Universal Basic Income on Blockchain?

[markm]

In Critical Path Bucky is pretty clear that he very much does not expect government nor big business to accomplish any such path, but also that it is a new kind of revolution, really an evolution, based on design science rather than ideological argument or persuasion.

Basically it has to be such a good solution that it would be stupid not to do it except of course for vested interests whose horse-and-buggy or whatever will appear less valuable in light of the new thing.

Which presumably actually depends upon scale since I am fairly confident that an old-style horse-and-buggy likely fetches a better price now than it did back in its heyday but the scale of how many one can expect to sell per year to Hollywood or who-ever might still like to have such a thing might despite population increase be less than in its heyday.

Equivalent functionality, depending on which theoretical function one could use such an item for, is likely much cheaper nowadays though; at least Bucky's premise is that that is the intended case.

I think a crypto for UBI should be fixed total number ever issued, the idea being to increase its value per unit to accommodate more beneficiaries and/or more value per beneficiary, rather than ever minting more.

Benefits could come solely from transaction fees.

Driving up the value would be done simply by buying units of it, or maybe rather, for benefit of CoinMarketCap type sites, by building an ever-stronger ever-deeper "buy side" for it, merely offering to buy rather than actually buying, but the offers being there so anyone having any could choose to sell to such offers (aka "dump" or "dip").

The big problem remains getting hold of stuff to build the "buy sides" out of.


-MarkM-

[StreetWall Token]

Absolutely love the curiosity around UBI and crypto. It’s a conversation that keeps gaining traction as both technology and economic inequality evolve side-by-side.

There are actually a few projects that have attempted crypto-based UBI models, GoodDollar, Proof of Humanity + UBI token, Circles UBI, etc. Each has its own mechanism, whether it’s based on identity verification, staking, or inflationary issuance. That said, adoption and sustainability have been major hurdles so far.

The idea of “earning crypto by doing nothing” sounds like free money, but in reality, the challenge lies in making it economically viable and resistant to abuse. You need solid tokenomics, anti-sybil protections (to stop people from gaming the system), and ideally some value loop that keeps the ecosystem afloat.

As for governments adopting it — they’re likely to be the last movers. We’ll probably see grassroots, decentralized implementations or even DAOs trying this before national governments do. But long term? If automation continues to replace jobs, UBI (crypto or fiat) might become a necessity rather than an experiment.

Curious if anyone here is working on something similar? Or if there's appetite for a fresh take on UBI in the web3 space?

[markm]

Well actually we already have it, in the form of bitcoin.

Income can be acquired simply by putting a buy offer, or column of buy offers, and waiting for someone to "dump" to them, then use the proceeds to create a sell offer, or column of sell offers, and wait for someone to buy from them, and so on back and forth, hopefully over time building the buy-side stronger and stronger and stronger and the sell side higher and higher and higher.

Making the buy-side ever stronger and deeper acts like a ratchet, or of course you can choose to look at the trading pair both ways around, treating your buying with bitcoin of the other side of the pair in the same way, so more than just a "ratchet" your columns of offers ultimately become more like a "constrictor".

This does not currently provide a consistent predictable income just one that so far has proven "inevitable"...


-MarkM-

[jackpotmaster]

Is there a crypto with UBI? If there isn't one yet, do you think governments will implement such a system in the future? If not, why? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

First of all we need to know where this money is going to come from. Are there going to be any donators? Is Elon Musk going to give away some pennies from his fortune to become the emperor of the world in exchange?

From the money printer, the same source for all money coming into existence.

This concept isn't impossible to happen for real. The point is that it's not going to come from governments, because they already have their own means to run welfare programs (through the banking system), besides the fact there are going to be many cheaters, just like we see people cheating bounty, signature campaigns, airdrops, giveaways and promotions in general.

There is nothing to cheat, you don't understand the concept. Universal means for everyone. Everyone is getting it.

