[__MatrixMan__]

Is that the kind of UBI we want though? If it has a single issuer, like the government, then it has a single point of control which can be used to coerce people (i.e. by threatening to take it away).

The ideal UBI system would let you threaten to overthrow your government in a way that does not threaten the integrity of UBI. It ought to be a safety net that makes otherwise impractical growth possible.

As a crypto, CirclesUBI is a bit of a disaster (e.g. the hosted UI, and sensitivity to certain kinds of attack), but I think they got the tokenomics right: it encourages Sybil resistant behavior among the users without trying to bind an address to your body and without relying on an issuer's good behavior.

[Ataraxic]

> The ideal UBI system would let you threaten to overthrow your government...

Crypto Anarchism is not attractive the vast majority of people.

I'll argue the UBI people want involves their government sending them a check, direct deposit, or cash.

[landemva]

Since USA still controls it's currency issuance (unlike EU members), why isn't this in place today? Rename food stamps and WIC into newUBI and start rolling it out.

[__MatrixMan__]

Given that we'd have to all conspire to respect the UBI token while we replaced the government, I'd classify it as cryptocommunism, but I take your point.

I just have a hard time imagining a government that both:

- keeps the U in UBI

- is not under some kind if existential threat from its people

You need the latter to have the former. But if you're coordinated to achieve the latter then you don't really need the government to achieve the former anyway.

[dragonwriter]

> The ideal UBI system would let you threaten to overthrow your government in a way that does not threaten the integrity of UBI

If you can, categorically, overthrow it without threatening the integrity of UBI in its territory, it was never actually the government in the first place.

[JumpCrisscross]

> can, categorically, overthrow it without threatening the integrity of UBI in its territory, it was never actually the government in the first place

Which underlines the ridiculousness of the thought experiment. The solution to wars being destructive is...a blockchain?

[littlestymaar]

there's a civil war ongoing but your income is still at its pre-war level (without any devaluation, meaning you keep your pre-war purchasing power) thanks to the magic of the blockchain.

[ben_w]

> without any devaluation, meaning you keep your pre-war purchasing power

That's not how economics works.

The purchasing power of any currency, for example USD, isn't the same everywhere even at a fixed point in time, because we don't have negligible-cost transportation in war zones (amongst other places).

[__MatrixMan__]

It would come down to devaluation by whom right? If everybody wants the war to end and both sides see you as somebody that is working towards a reasonable plan of ending it, then I expect your tokens would go pretty far.

And even if you're not the magical mediator who ends the war, what matters is not some global market evaluation, what matters is your tokens' evaluation by the people who grow the food that you eat and your evaluation of their tokens as well. Reciprocal exchange and utility, not market value.

[JumpCrisscross]

> devaluation by whom right

This isn't how currencies lose value in wars. If the amount of money doesn't change, but half the factories are bombed, the output of the remaining factories rises in value relative to that currency. (Ceteris paribus.) The only way around this is to backstop production with unbombed factories. Something a blockchain does jack squat about.

[__MatrixMan__]

Sure, but that's somewhat orthogonal to the matter of how you does your accounting or who issues your tokens. That's just scarcity.

I suppose you could burn tokens when the factories are bombed (or you know, when whatever other resources that back them expire), but that seems like a lot of extra bookkeeping just to keep two numbers equal.

[littlestymaar]

Yes, and not only the factories, but the entierty of the supply chain, combined with war profiteers driving prices artificially even higher.

Contrary to the freshwater meme Inflation is rarely primarily a monetary phenomenon, but it's even less the case during a war.

[__MatrixMan__]

I'm not sure about that. There's more to being a government than preventing people from using media of exchange that you haven't blessed.

Besides, if borders had anything to do with it, it was never UBI in the first place.

[dragonwriter]

> Besides, if borders had anything to do with it, it was never UBI in the first place.

Yes, it would; neither form of the “U” in UBI includes free of borders in the sense used in the term, and reinterpreting that way and pretending its what the term means is just lazy equivocation.

[__MatrixMan__]

I don't know what you mean. If you're denying people access to the system based on where they happen to be, it's not universal.

[dragonwriter]

> If you're denying people access to the system based on where they happen to be, it's not universal.

“Universal” seems to be a later construction, it was originally “unconditional”, and in both cases the writings on it for many years under either name made it clear that the reference was principally freedom from means- and behavior-testing, contrary to status-quo welfare programs, but that it would target a population based on (exact scope differs in particular proposals) residency, citizenship, and/or age. Not surprised that the “no borders” crowd has seen it differently, and their version certainly is a valid instance of the general idea, but they don’t get to rewrite history and narrow the scope of the broader concept to their new version.

[__MatrixMan__]

That's fair. The "no borders" crowd was my introduction to the topic, so I guess I'm ignorant of the other side.

Is there a book or something you'd recommend?