, otherwise why would you zap what you are zapping, especially in light of the fact that 99% of the things you can zap in Nostr are “pay whatever you want / tips”. So tracking where the BTC went, is not tracking where the “value” went. So it’s actually a pointless metric. The person selling seeds over Nostr values the btc more than the seeds they are selling. The person buying seeds on Nostr values the seeds more than btc they are trading. Tracking only where the BTC goes misses the other half of the transaction.

4) A BCE does not promise equal income distribution or anything else. The relevant meaning of “circular” in the BCE context is if people use BTC as their form of currency for goods and services within a community, then the BTC received “must” be spent back in the community because there isn’t anywhere else to spend the BTC.

So is Nostr a “circular economy” my hunch would be no, not yet, but not because of the reasons you sight, but because people are not doing enough services through it for anyone to be able to spend their sats on things exclusively on Nostr to trade back the trade imbalances.