Amazing topic @Classborn! Thank you!
You could look at this as a reference to direct democracy. It points to an important issue in this topic - distinguishing the state from the people.
Here we’re talking about identity verification. Biometrics pretty much solve that imo.
I’m not sure how open people here will be to using it, but I find UBI to be a very special case, and more than a worthwhile exception.
Such mechanisms could serve to prevent duplication, with a unified user registry for all platforms, which the platforms could access through some (confidential or public) UBI API.
I’m not sure we do.
Universal in this case could mean “Universal to members of the platform”. Then our problem is reduced to financing each new member of the token.
IMO UBI Platforms Should Be -
- Trustless, Immutable, usual BC candy…
- Voluntary. - easy
- Identity Based (Only for the purposes of receiving and contributing to UBI). - peasy
- Protected from Exploitation (Perhaps this would be solved through other systems) -
Identity verification is not enough. If everybody in the world were eligible for $1/day, then nothing remotely close to everybody would get it, you savvy? See India’s Beggar Mafias as one example. UBI will also need to prevent identity theft mechanisms.
This depends on the token’s adopters and would require both targeted and high level solutions.
I would think principles would include things like “Proof of Spend Purpose”, “On premises Biometric verification for UBI spending”, and other limitations on how/where/when UBI can be spent. This may sound invasive, but if focused purely on preventing fraud I believe wouldn’t have to be.
- Sustainable <= Nut to crack
I believe this part would integrally have to come from the communities of the token, and I do mean the plural.
Some communities would choose to share their resources (=Taxation, which could be uniform, targeted, income/productivity based etc.). Some could decide a small group would finance the income of the entire community. Others may have external sources of income to rely on (cooperatives, natural resources, farms etc.). Whatever works for each.
The UBI would have to somehow validate that funds are allocated in proportion to growth, while the Communities would have to have sets of rules that ensure their sustainability in order to register on the UBI registry. Oppositely, communities who prove unsustainable, could have their growth suspended, or the community’s paradigm rejected from the chain.
This way each community can use whatever solution they agree on, with the only thing shared being the UBI mechanism itself (definitions, amount, maybe some basic oversight of the income’s sources).
- More things for sure
.
So, that’s what I got.
With such a system you can rely on people’s ability to innovate (limitless supply) as your source of growth, and hold off until the state comes to you. Users subscribe voluntarily, and grow the solution on their own terms. So, Why not? 
In any case, I believe it’s very early for wide adoption of something like this.
But hey, early bird get’s the worm! 
