Bitcoin Forum

Everyday, with the advancements in AI, Robotics, Blockchain, etc. an automated future is being created.
If we think about it, and as an example, doctors (machines) will be able to process all of the medical cases in the world and diagnose based on that; being much better than a Human doctor whose experience is limited.
With this happening across every industry, it's not that some jobs will be lost, all of the jobs will be lost.

This takes us to a new paradigm:
If only tech companies make money (They have the technology), and they have no/very few employees, capital concentration would be massive.

Do you think it would be possible, that with Blockchain and Crypto, we could solve that problem by redirecting part of the profits of private entities/companies to the people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, rather than these companies paying tax to the government and then the government redistributing?

Do you think that a company, capable of earning US$ Millions with few or almost no employees, should/could give back part of what they earn to create social good and social help?

In the past and present, some governments took/take this money from the companies/people to redistribute it and gain political strength, known as socialism.

But if actually, companies in the future did it by themselves, becoming Social Benefit Companies, with them deciding who or what they want to help with (Or even giving the power of choice to their clients), where using their products would also mean helping other people, would that actually create a whole different mindset and ethic code from a corporate point of view?

What would happen if every automated business across the world donated/redirected part of their profits to help the rest of the population and to help create positive change in societies and the environment?

What would you say?

No, if I own a business it's not to give the money back to someone that gives me nothing.
On the other side, a company earning millions of USD should pay the proper taxes to the country and stop making any kind of scheme possible to avoid paying the taxes. Like Google, Amazon and so on are doing.

So in other words, it means to give the political power to companies to decide for us.


What about recording every Govt.'s transactions in a blockchain where everybody can see where our money goes and how it's used?

Maybe the way we look at what gives you something or not should be changed. Donating money or estimulating purpose based endeavours (call it Social/Environmental Impact businesses, NGOs, etc.), just like one of the biggest brands in the world, Patagonia, also adds lots of value towards the company. Clean and sustainable companies are gaining more value everyday!

Let's say we don't look at the tax benefits, but we keep it 100% purpose driven, aiming towards an automated future where people will need to help other people; jobs will be very scarce.


And, if instead of companies deciding, we let the people decide where these companies should redirect the funds to, in an open, decentralized way, with the implementation of an ethical protocol?

What if clients/users chose where their providing/service companies should direct these part of the funds destined to positive change, giving the people the power of how the money should be used?

The problem with governments is that with liquid democracies being possible again (last time was in the greek cities, when citizens; voters; were very few and they could all get together and vote), why not allowing people to take part in the decision?

A more blockchain based economy would increase the level of automation,which means less workforce required,but I'm not sure that it will help for a fair redistribution of wealth.The current tech corporations have little amount of employees,but they have lots of other costs and they invest a lot in startups.
There's no easy answer for your question.

This is the point of view of the normality. a country needs a ruling organization and needs a set of laws to better manage a country.
Our world should not have such ambiguous rules. I understand that volunteering will make people more comfortable and less pressured, but will it come to a good goal?
The answer is never. a good country when and only when there is a righteous government. We need to contribute taxes to build the country and only 1 person can make decisions.
a country that is too free will cause people to rebel in different negative directions. ;)

I think this has already happened. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have already changed traditional economy models, not in large extent and not officialy but there is certainly some influence. Positive regulation would intiate further changes but it's hard to expect that on a global scale.
To my opinion economy based on.a blockchain technology is future but changes are happening very slowly and businesses are still reluctant to implement it.

Crypto has a lot of room to grow, but I believe government currency will remain dominant.  There is just too much volatility in bitcoin to be widely used right now.  Also, people like the safety that banks and credit cards provide.  If your crypto gets stolen you have virtually zero chance to recover it.

So, let's say that businesses and private entities start to compete on intrinsic value propositions and not superficial/material value.

Let's say that there is an crypto exchange (Complies with the characteristics of a company that can earn millions of dollars with very few employees), with the same engine and quality than the rest of the available ones, that donates 20% (For the example) of profits where the same clients choose where these funds should be redirected to (They choose the donation destiny). Would you, as a user, prefer to use that platform where it provides a purpose/ethical based value proposition towards the future?

Another example...

Let's say a Mining Company, that can earn thousand and millions of dollars with less than 10 employees, donates a 20% (Again, for the example) of their profits to social and environmental impact initiatives. As an investor, would you want to invest in it? Maybe, you have less profits, but you have a clean company that starts to become important to the areas/regions they impact.

Last example...
With the digital banking era, banks can also scale 100x on clients while scaling 10x in employees. Let's say that this bank started to donate part of their profits to bancarize unbanked people, to help refugees, to donate towards social and environmental impact. Would you, as a customer, prefer to use a bank of that style or would like traditional service? (Being that the experience would be similar/the same to other digital banks)

It's interesting to understand the view of users towards their companies.

A future where more human/environmental value in the products is desired, but is it essential? Does it make the difference for clients? Do clients really want to use products/services that are helping to change the world by donating where their clients choose and paying taxes, or they don't really matter and prefer to use normal services that try to keep as much as profit and their only contribution is paying taxes?


Banks would need to start providing crypto services. Or crypto companies would need to provide banking services, right?

This has been a topic of discussion ever since automation became more and more common. Right now making a car requires so much less people than it did 100 years ago when everything was personally handled. Even when ford discovered the assembly line it was still required to run by people but now look at any tesla car making video and you can see most of it is built by robots and not people and even with 100 people you can build a car manufacturing ground that builds thousands of tesla every month.

Has that changed anything in our society? Yes it managed to make some people very rich while others very poor and people stopped working on those factories (or outsourced to cheaper places). Unfortunately when few get rich and many stays poor the system is inclined to keep it that way instead of sharing that wealth over all to all humanity.

This is not only true, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

Do you think that redistribution/donation/sharing of profits from private companies could be a solution? Would you support companies that do this (Keeping in mind that their products are good, same quality as existing ones)?

From your text, one could understand that sharing is necessary, why do you think this (Would love to go deeper)?

Okay, first of all, doctors are not among those expected to lose their jobs to robots in the near future, because people feel the need to bond with them and to feel that someone cares about them in these hard times. Diagnostics might indeed be automated for good, but not operations and stuff, both because of the need of high precision, big responsibility and care.
As for redistribution of money, I am not sure how cryptos can really help with that. Perhaps, they could lead to some more transperency on the flow of money, but not more than that. Unless we employ smart contracts, of course, to force companies share their revenue.

It may be true for things like personality disorders and other mental illnesses

Where human interaction and discourse actually make a lot of sense. But in other cases like surgery where accuracy and precision are everything, humans will lose to robots eventually, if not already. For example, if you know that success rates are higher for a robotic surgeon, who (or what) you will personally choose? And it is the same with everything else

On the other hand, robots are meaningless without humans consuming what they make or produce, so there are limits on automation of everything

How is crypto supposed to change anything? Are you talking about a blockchain-based UBI or something?


I'd rather they didn't because they'd just be perpetuating the current screwed up system of systemic maldistribution and corporate pillaging of entire peoples.

