sir… this is a major contribution. thanks!
2 Likes
I think this HIP should be split into 2. One to discuss the creation of the UBI DAO and another to discuss the voting scheme in that DAO.
At this point I could immediately vote YES to separate the PoH and UBI DAO’s but I have quite a few doubts about the voting schemes proposed. (And please put this also in Spanish, many of us have a hard time thinking in English. This discussion is important and the more humans understand what you are talking about, the better).
I agree with your take, but would go even further in reducing any cap. UBI is about securing basic needs, and whereas many people expressing their opinions here seem to see it as extra income, for others it’s income they need. Telling someone they can choose to not use the income they need for 6 months or even 3 months is something I consider to be unacceptable. At most, that kind of ask should be one week, although I would prefer 1 day, and that’s because voting is something that does take time. People do stand in lines to vote, because it’s important, and because this protocol couples time and money, some kind of “poll tax” is okay, because UBI is provided, but the cost should not exceed a day’s time IMO.
I think it’s important to avoid creating any kind of circumstance where people with the privilege to save their UBI get to make the decisions that affect everyone, while those without the ability to save their UBI have no similar ability to be involved in the governance of what’s creating the value of their UBI.
By all means, let’s do lots of things that increase the value of UBI, but everyone should have a say in that, not a privileged group with higher incomes and ability to save.
4 Likes
Yes to that!
We can use QV, just not associate any stake with it. Everyone on PoH gets the same amount of voice credits. 
1 Like
The problem with your reasoning is that it goes against the purpose of splitting UBI governance from PoH governance. The reason we are discussing how to use UBI for governance means it should at least be for a kind of system that differs in some way from what’s currently in place, and what you are proposing is essentially making UBI operate under the same logic of VOTE tokens.
I think there are some significant lessons to be learned from YFI, MKR, COMP and other successful governance tokens from the past. Increasing the utility of the token (and hence its demand pressure) really matters if we want to make UBI a source that brings food to the table. Those tokens all achieved relevant success with their demand-side fueled by their governance utility.
The killer feature on our community that those other token projects lack is the fact we can in fact implement Quadratic schemes thanks to having PoH as our backbone.
Last but not least, the fallacy that everything is either plutocratic or democratic is reductionist af. We need to think in terms of credible neutrality and legitimacy.
3 Likes
Agreed it’s a proposal that a should be split in two. But once the UBI DAO is created, it must be created with a governance mechanism in place.
Regarding language, agreed. Consider telegram channels in spanish. Happy to implement plugins or solutions that could help with this if there are any recommendations.
2 Likes
Well, it can inherit the current governance of PoH (perhaps excluding some HIPs that don’t apply). Once it is independent it can use this initial governance mechanism to change its own governance.
I am reminded a bit of the UK leaving the EU which got totally bogged down because they insisted on making a lot of changes at the same time as leaving.
1 Like
An interesting way of sorting out this conundrum in the long run is the following:
Philip Rosedale has given significant thought to the topic of UBI since the Second Life / Linden dollar days. He ran several Montecarlo simulations running an economy that delivers UBI (distributing a same amount of money to all participants) and the end game scenario always ends up with a few whales dominating the economy… unless, according to him, there’s some sort of transaction tax that redistributes wealth.
I think we could do that, and actually redistribute the wealth after every transaction by implementing a tax in a way it benefits those with less UBI under their name (PoH valid address). Since there will actually be an incentive to put UBI under your PoH address in order to participate in protocol governance, if we implement a tax that benefits those with smaller balances more, the game can be more fair altogether in the long run.
I have come to think of UBI as the fairest way to distribute a tax. The more complex you make a system, the worse it is for the poorest. And who knows if an account with a lot of $UBI is the only assets that person has?
The transaction tax is a good idea perhaps, but I think we should just burn it.
1 Like
Makes plenty of sense to make that a burn. This is off topic for this thread but we could definitely start thinking about it.
I’ll be moving this HIP forward to [Phase 2] for signalling with some of the suggestions found here + the source code for UBIVOTE that was pushed on the UBI repo at github.
1 Like
How would delegation work under the UBIVOTE?
Delegation is a feature of Snapshot, so it should be the sum of the balances of those that delegated to you. Balances are a consequence of the quadratic formula described above.
1 Like
I did not quite understand what you meant with your answer. Let me ask the question more clearly:
Will the delegation…
- first add together all $UBI balances delegated to you and then apply the quadratic formula?
- first apply the quadratic formula on all accounts and then add together the voting power delegated to you?
Number 2 is most likely outcome in Snapshot.
(voting power = sqrt(balance) * isHuman())
@clesaege how is this 
formula any different from directly voting with the balance? shouldn’t we take into consideration the total amount of registered humans or circulating UBI so it can have a whale mitigation effect?
EDIT: ok, I get how square root boosts those with less tokens relatively more than those with more… but i wonder if we could take into consideration the population size into the formula somehow.
1 Like
Phase 2 is now ready for voting… beginning today at 8pm CET.
https://snapshot.org/#/poh.eth/proposal/QmQT6gHnxsH8nBPCQ1PWudTw3SWBu1FVhyw2zuBi9xUS49
If every time $UBI changes hands, a small portion of it could be burned, I think that’s the way to go too. At the very least, every smart contract involving $UBI should involve a percentage that gets burned.
3 Likes
The main flaw to taxing transactions is that people could just wrap the UBI. So you would have to try and prevent it being wrapped into another asset. (credit to @clesaege for previously bringing this to my attention)
2 Likes
I think the key is not to put the transaction tax too high, then most people probably wouldn’t bother to try and circumvent it. For me, 1-2 % seems right. If combined with a small demurrage of say - 1 % pr. year then wrapping would not escape taxation.
Would definitely make $UBI worse as a holder of value, but might increase the value due to scarcity…ergh, not easy.
2 Likes