I think it would be great on the front end of the safe wallet to have a micro payment button, by giving a little can make a big difference in somebodies life. Inspired by this TED x video.
By doing this simple suggestion really gives the user an idea what safe network is all about.
You could probably organize a lot of this with smart contracts. And you know it doesnât HAVE to be big organizations. You could do direct action charity as well and help people one on one as well. You could help people in your local community, across the country or people overseas. Thatâs kind of the idea of sponsoring a child isnât it? You send them money and they have a better life because of it. Well you could rig it that every time you make a purchase or farm some safecoin or whatever a tiny portion goes to them or however you want to set it up.
" the ants are comingâ theme, with every small action by millions can make a difference.
What if the SAFE wallet, allowed you to pay for charities per TX? And you can choose x amount per SAFEcoin transaction. And you could get labeled as a donator, just like this forum got badges. If you paid to a specific charity this would also be included in your tx message. This might also make the person you send money to aware of donating to charity. (btw this would just be temporarily info in an SAFEcoin)
It would also be fun, if you could share what you donated in the public domain. This way people are really seeing what your donating, instead of you saying it.
i think donations should come from heart and not for having badges or any other distinctive things. they should be anonymous, and this way the person that receive the donation will not have the burden of respecting you as an individual because you donated to him. and why should people see that iâm donating? i donate because i care and i donât have to justify this in front of anybody. who wants to believe, then they believe me. who donât believe, the better
@bugsbunny While I respect your view I donât see anything wrong about @19eddyjohn75âs approach to giving. After all a lot of people get inspired by the giving of others. Even if only one extra person gives as a result are we not as a whole better?
i see things this way: you are a donor when you give something to somebody without expecting anything. you are a sponsor when you give something to somebody in exchange of a favor. for example âsamsungâ is sponsor for a football team. they write âsamsungâ on the equipment of the players while giving them money for it. they are not donors. it is called advertising. in my opinion a donation should be anonymous. this way only the donor know he gave money for that cause. i also understand your point of view and you are right mostly in a moral society. people get inspired by others, but this inspiration shouldnât come from oneâs heart in the first place? do i need to donate just because x donated, and he is [insert title here]? do i really need to be inspired by others to do something that should depend exclusively on my own free will? isnât this a form of a subtle manipulation (if itâs not a too strong word)?
@bugsbunny people are flawed, giving is giving and benefits the receiver of gifts regardless of the reason. The person needing food or water doesnât always care why the person gave; but they always care when no one gives.
thatâs what iâm saying 
why should i have a donor title when the person is happy because i gave him water? if he doesnât care who give him water, everything is perfect and as i stated above
Late to the conversation and usually only a lurker but this topic is very close to another one Iâve indulged before. Take it as anecdotal info, not a formal suggestion although if anyone wants further info, I do have some numbers.
I ran the numbers on two separate proposals and ended up tying them together. The first one was to replace all taxes with a single transaction tax. The meat behind this was that most of the bottom 4/5ths do only two transactions with each dollar they handle. They receive it and they spend it. Most of the top classes (and especially the higher the pay range) move their money around multiple times and if so, they would be taxed each time. I found it interesting that with the numbers I could find, it would take only 0.5% per transaction (given to the government) and 0.5% again, given to a UBI fund) to fully replace all taxes and to fully fund a Universal Basic Income. The UBI numbers were based on an average of $5,700 per year for every living human. That amount was to begin at $15k/yr at birth and then dropping by 3% each birthday. This built up enough savings for all major events (car, college, marriage, house - shared with spouse) without earning any interest on it.
The second project was to see if this could be implemented via Bitcoin. If every BTC transaction charged 0.5% and then split it into 3 funds (1/4 to the gov of the sender, 1/4 to the gov of the recipient, 1/2 to the UBI fund), I estimated that each current âbitcoin holding humanâ would get a share equivalent to about 20 cents/day. If all fiat currencies failed and BTC was the only one left standing, it would rise to $12/day which comes close to that $5,700/yr number.
If this were to be done, I would think many people would be attracted to simply holding a BTC account so they could collect the free money. If so, that increases the transactions and the BTC value. This would attract more business for even more transactions. This increases the dividend which makes it even more attractive and so on. Eventually, it would grow beyond all control as a universally accepted currency (remember, the governments are receiving a cut as well so theyâre hooked too).
I could see applying this to SafeCoin to gain traction in both the currency and the network. And once the people see the benefits, the rest will be history.
Questions or comments?
Oy gavult what is it with you people and instituting coercion? The moment we decentralize something you want to centralize it again and institute coercion with taxation all over again. What is wrong with you!? First off you canât insitute taxation on SAFE because that would require monitoring of peopleâs finances. So either your talking about compromising security or youâre talking about creating an app and allowing people to opt in and out of your system. Taxation != Charity. Taxation is forced, it is coercive. You cannot force people to be charitable. If I chose to give someone $20 because I want to help them thatâs charity. If someone bashes me over the head with a baseball bat and threatens me if I donât give them my money thatâs theft. No saying that I am part of the community and somehow that means I am obligated to help also equates to theft. I live with 2 other people. I am not obligated to help them, I often do, but am not obligated to do so. My responsibility is to clean up my own messes, pay my rent and do my share of the housework, which is pretty much what Iâd have to do if I was living alone. Translation: If someone earns a portion of money they are not obligated to give it to anyone whether it is for the betterment of mankind or not. Such an obligation undermines the whole idea of charity and generosity in the first place. If you take money from someone you are in fact obligated to help and support THEM. It goes people pay a tax and THEN the governing body is obliged to respond. However for some reason people have it backwards where we want the benefits and get resentful of people who donât want to pay taxes. The fact of the matter is this could all be solved quite simply. Instead of having taxes simply have a simple subscription service. You pay x amount or percentage of safecoin and get y service. You start with nothing, you can opt into only one service, or a dozen or devote your entire earnings if you like (go communist) and opt out of as many or as few as you like. This way things get paid for, they stay competitive as people can offer competing services, and things stay voluntary. You can set up services however you like be they for profit or non profit and cover whatever kind of program you want. If people support it theyâll opt into it and youâll get funding.
This is heading off topic, please take it offline or to a new thread (reply in linked topic). Thanks.
This was the original post. Which is a great idea and to which I agree with.
But then we get @ResearcherGuy talking about taxation which has nothing to do with charity but is all about coercion. I respond and explictly explain why itâs not AND suggest alternatives but thatâs off topic? Whereas his post is fine and earns a like from you. Riiiight.
One post was not sufficiently off topic IMJ, especially as a first time poster. We need to give people space and time to find their feet, and to be welcoming to new posters. I think you have not considered that at all in your robust response.
You are a long time community member and should by now be aware of what we ask of members here. Your response to his post was inviting a debate that clearly would be off topic if he responded. My intervention was not aimed at you (no mention), but guiding both of you and anyone else who felt moved to enter this new debate.
If you thought his post was off topic, you could have said so, but you chose to write a large opinion piece response, which I think would have been fine if posted as a linked topic.
If you want his post dealt with, you can ask âmoderatorsâ in a PM, or flag it, or point out the problem to the poster directly by PM in a short response, although as I said I think we should be mindful when this is among someoneâs first posts, that a friendly and helpful response is more important.
I had just a thought of brain storming, I did not intend to change any core features of safe network, I thought of an feature that could help the community and present the safe network into a honorable and has a respectable image for everyone to use. everything is a possibility in a infinite universe of creation. As i have very little influence what the maid safe team decides it just a thought bubble that could of grew or popped.