Topic: A blockchain use-case idea. Viable? (Read 233 times)

As one of the equals, here's my vote:

This discussion should be moved to 'Politics & Society' since it has nothing to do with project development.

Statements and assertions are not truths. This is a true statement.

If there is a global UBI, blockchain would be the best for it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/fjf64t/letter_how_about_this_universal_basic_income/

I would vote for whichever one most closely represented my views, regardless of what other people think.

If the votes are worth nothing, then how do they help to narrow the gap between rich and poor in any way? If there is no difference between earning zero votes or 10 million votes, then what do they actually achieve?

Ok, so no penalties for the selfish.

As I suspected. You haven't actually thought this through, and are just using blockchain as a selling point, much like the majority of scam ICOs and tokens.

Are we talking about the redistribution of wealth here? If that is the case then a voting system for it won't be the best idea of them all. Why? Voting system itself is a good idea but the people behind it is something you need to worry about. People can be greedy and form groups in order to cast their votes on another person and to another person part of their group, I'm talking about a circle jerk here where the same people will be the only ones benefiting this kind of system. Now not unless you remove this kind of possibility this kind of voting would be really unfair for those who are really deserving.

Instead of asking all these questions, please use some imagination. Would you elect a president who received 0 votes or another one who received a million votes? Why is it all about the ability to re-spend something which makes something valuable? Re-spending is a property of money. Forget that system. I am proposing something completely different.


So what's to stop someone taking some goods or services and then awarding no votes, and instead keeping their votes to "spend" on something else? This will just reward selfishness.
[/quote]
You can't buy votes. Period. Even if you trick people to vote for you, they can still burn their votes later. You have to be sincere in providing your services to help others. These votes are a feedback system, not an exchange system. If people don't vote, it can also mean that they have not been helped in the correct way. Yes, they can withhold their votes, it's their choice. But what stops people from withholding money?
If you don't like it, what rules would you implement to remedy this problem?


No system can solve every hypothetical problem out there. Everything we collect in this life will turn to dust. Money, too; votes, too. At large, society will probably do better with these votes than without. Money is a better item to earn to be honest. Once earned, one can keep it and re-spend it. But everyone is saying we need to solve inequality and poverty. Ok, a different system to resolve that. But no, let's earn more money.

Why not? Throw in the buzz words. Everyone in the world gets the same kind of votes, so naturally no single entity should control it. "some votes are more equal than others" - um.. no.
All Blockchain has been doing so far is creating money. It's a dead end. These votes can at least increases the transaction volume for Blockchain if everything else fails.

Right, so these votes aren't replacing money? So what good are they then? Let's say I collect 10,000 votes. What can I do with them other than give them to other people? Can I spend them? Can I buy things with them? What are their actual purpose?

Your proposal is still left with a number of issues:

So what's to stop someone taking some goods or services and then awarding no votes, and instead keeping their votes to "spend" on something else? This will just reward selfishness.

The proposal also penalizes things which have a high cost and only benefit a few people. For example, take an intensive care bed in a hospital. Expensive equipment needed, expensive to run, multiple expensive staff members, benefits a single person and their immediate family, meaning only a few votes shared by many people. Why would someone do that when they could run a small clinic on their own with few overheads and see 30 patients a day, and collect votes from all of them?

You still haven't explained why a blockchain is needed for this project.

Feedback received.


Assumptions:
1. To God, we are all equal.
2. An individual does more good to the society with a basic life support (such as food and shelter) than without it.
    a. A person's lack of motivation makes him idle, not the fulfillment of his basic necessities.
    b. Not being constantly anxious about basic life support makes an individual more intelligent and more productive.
3. A society does better overall without poverty than with it.


Objective:
Guarantee minimum life standards for many.


Problems with an Universal Basic Income System:
1. Difficult to adjust for minimum income levels across different regions.
2. Adjusting for inflation is problematic.


Solution: A different system based on voting, not money.
Rules of this system:
1. Everyone gets the same amount of single-use votes everyday for rewarding other human players in this system.
2. Once the owner spends his votes, he can burn them to nullify their face value. This makes these votes a pure feedback mechanism. One has to help others (provide basic necessities, motivatios, etc.) and then hope to be voted on. Not the other way round, i.e. receive votes and then provide service. This makes cheating for others' votes costly.
3. The owner can cast his vote on organizations, but the votes will be routed to real people's accounts. The assumption here is that people, not things, help each other. So people should be rewarded, not things. Although we can rank which organizations generate the most value by counting the votes they route. Non-profit organitions can operate on a quantifiable metric now.


