What If Safecoin was TIMEBASED?


#1

Poverty basically makes it impossible for people to live. What if we had money that is timebased and tied to a persons biometric (absolutely protected from prying eyes). In the old set up you need currency to make currency, what if your life is money?

Let’s go into a imaginary world where this idea could work.
What if in januari 2015 Safecoin launched and everybody with a device like Nymi/Emotiv receives money.
Every 10 minutes you receive 0,10 Safecoins, without having to do anything in return (basically your participating in the Maidsafe system, so that should be worthy of Safecoins) annually you would receive 5256 Safecoins.

This coin would only be based on fairness, but the problem is, not everybody would even have money to buy these devices. So how would these people even come close to receiving their Safecoins? Let’s say that in this imaginary world it’s now januari 2020 and we now got an opensourced Nymi device with some extra’s. The way how to distribute money to the poor would be, by letting them first call to the device, after that they wear it and they transfer their fund to their feature phone (Only the wearer can transfer his/her personal funds). If somebody would for the very first time receive their funds in januari 2020, that means that they now have 26280 Safecoins.

The feature phone solution is still not perfect, ideally you want everybody to have a device, because this way you can even prevent theft. If you stole somebody else his/her device you could only spend your funds. Devices like Nymi even got the safety mechanism that they simply don’t work when someone is in disstress. I realise that when you tie money to people, that you could loose funds, when people past away. Maybe in 2030 we could have the money automatically transfered to relatives, when they enter a link to an official obituary transaction. Heck maybe even before 2030.

Now that I think about it, maybe everybody doesn’t need to have a device. I could be broke as a joke and go into a store to get some groceries and the cashier would just hand me over an device to make the transfer. So actually only the people selling stuff would need a device. A transaction could be as simple as you wearing the device and typing how much you want to receive, after that I wear it and check if I agree, if I do, I send you the money. In a company you would just have a tree structure of employee receive funds that direct goes to the companies root account.

Are there more rich people or are there more poor people? If you know the answer to that, then make a solution that caters the mayority group, because they will add more value to your money solution. With a timebased currency, tied to a person, you can offer so much more improvements, to people’s lives and to be honest, this should be doable. If we can send man to the moon, it would be idiotic not to embrace/create a currency which bring everybody to an equal playing field. If your time on earth is important, you can only spend that much.

P.S.
What if our currency was timebased and every person had a limit of 100 years on their account and everything above it goes to science/development of the community.


#2

Please don’t take this as me being a “poor hater” but you cannot just GIVE people money to make them not poor. It doesn’t work. There is growing movement I’ve noticed on using cryptos to be able to give funds to all the people of the world - and really it IS possible to do so. However, I honestly believe you will be doing these people a disservice in the long run. Maybe not to them personally, but in generations to come.

If you have to do NOTHING to get something, you will do nothing and reap the benefits of that nothingness (free money). 2-3 generations down the line from these people, you will have people with absolutely no skills, no desire to work, and no need to work. Who’s going to plant the crops? Make sure the sewer system works? Build shelters? There will be a few no doubt, but can those few support everyone?

I’m always so torn when I see the obviously homeless guy on the sidewalk asking for money. To give him money is to perpetuate his situation. He then has no desire to go learn a skill to get a real job, however, he may also not eat that day either. Its a pretty nasty catch 22. I wish I had the time and resources to teach these people how to paint, play an instrument (and give them one) or some type of SKILL so they can EARN a living. Giving people a living for doing absolutely nothing though is not the answer.

But not all people are created equal. Equal rights? Yes, Equal opportunity? It should be. Is everyone going to take advantage of those? Absolutely not. Those who do rise, those who don’t fall. We need to create a situation where everyone has the same chances but forcing everyone to the same level, in my opinion, brings some nasty things up to the same level as some really fantastic things.

All that being said: We need to, as a community, create a situation where people all have the same chance of success, not forcing “success” on them by bringing them up to the same level as those who have worked their butt off their whole life. Feeding people money out of the blue just for living is a bad idea.


#3

The problem with Time Based currencies is the machines don’t care about time. Machines require electricity not time.

So any time based currency would be only for human beings. What happens when most of the labor is done by machines? What good is your timecoin when you’re paying a vending machine for fast food?