Smart corporations have very deep budgets for "corporate responsibility" because PR is everything. It's all just to keep people pacified and stupid, not to make a better world.


What positive changes? How would they ensure that society actually benefits, and how could we hold them accountable? Today, corporate scandals are routinely swept under the rug. What makes this new system any different?

And that's the crux of the matter

No one is going to make it a better world as it is only you who can make it a better place for yourself. And when you start to think about it, you wouldn't really expect corporations (or even governments) to do anything toward that goal as it is not their real goal at all. The total majority of people are looking for ways to make their lives better (even if they know that their actions may hurt others), not someone else's, and it doesn't matter where they hide, under a corporate desk or in a government office

And while with corporations it seems natural (as they don't promise you anything to that effect), governments are often worse than corporations because people behind them all are pursuing essentially the same goals (like making the world a better place for them personally), while corporations are more "honest" about their true intentions

100% agreed that some jobs require human "connection", but most of them will not, the point is, automation will remove 1000x times the jobs it will create, leaving people a lot of free time, but if these companies are private, creating capital concentration!

Smart Contracts and Open Protocols can really help in the transparent, automated and decentralized sharing of the profits from private entities. For example, in the case of Good Money, the new bank that donates 50% of their profits into positive change, whats your view on them?


Well, that could be one of the solutions. At Lucus Foundation, designs on open protocols that companies can implement for an autonomous redistribution of funds are being developed. Would you, as a client, prefer a company that has this philosophy (like Patagonia) rather than a profit only company?


What if instead of the companies deciding where the funds should be destined, it was the clients who decided the destiny of that money?
Eg: On a cryptoexchange, you choose what cause/ONG/Foundation/Social Benefit Corporation to support, meaning that a supposed open protocol would destine the profits the exchange makes from you to the cause that you chose?

As said above. What if the community/users had the ability to choose. Would that really help to solve the matter?

From what is read here, one could interprete that a potential solution would be giving that power of choice to the people, is that right?

The problem is the centralization aspect. Charities and nonprofits generally swallow up so much in funds and very little trickles down to the communities that need them. If you could somehow decentralize the process such that these middlemen were cut out and the process totally localized, maybe you'd be onto something.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain would revolutionize a lot of existing processes, but would not totally redefine the current economic model. For sure there will be processes that will change, but will create new jobs for the manpower. So, the economic model somehow will still be the same. Minor changes for some.

People were saying the same about the previous technological revolutions, and they were wrong, because new jobs have emerged. And if companies would generally have less employees, it would mean that their products would cost less, so the general standard of living will increase, because now you'll have to spend less money. There's no need to change the current economic model, aka capitalism. And socialism can do a lot of harm to wealth creation, the last century has proven that under it everyone becomes poor.

With change in technology the jobs we see today might not be there in the future, historically we know that the past jobs wont be there for the future and with the rapid change in technology, it is certain that the job market will suffer in the long run and with advancement in technology only a small percent of human labor is necessary for any company , but the important thing is that people will change according to the technological changes.


If the corporates around the world could think like this, then we could irradicate poverty from the world and good medicine and good facility for everyone, but that is not how the world works. :P

No, that won't be a solution

If we skip all the bullshit we are being told, the power of choice is not something which is granted. Really, why would anyone want to willingly give away power? But this is what giving the power of choice basically means. If you have real choice that means you have control over your actions (you can choose how to act and react) and that in turn means someone else doesn't have control over you. Simple, isn't it?

Simply put, the power of real choice can only be taken (by force, wit, cunning, or whatever) but that necessarily assumes there is a will to have that choice. So unless and until the people you refer to actually have that will and take steps to enforce it, nothing is going to change for reasons explained in my post above

This is very true. Maybe paying organizations' vendors to only pay for what they will use in different projects.



Socialism is definitely not a solution... But is purpose based capitalism?

Some people call it Profit for Purpose, or Purpose Based Capitalism. A future where companies seek for profit, but for social and environmental positive change/impact.
Whats your feeling towards a normal cryptocurrency exchange vs one that donates 1/3 of profits to fund social/environmental businesses or NGOs?

Or it can be given...
A question for you...
Let's say that Binance said, from now on, when you login, you will choose what cause to support.
After that, from every trade you make, we'll donate 1/3 of the fee we charge you to that cause in a decentralized and transparent way.

1) Is that in any way helping solve the matter (Giving people power of choice of where to help)
2) Would that value proposition make you choose Binance in that case, or any exchange that does applies this, over current/existing exchanges?

With the above example, take it to any industry... Construction, support, fintechs, agtechs, etc.etc.

What's the purpose of choice if no one is actually interested in having it?


I think you are distorting the meaning of terms and notions here. Basically, you are using the notion of having choice in the context which is different from what you and I had been using before. In other words, this is not the choice from my previous post. If anything, this choice has more to do with the will to have a choice, i.e. when you are choosing Binance over other exchanges, you are exerting that will (it is a way or means to exert it), but that act alone won't give you the choice in the sense I used in my post (e.g. what government to have). But the money thus collected could indeed help take and have this choice

I should have definitely added dough to the list

Interesting. Well, that's one of the things that would be great to validate.

Would people like the power to decide where companies destined their donations? It would mean that the clients are donating in an indirect way with a direct decision on where the funds are destined.


Again, interesting @Deisik . Thanks for the answer.
Sorry that it may have been distorted.

Following this track now, you, as a customer. If you had to decide between a crypto exchange that redirects profits to a cause of your choice, and a normal crypto exchange, would that be perceived as a added intrinsic value? How would you feel about the possibility of indirectly/directly helping/supporting others? Why?

Thanks a lot for your comments

I think there's not much to validate as choice makes sense only when it is being consummated, so to speak. Otherwise, it is not a choice


I don't quite understand your question

What do you mean by an added intrinsic value here? What does intrinsic have to do with all that? And added to the value of what exactly? If you mean choosing the right exchange, then yes, I would definitely use the one which I think promotes the things which I value high, even without redirecting profits to a cause of my choice (all other things being equal, obviously)

Regarding helping others, there is a very good adage which says that charity begins at home. In other words, you don't know how your help is going to play out in the long (or in the wrong) run. But then again, provided all other things being the same, I would definitely choose helping others over avoiding helping them. That's a natural thing to do, to help others if you can (especially if it helps promote your cause)

Very true.


Thank you for the reply @deisik . That's our view on intrinsic value, a value that can't be bought, that no material/superficial feature/perk will ever give you.
We refer to intrinsic value as what you just described. The value/feature that allows you to help/support your causes, which really is something more personal, more human, it's just feeling happy of helping.

Thank you again for your answers. It's inspiring and we believe it's something that needs to be done; to provide the ability for everyone to directly (by choice) and indirectly (by indirect donation) help and support their causes when using any kind of product.

Just in January, there was a estimated traded volume of 1.200.000.000 BTC, which in trading fees is US$ 6.300.000.000.
33% of that is US$ 2.079.000.000.
If all of that money went to good causes, incredible change could be made.

The industry needs to move forward into this direction, blockchain and crypto could mean not only the feature of money and transparence in general, but could also be the feature of good.

