Jump to content
Enumivo Community

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ubi'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Enumivo Community
    • News and Announcements
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Beginners Section
    • General Discussions
    • Enumivo Meetups
    • Marketplace
    • Block Producers
    • Graphics and Artwork
    • Job Opportunities
    • Off Topic
    • Feedback and Suggestions
    • Archive
  • Regional Discussions
    • Enumivo中文交流群
    • Foundation Discussions
    • Enumivo Pilipinas
    • Enumivo Español
    • Enumivo 대한민국
    • Enumivo Africa
    • Enumivo India
    • Enumivo Русский
    • Enumivo Japan
  • Enumivo Partners
    • Enumivo Research Laboratories (ERL)
    • Something Decent
  • Enumivo Core Team's Topics
  • Enumivo Developers's Topics
  • ENU 中文交流俱乐部's ENU中国社区俱乐部
  • 区块链爱好者基地's 活动
  • My dreams, my beliefs.ENU's Topics
  • ENU中国社区俱乐部's 牛油果(enu)未来有可能超过eos吗?
  • ENU Filipino's Creating Value for ENU
  • ENU Filipino's General Discussions
  • RPG game fan players's Your Favorite GDR!!
  • Public Cannabis Club's Grow Club
  • Public Cannabis Club's Legalization
  • Airdrop's Airdrop in a file Excel
  • Airdrop's Write here any interesting project
  • ICO/Blockchain JOBS's JOBS POST
  • Republic of Enumivo's General Discussions


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar
  • Enumivo Developers's Events
  • My dreams, my beliefs.ENU's Events
  • Public Cannabis Club's Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me





Found 19 results

  1. So I decided to come up with this logo of UBI, what's your opinion
  2. 从Oracle上的成员来看,近来尼日利亚的家人们很多哦 大有农村包围城市的感觉 也许这就是ENU的ubi路径 不同于北欧高福利国家 我们是从从最贫困的地方开始 获得最广大人民群众的热烈欢迎 逐渐推广开来
  3. This is a graphics created by a new member of my project atlas - @baa what are your thoughts on the UBI design? to me it looks mature and well put out. As more of his designs are coming, do i be putting this ENUMIVO UBI DESIGNS according to @baa
  4. A UBI graphics made for the enumivo community to use anytime - if you have skills of what so ever don't keep it hidden become an active member of the RoE, even graphics are much welcomed as being a developer everything adds up to make everything a success.
  5. ENG: http://www.cn.undp.org/content/dam/china/docs/Publications/UNDP-CH-Universal Basic Income A Working Paper.pdf The author Yuan Zheng discusses the basic income of Chinese people from 3 aspects: 1. Why is UBI (not) a good idea? 2. UBI's practice on a global scale. 3. UBI's prospects in China. These contents are worth learning by we ENU guys. 中文: http://www.cn.undp.org/content/dam/china/docs/Publications/UNDP-CH-Universal Basic Income Working Paper 2017.pdf 作者Yuan Zheng从三个方面对中国全民基本收入展开论述: 1. 为什么 UBI(不)是⼀个好主意? 2. UBI 在全球范围内的实践。 3. UBI 在华前景。 内容值得我们ENU人学习。
  6. We know Enumivo's UBI is a great plan. If it succeeds, it will probably be the greatest project in the blockchain's history. However, it is certainly very difficult to implement this project. I think the most difficult part is to verify the identity of the UBI applicants. Here I would like to give some of my opinions about cheating ways and countermeasures for the UBI application. First of all,obviously there will be many people who want to get more UBI by applying many fake accounts. Since there is no limit of the UBI's release, if the cheating applications becomes rampant, it will eventually lead to serious inflation of UBI,and eventually makes the UBI going to dead. To cope with this situation, UBI uses voting to verify the authenticity of UBI applicants.If a sponsor of a UBI application initiates an application that is clearly bogus, a majority will vote against it and the application will fail. The applicant sponsor will also lose a certain amount of UBI.Naturally, he or she would give up the useless cheating. But this is the simplest scenario, because we assume that most voters vote is right and well-meaning. But what if a lot of people collude to cheat? Let's say we have 20 voters, 15 of whom are normal voters, and 5 of whom are collusive cheaters. The five men filed a false application and then voted quickly. When 15 other people saw the application. Although they feel that the application is likely to be false, they are likely to give up or even follow the vote because there are already five votes for the application.And this will keep them from losing UBI or getting UBI.And finally even a mere 20 percent of malicious voters would be enough to create a lot of bogus votes.And ultimately destroy the entire UBI ecosystem. However, I think Aiden must also take this into account, so in the setting of UBI, there will be 1,000 settlers in the intial stage. Since it's going to be much harder for 200 out of 1,000 people to collude cheating together than that 5 out of 20 people. So it is better to spend time and energy developing more real UBI applicants than to do those useless cheating. It's just like the 51% attack of POW coins, it is possible in theory, but it is too costly to implement. What's more, the people who own the machines are all the beneficiaries of mining. Why should they jointly blow up their own gold mines? Based on the above judgment, I think UBI's KYC design is very perfect. I can't find any big bugs of it at present. I think the UBI based I think we should invest heavily in a project which have not only a huge appreciation expectations, but also a not low chance of success, right? I've swapped 90 percent of my cryptocurrency for enu, how about you?