#4

I agree you cannot just give people something they don’t really want. I do think we should spread and distribute equity. Equity is not the same thing as money. Money is not an asset and the reason people are poor is because they either don’t have any assets or they undervalue the assets they do have.

For example if you gave a person 50 Bitcoins a few years ago and they sold them all for $5 then it’s their fault they are poor today. They had an asset and were so quick to sell it that now they have no assets.

But it’s critical to give everyone a chance to acquire assets, to have the door of opportunity remain open, and to even give shares in different decentralized applications so everyone has an initial stake. What people decide to do after that will decide if they become rich or poor but I do think by design everyone should have a stake.

So no one should be left out of the economy. It should be all inclusive. But just giving people a stake in the future doesn’t mean they’ll do the work necessary to increase the value of their stake (they have to personally see the value in it), and if they don’t then they’ll be one of the people who had a stake but sold it for pennies.

Here is the evidence to back up what I’m saying

If they really believed in the technoloigcal future they wouldn’t have spent all their Bitcoins on food. It’s understandable they would have spent some of their Bitcoins but saving some would have been prudent. If we make it easy for people to earn shares in decentralized apps you’ll have a lot of poor people who aren’t visionaries who will sell their future for pennies but there are always going to be some visionaries who will see the big picture.

If you have to do NOTHING to get something, you will do nothing and reap the benefits of that nothingness (free money). 2-3 generations down the line from these people, you will have people with absolutely no skills, no desire to work, and no need to work. Who’s going to plant the crops? Make sure the sewer system works? Build shelters? There will be a few no doubt, but can those few support everyone?

2-3 generations from now it’s unlikely that most human beings will have to work anyway. That is a really outdated argument at this point. Machines will likely do most of the work within 20 years.

We have 7+ billion people on the earth and to feed everyone on the planet we don’t even need 0.1% of these people to work. To house the whole planet we don’t even need 0.1% of people to work. We have 3d printers and sooner or later AI is going to be so smart that only really talented geniuses will have a job as we currently define it.

So it’s likely that the vast majority of people will never have a job as we traditionally think of it. Work will just be activity and participation. I don’t think human beings will ever be less active so there will be creative fun ways to play as a substitute for work. As long as activity is rewarded with income it doesn’t really matter what that activity is just as long as no one’s rights are violated.

I think if you’re expecting every human to be a rocket scientist or the next Einstein then you’re looking at the wrong species. Our education system isn’t good enough to produce a generation of people like that.


#5

If you have to do NOTHING to get something, you will do nothing and reap the benefits of that nothingness (free money). 2-3 generations down the line from these people, you will have people with absolutely no skills, no desire to work, and no need to work. Who’s going to plant the crops? Make sure the sewer system works? Build shelters? There will be a few no doubt, but can those few support everyone?

Robots can replace ALL of this. People do not need to do these monotonous mundane disgusting work. People were made to sing, dance, play sounds with the earth, paint pictures, imagine. Not to do this nonsense and they wouldn’t have to if we made more thorough robots. And yes FEW can support everyone because it only takes FEW robot prototype for each of these problems to be solved.

I’m always so torn when I see the obviously homeless guy on the sidewalk asking for money. To give him money is to perpetuate his situation. He then has no desire to go learn a skill to get a real job, however, he may also not eat that day either. Its a pretty nasty catch 22. I wish I had the time and resources to teach these people how to paint, play an instrument (and give them one) or some type of SKILL so they can EARN a living. Giving people a living for doing absolutely nothing though is not the answer.

This is insane. Just because YOU are not taking the “homeless” person who pan handles off of the street or out of that life does not allow you to claim that you are perpetuating this person’s situation by giving this person some money. You simply are not capable of empowering this person in such a way that they might need and your guilt has brought you to bash a pan handling person and also try to prevent others from helping others.
And not having skills or real jobs or even the motivation to doing acquiring job or skill is obvious; if one was starving one would get some food first, then one can start to consider things like job, or business, etc.


#6

Timebased systems. Original Poster assumes that one can only live up to 100 years. Anomalies exist. A person could live for far more than 100 years, a person can live far more than 900 years. Its written in a history book from long ago.