The power is already given to the "people", these rich folks are not machines, they are people too. If you give the option to wider audience than the small ones than that could be a solution however people hate that because it means they will all live a mediocre life and just survive instead of one day becoming like their idols who are super rich. That is what has been the issue of communism vs capitalism from the beginning.

If you run a capitalist country like USA and then postpone debts and steal from others and just shut an eye on the fact that even hospitals are stealing from people then you can live in a world where someone could become a super billionaire at any given time.

However, if you live in a country like Sweden for example you will all live in a very cool life, no one is too poor, you can still be an IKEA but its harder and wouldn't make as much compared to what you could if you were in USA and still live in a healthy fine life. Same applies to technological improvements, countries like USA will use it to improve the rich and not worry about the poor whereas some countries will see that as a chance for universal income.

Well, in my opinion and see the current condition right now, Crypto really can't solve whole problem or even give an impact that related to companies and socials.

So, this one is actually what kind of companies that we're talking about, because not all capable doing this directly but actually and we're just not realize that they're doing it right now and some of them is by them paying the taxes, those part of money also for social help from those environment.

This power is not given as it is taken by these folks

The word people here is used synonymous with nation, so it is not about a group of people which are at the top of the food chain which grabbed the power. It is assumed that power belongs to the nation and its people which can then delegate it to a group of individuals via elections, either direct as everywhere in the world or with the help of an electoral college as in the US. This should count as the choice made by the people

in fact the system has been implemented where residents pay taxes, then part of the tax is given to the poor. but it may not be enough because poverty still cannot be overcome. maybe in the future not only taxes, but some companies agree to provide a portion of income to the poor. and we have to struggle to make it happen with this crypto industry.

Governance is hard.

That's the main thing I've learned after seeing years of attempts at using blockchains to solve real world problems. Blockchains can add transparency, nearly instant settlement, and strong finality of transactions, and they do so while removing the need for permissions and authorities.

However, we still have the fundamental problem of creating governance structures that actually work. If authorities are required at some point in the process, how do you keep them honest? How do people transparently decide what projects should receive investment? Who controls the money? These aren't easy questions to answer.

Yes, they are people, but that power is really concentrated. There's a big need for purpose based capitalism in order to see these opportunities as a good for everyone and not just a few! There's enough wealth for everyone to spend good times.

Yes, but taxes are not always used at their max potential, they are really easy to be redirected into the wrong hands and there's very little control over them. How can we make sure that the money gets where it needs to?


What if the own community decided what projects can receive investments, the money is controlled by a decentralized protocol?
Let's build it together!

The money can be stored on a decentralized protocol (as a cryptocurrency). That's not the problem. The problem is who controls the private keys to that money? How do you set up a governance system where the money is safe from embezzlement and other sorts of dishonesty?

Who do you mean exactly when you say "the community"? Is it based on geography, common stakeholding interests? How do you enforce that stuff with a protocol? If it's not enforced with a protocol, how do you set up governance so that "the community" is truly in control?

It's still seems like the same old problems that governments and nonprofits and social services have.

Funny how you say that and all that you try to picture as a solution for a problem that is not here yet or might not even become a problem are all socialist ideas.


Both of these are pure socialist manifestos
The ones with the money should give to the ones that have no money because...history has taught us that this is the best way to fuck up everything, but for god's sake let's try it again and maybe this time we won't destroy another country..again!

You view a company like some entity that grabs all the profits and those are locked in some far away place and nobody touches it anymore. Those companies are run by people, they pay people wages, they have shareholders, and most of the profits are either spent or reinvested because that's what successful companies do, and this is what a free market economy forces you to do. If you don't keep up with the rest you fail!


First, the volume for 30days is $493,131,633,426  , that is about 90% lower than your number and lately, we have seen how the volumes are all inflated by at least 10x if not 100x.
So your 6 billion might be 60 million at best.

But no matter the numbers, yeah, let's take 33% of people's money and spend it on "good" causes.
Chavez would be proud.


Newsflash!!!
The rate of poverty in Sweden is the biggest of all Nordic Countries: :)

I think it is possible

And it is one of the uses where the blockchain technology can actually be used (other than as an empty buzz word). I refer here to election systems which allow tamper-proof voting using the blockchain technology. So you set up such a system in a society or community (local or whatever) and then everyone votes in a decentralized and secure manner. In this way "that stuff" (whatever it might be) gets enforced with the blockchain protocol (though in an indirect way)

Yeah, I know what our next problem would be, i.e. how many people are actually competent to make sane and balanced decisions on that stuff. But this problem can be alleviated by first electing competent people to handle the job and then allowing them to solve the issue in question

Bitcoinity says otherwise. Binance only makes 200M profit every quarter.
@Stompix , thank you for your answer in the first place. Secondly, we really believe that socialism is not a good idea. We have lived it in Argentina, saw it in Venezuela, Russia, etc.
This is more a purpose based capitalism. We're talking about a future where machines will do most of the jobs, leaving many people unemployed.
And it's not just giving. It's helping directly. Today you make it with the name of taxes, but you actually never know how your taxes end or directly impact in the economy, tomorrow you may be able to just choose where you believe that money should go.

Taking it to the case of a mining (crypto) company.
With 4 employees only you can run mining facilities of 50 petahashes that make, in the current market, a profit of US$60.000 . In the future, things will work like that.
It's not about just giving to anyone. It's about choosing and catalizing change and growth.
In the first place, who's taking care of the environment? Without taking care of it, there wont be any place for communism, capitalism, socialism, or anything, because humans won't be able to live.
Let's say that problem is taken care of.
Why not, donating/investing in more purpose based businesses? Creating a purpose based economy. It's not about just giving. It's about boosting the growth of these kind of businesses, entities, that actually create a positive change. Call it ethical banking, microcredits, environmental impact businesses (for example, there is a very big company in Argentina that recycles plastic with which they make bricks, to make houses). These should be the businesses that flourish in the future, and this could be done, why not, by redirecting profits from private entities. Never as a law, always as a choice. Definitely, people need to be able to choose what they want to do with their money, if not, then it really is some form of lefty politics that as you said, we've seen the results.

And yes, many companies grab the profits and just seek for more profits because investors want more profits and thats a neverending loop. Whats the whole point of making that money profits, which a shareholder will never be able to use anyway, without having any impact at all in the world?

Is a future where companies are bad for environment (ie: Oil) and for the societies (ie: Many fashion ones, agricultural with chemicals) really possible? Shouldn't ethics and awareness really change?

People need to change mindset from competition and scarce to collaboration and abundance. Companies are already making donations to lower taxes, investments in startups to create more businesses and let new ecosystems grow, but why not letting the people do that? Letting customers create direct impact? Would be an amazing value vs only offering materialistic/superficial features, ie: we are 1 microsecond faster in each transaction!

It's not about giving just for free because everything needs to get redistributed like your Chavez would do. It's about redistribute to increase the rate of growth in ethic companies and help to dangered regions (both environment as social wise)
Nobody controls the private keys, the protocol does!
Open votation systems like Democracy Earth for example.
Well, maybe stakeholding would make sense? A protocol that works through smart contracts!

