Can Crypto redefine current economic models?

[Lucusfoundation]

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?

[LeGaulois]

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?

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.

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?

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?

[Lucusfoundation]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

[davis196]

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.

[binhvo1505]

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?

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.

[bitbunnny]

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.

[Indamuck]

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.

[Lucusfoundation]

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.

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?

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.

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

[justdimin]

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.

[Lucusfoundation]

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)?

[kryptqnick]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[deisik]

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.

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?

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?

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

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

[exstasie]

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?

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

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?

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 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 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?

[deisik]

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

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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 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?

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?

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

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

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

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?

[exstasie]

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

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?

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 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?

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.

[bettercrypto]

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.

[hatshepsut93]

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.

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.

[eaLiTy]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[deisik]

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

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?

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