[DPHOR]

I think this would depends on the country of origin because most of the countries aren't that cryptocurrency friendly, but for those who are already familiar with cryptocurrency and permits the buy and sell of cryptocurrency can as well permit such UBI.
I haven't had any idea of such around this forum and I have been looking for a way to join such where people earn through crypto or through their native currency which can be traded to stable coin and convert to real money. This could be another way to promote the cryptocurrency and make the UBI system gain more strength and popularity.

[Abiky]

UBI only sustainable when you got high yield low cost economy, maybe by taking advantage of robots.

The weight from giving out wealth for free to the people needs to be offloaded somewhere else and only utilization of robots and AI for farming, etc is possible.
As of now, the value that UBI give can only be derived from tax and that's another weight for the productive taxable people.

Unless there's a crypto that can solve this problem, I doubt there's one out there.

Let's not forget that UBI will allow the government to have more control over your financial life. You'll be given away "free money" in exchange for your data or personal info. There would be absolutely no privacy at all. Young generations prefer convenience, so they won't care about this. It's the inevitable future. Even more so with transformative technologies such as AI, Blockchain, and Quantum Computing.

Not only will privacy be non-existent, but society will be lazier than ever. I mean, who's going to work with a UBI system and AI + Robots in-charge of everything? I believe we're still in the "early days". So we can feel confident none of this will materialize during our lifetime. Just my opinion.

[Bipedaljoe]

There are actually a few projects that have attempted crypto-based UBI models, GoodDollar, Proof of Humanity + UBI token, Circles UBI, etc. Each has its own mechanism, whether it’s based on identity verification, staking, or inflationary issuance. That said, adoption and sustainability have been major hurdles so far.

"CirclesUBI" by Martin Koeppelmann from spring 2015 was likely inspired by (or a bad copy of) my protocol Resilience that became very popular in the fall 2014 (it was invented in the fall 2012).

"CirclesUBI" is like a worse version of Resilience, that removes (or lacks) fundamental parts to make it decentralized.

For a web-of-trust money system (as both Resilience and Circles are based on) you need to solve multihop coordination game theoretically. This has been an unsolved problem, Ryan Fugger has been a pioneer. Ryan's original idea in 2006 was not possible for him to achieve, so he reverted to a worse idea (that does not work security-wise, but "almost" seems like it might work). This became the basis for Lightning Network and Raiden Network, etc.

I solved the multihop coordination problem this spring, see https://resilience.me/3phase.pdf. "CirclesUBI" if they ever want to become more than a prototype running on a central ledger (which is not meaningful as their design is shit, but, anyway) would need to use that 3-phase commit. I have a full implementation of Resilience on it, works perfectly, a perfect system that can scale already infinitely, see my website.

"GoodDollar" was never a "decentralized UBI" in the sense they do not have any innovation for proof-of-unique-person (or, rely on web-of-trust). They originally used national IDs (and sure, traditional UBI is also great, but it is not "alternative") and later some facial recognition system (which has to have centralized oversight, i.e., hierarchically analogous to nation-state government, it is like the police force in nation-state but just happens to be computer program, so, not "decentralized").

"Proof-of-humanity" from the guy behind "DemocracyEarth" that became "DemocracyDAO" that became "HumanityDAO", whom I followed and was aware of since 2014 maybe, likewise, there was never a game theoretical system there. They alluded to a magical "AI" that would audit the publicly recorded videos and find sybil attacks, it is ridiculous.

Bitpeople remains the ideal, game theroretically, and has been published since 2018 see https://doc.bitpeople.org. Many audited it, downloaded the whitepaper and source code, and such. And it requires 50k transactions per second which is not realistic yet, so it is a future possibility (currently could support a million people nation, anyone who wants to could launch that...)

[m2017]

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a kind of social welfare where citizens of a given population receive minimum income to meet basic necessities.

How will this provision differ from current social payments, for example, to low-income people living below the subsistence level?

I've read somewhere online about making a UBI system on crypto. Not sure if something like this exists, but it would be cool if it does.

If governments begin to implement the UBI system, they will most likely do so on CBDC.

In layman's terms, you'll earn crypto by doing absolutely nothing.