Let's keep building it!

Well, if it's really decentralized and in the form of stake, how do you make sure that they are competent? Maybe masternodes? How could it get done?

I think it is not an issue which should be handled by the blockchain

But I don't think we need to invent the wheel here as the criteria are pretty established already. It is eduction and experience (expertise) in the respective area. It should be clear that no one can become a qualified surgeon without first studying all the required things and techniques for some time as well as having a lot of practice as a surgeon assistant. It is the same with virtually any other occupation out there

Bitcoinity shows a volume of 60-100k bitcoins per day, that means at best 3 millions BTC , you advanced a number of 1.2 billions
????



You can sugarcoat everything, it won't make them waffles :P
The main principle of your plan is redistribution of wealth!
No matter what you say, how you try to define this is a national socialist or a communist doctrine.


Sorry, but those numbers seem pulled out of you know what..

I know this was just an example but learn to do some math first, this is why projects, where numbers are thrown around with no backing, fail miserably

An s15 does 28th, to have 50 petahash your need 2000 of those.
An s15 at 4cents per kwh makes 1300$ a year so the profit would be 2.6 mills a year or 200k/month.

BUT
You will not ROI in the first year, and you need to invest 6 million in this.
AND
If you were making 60k a month in profit....you would probably never recover your initial investment. ;)

So don't play that easily with numbers!




Let's not even discuss it because it makes really no sense.


Yet, you want to allow only some kinds of business to flourish, thus limiting creativity, offer, access to products...
This is communism!!!!

Again, don't sugarcoat it as I can smell it from a mile away, I spent two decades in a regime like that, it all started with the same illusions or delusions


Try to live one-year without touching a product or a byproduct made from oil. Try!!!
And agriculture without chemicals...yeah..it's possible!!
But a kg of apples will cost you 20 euros and in a decade the population of Africa might drop to a few tribes. Not that India and the rest of South Asia might fare better.


Yeah, and how did that work out?
Making the poorer far poorer, this is what redistribution of wealth always end ups doing.

It is indeed redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is everywhere. Taxes are redistribution of wealth.
The statement here is to do private, optional and smart redistribution of wealth.
Ie: Grameen Bank, Triodos Bank, the company mentioned you about on plastic bricks, etc...


True, wrongly read!


Not at all. We live in a free world, hopefully, all of the markets will be free. We do not support any measure that is applied in a compulsory way.
By referring to Purpose Based Capitalism, the proposal is for the market to choose what companies they will support. Would you prefer, as a client, and being the same service, a socially/environmentaly aware company or a non socially/environmentally aware company? Do you prefer an electric car or do you prefer a car that works with petrol? That's what we're talking about.

Any company can do what they want in the world, what we would like to do is to boost an industry of purpose based companies, and let the people decide! People in the end have the choice and we want them to have the choice.

Being in Argentina, we can tell you... We don't know where you are from, but we almost end up like Venezuela if our government didn't change (which of course we voted for; the new government). Again, you're location is unknown, but I hope it wasn't as bad as it was here.

Sorry to tell you, but in Argentina, 1 of the biggest mining companies, with 1.5 M in assets (S9s) generates the mentioned profit. Real case.
Not really. Let's say this company reinvested 1/3 in social entrepreneurs (People who make businesses with solutions to social/environmental problems). That would actually create jobs and wealth, rather than taking it. It would be the same as an accelerator, but just made in a transparent way...

It all depends on how you look at things! The important part is, create jobs, create change. Don't do it the Chavez, Cristina Kirchner and all those kind of governments way just to gain power...


So it'd be selected people, governance through blockchain?
Always interesting to hear thoughts...

It won't be governance through the blockchain

As it will only be elections through the blockchain, if they will ever be, of course. The blockchain can help greatly with making elections tamper-proof as you won't be able to doctor the results because everyone will see that immediately (as an invalid transaction, for example). Hacking this system would require hacking the underlying cryptographic algo, good luck to you with that 

No, you want a redistribution of wealth from some to some.
Taxes are applied to everyone, you want to tax more companies that invest in automation just because they are more profitable and as you said it earlier "give to the poor".
Not that I have something against the poor, but it's a long damn history when all this ended up pretty badly, with populist regimes taking over and being kept in power "democratically" by the ones that loved to get with giving.


You don't need to do anything.
The free market is already here, I want this product I want to buy it, I want a petrol car I buy one, my wife wants an electric she buys one but when you try to force some environment crap that in the end manages to somehow pollute more than before this turns into a controlled economy.


So let the people decide and stop trying to turn everybody into a tree hugger


Eastern Europe, ratios, limited products, power shortages in the late 80,  the disaster started up in 1981 with the first mass food protest..ended up a decade after.

Unlike Venezuela, we had toilet paper but you were allowed to buy only 6(?, I don't remember too well) rolls per person and usually there was a 50-100 people queue. One thing I still don't understand even now is why and how there was still butter in the shops but no milk, probably one of the miracles of a planned economy.

Do not want to tax. As talking above... Making a protocol that automates this redirection of profits, towards customers entities of choice, in an optional way. A company may adopt it or not, but please... Do not make any compulsory tax/norm/law or whatever, as you said... We have way too many pictures of how the thing is.

Do you like Austrian Economic Theory? Freedom to everyone. We believe in freedom, not really in taxes. What we're proposing is an optional protocol/system that people can adopt in order to make sure that positive change is created and to add intrinsic value to their products.

100%. And that's when you get the question again.

You have the same car, same features, same everything.
To make car A, from 1-10, pollution was 10.
To make car B, from 1-10 pollution was 3.

What car are you getting? (Remember, they are both the same, the only difference is the one mentioned above)


Jaja, interesting thing about butter and milk. Makes no sense at all. Butter is made with a very little portion of what gets extracted alongside the milk, so why no milk??
As to Argentina, although it did not get to the Venezuela Point, it got really close.
Attacks to non-official media, prohibition of imports, corruption, prohibition to buy foreign currencies, almost prohibition to travel. It was hell, but at least, there was food for the people.
Almost 1/3 of the country received money from the government, building a system where 20% of working population had to mantain the rest of the country. It was crazy. More than 1B stolen in direct corruption schemes by the ex president and his fellows.

Not to ever come back again.


Agreed. But how do we make sure that the ones voting through Blockchain, as you said, are competent? Maybe if it was like some form of TCR, then non-experts on x matter should delegate the vote to renowned experts?

What is TCR in this context?

Regardless, we can't be sure, and that's the problem (which I already mentioned in one of my posts). Delegating power and authority is how the current system works, and I don't think there is a need to change it. We just need either to make elections fair (and this is where the blockchain can help) or dismantle this system altogether in case we are not happy with the results (e.g. due to some random dudes being elected for whatever reason)

Token Curated Registry. It has incentives to keep the registries/lists in a proper way and penalties for people that want to degrade the Registries.

Will keep you updated @Deisik !
Interested in your opinions!

I've always been skeptical about this. How will it work exactly? Everyone gets assigned a public key pair by the state? How do you verify that the only person "voting" is the person who was assigned the private key? How do you ensure that people aren't getting their private keys hacked?

