Torn on how to achieve a National Basic Income Cryptocurrency on Maidsafe

I want to create a “national” basic income cryptocurrency/mint.

Duniter is a cryptomint well on their way to become a universal basic income cryptocoin supplier.
Their code is open source and available on github.

While I commend their amazing achievement, I however don’t agree with the currency setup entirely and recently the Duniter team has told me that they will support/allow only their own currency, so I’m thinking of perhaps rebuilding their app from scratch to launch my own.

The main reason why I don’t support their idea is that I don’t think governments will support international coins once they become a considerable size. I’m convinced they would consider cryptocurrencies as a national security issue once they start dominating national digital currencies.
XEM coins worth up to € 400+ million stolen is bad enough, but a coin that could become a percentage of the world’s economy in the hands of a single company could encounter thefts of up to several trillions.
To think that governments will not get involved with this is my view naive.

The second reason is that governments also like to implement monetary policy, so I predict that they will insist on at the very least to be able to control the money-supply growth on the launch of a cryptocurrency.
They’re not going to let Duniter dictate that the annual money-supply growth should be 10% per year.

But that got me thinking about maidsafe again. I assume that creating a maidsafe app with the functionality of Duniter would be a good idea.

So what I want is:

  1. Take Duniter’s Universal Dividend and Web of Trust.
  2. Combine it with the Safe Network.
  3. Combine it with an online electronic identification system like DigiD
  4. Launch a cryptocoin called the ‘European Basic Fiat’
  5. Recieve the equivalent of x.xx euro’s every day for the rest of my life.

The questions are

  1. Is it a good idea? Or am I missing something?
  2. Where to start?
  3. Should the application be written in Rust or Javascript?

I cannot see how it can work on a conceptual level without money coming in to supply the NBI

To achieve that relying on crypto rising in price still is just money coming in by speculators and that is a limited bucket eventually.

One way would be to tax the robots (machines + AI algorithms) that companies install to create greater profit. It would have to see the worth the robots provide (instead of displaced people earning taxable income) and this would provide a source of input to supply thee NBI. Not saying tax at same rate but a reasonable amount.

Otherwise I am not sure how.

1 Like

I’m not sure what you mean, but Duniter simply increases the money-supply for all members of the network.
They’ve already got it working.

Unless you mean living income. I’m not talking about a living income, just what Duniter already has implemented.

1 Like

The mere fact that you’ll have a SAFE token will give it value, if it has privacy. Although I’m out of money at the moment to work on our app, it will also be sort of a universal basic income.

Figure out what will give the token value. In my case, it is advertising time that gives it value. You can use the token to advertise on the background of our wallet, like so:
The token will also be used for other things, but I rather see it coded up first.

Second you’ll need a distribution method, that makes it fair to all users. Third you’ll need a wot.

So let software dictate what happens to the money supply.

Why would you speak of a “National” Basic Income, in the cryptospace there is no such thing as ‘national’. Token can be used globally imho…

SAFEcoin by itself is already a basic income, to compete with it you’ll need something pretty neat and creative. I only have a token, because it will enable people to do other stuff…


1 Like

Network effect popularity due to it’s even money-supply generation across the board and a web-of-trust plus electronic identification to ensure that all members are real people.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I isn’t SAFEcoin’s money-supply generation based on whoever has the most storage data available? If so, that’s not what a basic income is.

An even money-supply generation isn’t what gives it value, it’s what it’s being used for what gives it value. So what, everybody gets a 1000 tokens monthly (don’t mean to sound harsh). Nobody cares, because it probably can’t be used in the real world (to buy products) and it can’t be used on the app or other apps (to buy a service). For example: Clike is being used to advertise to people (show content of interest). At least you need something that the token can be used for.

Now one might argue that our token is also worthless, because you might as well use SAFEcoin to advertise. That is true, but our token gives a discount if you use it to advertise and it’s also used for other stuff, beyond the advertising.

Hmmmm it’s based on the content that’s requested. Having more storage doesn’t necessarily mean that you got the needed resource. Your right about the distribution that it’s not a basic income, because not everybody will get an even money-supply.

I’ve got it!

My first steps should be:

  1. Figure out how Duniter’s Web of Trust works first.
  2. Create a maidsafe app that uses this concept.

The cryptocoin will come after.

I disagree fully on this. Instead of nobody cares, everyone cares, because everyone will recieve a limited amount of tokens.

Not everyone can set up 10.000 Raspberries.
Not everyone has enterprise SSD diskspace.
Not everyone advertises.

The whole idea of money needs a “numismatic intrinsic value” that I keep seeing pop up is so extremely flawed, that I cannot fathom how those that believe it have never stopped and think how the money they use today ever got off the ground and beat, no pulverized coins and banknotes.