Here it is - the dream of a lazy slacker, unable and unwilling to work.

This will help minimize inequality, by allowing poor people to participate in the global economy.

But it maximizes the discontent of those who generate income, since part of their income will simply be transferred to idle slackers. Hasn't anyone learned anything from the example of socialist countries with their communism? Such "folly" destabilizes the system of healthy competition and disincentivizes honest and diligent workers.

Even Elon Musk talked about UBI in the Dubai summit.

Well, since Elon himself spoke about it, then everything is very serious.

[Abiky]

If governments begin to implement the UBI system, they will most likely do so on CBDC.

...

Well, since Elon himself spoke about it, then everything is very serious.

Without a doubt. CBDCs are the only way governments will be able to make a UBI system. It will also force the "unbanked" to participate in the banking system. It's all part of the plan to control the masses. How? By giving everyone "free money" without the need to work. This will create a complete dependency on the government, paving the way for them to manipulate our lives in every way they want.

Elon Musk himself said AI and Robotics will take care of everything, so you can see where this is heading to. The future won't be as "bright" as governments wants us to believe. Mark my words.

[allthebitandbobs]

For UBI to be possible, we need to have a method where this money is generated. Imagine for example everyone in the world is just sitting at home, collecting UBI and spending it, where do they spend it?

Like if we are all at home, then who makes stuff that we buy with this income? That means some business has to keep running, and in that case, all these companies are paying taxes to pay for our UBI, technically their customers? That means the company that does well, will get all the money and recoup their taxes, while the company that does badly will just bankrupt, it's a competition between companies.

[uneng]

Is there a crypto with UBI? If there isn't one yet, do you think governments will implement such a system in the future? If not, why? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

First of all we need to know where this money is going to come from. Are there going to be any donators? Is Elon Musk going to give away some pennies from his fortune to become the emperor of the world in exchange?

From the money printer, the same source for all money coming into existence.

This concept isn't impossible to happen for real. The point is that it's not going to come from governments, because they already have their own means to run welfare programs (through the banking system), besides the fact there are going to be many cheaters, just like we see people cheating bounty, signature campaigns, airdrops, giveaways and promotions in general.

There is nothing to cheat, you don't understand the concept. Universal means for everyone. Everyone is getting it.

Yeah, if it's for everyone, if it's for free, and if it comes from an unlimited source, it truly seems you have three red flags to get suspicious about.

Instead of saying there is nothing to cheat, it's probably more accurate to say: if everyone is being cheated anyway, why should I worry about being cheated?

[Bipedaljoe]

Yeah, if it's for everyone, if it's for free, and if it comes from an unlimited source, it truly seems you have three red flags to get suspicious about.

The four previous replies add absolutely nothing to the topic.

Block rewards in Bitcoin are redistribution. Mathematically, you can do the same thing without increasing money supply. A term often used for this is "demurrage".

Code:

function taxation(address _account) internal {
    uint seconds_since_last_time = block.timestamp - log[_account];
    uint tax = tax_per_second**seconds_since_last_time;
    balanceOf[_account] *= tax;
    if(_account == taxFund) balanceOf[_account] += totalSupply - totalSupply*tax;
    log[_account] = block.timestamp;
}

function _transfer(address _to, uint _amount) {
    taxation(msg.sender);
    taxation(_to);
    transfer(_to, _amount); // In the ERC20 standard
}

You can argue that redistribution is not desirable, but you cannot argue it is not what Bitcoin has been based on for 2008. You can argue it is meant to stop once all coins are in circulation. But the "unlimited source" means nothing. Yes redistribution is mathematically unlimited source because it goes on and on. This is no mystery. It does not break any laws of physics or economics. There is no red flags, your suspicions are not formulated well and probably more about your amygdala than your reasoning layer.

[d5000]

Block rewards in Bitcoin are redistribution. Mathematically, you can do the same thing without increasing money supply. A term often used for this is "demurrage".

This is indeed often forgotten.