I see people getting their crypto wallets hacked left and right. This seems much less secure than the current system with photo ID verification.

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

Bitcoin wallets get hacked because Bitcoin is worth something. But what's the purpose of stealing your voting key if you won't be able to use it anyway? Say you steal it from someone and then vote with it. Now we see what could be loosely interpreted as a double spend. Obviously, both votes are then declared invalid, while the legitimate owner receives the right to cast a new vote with a new key (or is obliged to vote in "manual" mode if he is not able to provide enough security for his keys). We could use hardware encryption and that would solve the problem of hacking

Regarding technical details how it should work in practice, I guess this system should begin as Bitcoin itself had started, i.e. without any help or assistance from the government (at least, not public). In this way, if enough people will be using such a system for voting on their issues (think of it as a consensus), it will escalate quickly until the government can no longer be considered legitimate if it refuses to accept the results of such a vote. All in all, we just need a new Satoshi Nakamoto, with a voting system in mind

A protocol that automates it..so nice.
But this protocol has to be designed by humans and humans will tell this protocol where it can "automatically" send funds.
Nothing different, just some fancy names and technology waved to the masses.


If everything, everything is the same price, color, model probably it will be the same as I told you before.
I will get the gas and my wife the electric.


One of the many miracles of a planned economy.
We were importing some sort of expandable chips made in Vietnam that tasted like plastic and tons of pencils from China but we had almost no rice in stores.
And man we were building furniture. I have no idea how much wood was cut but each town had a furniture shop with more pieces in store than all the IKEA's in the world.

But, I must say that it wasn't really the same corruption as we see in South America.
It was more a form of nepotism and small favors corruption that led us having really really stupid people in charge.
A lot of people that basically destroyed our economy were not corrupt, they were purely too damn stupid to run a lego gas station.

The best example for this, when you have somebody that is well-intentioned but out of his league is the famous program by Mao, Great Leap Forward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward), the guy really believed in it but it ended up killing millions.


But, coming back to the blockchain.
As long as the protocol will be defined by some it will still take into account only the options that are designed into it.
If you have the same 20 people running for positions in the government, blockchain or normal voting the results will be the same.

And, what is worse, in case of really corrupt countries, voting will make no difference.
Venezuela is the perfect example where even if the population votes against the main ruling party they will find a way to make that vote irrelevant.

I always said it, the blockchain is just a distributed database, it won't be able to make wonders.

Well, that could be counter-played with safer wallets like let's say... Vote with your Phone Wallet, or maybe use the private key from Trezor Wallet, etc.
Proof of life methods usually guarantee that it's the person, if they are well applied.


Well, but for governments, votes are as important as money, aren't they? What's more, they spend $ in campaigns to attract/buy the votes! Quite a paradox jaja.

Well, it is designed by humans, yes. But where the protocol sends the money is decided by the stakeholders. Of course, in the end, it's a human decision, like every single thing in earth. The question is, how ethical/non ethical are these decisions?
If someone had to fund a Weapon Arsenal/Factory or a School, it's a human choice where the funds go, yet the ethic of the voter is crucial.

On the other hand, it could even be automated to the point in which, in the future, this protocol could choose by itself based on several quantitative metrics.


It's a respectable choice which we don't share (we believe that companies that are actually good/less bad for the environment should be leveraged), but respectable in the end. Having said that, you're part of the 10% (from the stats we have gathered) that would make that choice, which is really interesting to know the motivations/reasons for the choice (Having the knowledge of contamination facts/stats, etc.)


Jaja, the Planned Economy. Yes, corruption is a huge problem that almost all of Latam is suffering. Lavajato, Cuadernos de las Coimas, and many more...
Well, the way we see it, you actually have new people "running for positions" all the time...

Let's say that if someone wished to receive funds from the protocol, then they would need to apply to enter the "Network" that receives funds from the protocol.
The "Network's"stakeholders vote if that someone is accepted or rejected.
What would you say?

They are even more important than money

Money makes the mare go, but it can't buy you power because power is not an asset which can be bought or sold (though dough can help you grab it). But once you have that power, you can print money out of thin air, so it is definitely worth the deal to spend as much money on votes as required. Votes give the government legitimacy, i.e. the right to have power which is obtained in an established way (legal way)

Indeed. As governments need money for power, talking about the protocol... Organizations would need facts and impact data to get the Votes to access funding.
Not a bad incentive at all, what do you guys think?

How does that happen? How does the system detect when someone sells their vote, or when a private key is compromised and used before the rightful holder gets their vote in? What happens when a bunch of people who weren't going to vote anyway have their keys compromised?


I don't see how that's going to work with millions of votes coming in on election day. There's just so many things that could go wrong here.

What do you mean by "hardware encryption" exactly?

What are you actually saying when you said this one? That companies are capable of producing infinite amount of money? This kind of model won't work producing their own money won't simply work, printing just more money would simply just devalue your currency it won't solve anything.

They won't even be a company in the first place if their only business is producing money. Private entities shouldn't even have the control to produce some country's money not unless it has a proper monetary value in exchange like cryptocurrencies. I don't think you are getting how economics work as its not just as simple as producing more money out of thin air.

Harlot, not talking about producing money at all. The topic is about a company's profits. What can someone do with it's profits.

Like stated above. Binance's profits are of 200M every quarter. If they started donating 1/3 of that (66M), do you think it would create a massive exodus of clients from other exchanges to Binance? Yes, no? Why?

All votes will be counted after the ballot is over, naturally. So it doesn't matter who votes first (read, it is not like spending coins). Regarding selling your vote or not voting at all (with probably someone else voting instead with a stolen key), you can't and in fact shouldn't do anything with that. If someone chooses not to vote, it is his choice including allowing someone else to vote instead of him. Catching double votes will suffice (that's the whole point of this system)

In simple terms, you can't force anyone to vote


I don't see how it is not going to work. Everything can go wrong with everything else in this world and so what? You can think of hardware encryption as a chip with your private key implanted right into your head. Though who would need elections then? Just kidding

Of course you can, crypto currencies now describe the economic pattern of society in the future where every transaction is done in non-cash, can be done anywhere and anytime without any distance and time limits. In the future someone does not need to go to the market to buy their needs just to sit back and open a computer or smartphone to buy what they need.

It most certainly wouldn't

Moreover, it could even raise a lot of eyebrows and lead to people actually leaving Binance in favor of other exchanges. Why would they want to donate 1/3 of their profits to some cause? It just doesn't sound right, whatever that cause might be. So unless they can actually prove it (that they donate anything at all) and it relates deeply to what traders might feel (which I doubt), there is no way for a massive exodus of clients from other exchanges. No place like home and charity begins there

if the Crypto failed to recover we don't have any other choice about choosing investment but when it will solving and improving itself little by little that is a chance to improve the market and change the regulation and make a good cryptocurrency field but it definitely need a huge time and support by the investors.

Let's say that they used this protocol. Let's say that traders chose where the funds should be destined, and lets say that the funds are automatically redirected where traders choose in a transparent, compliant way. Let's say that the impact is real.

