UBI

[paula-berman]

Hi all! I have a couple thoughts on UBI that I think can be productive to discuss.

1 - I am very concerned with ways to prevent users to get ignorant people to make real Proof of Identity videos for them in exchange for cash so they (fake users) can accumulate UBI. Eventually, incentives to do that should go away, but I am thinking about how do we create a process that enables us to get from where we are to that point, avoiding attacks? Here is one suggestion: perhaps new users could only join if they are invited and recommended by a certain number of people... and that number could gradually decrease over time. I think it is much better to grow slowly and confidently than dealing with an enormous amount of fake users, which might totally be a possibility when people hear "free money". People could make it their full time job to get those videos done and that could be a challenge for DEF at least in the beginning. So then with recommendations, we could have identified invalid users impact the recommender(s) in some way. We could also permeate the process with simple and accessible points where both the user and the recommender have to state their awareness and responsibility towards maintaining legitimacy. So it spreads as a network that has mutual trust and co-responsibility as its primary bond.

2 - The other thing is concerning inflation. I agree with the argument that UBI will not be inflationary because the denominator and numerator grow together, as in amount of token grows as number of people joining the network grows. But amount of tokens keep growing over time whereas new people only join once. Which is not a problem if there is productivity with the token. So I thought we could think of strategies to add more intrinsic value. For example binding UBI payments to actual usage of a percent of tokens for voting purposes. Or even just once in every period of time. So then in addition to proving his identity, every user between 18 and 65 would have to engage in democratic decision making with the token in order to receive UBI. This way we are also incentivizing people to dive deeper. Another possibility could be to implement UBI gradually, so as more people join and more decisions need to be made UBI increases, and we could set those benchmarks in advance. Which is also a good incentive for growth.

3 - The final question in my mind concerns how do we determine dripping. If we are issuing it as a Right, in order to oppose the debt-moral logic, and distributing it through Time, as it is equally available to all, I see a little bit of a contradiction to tie it to productive hours. One of Guy Standings main points is that human value shouldn't be determined by productivity. So in that sense it seems better to me to connect it solely to time, meaning that you are entitled to your rights for as much time as you live. The matter of what measure of time (month, week, day, hour or minutes) can then be connected to the penetration of the network - for network equilibrium purposes, instead of how much UBI we should be entitled to, which seems to me like a question that DEF cannot answer, at least at this point.

Looking forward to hear your thoughts!!! =)

[herbstephens]

Hey Paula .. some thoughts on your points:

1. Preventing fake users is always a top security priority. Sybil attacks are a real concern and agree that we need a 'networked' approach, involving the orgs and community in policing. Also agree that we should grow at a controlled pace.

2. Re: Inflation ... yes, amount of tokens DO increase over time, given population growth. Opposite is also true, amounts decrease due to death (tokens attached to individual, and therefore not inherited like physical cash). However, keep in mind that more currency is actually needed as population grows. (more people, more liquidity needed!) Also, because the price of the currency is tied to one hour of time, inflation is kept in check. As a matter of fact, owning the currency become an inflation hedge. (because: one unit will ALWAYS equal one hour of time)

I like strategies that increase usage! ..and maybe there are incentives within orgs to vote/participate .. however, one key element of UBI is "universal" (and not based on need, participation, other measurements, including productivity, as you mention in #3). Therefore, we need to keep UBI as a 'right' and not hinder in any way.

3. Agree .. but it was actually Guy Standing that came up with the 10% (as measured in avg annual income)...and this IS a right, not actually connected to measured productivity. You get it no matter what. The calculation is simply based on IF one were working in a society...what percentage of AVG amount earned provides the right amount of liquidity for a society to function. (for those NOT currently productive to be able to cover basics and therefore participate in society without the need to be 'productive') For optics, we could drip at 200/8766 ..or 2.3% of ALL time in a year [24 x 365.25 = 8,766]...but would end up with the same number: 0.55 units per day.

Hope this helps .. and happy to discuss further!

[paula-berman]

I see! Agree that it shouldn't be hindered.

Also.. very interesting point about no inheritance, that indeed makes a big difference in terms of maintaining a healthy ecosystem!

Concerning inflation. I wonder if your point holds true only after the network is very well established and people assimilate the concept and use it accordingly. What do you think? If that is the case, perhaps a gradual implementation that aims towards 0.55 units per day could be useful? It can serve as an incentive for usage as well. Or would that only increase confusion?

Also, another question: would UBI then be equally distributed across all ages?

[santisiri]

That last question has got me thinking a lot lately.