However, there is a difference between demurrage (Freicoin-style) and the Bitcoin model: psychology. Traders don't think that "every block a Bitcoin is 0.00001625% less worth" (because 3.25 new Bitcoins are added to the supply) and don't decrease their buy and sell orders by this value. The "Bitcoin" unit serves as an anchor in the whole system. This is even more important when thinking about the still not very developed theories on Bitcoin fundamental analysis (Total Addressable Market, Metcalfe's Law and other theories exist but they're very unprecise about predicting the "fair value").

That gives us also hints about what an UBI is really about. On a first glance, you could say "if everybody receives the same amount of money, why not simply keeping supply constant? Isn't that the same?". You could even argue that in a deflationary economy (like the Bitcoin economy, at least until now), there is sort of an "UBI" because all hodlers get some money more.

This would however only be true if an UBI was the only source of income. And it is not.

Thus UBI is in its very essence also a redistribution model: to those who don't get money from other activities, like work, or profits from investments. Basically it's the same than social welfare programs, but in a less bureaucratic and based on much simpler math.

An "UBI coin" would be a bit harder to explain, because a cryptocurrency is already an alternative economy in itself, not representative for a society, and the "UBI coin" blockchain dones't know about other sources of income than those of the "UBI coin". So an UBI coin is basically only redistributing wealth in its own altcoin community.

For it to really work it would have to attract enough people to accept that coin for work, and these people being fine with being "taxed" all the time for the UBI (they will get UBI too, but it only works if there are people bringing more value to the coin than they extract via UBI). That's the big challenge of UBI coins, and I don't know if it is really solvable.

[uneng]

For it to really work it would have to attract enough people to accept that coin for work, and these people being fine with being "taxed" all the time for the UBI (they will get UBI too, but it only works if there are people bringing more value to the coin than they extract via UBI). That's the big challenge of UBI coins, and I don't know if it is really solvable.

It may work in small groups and communities of people who have the same goals and think more or less the same way, with the same purposes and consciousness levels, but not on the bigger picture, exactly due to to reason presented: people need to be constantly bringing more value than they extract. There must be a mutual trust agreement among every participants, so one doesn't feel abused or overloaded in comparision to someone else who is extracting more than adding.

That is the dilemma we live in the world. Welfare programs should work nicely, just like theory says, but on practice it's different. In the end, people who wish to add value retreats and leave the system under the control of those who only want to extract until it reaches in a state of autophagy.

Therefore, if it's for everyone, if it's for free, and if it comes from an unlimited source, it truly seems you have three red flags to get suspicious about.

[Bipedaljoe]

However, there is a difference between demurrage (Freicoin-style) and the Bitcoin model: psychology.

No there is not. The difference is just printing new coins is slightly easier computationally to implement (but mathematically analogous in proportions). What you say is not meaningful contribution to the discussion. The redistribution part is no issue, for anyone who believes in the redistribution part of block rewards (and those who are for fees-only, well they can then argue against redistribution I guess, but not against relying on it for bootstrapping the network). The "psychological" non-argument from you, you can change that in UI, it is mathematically proportional.

Uneng then just repeats the same "look at the supposed red flags" which are not red flags. Redistribution, is basis for block rewards. "Unlimited supply", redistribution is from a limited supply, the whole framing is nonsensical. It contributes nothing, and you have a small number of accounts making similar repeated diversions from the topic.

https://doc.bitpeople.org solved the game theory for proof-of-unique-person globally, it did so already by 2018, many know about it and have studied it. But it requires 50k transactions per second at least. And then, for the other approach, multihop, or "path-based redistribution", the ideal system for that was invented in 2012 and the game theory for multihop solved this spring (also allows "collateral" like with Bitcoin in secure way, unlike previous attempt like Lightning Network which used the older 2-phase commit which is not secure), the full implementation of that system (feed it into AI and it explains the 3-phase commit easily), https://snippet.host/rwpedp.

[Abiky]

For UBI to be possible, we need to have a method where this money is generated. Imagine for example everyone in the world is just sitting at home, collecting UBI and spending it, where do they spend it?