Simulation:
Rewarding with votes creates the market supply for things that edify.

1. The poor
Money is a voting mechanism. However, the monetary system has a self-feedback loop which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. (From hence forth, the rich and the poor refers to the rich and poor in terms of material wealth.) In the end, there are dis-proportionally more poor than the rich (see Pareto Distribution for wealth); and the poor in total has less monetary voting power.

By giving everyone the same amount of single-use votes everyday (like that used in an election), there are more votes to be earned from the poor than from the rich. The poor now have something desirable to be gained from. Naturally, others would want to earn their votes by providing life support, education, motivation and opportunities.

2. The average incomers
Those whose life necessities have been met are likely to reward things which they don't want to spend money on, such as pirated movies. Let's face it, no one pays for pirated movies because no one wants to get poorer for spending money. We can now also reward free apps and websites.

3. Achievers
For the achievers in life, they are likely to vote for others who motivate them and impart truths and wisdom. An ancient Chinese emperor asked one of his ministers, "what is the most important job?". The minister answered "Teacher, for teachers grow the next generation." There are experts in every field. These votes incentivize them to impart their knowledge and wisdom, rather than withholding them for competition and persecution.

4. The rich
With these votes, the game of life has gotten more interesting! Challenge: try becoming rich both in money and in votes.
Of course, nothing in this world compares the kingdom of God. Read the Book of Mormon to be ranked higher in the kingdom of God.

Pretty sure there will be more policy that favors the 'poor' if you do this, but that doesn't guarantee the status quo will be better. On top of that, the solution and problem don't have a direct connection. OP, you should explain or think again about it so you have a clear problem statement and solution.


Don't forget that sometimes the rich limits those opportunities. Most people are selfish, and most of them don't want their source of income to be taken by someone else. It's not about competition but about control.

I know it's an assumption but I want to help you. Overall it sounds interesting but this assumption is completely
wrong. I have seen enough people who receive life support and stop progressing in their life. They become plants
and do nothing good for the economy other than being an expenditure. They do nothing for getting themselves out of
this situation (being on guaranteed life support) and become an expenditure for the government.

This answer may be influenced by my political views and what I have seen in my life, however I am 100% sure a lot
of people deserve that support as long as they do useful things (working, create value for the society, etc.) What I believe
is more important is CREATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO PROGRESS. This involves offering them a chance or a small
help to get out of their situation by offering opportunities which can be capitalised on.



Also regarding what you stated, "the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer", this is a widely statement accepted by a lot of people
who don't have a clear vision & see their situation. The rich gets richer because has opportunities. If you learn economics and politics
you will find out that in modern countries the poor does not get poorer UNLESS he lives in an area with no opportunities (the very poor country side
with no industry for example). The only solution is to move which means that it's an opportunity but many don't see.

Instead, if you look at an extremely poor country such as Gambia, you need to answer what could you do to create opportunities for gambian people to
succeed?


This will not be agreed by everyone and it's a 50%-50% opinion. Take a look at this website:
https://www.debate.org/opinions/does-every-american-have-the-right-to-food-water-and-shelter

This is a very vague suggestion and leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

What are the votes awarded for? What do they achieve?

Can you spend them on goods and services? Can you trade them for necessities? Can you trade them for bitcoin or for fiat? If yes, then who is going to accept these votes as payment? If no, then how do they help to narrow the gap between rich and poor?

How do you deal with the rampant inflation of giving everybody on Earth more votes every single day? Why does it require a blockchain?

Can you help me materialize this idea?

Assumptions:
1. To God, we are all equal.
2. If an individual is guaranteed life support (food and shelter), he is more likely to do good.
3. If a society guarantees a minimum living standard, overall it will do better.

Objective:
Guarantee minimum life standards for many.

Problems with an Universal Basic Income System:
1. Difficult to adjust for minimum income levels across different regions
2. Adjusting for inflation is troublesome

Solution:
Everyone gets the same amount of votes per day to reward others.

Simulation:
Money is a voting mechanism. However, the monetary system has a self-feedback loop which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. (From hence forth, the rich and the poor refers to the rich and poor in terms of material wealth.) In the end, there are disproportionally more poor than the rich (see Pareto Distribution for wealth); and the poor in total has less voting power in terms of money.

By giving everyone the same amount of single-use votes (like that used in an election) per day, the poor will have more voting power than the rich, as the poor are more in number than the rich.  The immediate needs of the poor can now be better answered, though the rich are still rich in terms of material wealth. So this new voting system complements what we have already built.