Do we want people with little time left on the planet to get more decision power than people with more time left? At the same time we want to reward experience... governments do decide on age to vote (~18) and retirement age (~65), so maybe there's a spot in the middle that could be the peak at what we want a society channeling its decision making process?

all open questions.. curious about your thoughts.

[herbstephens]

Yah .. @santisiri @paulamlb .. very good question to ponder. I've thought a LOT about it.

Re: age-based grant .. Yes, I recommend granting based on age ... a UBI for every day on the planet ... as if program existed since birth .. and they (everyone) saved their UBI.

Re: time left vs power granted .. I continue to think that with age comes wisdom (on avg) as well as more needed 'security'. Also, I don't see old people going out of their way to fuck things up just before they die in order to spite the world .. :-) .. so I don't see a 'risk' from that stand point. On avg., the younger have the same opportunity in front of them ... to earn their basic income as they age. (so becomes fair)

Re: inflation (Paula's "gradual implementation" point) .. I suggest a flat 10% .. not gradually phased in .. however, I am certainly open to different thoughts. I would like to get the tokens out their into circulation as much as possible .. and incentivize such action.

[SFSandra]

re: the last question/ Do we want people with little time left on the planet to get more decision power than people with more time left?

Would the flip side of that question be: Should a newborn infant have the same decision power as a 70 year old?

[SFSandra]

Continuing thinking about this: when you replace existing systems, seems most fair to implement them as though they existed for all time, and not just from an arbitrary starting point in the present. Each person gets the same amount over their lifetime is indubitably fair.

[paula-berman]

I agree with increased distribution with age in the sense of protecting users when they are most vulnerable. But perhaps 18 might be a little too old given how wise and engaged teenagers are now - and the younger will tend to use the platform more, at least initially. I am thinking in terms of how we have a generational divide in politics, an older analogue generation governing a younger digital generation. So perhaps it could start at 16. We just had last year in Brazil an enormous movement of school occupations made by high school students against a reform that took out philosophy as a requirement. When I was in high school all my classmates hated philosophy. The new generation is very different.. they spent a month living inside their schools, organized food and workshops and restored the facilities with their own hands. So my point is younger people need more credit then the current system is giving them, therefore I would start at 16, which is the age where you can get legally emancipated in Brazil, an then increase, very slowly, with time.

[paula-berman]

Overall I have a suggestion that could hopefully facilitate our thinking concerning the entire UBI section. We could write what are the requirements that we deem important for both functionalities - voting and currency - and then place them side by side. It can be according to the following topics (open to suggestions): Function, Justification, Long-term goals, Frequency of dripping, Distribution across ages, Envisioned network / market effects. Perhaps @herbstephens could write a first draft for those in terms of crypto and @santisiri could write a first draft for those in terms of voting. And then with all that info in hand might be a lot easier to see the full picture and move forward. Even if we are not sure at this point if something should be a requirement it can be written in terms of possibilities and pros and cons. What do you think? I suggest Medium for that purpose, and then sharing those via Whatsapp, so we can think more freely before adding anything to the paper.

[herbstephens]

RE: age 18 vs 16 ... I agree on 16. 16 is the new 18.

RE: voting/currency side-by-side ... first, for the record, we are NOT creating a "currency". [certainly not in the classical definition and certainly not as defined and regulated by the US SEC] We are creating VOTING functionality - but in two use cases. One case involves one vote per person; the other case involves liquid democracy, or potentially multiple votes per person within an organization.

As for the comparison of functionality within the two modes, however, I will take the above and create a first-draft table of comparison. We can then discuss, modify and decide on how best utilized.

Thanks, @paulamlb !

[medied]

This whole thread has been so interesting to follow. But yea for real, if kids these days can do this 👇🏽

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj5ue3M-v6o

Then who's to say that 14 (12?) is not the new 16 (18?).

Basically once we have money we should hire a high school dropout who likes coding and wants to invent her own future ha 🙂. 21st century blood indeed!

[santisiri]

guys.. i am now touching the waters of UBI in the document. please help.

[herbstephens]

Here to help! Reviewing again now...

[dwightmwilson]

Love this thread, folks - I am all for age 16, have even wondered about 15 (roundish number)

[virgile-dev]

As much as I love the idea of making Universal VOTE Income (UVI) to make participation widespread and liquid. I have trouble envisionning in practical way the whole idea of tokenizing time and I feel a bit frustrated as it is at the core of our token economics proposition.

