Can Crypto redefine current economic models?

[Lucusfoundation]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

[deisik]

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

Or it can be given

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

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.

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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

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.

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

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

[deisik]

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

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

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

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?

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)

[Lucusfoundation]

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

Very true.

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)

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.

[wuvdoll]

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.

[Julunguul]

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?

What would you say?

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.

[deisik]

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

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

[biskitop]

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.

[exstasie]

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.

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

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.

[Lucusfoundation]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[exstasie]

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.

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.

[stompix]

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

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.

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?

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?

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!

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.

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.

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,

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

[deisik]

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.

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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.

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,

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

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)

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.

https://www.facebook.com/foroeconomicomundial/videos/1850662431688311/UzpfSTE3MjkwODc5NTI6MTAyMDU0NzcxMjY4MDQxMDk/
Seeing that video can give you more ideas. Planting trees (purpose and environment) can create millions of jobs. Pakistan has planted 750M trees since 2015 giving 500.000 jobs to people. That is just one of the things you can do.

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!

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

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?

[deisik]

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

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

[stompix]

Bitcoinity says otherwise. Binance only makes 200M profit every quarter.

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
?

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.

You can sugarcoat everything, it won't make them waffles
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.

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 .

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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)

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

[Lucusfoundation]

You can sugarcoat everything, it won't make them waffles
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.

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...

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
?

True, wrongly read!

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

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, 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!

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.

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

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...

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

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

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

[deisik]

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

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 

[stompix]

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.