Proposal come out of https://gov.proofofhumanity.id/t/hip-1-ubi-accrual-rate-based-on-vouching-activity/128/42 with @santisiri and @0xc0de4c0ffee supporting it.
In order to improve the trustworthiness of the $UBI we should make sure to send a signal (to the world and to ourselves) that it will be extremely hard to change the issuance rate.
It will block us out from issuing $UBI for the DAO, binding us to fund through income/funding/donations. But that is a good thing because it will send a signal to the world that we will not just be printing money and that the token can be trusted.
It is naturally not the end-all-be-all of ensuring the value but knowing for the far future that each human in the registry will be awarded 1UBI an hour means that you can understand the dynamics and perhaps dare use the currency.
And if we think the income is too low, well then we can fix this by increasing the value of the token.
My proposal for a locking mechanism - we put locking a decision up for a vote and if the proposal succeeds (at least 60 % yea) then reversing the decision will take the same majority (rounded down to nearest 10 %). So a vote of 84 % yea to lock would later need an 80 % vote to repeal. A 100 % yea vote would later need a 90 % vote to repeal.
We have also discussed adding a quorum to the decision (so a certain percentage of users in the registry are required to vote). However, I don’t favor that anymore, because the difficulty of reversing the decision would vary a lot with user engagement, so it might introduce some perverse incentives to reduce user engagement to protect a decision.
What do you guys think?