  7. original post: https://www.usv.com/blog/an-overview-of-blockchain-based-universal-basic-income-projects An Overview of Blockchain-Based Universal Basic Income Projects JUL 10, 2018 Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the idea that citizens receive a regular, unconditional stipend that helps them cover their cost of living. Previous UBI experiments have shown to reduce hospitalization, crime and poverty rates. Richard Nixon, Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King Jr. and Milton Friedman were all vocal proponents of UBI. UBI has traditionally been imagined as a government subsidy that would put money back into the economy by giving it directly to people (as opposed to quantitative easing where the Federal Reserve puts money back into the economy through banks). The development of cryptocurrency, however, now gives us a way to implement UBI in a global, trustless and democratic way without the need for a government to implement it. Recently there has been an emergence of a handful of blockchain-based UBI projects. They are all very early. Most of them do not yet have a public product, but a few do, if you’re curious to try some out, a few you can check out are Mannabase: SwiftDemand: and Solidar (implemented as a chatbot on FB messenger). We are intrigued by this possibility and are wondering about some key issues, such as the complexities around issuing new currencies and preventing fraudulent accounts. Where does the money come from? When blockchain projects implement UBI, where does the initial money come from? The majority of the UBI blockchain projects issue their own currency in the form of tokens. That is, instead of recirculating existing money in the economy, they generate new value by minting a new currency. The challenge is that while the idea behind UBI is to provide real income that can be used for paying for things like rent, tuition and groceries, newly invented currencies are initially worthless until someone accepts them. It is up to each UBI project to make their currency worth something. Projects do this by building an economy around the currency where people can exchange and use their tokens to buy goods and services. Nick calls this building a ‘Minimum Viable Economy’. Building a Minimum Viable Economy: Vendors & Merchants The idea behind a Minimum Viable Economy is to build enough of an ecosystem around a token so that its holders can use it to buy goods and services or exchange it to other currencies. For this to happen, the project needs to incentivize merchants and vendors to accept the token as a form of payment. SwiftDemand is probably the UBI project with the most developed marketplace so far. Their hope is to seed the marketplace with vendors that are participants in their UBI community. Anyone in the community can submit something to sell: And then anyone in the community can buy those things using the Swift token: projectUBU (beta) is building tools for vendors to be able to easily add support for their UBU token. Enumivo (pre-beta) is building their own blockchain (a fork of EOS) with the goal of developers building dapps that accept their token, $UBI. It is easier to convince vendors to accept a token if there are a lot of people that hold the token. A good analogy for this is the credit card: even though vendors dislike credit cards because they are expensive and require extra in-store hardware, they are incentivized to accept them because so many people have them. To seed this network effect, many UBI projects have referral programs to reward people who bring in new users. projectUBU, for example, rewards 1,000 UBUs to the referrer and 500 UBUs to the referee per referral. Some projects, instead of doing a one-time bonus, continue to award the referral bonus as long as the referred person stays in the network. Frink (beta), for example, plans to indefinitely payout an additional 10% to referrers, and Mannabase plans to payout an additional 100% to referrers for one year. The idea is to incentivize people to refer “high quality users” that will stay in the network for a long time. An interesting question is whether a high referral bonus will increase the incentive and potential for referral fraud. These referral programs are often set to expire when the network grows to a desired size. Solidar’s program, for example, is scheduled to reduce the bonus by 50% when the network reaches 15,000 users and then again every time the network size doubles. Building a Minimum Viable Economy: Monetary Policy Projects also need to incentivize people to spend their tokens. UBI projects can build in monetary policy that makes it more attractive for token holders to spend the tokens than to hold them. There are two ways to do this: demurrage (some amount of held currency automatically dissipates) and by growing the money supply (so that each held token is now worth less). Both accomplish the same goal of incentivizing token holders to spend their currency, otherwise their held currency will lose some of its value. projectUBU is one of the projects utilizing demurrage: 1% of all UBU wallet balances dissipate every year. Circles is one of