Would that make traders leave other platforms to go to Binance? Would that make Binance traders leave? Yes, no, why?

Now I'm more curious why you are asking these questions

And why you are asking them over and over again as you have already asked me a couple days ago and I have already given you a comprehensive answer. Are you a group of individuals pursuing a certain end? If so, what is your agenda here, really? And what does Binance have to do with all this as they are unlikely to implement anything to that tune ever (and that in fact may be a good thing)

Thank you Deisik for your interesting reply, again.

Well, our agenda is nothing more than investigate and research how we can create this Digital Economy we are all creating either by evangelizing, building products or services around it.
We hope to address Social and Environmental problems through Public Benefit Corporations' approach with an increasing focus in transparency, compliance and user/customer based developments.

We wish to do something for the people with the people... And I must say, this topic and every single answer in this topic has been extremely relevant for us. You are the ones who inspire us!

This year, many changes have already begun to enter our lives. Our world is slowly forming. You see how there have been developments in the field of artificial intelligence.  Of course Blockchainde very new and exciting technology. I think Blockchain will definitely be the new economy model.

of course, crypto currencies are now widespread and have become part of the economy in several countries.
Crypto currency has become a currency that is recognized in several countries around the world, and has become a model of future currency exchange.

We are at the very beginning of this year and didn't made any significant changes in the economic model whereas the crypto is looking good at the recovery since the beginning of this year but it didn't have any growth yet which can change the current economic model.

Why can Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies be the new economic model?
Will the future be a group of centralized digital economies (Same as today but digital and transparent) or will decentralized economies (btc) rule the world? Yes, no, why?

starting at the beginning of the year crypto is starting to improve and we can see it today. of course investor confidence begins to recover. with growing trust, it will certainly be able to change the framework of the economic model later

Yes after crypto arrival in my country poverty has become overcome and people are getting more sources to make money I am very happy that I am skilled with crypto as trader and as an investors so I am not worry about bad days of life or for retirement as I have crypto for helping and providing me money to live better life even with empty handed.

Blockchain technology and bitcoin would change a ton of existing procedures, however would not absolutely rethink the current financial model. Without a doubt there will be forms that will change, however will make new employments for the labor.

In this way, the financial model by one way or another will in any case be the equivalent. Minor changes for a few.

My answer is no! Economic models cannot be seen only at upgrading technology like using blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies as a new means of payment. It never affects the whole economy because of some of the people may not use cryptocurrencies and it never change the fiat system. Economic models such as communism and capitalism define our economy right now. And it can be applied though cryptocurrency exists already.

Blockchain or cryptocurrency can change how people make transaction. Current economic system using third party which is banks, but with cryptocurrency, people make transaction peer to peer and I am believe technology can redesign our economy behaviour

The arrival of Crypto makes changes in life that are able to manage it, many changes are good if crypto can be utilized and bad changes if the manager is unable to get or lose. With crypto, we are free to continue to be able to manage without the interference of other parties who take advantage of us.

 there is nothing needed to change the current economic situation we need only the guidance and support from something so I think depth of field will definitely be a good tool for the economic development and I also trusted it for the future development.

There are all kinds of faulty assumptions here. Some good points by hatshepsut93, stompix.

1. When AI causes many jobs to be lost, it does not mean that there are going to be no jobs for the vast majority of the people. Look at history and you will see that the jobs that people do change as well as the amount that they are willing to pay for them. So eg, wages may go up dramatically for something it requires a human to do (and there will always be plenty of such jobs, even if only because there is so much wealth that ppl are willing to pay a lot for service jobs), even if there is no other reason for the wages to go up. Eg, look at the US and the cost of labor, even for menial jobs.
2. Automation results in a lower cost of goods and services. So the amount of money that people need to earn to make a living becomes dramatically less.

3.@Lucusfoundation, every post you have made seems to totally contradict itself. You keep talking about freedom, and then in the next sentence you say that companies should give 1/3 of profits to xyz cause. If companies are compelled, it is not freedom! And if the company has free choice, then you trying to control their decision is not freedom. What gives you the right to make decisions on the redistribution of wealth? As others have mentioned it has only led to mass catastrophe, death, and destruction. How are you going to determine what is a "good cause"? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism which leads to your beliefs. If a company gives x % of profits to cause y (let's call the amount of money "z"), that money is deprived from going to another purpose. Eg, the company could invest z by reinvesting into the company instead, in order to create a cheaper product that allows millions of persons to escape poverty. Just look at history, there has been a dramatic reduction in poverty over the past 100 years and it was created by improved and cheaper products, which were all created by private companies! It was not caused by any government redistribution or forced redistribution. But if z was instead given to your "positive cause", the money is depleted in a one-time transaction and after that day or month there is nothing to show for it, it is all consumed. So by depleting companies' of their profits so that it can go to the, people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, or in government taxes, all of them are creating a poorer world.

You bring up the environment, let's take your example that there are 2 companies with the same product and a pollutes more than b. The customers should in that case purchase more from company b, but only if the customer cares about pollution, and in general many people do not care about it. The reason is undereducation. So the solution is more and better education. It has nothing to do with blockchain. Also many people do not have the time to care about it because they are struggling to get by and make a living, because of all of the redistribution of wealth that has gone to worthless causes.

Thanks @Ulhaq for the answer!

1) It's hard to see how human needed jobs will increase their payouts/salaries as there will be more people (Supply) for these jobs (Demand). Basically, there will be lots of workers available for the tasks (As almost every manual job is replaced, only "Soft skilled" jobs may be available) and, following economic theories/basics, salaries should go down...
2) Automation does not necessarily mean lower costs. We all live in a world of inflation, can't see how people will need to earn less to make more.
3) The statements are clear... Should/Could companies redirect profits? We're leaving the questions for the discussions. As stated in other posts above. We believe in a free world were no obligations should be set. Everyone can do what they want, free markets shall decide. We have already seen what can happen with examples like Venezuela, URRS, Mao's China, etc.
We're not talking about depleting company's profits, we're talking about a more inclusive economy.
What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account? Bill and Melinda gates prove what we're talking about by spending billions of dollars in social/environmental change without killing Microsoft's profits.

If humans choose pollution because they're undereducated. Why not reinvesting part of the profits in education? When helping societies and the environment, we're helping ourselves and our future generations...

The fact that there are few employees in a technology enterprise is no stranger, but the salary funds are still high because the nature of the job requires a lot of gray matter and businesses need to pay a lot of salary to some of the developers. soft.
I understand that technology is growing strongly, but in a world there are many different areas.
The technology sector caters to a part of the world, other areas will serve the rest. so there will never be a lot of people being unemployed.

But that is the problem, the exchange that donates 20% of their profits will be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of their competitors and eventually the service they offer will not be as good and once that happens clients will begin to move to other platforms and the revenue of that charitable exchange will go down making their service even worse, you bring an interesting discussion about the future of the world and how machines are replacing us but I do not see this solution you are proposing gaining any strength.