I argue that you’re making the value depend on a potential liability (next to the value of use).

Bro you can code, that’s why your execution in code is way more powerful than all my blablabla…
Btw project Decorum will also have a web of relevance + id

I got N99 tokens, others on this forum also, but at the moment they are pretty worthless. 1) I can’t exchange them. 2) they can’t be used for goods/service. Just printing money, doesn’t do anything, regardless of all people getting the same value (I might be wrong, but code it up and let’s try).

These are a few features of SAFEcoin, it’s used for something on the network.

Fiat is made out of thin air, it’s legal tender, because the government says so for paying tax and most people around me believe this holy message.

I have a minimum of 5 things that our token depends on, advertising is just the most visible. I’ve been thinking about even money-supply generation also, but based on the time that people spend on the app.

Don’t get me wrong a basic income can do miracles for everybody especially those who have nothing at all. It takes more to make an basic income.

Best way to know is just code, you’ll get feedback, just never give up on your ideas, everything is worth trying and solving a basic income is the best thing to do.

1 Like

SafeCoin egalitarian systems for farming solve many of the underlying issues, meaning we wouldn’t need basic income as much

With pds2 you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone, but that’s if you can actually trust the banks.

I prefer self-auth with the data on the SAFE Network, as immutable private data that can be verified by friends and family. Companies should never have users data, users should control/have their own data.

Maybe uploading your ID could/should be for free for the first 10M accounts to on board people quick.

Maybe if I say it another way.

  • NBI means everyone gets the same amount of coin.
  • fiat is not being replaced nor are any crypto coins
  • crypto coins get value because people pump money into them by buying them
  • people receive value (fiat) when they sell their coins to someone putting fiat into the coin by buying it

The key point is fiat works because people have trust in it and the government legislates its use and supports it (maybe not perfectly). So people are willing to exchange their labour/goods for $$$ (buying fiat) and they know they can then buy things of equivalent value with that fiat (selling fiat). Effectively fiat is an intermediary to solve a whole lot of trading issues. Ignoring the way banks etc use fiat, value is being pumped into fiat by peoples labour and people cash out by buying other peoples goods.

Now to have a coin to try and implement NBI and that coin to be worth anything, where is the value going to be pumped into the coin? Its is a coin designed to be sold, just like when working people are paid wages and sell their wages for goods. Except the coin had no value added to it when you gave everyone the coin and so no value to transfer. Whereas wages paid in fiat had value put into the $$$ because of the labour the workers did.

So the conceptual point is that there is no value added to the coin when you create it. So there is no value when people try to buy things with it.

Fiat is paid to workers who put value into it. If UBI is implemented then the value comes from the taxes paid by the robots (machines+AI) which displaced the workers.

BTC gets value from speculation and utility (not much utility at the moment). Utility for a NBI is very minor and might give a loose change value to the NBI coin, but not enough for NBI to buy anything of real value (food for the week)

SAFEcoin gets its value because the farmers are supplying resources which is a lot of value. Also from utility (will be very significant eventually) and also from speculation. So while not good for UBI/NBI, it does get value and it will not cost much to be a farmer, and the rewards should pay for itself. eg when mobile devices can farm on charge and all those in developing countries who have mobile devices, like the traditional tribes in Africa that see their young people tapping away on mobile devices.

1 Like

The value will exclusively come from use and scarcity, not from a secondary intrinsic value.

People will attach value to it because the EU will mandate to pay taxes in it.
I expect the EU not going to accept payments in a plethora of different cryptocoins that they all have to support. They will want a single coin that they’ve created “themselves”.

I expect them to become my costumer.

Explain why the EU would even look at let alone consider a NBI coin created by some hopeful group.

The EU would just implement UBI with fiat

Without some initial value it will not see use. Lets be clear everyone has the same number of coins and thus no desire for more so no value (yes there will be hoarders, but by def they add no value since they do not use but hoard)

Like before everyone is given the same number of coin and thus the exact opposite of scarcity.

They currently don’t have one. Why reinvent the wheel?

Instead of a national one?
And who will control the money-supply growth?
Brussels? Washington? Beijing?
You think they’ll ever come to an agreement?

The EU or a national government of the EU orders a citizen to pay taxes in European Basic Fiat.
Explain how this citizen will pay the EU (or national government) without said coin.

The “U” is universal not “Global” Any country state can introduce their own for their own country or state

Ummm the government of the country or state

Because they would use fiat, not some coin they cannot control the price of.

Trying to get a government to use a coin for something like this will be worse than trying to pull teeth from a lion when you have no protection and the lion is not sedated

In any case a NBI/UBI coin is designed to be sold by the recipients which all received the same amount of coin, and zero incentive to buy it. So there is no value built in. Why would people buy the coin? or exchange it for something of worth? Since the governments would use fiat, there is no backing. Its worse than BTC since EVERYONE gets the same amount, no scarcity, no cost of producing it, and everyone has the same amount.