the projects planning to mint more currency: they plan to grow their money supply at a 5% annual rate. The most dramatic of these programs is Solidar, which has an annual 20% demurrage rate. Another way projects incentivize people to spend their tokens is by capping the amount of tokens any account can hold at one time. In order to receive more tokens, participants need to withdraw or spend the tokens they’ve already received. SwiftDemand, for example, only allows accounts to hold 7 days of unclaimed income at a time. Building a Minimum Viable Economy: Liquidity Another way to create value in tokens is to provide liquidity - aka the ability for a token holder to exchange the token for another currency, usually fiat, like USD. For there to be liquidity, there needs to be someone who wants to buy tokens from those that hold it. One project called Big Foundation (beta) is seeding liquidity by paying people a bonus for buying the token. Greshm (pre-beta) holds a reserve of USD and issues currency called XGD backed by that USD reserve. (Note that they are built on their own system and not on blockchain). That provides initial participants and vendors with a source of liquidity - they can cash out and receive an equal amount of USD for their XGD. Greshm plans to maintain a 1:1 peg to the USD at first, and then increase the ratio of XGD to USD over time. This will allow them to put new money into circulation. (This model exists in the traditional US economy where federal banks can create new money by lending out money they don’t have in reserve up to a certain lended_money:money_in_reserve ratio.) Another interesting approach here is Democracy Earth’s distribution program. Because their currency has immediate utility as a vote, there are more likely to be buyers of it. Democracy Earth (beta) is a governance platform, and buying currency can mean buying power. The caveat is that organizations built on Democracy Earth can set their constitutional smart contracts to limit only one vote per person per issue, which inhibits the ability for participants to effectively buy votes. Identity Verification & Anti-Fraud Before a UBI project can hand out tokens, they first need to verify that each participant is a real person, and that each person is limited to a single account. This prevents cheating via ‘Sybil attack’ where a user creates multiple identities that all trust and validate each other in a closed system. If every user could create multiple accounts to increase the amount of income they received, it would dissolve the public trust in the value of the currency, and depreciate its worth. It would also undermine the spirit of the project where in everyone gets the same amount. There are two main ways that UBI projects are solving this: voting and social trust. The first way is allowing members of the community to vote to verify a new participant. On Democracy Earth, for example, new participants have to go through a validation process with other previously validated community members in order to be able to join the network. (They actually plan to have every participant repeat this process periodically in order to prevent abandoned accounts). The second way is by relying on trust relationships from the real world. Circles (pre-beta) does this in an interesting way: On Circles, each new participant is issued UBI payouts in their own personal currency. That currency is not worth anything because no one agrees to exchange it yet. To make their account balance worth something, Circles participants need to trust each others currencies by being willing to exchange them. From the Circles documentation: "The value of a specific personal currency is a measure of how many other accounts trust it. This means that users who are new to the system and don’t have many trusted relationships have a less valuable currency than someone who is well-established in the network. It also means that the currency of new users gets more valuable over time as they create more trust relationships." Enumivo plans to do a combination of the social graph and voting solutions. People who want to join Enumivo will have to find someone already in the community to sponsor them. To sponsor someone, a community member stakes 200 tokens (10 weeks worth) and then other community members have 30 days to vote on them. There are also standalone identity projects like uPort and Civic that future UBI projects could potentially leverage. Generally we are very interested in learning more about self-sovereign identity projects that could enable decentralized programs like UBI. Are These Projects Sustainable? There are two ways most UBI projects fund their development: by holding a percentage of their tokens (most UBI projects do this), and by collecting transaction fees (some UBI projects do this). What I like about these revenue sources is that they align the core team’s interest with their users’ interests. The better the core team grows the network and token economy, the more their tokens are worth, and the more transactions there will be to collect fees on. Wrapping Up One of the applications of blockchain that we are very excited about is UBI, and we hope to keep learning about how different projects are implementing it. If you’re working on something in this space, we’d love to hear from you. Reach out, I’m dani@usv.com.
