Building a basic income into SAFE beyond farming

The Economist and Professor Guy Standing just did a lecture entitled: Why the Future Needs a Basic Income.

A basic income beyond farming could be built into SAFE, and that would be an income for everyone. You have it for developers but that may be the wrong basis or too limited.

A use case would be with the 500 million new people coming online in India with smart phones in the next 2 years. Certainly don’t want them zero rate, but also want them being able to buy when they may not otherwise have ram or cycles. Maybe they buy bread.

A parallel thought is how to wipe out WIPO. If someone could just talk China into only honoring any kind of IP for five years you would transform the global system overnight. One effect might be a huge corporate draw for incorporation in China.

The host initially speaks in dutch, but the lecture is in English as is question and answer.


I think of Jacque Fresco’s Venus Project when thinking about basic income.

Society needs to have equality built in from the ground up. Modern cities have built in cues everywhere that reinforce a caste like structure, think of the huge buildings in DC that hearken early Rome and the towering cathedrals of finance at the center of every city.
The polar opposite is the Star Trek society where money is not ever even mentioned. If you need food there it is. Shelter is available for everyone, (this should be a given in modern society). Pondering how we get from where we are to there is a good mental exercise. As currency becomes more fluid I suspect society may change in unexpected ways. Perhaps at some point the sharing of currency for basic needs will become so automatic that it becomes a process that we no longer give conscious attention to.
I like what Prof. Guy Standing said at the end… “its a matter of political courage”.
Another term for basic income is social dividend,
Maidsafe is programming a social dividend right into the protocol by distributing Safecoin to all content contributors in a way that encourages quality content. It may not be a viable basic income but it is breaking the mold we (the proletariat at least) want to see broken.

Another good video on this subject.


lol no. Basic income is not sustainable and it incentive people to be more lazy. Why should I work if I get paid to do nothing. Bam, I just defeated the entire concept of basic income.

Maidsafe better not integrate scamcome into the protocol. If they do, I’m selling all of my maidsafe, and will not partake the community. BUT! if it is voluntary contract, then I don’t care.


Two things @Warren:

First, you haven’t proposed any mechanism by which the network would accomplish this. I think it is way, way, way beyond the scope of what the network is designed to do, of itself. It could be used, perhaps in some sort of scheme on a voluntary basis, but personally I don’t want anyone guaranteeing me a basic income, and the SAFE Network as I envision it provides tools to resist having it forced upon me.

Second: There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. I want to know what you would intend to extract from me against my will, in order to provide me and others with such a guarantee.


@anon81773980 @fergish

I recommend you read up on the universal basic income before dismissing it (I’m not advocating it for SAFEnetwork).

It’s easy to criticise without understanding the reasons for it, the ways it might be implemented, or why it might well work. People across the political spectrum have advocated it, and there are moves to try it out in various forms in different countries.

I think it is an idea worth exploring and trying to make work because most of the criticisms levelled at it are already proven characteristics of the system we already have! (e.g long term worklessness). So I think it is not clear that this would be any worse. In fact, I can reason that if people were freed from dead end jobs on insecure breadline contracts (I personally know people - intelligent creative people - in this situation), I think there would be a lot of creativity and new kinds of enterprise made possible.

People are inherently creative. Isn’t it just possible that the current system - from education, to rigged “democracy”, to wealth is power - ensures the creativity of the mass of people is suppressed?


You might be right but the experiments that have been done so far in this area contradict your assumption. There needs to be much more experimentation before anyone can conclude it does or does not solve or ease the problem of hunger, poverty and crime.


@Warren this topic is only for a very little part about Safe and it’s technology. I agree with @fergish that you should at least come up with some sort of technical concept to do this. People are anonymous on the network. So if Satoshi Nakamoto from Japan could create 1 account and get some sort of income next to Farming (a basic income) he might as well create 12 different identities as well to get paid out 12 times. No one would know. So please provide a concept if you like.

1 Like

I done plenty of research and have conclude that it is not sustainable, and incentive people to be lazy. It has been debunked so many times. I have no clue why are we still discussing on this failed idea. ‘Universal’ implies involuntary. It simply means stealing people’s money, and putting into somebody else pockets. That’s it. It is probably better than the current system but it’s still unethical, and not morality justified.

Without statist system, people have more money and therefore can invest into more things, and basic income is no longer needed.

Why don’t we just have a guaranteed minimum income of $1M? Then we can all be millionaires.

Hazlitt explains it well in Economics in One Lesson: when wealth is suddenly saturated in one sector of the economy, including the impoverished, things become more expensive for them.

This has nothing to do with corporate greed, but rather resource management. If there is a sudden demand for $200k homes, as would presumably happen if there were a guaranteed income, those homes will go up in price since they are scarce, and people who need these items more would be willing to pay more, same as today. If everyone in the world received a million dollars, there would be a sudden demand for items that only millionaires can afford. And what would happen? The prices would go up and only billionaires could afford them.