From the wikipedia article about Fiat money:

Fiat money is a currency without intrinsic value that has been established as money, often by government regulation. Fiat money does not have use value, and has value only because a government maintains its value, or because parties engaging in exchange agree on its value.[1] It was introduced as an alternative to commodity money and representative money.

Correct me if I’m wrong:

I define properties of currency as follows:

Primary instrinsic value: How well the currency is according to it’s durability, portability, acceptability, limited supply, divisibility and uniformity.
Secondary intrinsic value: The value of the product currency represents, which could be the melt value of the good, a bank note representing a commodity like gold or a cryptocoin representing a service.

Fiat currency: A currency without secondary intrinsic value.

If I’m correct this is what wikipedia says in more confusing words as they can’t seem to get the definition of intrinsic value straight:

In commodity money, intrinsic value can be partially or entirely due to the desirable features of the object as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Examples of such features include divisibility; easily and securely storable and transportable; scarcity; and difficulty to counterfeit. When objects come to be used as a medium of exchange they lower the high transaction costs associated with barter and other in-kind transactions.
In numismatics, intrinsic value, also known as melt value, is the value of the metal, typically a precious metal, in a coin. For example, if gold trades in commercial markets at a price of US$ 1200 per fine troy ounce, then a coin minted from one troy ounce of fine gold would have an intrinsic value of US$ 1200.

That’s why I propose to define it as such that a currency two intrinsic values, it’s own and a secondary one.

You and others are saying the secondary intrinsic value is essential for a coin to have value and that fiat money only works if it’s another type of currency, which is a debt-currency.

So what you’re saying is they would use fiat debt.
Currency that requires interest.

You can argue all you want about how it’s not going to work.
Duniter has already launched the type of coin you say won’t ever work named Ğ1 and we’ll see how it will develop over the years. They already have a marketplace for it and people are using it.

No you created that.

USE - I am saying that its got no use - no value and everyone got the same amount. Its like giving everyone electronic sea shells and expect them to trade with it.

Scarcity - There is no scarcity. Its the opposite of scarcity since everyone got given the SAME amount.

Look back at my posts I said all this in them.

NO that is not what I was posting. They will use fiat because they can control it whereas they cannot control a coin created by what they see as a bunch of hopefuls

ALSO fiat maybe a debt currency BUT for all the negatives it has what I explain in detail previously a source of value. Workers give it value by “buying” fiat with their labours. Then they sell fiat for goods. It is still a useful and trusted medium of exchange by the population

Simply put the big countries of the world (incl EU) will use fiat. They will not even consider a 3rd party product that has no stable price and no source of value.

Basically the NBI coin has NO, that is zero source of value. No scarcity and no bootstrap value to have use. BTC took a very long time to get scarcity value worth anything. BTC has value put into it because of scarcity and mining costs. You can only get BTC by buying or mining, whereas NBI is just given equally to everyone for free. NBI has no scarcity and by definition is the opposite of scarcity. So no amount of mining cost will give it value. Remember scarcity value comes from actual real scarcity and the the mining costs to create the coins. NBI is giving everyone the same coins for no cost and no value added to spend. No buying to get the coin which is where scarcity gets actual worth, so no value in and you cannot expect value out. Maybe some curiosity/hoarding value but that won’t sustain the coin for long

1 Like

You use a hammer to hit a nail.
You use money to buy a product.
You can buy products with cryptocoins.
Ergo, it has use.

You make fallacy of what I call “luedifying” words, where lued stands for “lesser used equivocational definition”.

To give the most childish example: Take the definition “everything Folatt says” and attach it to the word “wrong” and voila! You “win” every argument against me by pointing out that all my arguments are wrong by definition.

You do the same with the words value, scarcity and fiat, turning your whole argumentation into a confusing mess. I argue why they’re “lueds” in your argumentation, but you’ll probably just produce more gibberish in response.

Instead I’m simply going to say that you should either lay out your definitions clearly and attach it to a made-up words if it doesn’t match the dictionary/wikipedia explanation of the word, or I’ll stop taking your arguments seriously.

Actually, I can’t already take you seriously.
ğannonce already flies straight into your face of everything you’ve been saying.

It’s like arguing with someone who still argues that airplanes will never take off the ground in an age when the Wright brothers have already made their first controlled sustained flights and I’ve shown you footage of that and you still argue against it.

I’m going to work on this project regardless.

Name one coin that is given to EVERYONE for free that does this.

You have attributed something that SOME crypto coins have to every crypto coin. Thats like saying all creatures live in trees. Only a few do and the same for crypto, only a few of the multitudes of thousands can be used.

1 Like