  8. The Growing Need for a Universal Basic Income Labor force participation rates, which are the percentage of people in a given country who have any job at all, have been declining since around 2001. So have median incomes. Mean incomes, on the other hand, have increased. This means that while the average person is less likely to work, and likely to earn less money if they do, the total amount of money being earned per person has increased because of gains in income at the top. This is no conspiracy of the powerful and wealthy keeping the little man down. This is the obvious result of our post industrial technological age. In the past, greater production meant more labor. Today, it likely means better software, more robots, or bigger stores. While this trend started when the first computers were put into commercial use decades ago, it, for a long time, went against the long running, fundamental labor shortage in the United States. Most companies, then, could use more employees because there was an undersupply of educated labor with access to capital in the industrialized world as there had been since the second World War, and the United States was well placed to fill it. But the power of modern technology finally overcame this deficit sometimes around the turn of the century. This trend will not stop. The travel agents and bank tellers were not the only job to be largely automated out of existence. In the United States today, some six million people are professional drivers such as long haul truck rivers, taxi drivers, industrial truck drivers and bus drivers. (There are around 138 million jobs in the United States today. So drivers account for between four and five percent of all workers.) Most people know that Google and DARPA are independently testing driverless vehicles capable of navigating cities, threatening to replace not only the tedium of driving but a tremendous number of people employed as drivers. But few know that the largest mining company in the world, Rio Tinto, has already replaced 30% of its driving personnel with automated systems. Already. Time is running out for people employed as drivers. This sort of progress is good for all of us in the sense that it decreases prices and increases incomes. All sorts of products and services would be cheaper if automation overtook the driving professions and many people would have higher incomes. But another six million people would be out of work. But when industry after industry faces this sort of automation in a time when new industries are more likely to be computer programs than anything needing more than a dozen employees to serve the world, we face an everlasting crisis that requires a new way of providing for everyone. Things will keep getting better, in the sense that profits will soar and prices will fall. And they will keep getting worse in the sense that incomes will fall and permanent, structural unemployment will grow. A Universal Basic Income can bridge this gap. Without it, we face despair and destitution for many. With it, we can all be proud of our rising technological sophistication. With it, we can all share in the warmth and light of our collectively bright future. And the earlier we enact it, the faster we can allow our economy to be remade technologically, and wealthier we will collectively become. Lets use our efforts to improve our world instead of fighting the inevitable and struggling with stopgap measures.The Universal Basic Income, in one form or another, will come eventually. These trends will eventually demand it. The destitute masses will eventually demand it. But long before that, I hope we take advantage of rare opportunity to embrace the tide of history instead of self destructively struggling against it. source: http://universalbasicincome.org/index.html#theGrowingNeed
  9. 如果这个演讲者得知一群技术技术极客在用技术实现这个想法,不知道他会不会兴奋呢? bilibili 搜索av4618385即可观看完整版,链接http://www.bilibili.com/video/av4618385?share_medium=android&share_source=copy_link&bbid=4FE2E759-A871-40CA-B8EF-FEF730A08451149046infoc&ts=1532692611958
  10. Original Post: https://thecorrespondent.com/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 London, May 2009. Read the Dutch version here.A small Read the French version here.experiment involving thirteen homeless men takes off. They are street veterans. Some of them have been sleeping on the cold tiles of The Square Mile, the financial center of Europe, for more than forty years. Their presence is far from cheap. Police, legal services, healthcare: the thirteen cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Every year. That spring, a local charity takes a radical decision. The street veterans are to become the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays for them. The men will get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. They’ll each receive 3,000 pounds, cash, with no strings attached. The men are free to decide what to spend it on; counseling services are completely optional. No requirements, no hard questions. The only question they have to answer is: What do you think