It will change hw the money were working so it actually can relate to the changes in economy because most of the economy in this world are filled with fiat based calclation and it was created from nothing so if cryptos adopted by everyone it may replace the part of fiat economy and gradulally it will takes place completely.

This can both good and bad. Good is that blockchain as technology is to good to not use it or at least consider creating something similar for economy usage in everyday life. Bad is that this will not happen any time soon and even is so this wont effect so much current economy as we know.

You continue to make many assumptions.
1) You are assuming discrete jobs, so of course if there more supply for a SPECIFIC JOB, wages will go down. But there is an infinite number of jobs that can be done. If there is a lot more wealth in the world (which happens with automation), then people have to spend it on something. And the job distribution will not only look completely different to how it looks now, it will not even be conceivable to you what it will look like, just as a huge number of jobs today were completely inconceivable to people 100 years ago.
2) Automation DOES mean lower cost. There is no reason to automate unless it is saving money, or made at higher efficiency (which also saves money), all of which means that the product can be sold at a lower cost. If the company does not charge a lower cost, then the competitor will, so the cost goes down regardless. If the cost to produce the product is more than the purchase price, then the company will go out of business. Look at any product and you will see that the cost has gone down over time, while the quality has gone up, or some combination of these 2.
Inflation has nothing to do with anything. That is dependent on the currency that one uses. Eg, you should know that bitcoin is deflationary.
3) Jeff Bezos does not have $150B in his bank account. His wealth is OWNERSHIP of amazon. So to use that $150B, he has to SELL amazon. Meaning that someone else now becomes owner or part-owner of amazon and starts to be able to run the company. How successful do you think that other person, or persons are going to be at running amazon? Amazon will be run into the ground. Amazon now no longer can provide cheap, quality products to the world, and that makes the world, and the population of the world, poorer. By the way, Amazon became successful BECAUSE Bezos was able to provide cheaper or better quality products to people, faster. People VOLUNTARILY gave their money to him because it made them better off. If those people wanted to give the money to environmental causes instead, they were free to do so. And again you talk about freedom, but say "What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account?". You are obviously not for freedom, because you keep suggesting what people should do with their money.
Regarding Bill and Melinda gates, they only started their charitable work AFTER leaving microsoft, because before that he was running the company. Also how do you know that the money spent on those causes is the best use of the money? Don't you think that the trillions spent on wars, and all the death and destruction, is a bigger problem than what the gates foundation is working on?

I suggest studying economics, it will answer all of these questions that you have.

To change our economic to will not only be the equipment to redefine our society because it will not enough to maintain our economic problems so the people also need to change something better for our self will definitely helpful for the Crypto to improve much more for economic changing in the future.

Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies have effectively changed their consumer and business models in it, not in vast degree and not officially but rather there is unquestionably some impact. Positive control would intiate further changes however it's difficult to anticipate that on a worldwide scale.

To my sentiment economy based on.a blockchain innovation is future yet changes are going on very gradually and organizations are as yet hesitant to execute it.

It's not necessarily disadvantage against competitors...
Profits are also given out in dividends and companies not always reinvest the money in their products. Many times they use the money to buy other companies, etc. which makes their group bigger and valuation higher, but does not make them more competitive.
On the other hand, it can give them a great brand awareness and attract new clients.


Thanks Ulhaq for the new answer.

1) Not really... You need to study on the future of work to make that assumption, and you'd find out that technology is killing many more jobs than it's creating.
There's a big difference with the old industrial revolutions.
We're building intelligence, and that intelligence can replace our work/tasks on many fields.
200 years ago, in the industrial revolution, we needed people to repair the machines that were automating certain tasks. But nowadays, we're building intelligence that can learn, even create new languages and process more information than any human could ever process in a matter of seconds. We're creating the intelligence that will fix these machines.
Future of work is a beatiful topic, get on it!

2) Not necessarily. It actually depends on economics and finance. Automation may mean lower costs for a huge company that can see the long term impact and ROI of automating something (Considering its an expensive investment) while other producers/industry players may not do that investment as they'll go off before they can see that ROI. It's the same as mining, for large scale people it's profitable, for small people it probably isn't. It's not something lineal, and there's many things/variables to take into account.
That's the whole point! In most of cases, yes, it makes this "product" cheaper, but how do you balance things? It may be cheaper for the company producing it, but it creates a new big cost within the community that just got a new unemployed person.
Moreover, the jobs you're thinking about are all qualified jobs. That thinking takes into consideration a little part of the population in our societies.
How can we expect for certain people to go for qualified tasks/skills when they are still not receiving any education at all?

3) We're just posting questions for people to answer and debate... Of course it's understood that Bezos does not have 150B into his account, but as you say, if he sells amazon, he'll have them. Which is not bad at all, don't get it wrong. He deserves them, he built a great company. And if he sells it, don't worry, theres hundred of super capable CEOs that can take charge.
The real question is, can we sustain a future where economies are going more transparent (Fiat: Shady, Blockchain: Transparent) where certain individuals huge portions of capital? Emission is something that shall be regulated...

And yes, we totally agree. We need to solve the problem of all the funds being used for war. And thats the whole point... Can you imagine a Weapon Factory actually fulfilling purpose based initiatives? Of course not, they create guns. The future we need is a purpose based one, not a profit only world. Profit only takes to enterprises, like guns and war, indeed.

And please, don't get it the wrong way. Freedom, always freedom. What we ask is to debate, not what shall be done...
Again, we've already seen what happens when things are imposed.

You are not the first who are starting this argument

There was a very, very long thread here about that thing specifically and many swords had been crossed and horns locked over this matter. But I have a stronger argument without even evaluating your reasoning for plausibility, i.e. without analyzing whether what you say is actually true

Let's assume that this time it is different (with the old industrial revolutions), that you are right and machines can now fix themselves as well as do other incredible things that will make humans irrelevant. Then you have to face the real stuff. Who will all these intelligent machines be producing for if most people are now jobless and can't buy anything?

Deisik, really interesting question.

Well, the way we see it, technology will produce and that production belongs to the owners.
Now, the great thing that appears is, as you say, where is all these production going? A person can't make use of hundred thousands of KGs of, let's say, potatoes, that are undistributable.

There's many things that can happen. One of them is owners limitating the production in order to mantain a stable supply/demand (Just as you guys in the US did with the New Deal). It's the same paradigm, of competition and scarce. Producers make the resource scarce so it's valuable and only people who can afford it can buy it.

The other paradigm we can get into is collaboration and abundance.
Huge amounts of resources shall be available.

What's the economic incentive of producers? What type of value can they receive?

We believe that we're heading towards a purpose based system. People who actually contribute to the world receive rewards, people who don't receive penalties.

It's really interesting and possibilities are limitless.

What do you think?

This argument is nothing new either

In fact, many who are assuming the position that automation will bring only disaster and poverty eventually back off to it. But that's no more than a poor man's reasoning as producers are economically incentivized to maximize their profits, and that is only possible if they make their product available to the greatest number of people. That's the key reason why such claims are economically unfounded

In other words, if we are talking about free economy (otherwise known as laissez-faire) where there is unrestricted competition among producers and there are no artificially imposed limits on production (like the New Deal you mentioned), that will never be the case. Ultimately, it all comes down to profit margins and costs, but this is exactly what automation is supposed to do, i.e. reduce costs and increase margins

But in Free Markets, those are things that happen.