So just trying to recap and see if I understood right :

• New VOTEs created every hour = Network size (identified self sovereign individuals (SSI))
• Little brothers (who are in way like miners in our POI protocol) use their VOTEs to participate in decisions in the organizations they take part and to validate new SSI.
• When new SSI joins the network he/she is allocated = 24 hours × 365 × {AGE_YRS} VOTEs

Just so I'm sure, here we are not asking people to give time (completing a task appart from acting as Little brothers) in exchange for VOTEs it's just our base universal value to drip new VOTEs right ?

Should we provide some kind of reward other than keeping the network legitimate for Little Brothers who validate identities ?

More generally I feel like a few diagrams to explain core concept like (POI, Sovereign's set of smart contracts, UVI) this would be very useful. Would be happy to help with that if you guys think it's a good idea.

[santisiri]

Hi @virgile-dev: diagrams would be super duper useful!

You understood the concept right. The allocation once approved is 24x365xAge, and after that in an hourly basis you get votes dripped throughout your lifetime, effectively liquidating time or turning it into currency. This is mostly @herbstephens approach to UBI (shall we use UVI?).. i think if we can better explain the reasons for basing this on time (equality, etc) would be great.

[herbstephens]

Hey @virgile-dev .. yes, concepts could use some diagrams to better illustrate. @SFSandra, let's work on this with Virgile.

To your points...

Re: VOTE creation (mining/minting) .. yes, newly created tokens are created and dripped hourly. Such represents 10% of avg time one earns income .. which is 200 hours per year OR 10% of 2,000 hours (which is 8 hrs per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year - just to put down a 'global average') [formula: DRIP_hourly=((0.10 2000)/365.25)/24] yes, I am accounting for leap year with "365.25" days per year.

Re: Little brothers .. @santisiri better to answer .. yes, they are similar to miners and are paid 'mining fees' for their work

Re: SSI initial grant for joining .. Yes, idea is to grant an amount as if we existed since birth for every individual (creates even playing field globally). Basic formula = 200 * AGE_YRS. [I believe that 24x365xAge is too many!..and not aligned with UBI concepts] We need to base on 10% of average "income time".

[herbstephens]

On the VALUE front .. I propose $7.25. [U.S. national minimum wage - note: individual State rates can be higher, but not lower; some states now ~$15.]

For example, using ETH, conversion would be (ETH_price/7.25):1

[herbstephens]

0.0038025705376834740284432276218723854166

If we are dripping VOTEs at the rate of 6 per hour ... one per BTC block ... the above number is what I advise we drip per block. [in order to result in 200 granted per year...which is 10% of 2,000]. Currently, in paper ... states 1 per hour - which I think is too high.

Math:

(200 per year) / (365.25 days per year) = 0.5475701574264202600958247775496235 PER DAY

(6 blocks per hour) * (24 hours per day) = 144 blocks per day

(0.5475... per day) / (144 blocks per day) = 0.0038... dripped PER BLOCK

[santisiri]

@herbstephens how many decimal positions you see the vote token having if any? i feel working on integers might be a plus here. so you get a token every 10 minutes. open to explore ideas here.

[virgile-dev]

Hey @herbstephens do you have a link for this ?

Consensus on an ideal Basic Income averages around 10% of earnings.

I tried to update a little bit the diagram explain new token issuance. I'd love to get some feedback and see how we can improve it.

[santisiri]

@virgile-dev when someone glances at this, wont recognize POI without context. make sure every term is clarified (as u did with ubi)

[SFSandra]

@virgile-dev

[SFSandra]

[herbstephens]

One paper supporting 10% rule of thumb:

https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-and-taxes-to-provide-every-american-citizen-with-a-basic-income-bc67d3f4c2b8?source=linkShare-167cf775a8b8-1503181263

Will find/post the other papers supporting....

[santisiri]

i'm avoiding age bias and including equality variable in UBI formula. check paper.

[SFSandra]

Democracy only promotes freedom when it is an economic as well as a political system. ~Noam Chomsky

I think this could be a good quote to open the section.....agree?

[santisiri]

i have some doubts on quoting chomsky due to the ideological connotation behind his figure.

[SFSandra]

I can see your point.

[herbstephens]

@santisiri ... On "avoiding age bias" in UBI formula ... I see your logic in equalizing by not punishing those signing later. However, because time is used as a guiding measure, 'natural limiters' exist in both: 1) time [max 24 per day; max 8760 per year] and 2) lifetime [max ~100 years old]. At most, one would be granted 20,800 votes for UBI in a lifetime [100ys old x 208votes/yr].

If a new registrant [for example, a 10 year old] is granted same number of votes as a much older person who happened to register, say 70 years ago ...inflation economics defy time physics.