This being considered, and also the original topic:
This would actually enable many, though it could cause some problem:

Success: groups can start enterprise because they can combine currency and create a conglomeration of people who contribute their currency toward a monolithic application. This is quite favorable.

On another hand this will cause HUGE shortages in availability of things in the early stages. simply because by the time groups get together to assemble to robots for farming, for example people could starve. So an entire infrastructure must exist for a timer based money distribution system to workout. Also one would need to consider ALL the items that are available to buy and also ALL the items that might exist in the future, one would need to factor thoroughly and immediately those items which will not exist in the future in order to assign a really fair value otherwise people will get scammed for their coins as people get scammed in the fiat world and so the whole approach mentioned solves nothing in the end.


#7

We have to redefine work into play. Children play and it’s considered good for them. Why is it not good for adults as well? It doesn’t require 7 billion workers to sustain society. It doesn’t even require 1 billion or 100 million. The population is growing every day so there will be no shortage of geniuses who are bored enough to want to be like Elon Musk.

But how many people do we know who are geniuses? According to the IQ test geniuses are 1% of the population. So 1% of the population could support the other 99%.

TimeBased currencies don’t make much sense. Once automation is set in motion and once we have nano or atomic 3d printing there will be no reason for “labor”. We’ll need to pay for electricity costs though.


#8

There is plenty of cool ways to not have to pay for electricity and those who store this knowledge can finally leak it on SAFE Network without implications.


#9

I mostly agree. I do not believe we should spread equity. I believe we should give equal opportunity to equity to all people. I like you idea of offering shares of decentralized applications, however, I do not think that everyone should get shares automatically, I think everyone should have an equal opportunity to request shares.
Your link is an example of why giving wont work. You can’t logically expect people to believe in a technology they were outright given for no reason, and do a bunch of research on it to figure out if it’s viable and worth saving or spending.

I agree with your premise, however, “most” of the work is not even remotely possible in 20 years. Automated machines likely wont be building sky-rises in 20 years, a machine isn’t going to take my job troubleshooting and replacing/upgrading the electrical work in 30-70 year old sewer plants in 20 years. Those are huge industries. Stocking shelves? Sure. Agriculture? possibly. Taking orders and making a burger at a fast food place? Absolutely. But there are some jobs, luckily like mine, that will be done by humans for many generations to come.

See above.

Absolutely not. I’m not bashing panhandlers at all. I believe these people SHOULD be helped. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I just do not believe that giving them money is the solution. Short term possibly, so I do (something) throw them some money, however, as I stated, its always a torn decision.

Coming from a group of people who are trying SO hard to decentralize everything, if this ideology takes off, I will have lost a lot of faith in the decentralize movement.


#10

Time based has been proposed by policy makers before and even adopted- it wasn’t crypto but it was still very interesting. The end of work happened decades ago.

There’s been no need for labor since the late 1960’s. I think that was the conclusion of policy makers. Around the time they put people on the mood with 1960s technology they asked the question. They realized that during traffic of the agrarian and part of the very early industrial period 16hrs a day 7 days a week wasn’t enough and people were starving even as 97% of people worked in agriculture. By 1970 only 3% of people worked in agriculture. And of course the and about 2000 economist realized they could retire 97% of people at that point and cycle the economy more efficiently. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur C. Clark and Robert Heilbroner petitioned the White House for a guaranteed annual income that pay people much more than Social Security from cradle to grave. It was essentially a time based system. Even Richard Nixon bit and pilots were begun in at least one state and also in Manitoba Canada.

Keep in mind the Nordic experience. They made this work. Also keep in mind that in formulating the Social Security act in 1927 or so a 27 hrs work week was argued for as that is what we were sufficient on in the bush prior to language and tools. It was obviously figured that with the automation of even 1927 that
pulse our hard wired subsistence activity there would be enough surplus to keep the capitalist afloat but the capitalist argued for more. Clearly they wanted to reinforce their power by having control over more at least half the time on most days. Work dropped from 80s a week to 40, but was still a rip off.

