The cure to poverty self-sustainable universal basic income using Dash, for reference

r-ando

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 22, 2014
411
250
233
Canada
Hi everyone,

I tried to implement this earlier but was hindered with health problems. I just wanted this to be out there for reference and for anyone who likes the idea or wants to have fun with his or her Dash. Cheers,


Raphael
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: demo

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Welcome to the universal basic income community! I am also a proponent of the basic income. There are a lot of ideas in this field.

IMHO the universal basic income cryptocurrency should be designed from scratch, and should be initiated by a political party.

The nowdays cryptocurrencies gave all the money to certain generations (bitcoin = generation2010, dash = generation2014) and thus they are not suitable to become the pure uninersal basic income coin of the future. A cryptocurrency strongly related to the basic income idea is duniter. And of course, what @amanda_b_johnson did, was also close to the basic income idea.

I believe that the universal basic income cryptocoin will be the dominant coin of the future. Whatever contemporary cryptocoin will manage to catch the universal dividend "train" will become the dominant cryptocoin for many years, and until the new pure basic income cryptocurrency appears (as a result of a political decision).

In order to implement whatever universal dividend, a proof of individuality is needed. Here is my proposition for an implementation of a proof of individuality. I propose we use empty crypto wallets and put them into physical ballot boxes.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: r-ando

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
928
547
163
I couldn't really follow the maths but as far as I could understand the income creation is from coin generation and coins aren't destroyed anywhere in the process. If that's right then it would devalue quickly, ex. say everyone on the planet gets a basic income of $10 a day, that's $70 billion created every day or $25.5 trillion a year... rapid devaluation and so generation would have to increase proportionally making things even worse.

Basic income is a fine idea, maybe even an essential one as production becomes more efficient and requires less labour but it can't be magicked from thin air, there has to be a balance of supply and demand just like any other stable economy. Not that destruction of coins is essential, they can come in from... somewhere and be re-distributed as basic income but there has to be both an in and an out.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I couldn't really follow the maths but as far as I could understand the income creation is from coin generation and coins aren't destroyed anywhere in the process. If that's right then it would devalue quickly, ex. say everyone on the planet gets a basic income of $10 a day, that's $70 billion created every day or $25.5 trillion a year... rapid devaluation and so generation would have to increase proportionally making things even worse.

Basic income is a fine idea, maybe even an essential one as production becomes more efficient and requires less labour but it can't be magicked from thin air, there has to be a balance of supply and demand just like any other stable economy. Not that destruction of coins is essential, they can come in from... somewhere and be re-distributed as basic income but there has to be both an in and an out.

An alternative to the basic income fiat money can be the mutual credit idea.
 
Last edited:

r-ando

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 22, 2014
411
250
233
Canada
Its actually sustainable if you follow the math stan. So basically the key is in the variable factors which allow to compensate for inflation (devaluation) or deflation of the currency. What I'm proposing is that you actually can create universal basic income out of nowhere as you say with cryptocurrency. It just needs to run on a sustainable equation of coin creation obviously but also of coin distribution. So its basically just like adding a layer to the coin distribution system.
 

r-ando

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 22, 2014
411
250
233
Canada
I also agree demo that the universal income coins will have a very important place in the future.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
928
547
163
And that's the simple version!?! ;) I still don't see how it prevents supply exploding, I don't see W defined, is it something to do with that? I get the impression it only works one way too, ever increasing population and that's not exactly viable, not until population growth is independent from oil production at least. Can you annotate each step of the equations? I'd gone through this quite a bit before and it always needed a loop, supply both in and out but I'd gladly be proved wrong :)
 

djcrypto

Member
May 27, 2014
180
94
88
How is this different than the fiat debt-based system?
I agree that it could be the next logical step for nation states to control their populations but I don't see it as helping the economy or freedom in any way.
 

moonknight

New Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jan 12, 2017
21
7
3
Brazil
While I am not discussing the math here (I had trouble following the variables in the video), I can tell that, conceptually, universal basic income would never work, at least the "universal" (as in worldwide) part. In order for wealth to be distributed it must first be created. And cryptocoins or whatever types of coins or money are not wealth, they are simply representation of wealth. Wealth itself is what people actually need or use, like food, goods, services, etc. If you create a coin that has universal distribution, something must be traded for them in order for it to have value.