I must conclude that I disagree with this form of granting votes...and suggest that we do indeed grant basead on AGE. I am still convinced that this would not be discriminatory. Rather, because we are issuing 'rights' to a UBI based in time and dripped through time ... and that we are coming in 'midstream' to everyone's life with this "fundamental human right that should have been granted to everyone at birth" ... seems the only way to 1) not violate physics of time and 2) be fair to everyone ... is to grant the UBI as if the system existed since that person's birth. Sure, older people will get more ...but younger people will have longer to earn more ... and, over all, everyone will get the SAME amount thoughout time. ZERO inflation.

But your "blockchain height" method you suggested gave me and idea! :-)

What if we started the blockheight at a number which represents the oldest person that could register. For ease of math, let's say 100 years old. In this case, rather than the 'Genesis Block' starting at "0". .... it would actual start at 5,256,000. [6/hr 24hrs 365days * 100yrs].

Block Height Age = [current block height] - [birth block height]

Blocks Per 1 VOTE = [52,560 blocks per year] / [208 votes per year] = 253

UBI Grant = [Block Height Age] / 253

*Note: the MAX lifetime UBI in this case [100 year max] = [208 per year] x [100yrs] = 20,800

[santisiri]

@herbstephens we cannot certify age in any way other than trusting what people claim about themselves. i'm aware of the inflation issue here, but as more participants engage in the network, the dilution becomes smaller and smaller.. ending up in < 1% inflation per new user (i've ran a simulation for this).

Rather than a workaround hack, if we can come up with a reliable way to determine AGE, I think we can reconsider this. But that said: I'm still skeptical of a system benefitting the elder. I think that guaranteeing an egalitarian and meritocratic starting point goes a long way here for democratic means. that said, i'm also thinking about how this can be abused by incentivizing fake POIs to happen... so the other relevant equation is the criteria for POI validation (what defines the S variable in the UBI equation).

also, it's 1248 votes per year as we are tying the vote allocation mechanism to blocks (not hours). we can't build a digital network dependent on hours, we can build it dependent on blocks by piggybacking on bitcoin's consensus. 1 hour = 6 blocks.

[herbstephens]

@santisiri yes..re: block v hours .. I agree and did calculations based on blocks (not hours) .. however, we are using 6 blocks per hour .. so we actually ARE tying to time, NO? I firmly believe that we should allocate 208 votes per year as a UBI. How we do it .. I don't care. All other economics break down IMO.

I see AGE as a CLAIM .. backed by a video showing (and talking) about how old someone is. The only things that work in the real world are physical, state-issued ID. I suggest we use the same (for now) .. showing CA Driver License, birth certificate, passport, and physical person talking on film. Network and ORG relationships will determine 'truth'.

I strongly oppose the inflation-creating mechanism proposed. Can you share the simulation? I honest cannot see how this doesn't crash and burn with runaway inflation. The age based grant at least has very natural limits.

[santisiri]

@herbstephens 208 hours != 208 blocks but 1248 blocks. tying the algorithm to timezones is chaos. tying the algorithm to a machine-to-machine syncing network is what blockchains are meant for.

I oppose any legacy system: by definition it coerces the nature of a self-sovereign. I do agree on using proof from legacy systems to build trust, but an intrinsically (pure?) way of generating your identity must be established. that's the whole purpose of a PoI: it's beyond nation-states and compatible with a global reset.

I included simulation charts just now in the last push. You can check it in the document now. But here it is for you to check:

Happy to include the raw files with it. I had the same reaction you're expressing on a first thought regarding the inflation.. after running the simulation, i discovered it actually stabilizes the more users participate in the network. Very counterintuitive.

PS: I'm using the same exact formula from the paper and simulating users being generated at random times in the blockchain.

[herbstephens]

Yes, please share the raw files and formulas.

"timezones"?

[santisiri]

timezones as in: what hour will you be basing the allocation from the token? we can always do GMT.. but then its every server/client computer's own clock. a blockchain provides a universal clock that is easy to sync with. nothing of what we're doing would be possible without blockchains really.

i'll be including a simulation folder in the next push to the repo.

[herbstephens]

@santisiri ... I am proposing a DRIP of 1 VOTE per 253 blocks. No timezones and nothing (directly) tied or based on an an hour or on time.

At the rate of 1 per 253 blocks ... @ 6 blocks per hour ... 1 VOTE will be granted every 42 hours. On a daily basis, this equates to 0.57 VOTES dripped per day ... the equivalent of 208 VOTES per year.