Let's say that supply is much higher than demand. Of course that producers will lower the supply.

Just as the luxury industries restrict supply to increase price.

It would be self regulated, it happened in many countries, including Argentina (where we're based).

In 2009, prices of food were going down. Farm producers stopped producing in order for the prices to go up again. No regulations, no nothing. What's more, many of them were sanctioned for the measures they took.

It's a complex phenomenon and they are self balancing.

In the end, what happens is that big producers can resist the lower prices and profits while small producers can't. Starts to be a game of financial back, and in the end, the same happens. Big wins small looses.

On the other hand, we already have that problem. For example, food.

Food should be cheap and available in the whole world. The big problem is, societies. There is an over stock in many countries, which have a huge food waste, while there are countries with no food at all (Look at Venezuela right now). That is a problem of distribution, not of amounts or quantity.

As I said above, it all depends on margins and costs

Indeed, no one will be producing for a loss. Well, technically, this is not completely true as many producers may in fact be producing for a loss for some time so as not to lose their market share (as it often happens in real life, for example, with crude oil), but for simplicity's sake we can just stipulate that they won't

But this apparently contradicts the assumptions set forth hitherto, i.e. producers are automating production to lower their costs since otherwise they simply wouldn't go for it. But in that case they will be expected to lower their prices as well (all other things being the same) as that means more profits in total for the majority of goods

Indeed economically crypto has improved life of every normal person and they has given us good life enjoying opportunity, does not matter it is for earning or for using your money in better way, but it has good effect on our daily life, as I think after some year people will not have to travel for paying bills and they will not have to go out in rain or in summer to buy goods for daily life everything will be just on single click.

I am agree, blockchain can change economic models gradually. With central banks dominant in our current economic system, hard for blockchain or cryptocurrency to replace current system. But company can use blockchain for their purpose because its more transparant and saving cost

Sure about it because as new companies are adopting blockchain it is being famous for fast transaction and transformation of money from one country to the other which was taking more than 24 hours in long ago but now it is possible to complete any of this process within one hours, so I really think our economy is improving after using crypto currency in this regard.

Cryptocurrency can change our transaction way because its more faster and cheaper. But to change current economic system, i dont think so. Bankers still have power to control current system

bitcoin still needs a long process to become a currency that can provide facilities in the world economy, so while bitcoin can only be an alternative currency in the world. to be able to replace the currency of each country needs recognition from the world bank that regulates all world currencies. not all people understand about bitcoin so paper currency is still used for a long time.

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

At present, the transaction volume is too small to have any influence.
But, who knows, may be in the next future...

Crypto currency technology can only reach places where there is an internet connection and supporting facilities in the region. something like this is an obstacle for crypto currencies to be able to replace paper currencies. if we see that the current sale and purchase is still dominated by traditional buying and selling and that there are still many remote areas, it still takes a long time to be able to make a blockchain based economy.

I think it is precisely the government that legalizes bitcoin is a developed country. only a few received btc when their country collapsed, and bitcoin became the solution to solve the super inflation problem

not only bitcoin to solve super inflation problems,moreover much people already thinking bitcoin as risky investment portofolio.maybe they will prefer put their money into commodity such as gold or silver that already proved as safe heaven.

In someway bitcoin has got its importance around the world. The inflow of money to bitcoin is high in a short time period which can never be achieved or could have got achieved through gold or other digital commodities in the past. This assure the growth of the market and the network be more stronger to overcome inflations.

Replace it? no way! from ancient times, there will always be a government and a controller. decentralization will not take over as long as the government still exists. the country's economic system will still be like this, relying on fiat and centralization

Hard for bitcoin to replace current economy system. Our current system dominated by bankers and government like or not depend on central banks to boost growth. Bitcoin have limited supply and its not flexible for government to adopt bitcoin as national currency

There are still many who rely on fiat and banks, so bitcoin functions as usual and may only be able to change the economy of individuals.
It is not easy for crypto to define the economic model with many governments that have not been able to adopt it.

in my opinion bitcoin can define the current economy. because currently the economy basically requires demand and supply where bitcoin already has it plus bitcoin already uses blockchain based technology

true blockchain-based bitcoin promotes the crypto world on the internet with various advertisements installed and several countries glancing and finally legalizing and becoming the currency after fiat money from their respective countries

A possibility! That is of course if cryptocurrency will be used in totality not just in a country but as well in the whole world which is by now starting to take effect. I don't know how large the effect would be, but he possibility of cryptocurrency is really getting near as people have positive responses to its utility. This could be evidence by so many ICOs that have grown in numbers as the years have passed by since its first usage.

it is true that in the cryptocurrency world all possibilities can happen and the more people who know the ICO and know the benefits of being a participant from ICO it will make a lot of ICO successful.

It needs to move on either in good direction or bad direction so both these things are always important to trust about the Bitcoin because if economy was not being good it will definitely needed the support from cryptocurrency especially Bitcoin so I think it can possible to change the economic situation very easily.

On the one hand, this is a good goal, but on the other hand, it can have a very detrimental effect on human development. Already, there are a lot of primers that people and companies that create unique products and work hard will feed and help those people who do not want to work and who are quite happy to live at someone else’s expense without doing anything. Capitalism is so constituted that each of the people understands that in order not to die of hunger and live well he must earn money. Humanity has not yet invented anything more viable. I am in favor of replacing human work with robots but at the same time a person must continue to work. I would create an army of scientists. )

Of course, bitcoin can be part of a country's financial system changes within the framework of development, because bitcoin uses a blockchain and decentralized system so that it can suppress waste or improper spending.
In other words, it can reduce or eliminate corruption that causes losses to the state. In addition, ensuring that the project work or development goes as expected.

most of the fintech companies are following blockchain and cryptocurrency so we can successfully fin tech field cryptocurrency influenced a lot

Currently there are systems that keep the FIAT monetary economy very stable, cryptocurrencies represent a big risk due to the high volatility, it can only represent businesses in countries with high inflation.

We can not forget that this economy is decentralized in nature, and that it moves by the law of supply and demand (according to Wyckoff) and in comparison with economies backed by reserves of gold and precious metals, people prefer what is safe . It is normal because the best economists recommend it.

And if you compare an economy in which it is decentralized in its nature, where it can not have control, which is managed by supply and demand, which can be moved by the whales, it represents for the economists and government advisors a great risk that does not They want to run, but for the economies of the people in particular if it can represent a great way out.

So the impact on the traditional economy has not been experienced yet, because the only country that has tried to do it is Venezuela, but with a poor development, and due to its political problems it has not been possible to implement, since the token that they have created is of a centralized nature.

Dear All,
We're happy to share with you the project we have been working on and for which we took feedback from this thread.

Lucus Announcement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124854.0)

We're also happy to share our whitepaper with you:

Whitepaper (https://www.docdroid.net/iV95HnJ/wp-lucus1.pdf)