Yeah, but this could be a problem with your proposal too
That is why I mentioned manual claims GoodDollar - Economic Model Explained - YouTube.
Instead of having to sell, buy or burn UBI to gain more (that if people need it I imagine would chose the first one more often), what if UBI drips in the bucket instead of directly on the account and with a button they can empty the bucket in the wallet. That would make people who want the money the most being benefited from logging in monthly/ weekly/ daily depending on how fast the bucket fills.
I’ll have to look into that mechanism… sounds interesting. Consolidation shouldn’t impact a flat tax model since it would apply to all accounts equally (humans and not). Still there may be a better way to reduce the impact using manual claims!
Rune Christensen (CEO, MakerDAO) wrote in an AMA some years ago:
Dai is right now pegged to the USD because it’s the most used global currency and because of its familiarity. However it has always been the plan that the core stability function of Dai should eventually become independent from USD and instead represent pure stability in terms of consumer prices - a CPI basket. There will still be a USD version of the stablecoin available of course, but by having a CPI pegged stablecoin at the core of our system we would be able to resist any sort of external meltdown, such as the USD or another national currency collapsing.
Other than the familiarity of USD, the other big hurdle is that creating a CPI basket is very difficult. Our approach will be to utilize the decentralized governance process that is also used for risk assessment of Dai collateral, so MKR holders will ultimately have full control over the composition of the CPI basket by working together to create an open source scientific framework. It is obviously very ambitious and won’t happen until several years into the future.
Maybe we should have another workshop on tokenomics, with the focus on coming to a proposal.
@paulaberman: You did a great job at framing the discussion a while back. Perhaps you could host a discussion now that there seems to be some momentum for change.
Thank you Mads. Unfortunately I don’t have the bandwidth right now to organize something like this again, but sharing the workshop report me and David Feld wrote, in case it helps: $UBI issuance rate - #12 by paulaberman
Ok, I have tried setting up a Pol.is conversation to map out the groups of opinions. I added some ideas from this thread to the conversation there. Please, everyone with an interest in this topic - go to pol.is and vote on the ideas and add your own.
I may also post it to the Telegram group when we have a few more ideas submitted to the pol.is.
For the Pol.is I think the most important thing right now is adding more statements. I don’t think we have enough breadth yet.
I will wait a little more before posting to Telegram, hoping from a few more statements, *nudge, *nudge.
I’m new to pol.is… is there a way to see what I have added? Thanks for setting this up by the way! Have wanted to try discourse on pol.is for a while and this is a great fit.
Very new to this tool myself - my experience is setting up this poll:)
I think there is no way to see your own statements by design. The idea being - either the statements (regardless of their origin) map out the problem, or you should add more statements. Once you add the statements, they become anonymous and stripped from the person who submitted it.
Ok, I will try to summarize the conclusions from the pol.is.
So, we have a majority opinion that
We must be perceived as dealing fairly
It is, however, ok, if early adopters are rewarded financially, in fact, this should be the case to encourage growth.
The price should be expected to be volatile (at least in the beginning).
There is no need to stop issuance before we come up with something new.
Don’t think we had enough data at all to divide into clear opinion groups.
The most surprising takeaway for me is that we seem to be ok with rewarding early adopters financially.
However, I don’t think the poll was large enough to give any concrete advice/suggestions.
Interesting. Is there a way for the pol.is responses to be open? I can only find the results of two questions down at the bottom of the page. Seeing a breakdown of all the responses in some way could be helpful to start discussion. I actually thought pol.is had a way to have a follow on discussion built-in, but I might be wrong on this
Ok, I have a tokenomics proposal. I have been swayed by @Justin@Kyle and @armstrys to give up on a fixed issuance. The main problem with fixed issuance is that humans psychologically can’t adjust prices downwards, so a small long-term inflation pressure is desired for a medium of exchange (allowing adjustments in both directions). Fixed issuance may (in the far future) lock the value of one $UBI, not allowing downwards price adjustments of contract denominated in $UBI.
Ok, here goes:
Issuance will be a percentage of the total supply.
Issuance is distributed equally among registered humans.
There is a fixed percentage plus a percentage corresponding to the user growth.
The fixed percentage could be 2-3 % pr. year as @Kyle suggested, but applied more frequently.
The variable percentage would correspond to the user growth (averaged over the last month).
Features:
End state is a stable slowly expanding supply at the fixed percentage, but the expansion is distributed equally.
Early adoption is financially incentivized since the cumulative issuance will be greater when there is more potential for registry growth.
We are all financially incentivized to expand the registry - but not overly so.
Income may vary in the beginning but would stabilize over time.
Supply will adjust with member growth/contraction.
Potential addition:
The DAO receives part of the issuance, e.g. 10 %. to fund operation and/or do monetary policy.
I’ll think about this in detail. It’s interesting you have a proposal on this, @Mads. It would be interesting to see how this modifies the code of $ubi so we can turn it into a HIP.
There is no free lunch. If issuance is focused at start, it makes start adoption easy but end adoption hard. If issuance is evenly distributed, it makes start adoption hard but end adoption easy (or at least easier as long term adoption is hard).
In this, Bitcoin and UBI are two opposites.
Most projects focus on the short term, thus provide lot of emission to newcomers. This makes the 0 to 1 easy. But because they burnt all their fuel, the 1 to 100 is extremely hard.
The current Proof Of Humanity emission has taken the path of a hard start and an easier finish. Changing it now would lead to the worse possible outcome hard start (as we’d already had the hard start) and hard finish.
Also, only a currency with a more or less stable emissions per person can achieve long term stability, thus money status. Systems were emission doesn’t scale with adoption (like Bitcoin), lead to deflation (as the amount of users increases compared to the supply) and high volatility (as people speculate both on user number and value per user).
With UBI in its current emission, the price is expected to stay relatively stable for a non pegged currency. That’s what we’ve seen so far in respect of its age and liquidity.
Now maybe the POH DAO would like another form of coin, not made to be money and which could be speculative. But I think this would be better achieved by making another coin instead of changing the UBI in way where long term adoption as a currency would be totally excluded.
I think the optimal tokenomics is if early adoptors are weakly favorized - enough that there is some incentive to get in earlier. And it should gradually lose the favorization on long enogh time-scales.
The $UBI emission model suffers IMO from being unbalanced - too much in the beginning (or after rapid expansion in users) and too little in the end. It can be balanced by burning, but it would be better if the currency could rest more in itself and rely less on interventions.