Can Crypto redefine current economic models?

[Lucusfoundation]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Not to ever come back again.

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 

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

[deisik]

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 

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

What is TCR in this context?

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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 

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

What is TCR in this context?

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

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

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

[exstasie]

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)

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

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

[deisik]

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)

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

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

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

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

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

[stompix]

Do not want to tax. As talking above... Making a protocol that automates this redirection of profits, towards customers entities of choice, in an optional way.

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

You have the same car, same features, same everything.
To make car A, from 1-10, pollution was 10.
To make car B, from 1-10 pollution was 3.
What car are you getting? (Remember, they are both the same, the only difference is the one mentioned above)

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

~

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

Not to ever come back again.

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

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

The best example for this, when you have somebody that is well-intentioned but out of his league is the famous program by Mao, Great Leap Forward, the guy really believed in it but it ended up killing millions.


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

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

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best example for this, when you have somebody that is well-intentioned but out of his league is the famous program by Mao, Great Leap Forward, the guy really believed in it but it ended up killing millions.


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

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

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

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

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

[deisik]

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)

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

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

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

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

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

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

They are even more important than money

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

[Lucusfoundation]

They are even more important than money

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

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

[exstasie]

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

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

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

Bitcoin wallets get hacked because Bitcoin is worth something. But what's the purpose of stealing your voting key if you won't be able to use it anyway? Say you steal it from someone and then vote with it. Now we see what could be loosely interpreted as a double spend. Obviously, both votes are then declared invalid

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

while the legitimate owner receives the right to cast a new vote with a new key (or is obliged to vote in "manual" mode if he is not able to provide enough security for his keys). We could use hardware encryption and that would solve the problem of hacking

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

What do you mean by "hardware encryption" exactly?

[Harlot]

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

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?

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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

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?

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

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

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

[deisik]

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

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

Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much

Bitcoin wallets get hacked because Bitcoin is worth something. But what's the purpose of stealing your voting key if you won't be able to use it anyway? Say you steal it from someone and then vote with it. Now we see what could be loosely interpreted as a double spend. Obviously, both votes are then declared invalid

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

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

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

while the legitimate owner receives the right to cast a new vote with a new key (or is obliged to vote in "manual" mode if he is not able to provide enough security for his keys). We could use hardware encryption and that would solve the problem of hacking

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

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

[yusupjatigumilar]

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

[deisik]

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

It most certainly wouldn't

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

[whirlcoin]

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?

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

[Lucusfoundation]

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

It most certainly wouldn't

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

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

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

[deisik]

It most certainly wouldn't

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucusfoundation]

It most certainly wouldn't

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Deisik for your interesting reply, again.

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

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

[gulubal]

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