Say you give $1000 monthly to everyone in the world; for those $1000 not to lose value, at least $1000 worth of wealth has to be created monthly for every individual on earth. Otherwise, everything will just end up being more expensive monthly in order to account for those $1000 per person, i.e., inflation. So the problem is not coin creation or distribution, is the creation of wealth itself. If half the people do no work (i.e.: generate no value to society) and get $1000, that means that the other half of the people who do work will need to "produce" $2000 worth and still get only $1000. If they want to get $2000 they would need to create $3000 worth of wealth. Would you like to do $3000 worth of work and only get $2000? Automation increases productivity (that's why a lot more wealth is created per capita today than in the past), but unless you automate every single thing on earth (production, maintenance, development), it will not solve things.

The only reason BTC or Dash do not lose value daily is because the rate people enter the market (i.e.: trade something for crypto) is at least equal to the amount of crypto that is created. And even then the distribution is based on proof-of-work. That would fall apart on a coin that every single one gets "for free" daily. The amount that is generated daily would basically be worth nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
The best solution to poverty is stop following rules that screw you, and stop sitting around doing nothing and/or being an idiot.

I was homeless 5 years ago.

Now I'm shopping SolarWave Yachts.

Had nothing to do with masternodes.

Giving money to idiots doesn't help. They squander it and are back to living in shit a week later, accusing you of "oppressing" them, and demanding double the free stuff you gave them before...

Losers gonna lose.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
928
547
163
Sure, losers gonna lose, the economy would probably grind to a halt if they didn't but it's been a long time since honest work was justly rewarded and even if it did there's not enough honest work to go around. These days everything we need to live could be produced automatically, food, heat and shelter without a single minute of human labor, we're not in that situation yet but it's in the foreseeable future. So how does that work, how do we decide who gets what when we can't base it on employment? Make up some new BS jobs that produce nothing and pile on endless red tape so everyone's kept busy making up for the inefficiencies of everyone else?

That's what we've been doing so far, we can point all the fingers we want at the scroungers living off social security but scroungers are the majority these days and they're living everywhere from 2 room tenements to Mayfair, the productive are the minority and the march of technology threatens to replace them entirely.

The answer's to providing a basic income for all is obvious, so obvious that post-industrial history is littered with attempts at it... and their bloody endings. If it doesn't seem so obvious then look up what "Luddite" really means. But what if they'd worked? What if we where all living easy lives in the lap of luxury? This post's getting long so here's the short version, population would explode, resources would be depleted and billions would die from starvation before the century is over. That's the real problem, we live in a world of plenty and dividing it all up so we get a reasonably fair share isn't difficult, the difficult part is what happens after.
 

r-ando

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 22, 2014
411
250
233
Canada
And that's the simple version!?! ;) I still don't see how it prevents supply exploding, I don't see W defined, is it something to do with that? I get the impression it only works one way too, ever increasing population and that's not exactly viable, not until population growth is independent from oil production at least. Can you annotate each step of the equations? I'd gone through this quite a bit before and it always needed a loop, supply both in and out but I'd gladly be proved wrong :)
I know its pretty complex. Thanks for spotting the omission of explanation of the value W. That was actually a typing mistake it should be R. Sorry about that, I'll try to annotate it for you shortly. Your definitely right about the loop, I'll try to explain it more clearly but it basically happens at the end where the Z nodes also come around and fund the creation of Y nodes coming full circle (looping it).
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
While I am not discussing the math here (I had trouble following the variables in the video), I can tell that, conceptually, universal basic income would never work, at least the "universal" (as in worldwide) part. In order for wealth to be distributed it must first be created. And cryptocoins or whatever types of coins or money are not wealth, they are simply representation of wealth. Wealth itself is what people actually need or use, like food, goods, services, etc. If you create a coin that has universal distribution, something must be traded for them in order for it to have value.

Say you give $1000 monthly to everyone in the world; for those $1000 not to lose value, at least $1000 worth of wealth has to be created monthly for every individual on earth. Otherwise, everything will just end up being more expensive monthly in order to account for those $1000 per person, i.e., inflation. So the problem is not coin creation or distribution, is the creation of wealth itself. If half the people do no work (i.e.: generate no value to society) and get $1000, that means that the other half of the people who do work will need to "produce" $2000 worth and still get only $1000. If they want to get $2000 they would need to create $3000 worth of wealth. Would you like to do $3000 worth of work and only get $2000? Automation increases productivity (that's why a lot more wealth is created per capita today than in the past), but unless you automate every single thing on earth (production, maintenance, development), it will not solve things.
Wealth is accumulated through generations. So you may not need to work more when paying the universal dividend of people who do not work. You may just spend the previous generations's wealth. Especially, don't feel guilty when spending wealth from the greedy previous generations and from their descendants/heirs. They deserve that, in case their wealth was created in an unfair way.

