Yes everyone gets it, that’s one of the main selling points of the idea: it’s so much cheaper to administer than schemes where potential recipients have to be assessed to qualify.
1 Like
But where will the money for such schema come from? Fees? Inflation?
Don’t ask me, I’m not the proposer! 
Well, that is the whole point of the argument. If there is an UBI and it is truly universal, then everybody gets the same amount (if not, how is it being fair?).
But obviously, it’s gonna cost something to implement such concept and I just don’t understand how to implement it without sacrificing fairness.
Minting new coins and using them for UBI? Congratulations, you just introduced inflation and and made everybody poorer at the same time (some more, some less).
Using money from fees? So those with more money and performing more transactions will be supporting the rest? That doesn’t sound fair at all.
The point is, if it is meant to be 100% fair, it’s gonna be useless since when everybody gets the same amount, it means that everybody needs to fund this scheme with same amount which is meaningless. And if it just another form of money redistribution, it sounds like different form of socialism.
1 Like
Duniter woks on Raspberry Pi. It is based on a web of trust ( since every account produce his part of money daily, we have to be sure it is own by a real person who have only one account )
You have some good questions. But you’re replying to me, and it’s not me who is arguing for this. As I already said.
I have an open mind towards UBI generally. (I’m not American so I don’t think anything socialistic is necessarily bad.) But I think the idea of doing it via Cardano or any other crypto is kinda crazy. If it’s to be universal it has to be governmental and using fiat, for the foreseeable future.
1 Like
UBI on Cardano is not “fairness” or “charity” its about empowering people. Universal already implies this is for Everyone.
UBI on Cardano should be
1.- Decentralized (ha, marketing here).
2.- Open Source dApp.
3.- Freedom to enable it or not (more marketing).
5.- Unique for its participants (that’s the hard part, imagine a user with cloned accounts 
)
6.- Universal (For Everyone, this is ultimate marketing right there).
Oh, yes , the FUNDS , that’s the tricky part, at this moment only an Angel Investor or a Charitable Entity could do this, and I’m against this, that’s why in an early comment I said this is too early for UBI on Cardano.
I have and idea of a Self Governance Funding, and that is with a conglomerate of stake pools or like a stake pool hub that yield higher rewards making UBI funding possible , and yes, this is about stake pools participating willingly. I guess this is not for today XD.
I see fair points on why this wouldn’t work, like governments not liking some “community” or a private sector delivering UBI and the way UBI could go about on hyperinflation.
Cheers.
Thanks franco, now I see my ERROR. UBI on Cardano will not be unique, this is key, because if UBI can be implemented on Cardano, it can be implemented on Ethereum or any cryptocurrency with dApps.
So, any person could have as many UBI as it could get.
UBI must be unique.
Start mini UBI with your own money instead of delegating others, if it works, I am sure more will join. Africa would be good place to start.
4 Likes
Too early for that (When Shelley? XD ). After Shelley your closest option will be staking your ADA.
I think UBI will be the only solution feasible once the realization of job loss after automation and AI implementation, which is currently underway. It is fascinating at least in the USA, the ‘unemployment rate’ is based off people actually collecting unemployment, when, for years, politicians have worked to make it harder and restrict access to filing unemployment. This all means that the actual unemployment number is potentially much higher, by double or more, than is spoken about by media and political world.
See usdebtclock.org for all the numbers
3 Likes
It seems we are headed to job loss by AI, for example there’s no need to go to the bank, everything is done with the mobile app, so bank owners can close more branch offices and cut “operation costs”. For the moment I see a technical issue with UBI on Cardano or any cryptocurrency for that matter, and that is a Unique Validator for UBI participants. How do we know an UBI participant is unique? for that we need its deterministic data like country, name, date of birth, address, social number or a key that makes that person unique and such data must be validated, sorry guys but we need a “state-dependent” service for that, so no user of UBI can create more accounts to get more income that it should.
That Unique Validator service must avoid repeated account creation, also must tell if the participant is an adult, if that person is still alive and so on …
1 Like
I could not disagree with you more mate @anon20038177 (except for the part about UBI being untested on these scales).
The idea that people are just lazy, and would not work given UBI, is actually really lazy itself. Reality and human nature are much more complex and subtle than that.
It’s just so American, or Americanized if you will, to think Capitalism is what makes people get out of bed in the morning. Imho, I believe it is the lack of UBI that’s stopping humanity from becoming sane and ethical. To me that’s what’s keeping the world crazy today.
We don’t have to fight each each other, and constantly compete ferociously, just to get a bit of food and shelter, which is what we are doing right now. The relativistic nature of value means that, in the current system, the price of basic necessities, (which should be near 0 in the 21st century) is bloated by those privileged to have (much much) bigger appetites. Basically slavery.
I’ll stop there.
I recommend this book tremendously (haven’t finished it yet 
), to change your mind.
Difficult philosophical topic, but I guess winning over hearts and minds is why we’re here.
Luckily for us, there’s little in this world more satisfying than a discussion with someone who is simply willing to listen 
.
8 Likes
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! 
1 Like
The entity or person behind UBI must not seek ROI or any “early bird” concept whatsoever.
There’s a reason behind everything and UBI is not about helping it’s about control, not everyone is able to help themselves for an infinite number of reasons, not just what is perceived to be laziness, but this is only one aspect and its a very tangled mess, this is part of the design in order to confuse and detract from the real issue that under pins such schemes.
1 Like
Very interesting discussion. Thank you for tagging me, @rin9s.
I see a fundamental disagreement here. We have:
A) the assertion that in order to provide value on a universal basis (even if “universal” applies to just the boundaries of a single community), the value must come from somewhere. In a vacuum, the value can only come from within, effectively only pooling of resources and then redistribution can achieve this.
vs. B) the assertion that value distribution is not a zero-sum game. Value grows and expands, and the value-to-participant ratio can improve favorably over time, even in a vacuum. One example of this is when society produces technology, the technology amplifies the power of human work in general so that human work is worth more value. So out of the creation of that new value, we should distribute some to every member of the society.
Am I summarizing the differing viewpoints correctly?
Rin9s, please point it out if I am being too binary in my thinking.
2 Likes
Feel free to share your opinions and insight unencumbered @x3haloed.
If I see anything that disagrees with me, I will probably let you know all by myself 
.
Your analysis is comprehensive, and mutually exclusive in this case, so can’t argue on form.
The question we should be asking ourselves is why the hell we haven’t started a long time ago?
Technology has exploded in the last 500 years, and has literally went atomic in the last 100 (give or take ).
Why the hell are we still labouring so pointlessly hard? Why does minimum wage mean 160 work hours of man, every single month? (and that’s in developed nations!) When this person could plow a field, or publish a book (just the publishing part), or fly someone 500 km, given the right technology, in a single hour.
I would argue there is no reason at all, but for our collective greed.
If our population has increased x20, and our consumption has increased x1000 since 1500 AD, that gives x20K change in resources required. And I could entertain the notion that our technology has increased productivity by a factor of millions since then.
Right now, I’ve just given a speech that is, and will remain, instantly accessible to billions on demand (and may influence a certain portion of them 
) with the same effort required to give it at the village square. Ye, I know.
So maybe, just maybe, our shared notion of value, which drives our economy, is totally **** up.
Cryptocurrencies are a step closer to UBI. For example in the early days of Bitcoin anyone could participate by mining with a personal computer, someone could put a machine to work for them and on ADA you put your investment to work for you (staking) also you get paid by using a Browser (Brave) and so on.
The idea is there …
2 Likes