is good for you? Gardening classes ‘I didn’t have enormous expectations,’ an aid worker recalls. Yet the desires of the homeless men turned out to be quite modest. A phone, a passport, a dictionary - each participant had his own ideas about what would be best for him. None of the men wasted their money on alcohol, drugs or gambling. On the contrary, most of them were extremely frugal with the money they had received. On average, only 800 pounds had been spent at the end of the first year. Simon’s life was turned upside down by the money. Having been addicted to heroin for twenty years, he finally got clean and began with gardening classes. ‘For the first time in my life everything just clicked, it feels like now I can do something’, he says. ‘I’m thinking of going back home. I’ve got two kids.’ A year after the experiment had started, eleven out of thirteen had a roof above their heads. They accepted accommodation, enrolled in education, learnt how to cook, got treatment for drug use, visited their families and made plans for the future. ‘I loved the cold weather,’ one of them remembers. ‘Now I hate it.’ After decades of authorities’ fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, eleven notorious vagrants finally moved off the streets. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation did a study of this experiment. Costs? 50,000 pounds a year, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving eleven individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of at least 7. Even The Economist concluded: ‘The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.’ Santa exists We tend to presume that the poor are unable to handle money. If they had any, people reason, they would probably spend it on fast food and cheap beer, not on fruit or education. This kind of reasoning nourishes the myriad social programs, administrative jungles, armies of program coordinators and legions of supervising staff that make up the modern welfare state. Since the start of the crisis, the number of initiatives battling fraud with benefits and subsidies has surged. People have to ‘work for their money,’ we like to think. In recent decades, social welfare has become geared toward a labor market that does not create enough jobs. The trend from ‘welfare’ to ‘workfare’ is international, with obligatory job applications, reintegration trajectories, mandatory participation in ‘voluntary’ work. The underlying message: Free money makes people lazy. Except that it doesn’t. Meet Bernard Omandi. For years he worked in a quarry, somewhere in the inhabitable West of Kenya. Bernard made $2 a day, until one morning, he received a remarkable text message. ‘When I saw the message, I jumped up’, he later recalled. And with good reason: $500 had just been deposited into his account. For Bernard, the sum amounted to almost a year’s salary. A couple of months later a New York Times reporter walked Read the NYT article here.around his village. It was like everyone had won the jackpot - but no one had wasted the money. People were repairing their homes and starting small businesses. Bernard was making $6 to $9 a day driving around on his new Bajai Boxer, an Indian motor cycle which he used to provide transportation for local residents. ‘This puts the choice in the hands of the poor, and not me,’ Michael Faye, co-founder of GiveDirectly, the coordinating organization, said. ‘The truth is, I don’t think I have a very good sense of what the poor need.’ When Google had a look at his data, the company immediately decided to donate $2.5 million. Bernard and his fellow villagers are not the only ones who got lucky. In 2008, the Ugandan government gave about $400 to almost 12,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 35. Just money – no questions asked. And guess what? The results were astounding. A mere four years later, the youths’ educational and entrepreneurial investments had caused their incomes to increase by almost 50%. Their chances of being employed had increased by 60%.The study: ‘Experimental Evidence from Uganda’. Another Ugandan program awarded $150 to 1,800 poor women in the North of the country. Here, too, incomes went up significantly. The women who were supported by an aid worker were slightly better off, but later calculations proved that the program would have been even more effective had the aid workers’ salary simply been divided among the women as well.And the other study from Uganda. Studies from all over the world drive home the exact same point: free money helps. Proven correlations exist between free money and a decrease in crime, lower inequality, less malnutrition, lower infant mortality and teenage pregnancy rates, less truancy, better school completion rates, higher economic growth and emancipation rates. ‘The big reason poor people are poor is because they don’t have enough money’, economist Charles Kenny, a fellow at the Center for Global Development, dryly remarked last June. ‘It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that giving them money is a great way to reduce that