But in case some people are lazy and deliberately spend and consume without working and without respecting those who created fair wealth , then an alternative to the basic income fiat money can be the mutual credit idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: r-ando

Dandy

Member
Mar 1, 2017
276
99
88
46
Belgrade, Serbia
What about the current debt based system then, where we spend the wealth of future generations? Is that ok, too?

No, this is a really bad idea and until we have some kind of almost infinite energy to draw upon, it's not going to be viable and can only end in disaster.
 

r-ando

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 22, 2014
411
250
233
Canada
I think it might make it harder to understand with the equation. So here is a breakdown of the concept somewhat simplified from the equation, with less variables for growth direction.

I'm going to average a lot of things out at 10% to make it easier to understand. Lets say the payout per year of a masternode is set at 10% for the benefit of the explanation. I'm also going to imput numbers for the number of y, x and z nodes at the start.

# of Y nodes at start: 657
# of X nodes at start: 657
# of Z nodes at start: 657
People born in a year: 131,400,000
Units created from each type of node in a year at start at 10% payout (1 million units in a full coin): 65,700,000,000
Average of units assigned at birth to each person (from Y nodes) : 50

Now lets say 10% of what is created by the Y nodes goes back to creating more Y nodes and the rest goes to creating X nodes.
So for the year there would be 6.57 more Y nodes and 59.13 more X nodes.

Already we know that keeping the node payment stable in relation to the growth or decline in population, new people (new members) will have more than 50 units assigned the next year by the Y nodes. Now in the equation what I did is increase the Y node generation further by also putting back in a percentage of what is generated by X nodes. Not really necessary, it is a variable as described so lets leave it at 0 for now but it makes for interesting growth control interaction.

We also know that the profits generated by the X nodes will increase and this is where we pay the universal basic income from. The Y nodes simply represent their share ownership in the Universal Basic Income system, the X nodes is where it increases in value to support the payments for the Universal Basic Income.

Profits from Z nodes are to pay for all the costs of society(ideally, but fundamentally the only two first categories are necessary strictly for the Universal Basic Income). Now the really cool part that makes it work really well is the delay. In the equation i put it at every 5 years payments. The idea here is that you just need enough time in between payments to make it sustainable (this also determines the amount of the payments).

Let me know if that helps to understand it a bit, the equation is more complicated that just explaining it through words I find.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
928
547
163
I think it might make it harder to understand with the equation. So here is a breakdown of the concept somewhat simplified from the equation, with less variables for growth direction.

I'm going to average a lot of things out at 10% to make it easier to understand. Lets say the payout per year of a masternode is set at 10% for the benefit of the explanation. I'm also going to imput numbers for the number of y, x and z nodes at the start.

# of Y nodes at start: 657
# of X nodes at start: 657
# of Z nodes at start: 657
People born in a year: 131,400,000
Units created from each type of node in a year at start at 10% payout (1 million units in a full coin): 65,700,000,000
Average of units assigned at birth to each person (from Y nodes) : 50

Now lets say 10% of what is created by the Y nodes goes back to creating more Y nodes and the rest goes to creating X nodes.
So for the year there would be 6.57 more Y nodes and 59.13 more X nodes.

Already we know that keeping the node payment stable in relation to the growth or decline in population, new people (new members) will have more than 50 units assigned the next year by the Y nodes. Now in the equation what I did is increase the Y node generation further by also putting back in a percentage of what is generated by X nodes. Not really necessary, it is a variable as described so lets leave it at 0 for now but it makes for interesting growth control interaction.

We also know that the profits generated by the X nodes will increase and this is where we pay the universal basic income from. The Y nodes simply represent their share ownership in the Universal Basic Income system, the X nodes is where it increases in value to support the payments for the Universal Basic Income.

Profits from Z nodes are to pay for all the costs of society(ideally, but fundamentally the only two first categories are necessary strictly for the Universal Basic Income). Now the really cool part that makes it work really well is the delay. In the equation i put it at every 5 years payments. The idea here is that you just need enough time in between payments to make it sustainable (this also determines the amount of the payments).

Let me know if that helps to understand it a bit, the equation is more complicated that just explaining it through words I find.
Sorry, got sidetracked. Ok, I think I get it now, it would be a modification to the distribution of an already established network? I was trying to picture it as something self-sustaining. I don't doubt it would be possible but I'm not sure any coin would implement it.
Long term view it could be a huge boost to adoption and could create a lot of real markets, from a speculators point of view it would flood the exchanges (especially if those 5 years intervals weren't staggered!) but one thing it would certainly cause is an awful lot of arguments! It could probably work with isolated application though, masternodes donated to self-sustainable communities or something along those lines.