Essentially, what would happen in this particular situation is that the guaranteed $20k/yr would very quickly end up being worth nothing, and we would be back to square one with much ado about nothing.

Money is not wealth. Production is wealth (or creates wealth). If you’re shifting money around but not actually creating more wealth, then the situation is not in fact improved. All you’re doing is increasing consumption and demand which means more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Potentially even WORSE, you might actually lead to a decrease in production as you may cause people to produce less due to perverse incentives.


@polpolrene, @fergish, @anon81773980 I know time is precious but I’d genuiely like to know your thoughts after watching Professor Standing’s whole lecture and Q&A where he addresses in part possible mechanisms for how to pay for it when he agrees with Piketty that a global tax is likely unworkable and has concerns for Republical Liberty. Says he addresses the issue more fully in a recent book on his proposed charter. But he’s been studying the issue for more than 30 yeara and recently applying it in experiments in India- but it also has other historical precedent. And where its been applied those societies rank much higher on freedom and satisfaction indicies (not sure that’s in the lecture)

The first mechanism that occurs to me is to extend the that which will automatically accrue to developers (regardless of actual contribution- if its still there) to everyone (including develipers) but at an adjusted amount. This money even when given to others first will come back to developers. And index it to match the growing power of the network. Money has to be used constructively as a force for good. The use of money to coerce or compel people has to stop (although I’d preserve tort.)

But don’t take my guess as representative as I still need to go back through the presentation to get a less distracted understanding.

I would love see your research or even citations of the research of someone else on this subject. Please watch this video and share your thoughts[quote=“optictopic, post:2, topic:6936”]



I already gave you the economic reasons, and why it will fail.

Putting this topic on mute. It’s just waste of time. Bye.

1 Like

I have not watched the video so forgive me, it sounds great, these things always do, I just hope he’s not some socialist.

Whats stopping them in India from doing this already though?

Once we go live if 1 Safecoin = 1cent in USD well that’s 6.7 Rupees and the cost of living in India is far cheaper than in any Western country.


We’ll Standing is doing it in India even without SAFE but yes it looks like India could be an example if a basic income component could be added to SAFE.

Please, let’s not mix politics with safe network. Build something optional on top of safe if you must, but leave the core alone.


The core already has this feature for developers as a stimulus that will scale back over time. I am suggesting something that could be a stronger overall stimulus and a more permanent feature and advantage.

Even that is a concern, but at least the aim is to reinvest in the network. Siphoning this off for activities external to the network would be very concerning and I would expect a fork would be a forgone conclusion.


Before people get carried away with a basic income, I suggest they read about the Law of Rent:

No matter how you take and redistribute, it will end up in the hands of landlords/land owners. Until that problem is resolved, poor people will remain poor, at the expense of rent seekers.


Let this not veer off into the market religionists type stuff. There is Hazlett take on this stuff above that has been debunked. All of its been debunked, it doesn’t fit history or experiment. Its also the lowest level of prattle and only reflects what since at least 1970 has been shown not to work but we knew it didn’t work in the 30s.

The basic income was the advice of 2000 economists back in 70 along with Arthur C. Clark. Robert Heilbroner and Robert Oppenheimer who got together and came to Nixon and Johnson pressing the need back then over the automation already in place. Both bit and played with it but it got caught up in true stupidity like means testing and work-fare. The Scandinavian countries have long experience with it. I recent incredibly lame criticism was that on any given day in Scandinavia that 1 in 6 workers called in sick, but all things considered so what! How many days in her life has Paris Hilton showed up for work let alone called in sick? This business about not having someone to shine your shoes is worse than racism. And this business about it gives people an incentive to be lazy isn’t any better, its the same thing really.

Jeremy Rifken like the basic income idea but also sees we have possible 4 decades ahead of us where work will still be needed for rebuilding the economy on a green basis just to survive. But that almost 100 years after the global economics community called for guaranteed annual income (basic income) there really likely will be no work for most people because assuming we are still here there is a solid chance there we will nothing in the way of work that machines not only do better but orders of magnitude better, as they already do for so many things.

@optictopic that was a great video, but I think it just a little older though. I noticed the point where he said in the US a huge percentage of people faced what sounded like total displacement in the next 5-7 years.

Yes for certain sectors like trucking which may soon be replaced by automated trucks. Overall 50% of all jobs both in the US and Europe are replaceable with automation.


For clarification, you are saying in the short term 50% are replaceable? By 1870 standards 97% of jobs have already been replaced by machines as back then all but 3% of people worked in agriculture. There are new jobs that come out of these revolutions but it seems with each industrial revolution (Rifken says we are verging on the 3rd) more people are displaced. The 4th revolution would would be AI, but SI could be a 5th right on top of it. By the time of SI it would see that nothing would be left. SI is a wildcard that portends either massive disruption or catastrophic disruption and its actual arrival is quite hard to predict. There is some chance it could be quite soon with stuff like a general quantum machine mated (Google Predicts 3 years out) mated to newer general learning systems.