Back to the early 70s, the left could have got rid of social services and gone with recommended guaranteed annual income which 2000 economist were advocating (really Nixon wanted a minimum income version of it.) Instead they rejected it. Social services became paying for buildings, paper and airconditioning but honestly it wasn’t any better up to that point.

Worst of all and most critical is that the policy people realized that if there were no necessity in work there would be no need for capital either. The position of capital would be non exclusive and they would lose their power. Despite the Great Welfare state, around 1970 is when the 30 glorious years ended and everything started going down hill. They delinked wages from inflation. They scores of civil rights and labor leaders, they started revving up the most aggressive forms of globalism. It was than that the thesis from some Canadian Academics was announced that the purpose of business was profit or ROI.
The 70s set the ground work for a supply side society or the Regan revolution which is an attempt to return to Mercantilism.

Most of this is in Rifken’s book “The End of Work.” Even Rifken backed away from his book because it was too ‘controversial,’ or maybe not written well enough. But what could have been a great liberation was canceled and replaced by enclosure or imprisonment. Look at language in the Patriot Act where they seem to be wanting to play with defacto martial law. That’s enclosure. Look at exclusive gated communites. That’s enclosure. In response to the LA riots, or Seattle or OWS they do gated communities and convince themselves they can take anyone out from space in 5 minutes. Problem is with a functional internet, .01 seconds would be quick enough. A response to a burgeoning commons or a break out of the commons is predictably a crack down. The slaves are escaping the plantation!


#11

@Wes

I mostly agree. I do not believe we should spread equity. I believe we should give equal opportunity to equity to all people. I like you idea of offering shares of decentralized applications, however, I do not think that everyone should get shares automatically,

We agree. I don’t think it should be automatic either. I believe attention should be rewarded with equity as a new form of advertising.

To the decentralized application these users are early adopters/beta testers who provide a valuable feedback loop to the builders. The concept of a serious game is at play here because in my opinion mining was intended to be a serious game. It started out fair because there was equal opportunity back in the CPU era where anyone with a general purpose CPU could have a chance to hit the jackpot. Slowly over time it has decreasingly become less fair, power has started centralizing, starting with the GPU generation which required an increased level of expertise and while GPU’s were still general purpose it was slightly less fair .

Now mining is a rigged sport / serious game which is totally unfair for the purposes of distributing shares in Bitcoin. It’s bad enough that Bitcoin inflates which dilutes for the people who purchase but it’s even worse in that the people trying to mine them with GPUs or with ASICs aren’t able to profit and lose too. Only ASIC conglomerates, mining pools and some others can play this game and win.

So I’m advocating we constantly change the game. Each decentralized application can come up with it’s own serious game which acts as both advertisement, distribution, and a reward for the time, loyalty, attention, of the users. This would allow users to mine with their attention to the decentralized application itself and if you want to make it increasingly fun yet fair you can turn it into a lottery which pays in shares.

I think everyone should have an equal opportunity to request shares.Your link is an example of why giving wont work. You can’t logically expect people to believe in a technology they were outright given for no reason, and do a bunch of research on it to figure out if it’s viable and worth saving or spending.

I actually agree that just giving recklessly wont work. But I’m not talking about giving. The people who invest their attention are providing something of value to the decentralized autonomous corporation or decentralized application. The people who use it are learning it so they can then go and promote it. By making them stakeholders it’s basically turning them into contractors who get paid to test, study, improve, provide feature requests, promote, contribute ideas to the DACs or decentralized applications.

So while it seems like giving free stuff it’s actually a serious game which doubles as a sort of job. The job of the user is to use the apps, test the apps, learn how they work, educate themselves and others, and the best way to guarantee your app will have plenty of users is to reward attention.

The new paradigm is that attention itself is a resource just like storage, computation, or bandwidth. So if we treat attention like a resource (because attention is finite/scarce), then you’ll be able to control how much or how little you get by bidding for it.

I recommend that builders/decentralized app developers set aside at least 30% of their shares for users. This would mean at least 30% of the decentralized application would be owned by whomever the first people are who use it. The distribution or allocation of the shares should be determined by serious games which get invented specifically to create a situation of equal opportunity to acquire the shares. This turns using decentralized applications and reviewing the quality into a sort of profession in itself and would immediately make the entire SAFE Network actively employed.

