It’s the EXACT same thing, and welfare is a TERRRRRRIBLE idea that needs to go away. At the very least a complete overhaul.
We can see that you’re angry. I think you need to take a minute and settle down, then reread what’s been said here. You realize that money IS equity right? It CAN get you food on your plate right now.
This is completely unrealistic. Read the rest of the post.
In order for what you’re saying in any of the rest of the post to be even a little bit viable, you need to take away ALL responsibility, maintenance of services and the earth in general, and needed functions in life, away from humans. Until such a time as this is the case, those who perform a valuable services, or do something for your that you cant do (fix your car) need to be compensated for that. Meaning not all people are created equal
We’re not saying we shouldn’t help out less fortunate people, or give food or even some money to people who need it, however, just blindly giving away money to everyone will create a society of gluttons and slobs (alright, that’s extreme in the short term, but it will lead there) and we need people to do all these things that “robots will do in the future” now. We don’t have those robots, yet we’re about to have maidsafe. We can’t jump the gun on this one.
I agree with @19eddyjohn75 somewhat. People shouldn’t be discouraged from giving to the poor. The real issue I think people take is being told what to do. Human beings hate being commanded.
EDIT: cut useless babble.
I actually kind of like the idea of the network dropping a kind of Bowser Revolution of excess coins every so often. Like, when there’s too much stored up, spread the wealth around.
EDIT: from a technical standpoint I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be possible because, as has been mentioned in other threads, I don’t think the network is actually aware of its whole user base at all times. That would require a centralized service.
Money isn’t equity. Money is debt. Stock is equity. Equity is stake in something like a company.
I think he’s confusing things. You cannot generate money out of thin air like he’s thinking. On the other hand anything you do should get you some amount of money. Your attention is valuable to people so that is worth money. You should be able to get money from using SAFE Network as well as equity in the form of shares.
Now you could say people can sell their shares and buy food with it but why do that when the government provides food stamps? If you can get food for free it’s better not to spend your last penny on it. So the story about the homeless people was that they were poor and also only thinking about that day.
You have poor people who think about the future and these people are the ones I was talking about for receiving equity. The problem with just dropping equity on people is a lot of people don’t know what it is or why they should save it.
I’m for providing for people but that isn’t actually sustainable. Giving money is not sustainable because eventually money runs out and then what? It’s more sustainable to build a new economy, a new kind of capitalism, a new currency, a new business model, and so on. If all it takes is attention then even a homeless person can participate on a smart phone.
I think participation can be broad enough that yes everyone can receive equity or crypocurrency for participation. Children can play video games and instead of points why not shares in the game?
I think if you don’t pull everyone into the economy it creates the inefficiency which results in poverty. It could be that capitalism inherently generates poverty but since we never had an efficient form of capitalism to know it’s hard to say.
Full employment would just mean everyone is making some money from interacting with SAFE Network on some level. This would include the homeless guy on his smartphone, the student in a third world nation, to most of us here.
For example imagine this forum were a piece of software which paid us for every post we make in shares in the decentralized app. The earlier we joined the forum and most posts we have, the more shares we attain. If we get voted up by other users and our karma is good then we get even more shares in the app.
So a market would be made which rewards quality posts and contribution with crypto equity. If we could prevent it from being exploited by bots then we’d all win. There would be higher quality posts because we’d all make more money (game theory) to have high quality discussions.
By owning equity in the decentralized application itself it encourages the participants to think about the long term best interest of the decentralized application.
@luckbit. Maybe I see the drive to quickly find a solid replacement income source for the average person.
I’ve been thinking of this in the sense of all the automation putting everyone’s current contribution in question at least in developed societies where we don’t know how to retire and are too nervous to coast.
Vestment by involvement, interest and ideal is sometimes strong enough of a motivator as open source proved. It would almost be like open source vs a more corporate entity where there was a direct involvement by the players. And yet the DAC is also open source. It does seem that to support themselves in increasingly automated society people will need a claim on the capital but what does a share of a DAC mean? I am still new to the DAC concept but it seems that ideally a DAC would be a bit like a virus. Once started they would live for duration (like a corporation or mutating strand) and be hard to tamper with. It does seem they would need a commons to exist in initially. So we would have to some how claim them in a joint sense to enjoy their benefits but it would also be like trying to take property in an inviolate living thing. If they come to be characterized as sentient then our vestment would be characterized as symbiotic? They presumable did spawn from our efforts. Its more metabolism than economy.