New Year's Post on a Safe world - predictions, hopes and frustrations

First original post here. I’ve been watching for years with tons of hopes for a real change. I see many cryptos and groups and orgs doing various parts of what I hope the future brings but only MS has the potential for technically doing it all and in a completely correct and decentralized manner. Hence, I’m posting to this group. My apologies for the length but it’s a very comprehensive topic.

I’m very future-minded. Starting a disruptive energy company, coming from automation and manufacturing and internet worlds. I’m very pro towards the following movements but also see all of them failing to fundamental flaws that stop their progress. I spend my days working out how to fix those by working with other groups. They include:

Zeitgeist Movement, TVP,
Singularity, AI,
Technological Unemployment,
Basic Income,
Abundance,
Sharing economy,
Net based voting - possibly governance,
Net based education,
Decentralized disrupted and distributed everything,
Peer reputations,
Monetary reform (conversion to digital) up to and including post monetary economy,
Elimination of all non-local governments and borders… (scary, I know)
and more…

First the problems I have with this community. It seems to me that too much focus is placed on making money from the mining process and from the inflation of the value of SafeCoins. Isn’t the purpose of a crypto to disrupt the corrupt banking system which robs value by deflating people’s prosperity from them? If so, inflating the currency value would be nice but only if it was due to increased prosperity, not by system games.

The stock market robs value by giving undue proceeds to people not involved in the productive sectors. It’s no different than the derivatives, hedging or full-fraud money laundering and market manipulation games. If an app can displace the stock market by putting investors directly in contact with investees, why not eliminate all the middle-men.

The insurance industry is the same. Without the middle-men and on a global scope, total insurance expenses can fall to a fraction of current amounts.

The energy costs (my field) can be replaced by fully distributed, paid-off systems which utility companies would pay dearly to tap for their excesses.

Education can be automated to include the best peer reviewed info and presented in the most applicable form for each individual.

Voting can be ubiquitous, perfectly verifiable and free. And if so, governance can be optimized toward a continuously reduced scope. Defining laws (a contentious topic on other posts) can be globally debated to present the most applicable set to whatever entity still creates the actual laws.

I see all these as the obvious next steps in civilization’s advancement. When they happen is up to the popularity and ease with which they can be implemented but both of those depend on the tools available to make it happen.

MaidSafe seems to me, to be the best platform for every one of those tools to be created on. It has the security built in to be anonymous as well as fully interactive on the global scale. It has the ability to pay privately for content (a needed step in money’s transition).

It even has the ability to tax the economy in a perfectly fair and fully capturing manner. I know this is a controversial topic but hear me out. Taxes are not the evil that some say they are. That evil lies only in what the taxes are used for. A transaction fee is a tax used for maintaining the system. A devaluation of the currency is a tax used for creating more currency needed to scale up. Even giving the founders and miners money for their jobs is forced taxation but it’s ok because it’s not giving it to some government to pay undesired costs, right? No. It’s the same thing. We all agree to pay some fee inside of whatever system we’re working under, so let’s just get to the meat of the question…

What services are we willing to pay a fee, tax, charge or bill to? As I said above, all cryptos seem to be ok with paying miners. I’m ok with that as long as the miners aren’t replicating each other’s work as much as in Bitcoin. Same with the founders because they need startup capital both to live on and create the trust in the minds of the public.

However, many people aren’t ok with paying for the changes in society. I’m talking about technological unemployment. The simple fact is that jobs are increasingly going away faster than they are being created. We can debate this all day but I see no point if the solution is simple enough so that’s where I’ll focus. The numbers should speak for themselves.

Under the end-game scenario where all money exists as SafeCoin (which I see it as inevitable that there be only one currency), it would only take a single percent of tax on every transaction to provide a fully encompassing safety net for all humans if done correctly. The caveat is that all transactions would need to be taxed, not just the ones in this currency or that one - hence the single currency requirement. (Keep in mind, this is the “end-game” scenario.) This fee or tax would be levied autonomously on all transactions, be they human to human, bot to bot, business to business to government or whatever combination. Even a father giving his son $20 for a date should count since it’s money movement. It hits hardest on the least productive aspects of society like rapid stock trading and derivatives, money swaps, banks shifting money to manipulate markets and such so why not embrace that to dissuade that activity? And if that activity drops enough so there’s not enough revenue to fund a full basic income, the result would be such a productive economy that the costs of living would fall in line with the reduced incomes. Eventually, everyone could live a decent living standard with no work… because there would be enough bots, automation, algorithms and artificial intelligence systems in place to do all the non-volunteer work needed. At that point, money can simply be forgotten because it’s hassle is no longer worth the time.

So, I see a mesh-net based MS structure taking over because it’s 1) secure and 2) easier and 3) has more “users” to interact with (the only reason Facebook exists and continues to grow). It will eventually facilitate IoT communications and transactions, easily lending it’s security features to speed that process. It will empower content creators of all types to dump the paid middle-men, centralized structure which then attracts the masses because of content quantity. Same goes for YouTube, porn sites, news sites, social sites and all the other Twitter style things. Basically, if one is doing anything that others want to see or hear or learn about, they can make a living that way. If not, they can live a basic life while doing nothing.

There really is a path to changing the entire world for the better and this is one of the most powerful and relevant tools needed to make that happen. Most importantly however, I see it as both the time when it’s needed most and the most possible so why not begin the discussion?

I see all this happening in about 20 years but that’s predicated on the basics being set up now, not 3 or 5 years from now. As such, I think it’s time to begin discussing the future of the world asap so a consensus can become an action. What are your thoughts on all this or any specifics?