I agree with your premise, however, “most” of the work is not even remotely possible in 20 years. Automated machines likely wont be building sky-rises in 20 years, a machine isn’t going to take my job troubleshooting and replacing/upgrading the electrical work in 30-70 year old sewer plants in 20 years. Those are huge industries. Stocking shelves? Sure. Agriculture? possibly. Taking orders and making a burger at a fast food place? Absolutely. But there are some jobs, luckily like mine, that will be done by humans for many generations to come.

Automated machines are building 10 houses a day right now. Why wouldn’t they be building skyrises 20 years from now? I would within 5 years from now they’ll be doing that if not sooner.

Just because it doesn’t look like what we think of as work doesn’t mean it’s not work. If it requires an investment of attention, time, intellectual effort, then it is work. Games are work and just because they are fun to play it doesn’t mean the players aren’t earning points. So all we have to do is change the game for each decentralized application and now you’ll have distributed opportunity (not the same as equal opportunity but equal doesn’t exist in nature).


#12

@luckybit We’re more on the same page than I thought after reading your first post. What you’ve described is much more along the lines of what I was envisioning as a feasible reality than what I hear the vast majority of “give everyone a a chance” “everyone should have money” thought process idealists have in mind.

This is structure itself. That’s all well and good. I guess I took some knowledge for granted as common - being from the construction industry. There is so much more than structure to a livable building. Electrical wires, plumbing, fire alarm systems to name a few. These all need to be tied into existing systems which vary from area to area. Someone has to engineer and design all these houses and systems too. While I do think all those things will be possible in the future, I just don’t think it will be in the next 20 years. If so, more power to them.


#13

There will still be human designers and I agree that smart buildings are going to exist. I was thinking about more the typical office or skyrise but you’re right. Smart buildings will still require teams of human designers.

What will be replaced as the construction workers who do the physical labor. I think 3d printers will do that. Architects will still have jobs. I think if we do see construction workers they will be operating 3d printers and it will not cost nearly as much to build things.

Since you know more about construction maybe you can educate me on how you think things will change? I only know the minimum amount about it.


#14

Which history book is this?..lol


#15

Off Topic…

The idea of @luckybit’s post is being practiced in a subtle way.

I just finished my 7-day Closed Beta on (EverQuestNext Landmark) and submitted a few bug reports while testing the game. Even though I was not paid in fiat money, there was a possibility we could keep our templates (blueprints of constructed buildings) that were made in-game, during the Closed Beta.

It would have been awesome if I was paid “game shares” for helping to polish the game. But like most people, we were just happy to help improve the game for free. Some were upset their templates would be wiped, so that is currently in controversy right now. The things they built were amazing!

Machines will continue to replace simple redundant labor. We should encourage the growth of a new industry where people are “paid to play”, as in the example above. I see a lot of potential for the SAFE Network App Builders.

Maybe this specific conversation should be moved to a new topic called: (App Incentives & Pay Models.)


#16

I believe he is referring to Methuselah in the Bible (9xx years old), however, the Bible also says people will never live that long again.

I’m an electrician in the water services industries (both sewer and drinking water). Wires will, for at least my lifetime, be the choice for conducting electricity at a distance. These systems are very slow to adopt changes. I still deal with relay boards on a daily basis and end up pulling 150 wires to connect them to their devices on NEWLY designed systems where a simple cat6 cable to a mini computer board (PLC) would do the job just as well. I’ve worked in Hoboken New Jersey, where they still have some WOODEN sewer pipes.

These are what we’re still dealing with now, even with the great technology that we have currently. People are still designing new systems with archaic technologies. We need to step up our systems to current technologies before we start looking at robots to do things.

That’s a minor back story of where we are now. In the next 5 years or so, I hope to see them using today’s tech. I could also see 3d printed buildings being a novelty in the next 10 years, however, it would only be structure, you’d still need electricians, plumbers, carpenters (sheetrock and finishing [trim, sealing]) and whoever they have running the 3D systems.

