Proposal for discussion:
To create market attraction for both individuals and commerce, the best way is to distribute the access to the widest group possible. By combining a truly universal basic income that recognizes no borders, groups or authority, such a dividend would be most attractive to the poorest in the world. Even US 20 cents per day per family is a 10% raise to a billion people and would cause both the “productive value” and the highest velocity transactions to migrate to any currency that implemented it.
I’ve ran extensive numbers (still subject to critique though) and found that a mere 1% built-in transaction fee would grow the number of transactions and the daily dividend to the point where it continually attracts higher and higher wealth individuals. At first, this could be a couple US cents worth per family per day but when they spend that money, they must do so at a business that accepts it and that business must, at minimum, exchange it with another currency and so on. Each of these constitutes one transaction fee which multiplies the velocity by, not moving money through financial games but by moving it among the productive economy.
Today’s shadow banking system transacts nearly 1000 transactions for each productive one in the real world. This would not fly in a transaction taxed economy yet for any productive member, they’re only ever paying the base 1% on any and all their monetary activities.
Also, given the technological unemployment issue rearing it’s ugly head, and automation migrating to doing transactions between two autonomous systems, this solves both of those issues with one stone. Each robot/automation system doing a micro-transaction would still pay a micro-fee which still adds to the daily dividend.
I’ve written up a short paper on it. You can find it at http://usbig.net/papers/McKissick_Bitcoin%20Basic%20Income%20proposal%20copy.pdf
I look forward to any and all criticisms and critiques. It is just one possible way to implement it but I believe it has been refined pretty well.
Looking forward to hearing the feedback!
Blockchains are not a magic source of value. You mention 20c per day per family - let’s be conservative and put the number of families in the world at one billion. Where does two hundred million American dollars worth of value come from every day?
You say ‘distribute access’ but I’m suspicious that you actually mean ‘distribute money’. Aka: free money. Here’s a little economic refresher for the hard of thinking - the value of free money is zero.
Had you actually read the proposal, you would have seen that opting in to receive the benefit is voluntary. As such, only the early adopters know about it in the beginning so the membership is small enough to get daily dividend started. On growth, there is growth in both the people (only attractive to those which the low amount is worth it) and by the transactions (which grows the dividend). Therefore, it becomes a self perpetuating growth mechanism.
As it grows in amounts to attract other groups (say from 2c/day/person to 10c/day/person and on to 50c/day/person, wealthier groups will want some of this ‘free money’. And as they do, they will spend it… IF they have a business or other transaction to spend it on. This props up the cycle at these next higher levels of income. I don’t know anyone who would willingly pass up a free dividend of even $1/day/person if they could voluntarily sign up their entire family. So, before it gets to that level, you have families of 5 getting $1825/year for doing nothing. The catch is that they really are doing something and that is supporting the productive market. That’s the market where people buy something and sell something, as opposed to where people lend, charge interest, swap currencies, short companies and make money with many small but quick stock trades.
And no, I specifically meant to distribute ACCESS not money. I clearly wrote that distributing access (reaching the most people) is the best way for the currency to become attractive the most individuals and businesses. However, by your snap reaction to the word “distribute” and immediate association of it with socialist redistribution, I’m guessing you would not be in favor of any basic income proposal. That’s fine. This topic has many detractors who base their thinking on statements like yours but with each passing quarter, there is more evidence that we’re transitioning from a scarcity based world to an abundance based one. And all money has no value in a fully abundant society.
It seems that not many people here are as interested in fixing the productive economic system as they are in mining free money from a new currency. I could swear I saw somewhere that someone wrote that blockchains are not a magic source of income.
hi, I love the idea, can we talk in more detail about this, I am very interested in your proposal.