4 Likes

love it, agree fully, let’s all support the routing guys so SAFE can take flight :smiley:

2 Likes

So is it safe to assume you speak for the group’s full consensus since no one else commented negatively? :smirk:

Lol IDK maybe people are busy

1 Like

I agree with everything you wrote completely.
As for profit it seems the issue is that it must be proportionate to contribution and need, it too is often a kind of fee or tax. It cannot be tribute, which is what some think of as its purpose which I think in turn has caused some (USSR) to label it a crime. It can’t continue to be a means of reinforcing “structural violence.” And wages are a backwards idea because they generally don’t allow full or commensurate participation in the gains or allow people to use their minds or develop. Even the idea of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ is vastly wrong.

I agree there has been too much forum focus on the personal wealth aspects, but David remains clear on the equitable focus. Also, agree the physical network in optimal form is needed now not latter and cannot safely wait. Very interested in systems that take undue influence out of decision making- for instance charisma can be abstracted out. And of coure interested in taking the conflicts of interest out of information systems.

I think some at reading at front of the OP t may have confused “MS” for Microsoft. I know better but still did it initially out of force od habit. Also, you might have observed that while David never pushes his views on people (so you have to dig sometimes to get a sense of what they are) he is pretty commons oriented and would probably be aligned with most or all of what you have expressed. I think Nic might be slightly more business focused, but that has been his focus. So you’re proposal seems from what I can see to be in strong alignment with the founder’s intents and aims.

1 Like

I can’t say that I spend enough time here to know David or Nic. Actually, I’ve never even hear who the ‘owners’ or founders are on this project. I just know the basics of how it seems to be structured toward distributed and encrypted everything. As I see it, combining that with mesh networks (ala Project Fi, Barcelona, etc.), we could eliminate every piece of centralized anything from ISPs to search, to files, to apps, to info, to content, to money, to savings, to lending and even to voting. I even have numerous projects myself that I want to take on down the road but I need a platform / portal with inherent security, ID credentials and connectivity to do it. Obviously, this wasn’t realistic back in '99 when first conceived.

On the other end of the spectrum, my ‘day job’ is running a startup that will change the structure of the energy issues. It will disrupt a large portion of the solar industry with combined heat, cooling, power, storage, micro-grid and hopefully provide mesh hotspots. If this all goes well, it will decimate the existing energy industry. This will essentially swap the power (decision making power) from the centralized entities to the distributed residence owners. Doing so yields a platform / portal which enables homeowners to do things that are currently power intensive at minimal extra cost. Hopefully, you can see the parallel (and synergy) between M-S offering this on the information / communication front. In short, with these two prongs of advancement, we can rapidly accelerate our progress toward the world as it should have migrated towards from the start.

It’s for this reason that I’m strongly supportive of M-S. However, when drilling into the pitfalls of such a path, the issue of technological unemployment puts a dent in it going smoothly. There’s simply no way to advance every industry at the same speed so while some people benefit from advancement, others suffer. This will grow until the point where the concepts of money and wealth are no longer equated to power. And if not, they will greatly hinder it every going that way. This is where basic income plays a role.

However, once again, if done incorrectly, it could make things worse. Border issues would divide countries. Age or group discrimination would divide those groups more. Increased dependency could enhance money’s power over the recipients. In short, it’s a crap-shoot. So, after running the numbers on how much, to whom, from where and so on, I realized it is perfectly matched to a global algorithm. Give $12k to each person from age zero on, but reduce it 3% per birthday down to a floor of $4k/yr. Making this a daily dividend produces a predictability in the system while giving immediate feedback on the economy. Individuals saving their adolescent dividend until adulthood would never need a loan and would effectively save 1/4th of lifetime expenses. Doing this in piecemeal instead of winfall, eliminates the lottery effect which eliminates many issues, not to mention that insurance is no longer a necessity. This ‘budget mindedness’ then dumps another 1/4th of lifetime expenses. By covering the vast majority of current government services and adding to that energy independence and no need for central banking, we can arguably eliminate as much as 90% of government expenses. That’s on an order of 22.5% more of lifetime expenses eliminated.

In total, this means that even in today’s consumerism based, inflating world, the average “person” (not family) could conceivably live on $800k per life. And in an ideal transition with automation, substitution and sharing, that could fall to $200k. Earning $100k for 8 years now or $40k for 8 years after costs fall, either way and your standard of living matches that of the average civilized person today. Meanwhile, jobs diminish rapidly. Work is reduced to passions and volunteering. Crime falls. Corruption recedes. Poverty and hunger vanish. Wars for resources are no longer supported. and on and on.

As you might imagine, this being such a massively encompassing topic, there needs to be tons of discussion on all aspects and it needs to begin soon. The good news is no government laggards need be involved. And any crypto that adopted the basic income segment would see membership and transaction volume soar, making that crypto the global de-facto standard for money. This is why I’m leaning towards the reigning crypto popularity champion (Bitcoin) but desiring the crypto with the most to offer society (M-S).

1 Like

I really like how your vision balances infationary and deflationary forces in an almost steady state way while removing the coercive/arbitrary force from money. It also balances gain to developing and developed world alike which is just in the historical context and the ecological context.

I hope some day you and David can have a conversation. Another person that might be interesting to talk to is Guy Standing.

I would hope that as well. Guy Standing is on my list of people to present it to as well as Scott Satens. Unfortunately, none will even respond to my requests. Perhaps you could introduce?

Sorry same issue. I think a lot of professors fit the INTJ mold. Best way in might be through one of his students. When it comes to professors sometimes that is the only chink in the armor.