Like if we are all at home, then who makes stuff that we buy with this income? That means some business has to keep running, and in that case, all these companies are paying taxes to pay for our UBI, technically their customers? That means the company that does well, will get all the money and recoup their taxes, while the company that does badly will just bankrupt, it's a competition between companies.

Recently, Elon Musk renewed the conversation about UBI. He said that AI and robotics will take care of everything. They will take charge of the economy, while people just sit back and relax. That's where the money will be coming from. Musk envisions a future where no one will be poor. He changed the term "Universal Basic Income" to "Universal High Income". As crazy as it sounds, it might become a reality in the future. Subject to governments' approval, of course. We're already seeing companies and businesses replacing their employees with AI.

With a UBI system, the government will have even more control of our lives. All at the cost of getting "free money" in return. Will you be okay with this? I know most people will, since they don't care about their privacy or freedom. It'll be a dark future for all of us.

[laijsica]

You do have a point there, mate. Cryptocurrencies giving away free rewards usually end up being "dumped" on the market. Developers might need to introduce some sort of mechanism that will lock tokens within a certain time. The idea of a UBI could work if implemented well. It would be of great help to people in need.

Wasn't crypto always about financial inclusion? Making it accessible only to those with capital, would totally defeat its original purpose. I'm yet to see if governments will implement such a system (UBI). Elon Musk suggested it, so anything's possible.

Whales are always a target for implementing innovative ideas and strategic projects. They will give free tokens and set a price for them and advertise it as universal. Not everyone will be flexible enough to implement KYC verification and more technical knowledge.

The policy of locking tokens/cryptocurrency centrally would be an easy form of long term holding but most people believe in cash. The UBI project will probably follow a centralized policy of managing and pooling the funds of the still unclear initiative. I think the main purpose is to distribute a share of the profits by pooling and implementing the huge amount of funds of the whales. If it is implemented.

[d5000]

No there is not. The difference is just printing new coins is slightly easier computationally to implement (but mathematically analogous in proportions).

I get where you're coming from, but that "psychology doesn't matter" argument would mean that all reasons for monetary policy (deeply rooted in mass psychology) are just "non-argument"s too.

The whole "inflation creates economic growth" theory is based on that quality of a currency unit to be an "anchor" (or "unit of account"). You wouldn't need inflation in the classical economic models if people always were thinking about their money in "% of general wealth" or "% of GDP" (GDP is easier to measure, general wealth instead would be more exact but is almost impossible to measure). Even Silvio Gesell's rationale for demurrage (Freicoin is based on Gesell's theory) is also based on that assumption: that people don't want to hold a currency with demurrage, they will instead spend it and thus creating more economic activity.

Yes in terms of proportions, demurrage-based redistribution is indeed mathematically analogous to an "inflating" currency, but psychologically, it's different. The effect is however quite complex. If a demurrage based currency manages to create an economy where the money can circulate (i.e. you get your UBI and you can purchase goods and services), then it could hold their value better than an inflating currency. But if this is not the case, then there is always an incentive to sell your UBI directly into USDT or another "stable" cryptocurrency and it would deflate.

However, where you're correct is that in theory you could offer both options in the UI ("constant supply where the unit is a % of the total supply and thus feels like a demurrage" vs. "non-demurrage with inflating supply"). This would actually be very interesting: the dynamic of the coin would then change depending on the percentage of people who use one or the other option. (This could of course also be done with Bitcoin or any non-UBI coin).

This was "not" meant as an argument against UBI in general. It is an argument that demurrage can change the dynamics of an UBI coin's price evolution and that these dynamics changes have to be taken into account.

The argument you could interpret against UBI was in my last paragraph, and it is related a bit. It isn't even an argument saying that UBI is impossible. But that you always have the challenge to bring people into the community who will receive less UBI than what they provide in terms of work and/or goods/services. And I think you would really need a flourishing economy inside that altcoin community for this, with lots of merchants and lots of opportunities for business. If it's an altcoin like 99% of current shitcoins, with no use besides speculation, I am quite sure it would fail and constantly devalue.