Topic: Can Crypto redefine current economic models? - page 5. (Read 908 times)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Very true.


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.

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


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)

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.


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

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


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

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



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

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?

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?


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?


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?

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

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?

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

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


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 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?

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

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.