[herbstephens]

I propose we make the votes divisible to 2 decimal places ... n.nn ... 1/100 ... giving the ability of 57 VOTES per day or 20,857 per year. [assuming one vote 'costs' 1/100 of a VOTE token] This would also push/limit the value of our token to (just under) 100x whatever cost of single physical vote costs the average jurisdiction.

For argument's sake ... let's assume a VOTE settles around $50 ... then a single vote would cost $0.50 ... which is about right IMHO*.

*Note: in my research, it costs jurisdictions MUCH more than $0.50/vote

Argument could be made to make more divisible .. say to 1/1000, or more .. but I'd say people are quite used to n.nn ... and anything beyond that starts to push the 'norm' one is used to.

[santisiri]

@herbstephens i'm really scratching my head.. i don't why you come up with those numbers. why 253 votes? why 42 hours? if you can guide me through your calculation i might be able to see.. at a first glimpse i suspect you're confusing blocks with hours (or maybe i'm confusing them).

i dont think decimals help for the utility of voting.

[santisiri]

oh i see now.. you want to make the metric vote per hour rather than vote per block.

let me think about this. i think you're onto something.

[herbstephens]

While you are thinking ... :-)

Bottom line: we need to issue 208 VOTES as UBI for one year. [which is 10% of 2,080...the number of working hours in a year ... 8x5x52] This equates to 0.57 per day. [208/365]

At rate of 6 blocks per hour [1 every 10 mins] ... such equals 144 blocks per day [6x24]. To issue 0.57 per day ... need to divide 144/0.57 = 253 blocks per VOTE

Therefore, 1 VOTE should be dripped every 253 blocks. [equivalent to issuing 1 VOTE every 1.75 days] [not "253 votes" as stated above] @santisiri

[herbstephens]

RE: divisibility ... my opinion is that we must include at least 2 decimal places [given the economics we have outlined].

If indivisible ... price of voting is stuck at cost of one VOTE token, no? If divisible .. price of voting can be fraction of cost of one VOTE token.

People are very accustomed to 1/100. Most fiat currencies are divisible to 1/100.

If we don't make divisible .. then we need to rethink the pricing.

Also .. with $7.25 as issue price ... and 'target price' up to (above?) $50 ... price of a vote [1/100] would be between $0.0725 and $0.50 ... probably EXACTLY the range we need to be in to be competitive on a cost-per-vote basis.

[adampaigge]

Is there feedback to allow UBI to increase as time goes on and more jobs become automated though? surely 10% sets a static variable in the system (but this is more of a personal gripe). It would need inflation adjusting too.

[herbstephens]

@adampaigge .. no need to adjust for inflation .. and no need to increase as time goes by. Value of token will increase (or decrease) over time and adjust for inflation (or deflation).

[santisiri]

@adampaigge i'm still impressed by that observation though.. never thought about that consequence and its an interesting point you're raising.

[bigokro]

Hi guys! Maria Sofia Cossar Lambertini found something in this calculation that wasn't making sense to her. I ran over the numbers myself, and came to the same conclusion: in the white paper, you switch units and end up with a slower drip than planned (if I'm right):

"Which means that of the ~52,560 blocks that register a full year of activity on Bitcoin’s blockchain, a total of 1,248 blocks should be accounted for rewarding a UBI per year."

If you do the division right there, you see that it comes out to 1 out of every 42 blocks should go towards a UBI reward. But then the paper mysteriously switches that to hours, and then converts to blocks again:

"1 full unit of a token should then drip every ~42 hours (or ~252 blocks)"

(unless you intend for each drip to be worth 1/6 of a token, in which case 1 out of every 42 blocks you get a drip, and 1 out of every 42 hours, that's worth a full VOTE).

[paula-berman]

@santisiri

[herbstephens]

Hi @bigokro .. keep in mind that a vote is the equivalent of "one minute" or 1/60th of the hourly number [$7.25/hr / 60 = $0.12 vote price]. We are dripping 1 vote every 4 BTC blocks .. or 36 votes per day [144/4].

So .. the "1 full unit of a token should then drip every ~42 hours (or ~252 blocks)" comment ... must be referring to "a full hour" ...as ~60 votes are dripped every 42 hours.

It is a bit confusing as written ....so we should clean up and make more clear! Thanks for noticing....

[bigokro]

Hmm... if it's 1 vote every 4 blocks, that makes it 3 votes per 12 blocks, or 3 votes every 2 hours. In that case, the math would be 60 votes in 40 hours, not 42... anyway, if that connection could be made more clear, it would help. Thanks!