By the end of my lifetime (I’m only 25) I do not see heavily unionized areas of construction being replaced without a political overthrow. This is not a technological issue, but the unions are right up there with the largest of corporations as far as political power. I think in 50 years you COULD have mostly (not completely) automated the new construction field. You will still need to have people maintain the older systems until they are replaced. However, it’s a “could” because I don’t think it will happen that soon. See my example above. Just because the tech exists doesn’t mean it will be used right away. It needs to be excepted and proven before it will be implemented.

I absolutely think this needs to be a category.


#17

Ahhh… it was the “history” book claim that threw me. I read a similar history book called Harry Potter once…muggles definitely can’t live 900 years.


#18

I never said we reached a point where there is no need for labor. Even the most optimistic futurists aren’t saying what you’re saying. Maybe you’ve been getting your facts from the Venus Project?

But even if that is the case it wouldn’t be based on “Time Dollars”. The Venus Project is based on a concept called RBE which is a resource based economy.

In my opinion we will still need some labor in order to build massive projects or terraform Mars. But as time goes by the machines continue to get smarter until the need for human labor ceases to exist.

No one knows how far away AGI (artificial general intelligence) is. It could be 20 years, 50 years, but it’s going to happen sooner or later and when it does there will never be a need for any human to work after that point.

The White House cannot solve problems. Politicians don’t solve these problems and aren’t the group of people with any ideas. Scientists and innovators solve these problems by creating automation to increase productivity beyond a certain threshold until we have an almost completely automated society.

I don’t think Time Dollars will work. I think conceptually it relies on old paradigms.


#19

See the reason that game companies cannot afford to make these sorts of pay players with shares incentives is because they are hierarchies, they are centralized, they aren’t anywhere near as efficient as a decentralized application. A decentralized application once written would not need to do anything except distribute shares/incentives to get users to provide content, get developers to provide code, and all of this would be algorithmic.

No need for physical offices, no need for a CEO, no need for employees, and if there are founders they could get a founders percentage. All of these cost savings can go directly to users.

Would you like to move the conversation or should I?


App Incentives & Pay Models
#20

They will be using Safecoins, to buy stuff in stores

Is wellfare not the same idea?

What I’m saying is that each persons account has a limit of 100years max, that means that your individual account can’t hold more then 525600 Safecoins @ a time, this is just to stop people’s GREED. The surplus would simple got to science/development.

Hmmmm just like the 1% with money support the 99% without money?

Wow I’m really amazed, I’m talking about people having something to eat here and you guys just talk about equity and playing games (Equity can’t get food on your plate right away, not everybody has internet access to play dumb games (yeah I’m a little angry)).

You should all be ashamed of yourself, try surviving a month without money, after that you can make your cute comments. Things are always so easy when you don’t experience them, we will all go through hardtimes in our lives especially by the inhumane ways that we treat eachother. When we are all without a job (even if your coding now, AI’s will do the coding in the future, humans are totally not needed anymore) 30 years from now.

Maybe you guys don’t see the BIG difference between the current distribution and the timebased model. It’s simple, with Bitcoins the early adopters get the main price, but with the timebased model everybody gets the same price. it doesn’t matter if you came into the game today or five years from now. If you came today after 24hour you got 14.4 Safecoins, somebody who comes in 5 years later gets 26280 Safecoins. In the timebased system everybody is equal and people who come later in the game have simply saved up Safecoins. People try to act so honorable all the time, but when it comes down to it, they won’t spend a penny on some one in need. If our new money systems doesn’t work for the mayority again we fail. Only a fool would keep doing the same stuff over and over again. Your making a big mistake if you think that poor people won’t break stuff, because they are hungry and tired.

WHAT I SAY TODAY MAY TOTALLY BE MEANINGLESS TO SOME OF YOU, BUT IF I CAN EXECUTE THIS IDEA IN THE FUTURE, I WILL. This is not giving away money for free, this is giving your users incentive to use your system. Just like mining use to give people an incentive to keep the blockchain save. Think about it, how many people are now participating in bitcoin mining? With this distribution model, users will keep participating and new people would be happy to join in, knowing that their Safecoins have been waiting for them all this time. people are not getting dumber, they are getting smarter, so if AGAIN money is not distributed equally, they will just simply ignore your solution, because they can make a CHOICE.

I don’t look @ the fiat price of Maidsafe, because what really gives it value for me, is what it does for people.