problem.’Read his article here. In the 2010 work Just Give Money to the Poor, researchers from the Brooks World Poverty Institute, an independent institute based at the University of Manchester, give numerous examples of money being scattered successfully. In Namibia, malnourishment, crime and truancy fell 25 percent, 42 percent and nearly 40 percent respectively. In Malawi, school enrollment of girls and women rose 40 percent in conditional and unconditional settings. From Brazil to India and from Mexico to South Africa, free-money programs have flourished in the past decade. While the Millenium Development Goals did not even mention the programs, by now more than 110 million families in at least 45 countries benefit from them. Researchers sum up the programs’ advantages: (1) households make good use of the money, (2) poverty decreases, (3) long-term benefits in income, health, and tax income are remarkable, (4) there is no negative effect on labor supply – recipients do not work less, and (5) the programs save money. Here is a presentation of their findings.Why would we send well-paid foreigners in SUVs when we could just give cash? This would also diminish risk of corrupt officials taking their share. Free money stimulates the entire economy: consumption goes up, resulting in more jobs and higher incomes. ‘Poverty is fundamentally about a lack of cash. It’s not about stupidity,’ author Joseph Hanlon remarks. ‘You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots.’ An old idea Free money: the idea has been propagated by some of history’s greatest minds. Thomas More dreamt of it in his famous Utopia (1516). Countless economists and philosophers, many of them Nobel laureates, would follow suit. Proponents cannot be pinned down on the political spectrum: it appeals to both left- and right-wing thinkers. Even the founders of neoliberalism, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman supported the idea. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) directly refers to it. The basic income. And not just for a few years, in developing countries only, or merely for the poor – but free money as a basic human right for everyone. The philosopher Philippe van Parijs has called it ‘the capitalist road to communism.’ A monthly allowance, enough to live off, without any outside control on whether you spend it well or whether you even deserve it. No jungle of extra charges, benefits, rebates - all of which cost tons to implement. At most with some extras for the elderly, unemployed and disabled. The basic income - it is an idea whose time has come. Mincome, Canada In an attic of a warehouse in Winnipeg, Canada, 1,800 boxes are accumulating dust. The boxes are filled with data – tables, graphs, reports, transcripts – from one of the most fascinating social experiments in postwar history: Mincome. Evelyn Forget, professor at the University of Manitoba, heard about the experiment in 2004. For five years, she courted the Canadian National Archive to get access to the material. When she was finally allowed to enter the attic in 2009, she could hardly believe her eyes: this archive stored a wealth of information on the application of Thomas More’s age-old ideal. One of the almost 1,000 interviews tucked away in boxes was with Hugh and Doreen Henderson. Thirty-five years earlier, when the experiment took off, he worked as a school janitor and she took care of their two kids. Life had not been easy for them. Doreen grew vegetables and they kept their own chickens in order to secure their daily food supply. One day the doorbell rang. Two men wearing suits made an offer the Henderson family couldn’t refuse. ‘We filled out forms and they wanted to see our receipts’, Doreen remembers. From that moment, money was no longer a problem for the Henderson family. Hugh and Doreen Read more about their experience here.entered Mincome – the first large-scale social experiment in Canada and the biggest experiment implementing a basic income ever conducted. In March 1973 the governor of the province had decided to reserve $17 million for the project. The experiment was to take place in Dauphin, a small city with 13,000 inhabitants north of Winnipeg. The following spring researchers began to crowd the town to monitor the development of the pilot. Economists were keeping track of people’s working habits, sociologists looked into the experiment’s effects on family life and anthropologists engaged in close observation of people’s individual responses. The basic income regulations had to ensure no one would drop below the poverty line. In practice this meant that about a 1,000 families in Dauphin, covering 30% of the total population, received a monthly paycheck. For a family of five, the amount would come down to $18,000 a year today (figure corrected for inflation). No questions asked. Four years passed until a round of elections threw a spanner in the works. The newly elected conservative government didn’t like the costly experiment that was financed by the Canadian taxpayer for 75%. When it turned out that there was not even enough money to analyze the results, the initiators decided to pack the experiment away. In 1,800 boxes. The Dauphin population was bitterly disappointed. At its start in 1974, Mincome was seen as a pilot project that might eventually go national. But now it seemed to be destined for oblivion. ‘Government officials opposed to Mincome didn’t want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn’t work,’ one of the researchers remembers. ‘And the people who were in favor of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn’t favorable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.’ When professor Forget first heard of Mincome, no one knew how the experiment had truly worked out. However, 1970 had also been the year Medicare, the national health insurance system, had been implemented. The Medicare archives provided Forget with a wealth of data allowing her to compare Dauphin to surrounding towns and other control groups. For three years, she analyzed and analyzed, consistently coming to the same conclusion: Mincome had been a great success. From experiment to law ‘Politicians feared that people would stop working, and that they would have lots of children to increase their income,’ professor Forget says. You can find one of her lectures here.Yet the opposite happened: the average marital age went up while the birth rate went down. The Mincome cohort had better school completion records. The total amount of work hours decreased by only 13%. Breadwinners hardly cut down on their hours, women used the basic income for a couple of months of maternity leave and young people used it to do some extra studying. Forget’s most remarkable discovery is that hospital visits went down by 8,5%. This amounted to huge savings (in the United States it would be more than $200 billion a year now). After a couple of years, domestic violence rates and mental health also saw improvement. Mincome made the entire town healthier. The basic income continued to influence following generations, both in terms of income and health. Dauphin, the town with no poverty, was one of five North-American basic income experiments. Four U.S. projects preceded it. Today, few people know how close the US was in the sixties to implementing a solid social welfare system that could stand the comparison with that of most Western-European countries nowadays. In 1964, president Lyndon B. Johnson declared a ‘war on poverty.’ Democrats and Republicans were united in their ambition to fundamentally reform social security. But first more testing was needed. Several tens of millions were made available to test the effects of a basic income among 10,000 families in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Seattle and Denver. The pilots were the first large-scale social experiments differentiating between various test and control groups. The researchers were trying to find the answers to three questions. 1: Does a basic income make people work significantly less? 2: If so, will it make the program unaffordable? 3: And would it consequently become politically unattainable? The answers: no, no and yes. The decrease in working hours turned out to be limited. ‘The ‘laziness’ contention is just not supported by our findings’, the chief data analyst of the Denver experiment said. ‘There is not anywhere near the mass defection the prophets of doom predicted.’ On average, the decline in work hours amounted to 9 percent per household. Like in Dauphin, the majority of this drop was caused by young mothers and students in their twenties. ‘These declines in hours of paid work were undoubtedly compensated in part by other useful activities, such as search for better jobs or work in the home,’ an evaluative report of a Seattle project concluded. A mother who had never finished high school got a degree in psychology and went on to a career in research. Another woman took acting classes, while her husband started composing. ‘We’re now self-sufficient, income-earning artists’, they told the researchers. School results improved in all experiments: grades went up and dropout rates went down. Nutrition and health data were also positively affected – for example, the birth weight of newborn babies increased. For a while, it seemed like the basic income would fare well in Washington. WELFARE REFORM IS VOTED IN HOUSE, a NYT headline on April 17, 1970 read. An overwhelming majority had endorsed President Nixon’s proposal for a modest basic income. But once the proposal got to the Senate, doubts returned. ‘This bill represents the most extensive, expensive and expansive welfare legislation ever handled by the Committee on Finance,’ one of the senators said. Then came that fatal discovery: the number of divorces in Seattle had gone up by more than 50%. This percentage made the other, positive results seem utterly uninteresting. It gave rise to the fear that a basic income would make women much too independent. For months, the law proposal was sent back and forth between the Senate and the White House, eventually ending in the dustbin of history. Later analysis would show that the researchers had made a mistake – in reality the number of divorces had not changed. Futile, dangerous and perverse ‘It Can Be Done! Conquering Poverty in the US by 1976’, James Tobin, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize, wrote in 1967. At that time, almost 80% of the American population was in favor of adopting a small basic income. Here is an interesting article about this episode of American history.Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan sneered years later: ‘In the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.’ Milestones of civilization are often first considered impossible utopias. Albert Hirschman, one of the great sociologists of the previous century, wrote that utopian dreams are usually rebutted on three grounds: futility (it is impossible), danger (the risks are too big) and perversity (its realization will result in the opposite: a dystopia). Yet Hirschmann also described how, once implemented, ideas previously considered utopian are quickly accepted as normal. Not so long ago, democracy was a grand utopian ideal. From the radical philosopher Plato to the conservative aristocrat Joseph de Maistre, most intellectuals considered the masses too stupid for democracy. They thought that the general will of the people would quickly degenerate into some general’s will instead. Apply this kind of reasoning to the basic income: it would be futile because we would not be able to afford it, dangerous because people would stop working, and perverse because we would only have to work harder to clean up the mess it creates. But wait a second. Futile? For the first time in history we are rich enough to finance a robust basic income. It would allow us to cut most of the benefits and supervision programs that the current social welfare system necessitates. Many tax rebates would be redundant. Further financing could come from (higher) taxing of capital, pollution and consumption. A quick calculation. The country I live in, Holland, has 16.8 million inhabitants. Its poverty line is set at $1,300 a month. This would make for a reasonable basic income. Some simple math would set the cost on 193.5 billion euro annually, about 30% of our national GDP. That’s an astronomically high figure. But remember: the government already controls more than half of our GDP. It does not keep the Netherlands from being one of the richest, most competitive and happiest countries in the world. The basic income that Canada experimented with – free money as a right for the poor – would be much cheaper. Eradicating poverty in the United States would cost $175 billion, economist Matt Bruenig recently calculated – a quarter of the country’s $700 billion military budget. You can find his calculation here.Still, a system that only helps the poor confirms the divide with the well-to-do. ‘A policy for the poor is a poor policy,’ Richard Titmuss, the mastermind of the British welfare state, once wrote. A universal basic income, on the other hand, can count on broad support since everyone benefits. Dangerous? Indeed, we would work a little less. But that’s a good thing, with the potential of working wonders for our personal and family lives. A small group of artists and writers (‘all those whom society despises while they are alive and honors when they are dead’ – Bertrand Russell) may actually stop doing paid work. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that the great majority of people, regardless of what grants they would receive, want to work. Unemployment makes us very unhappy. One of the perks of the basic income is that it stimulates the ‘working poor’ – who are, under the current system, more secure receiving welfare payments - to look for jobs. The basic income can only improve their situation; the grant would be unconditional. Minimum wage could be abolished, improving employment opportunities at the lower ends of the labor market. Age would no longer need to form an obstacle to finding and keeping employment (as older employees would not necessarily earn more) thereby boosting overall labor participation. Perverse? On the contrary, over the last decades our social security systems have degenerated into perverse systems of social control. Government officials spy on people receiving welfare to make sure they are not wasting their money. Inspectors spend their days coaching citizens to help them make sense of all the necessary paperwork. Thousands of government officials are kept busy keeping an eye on this fraud-sensitive bureaucracy. The welfare state was built to provide security but degenerated in a system of distrust and shame. Think different It has been said before. Our welfare state is out of date, based on a time in which men were the sole breadwinners and employees stayed with one company for their entire careers. Our pension system and unemployment protection programs are still centered around those lucky enough to have steady employment. Social security is based on the wrong premise that the economy creates enough jobs. Welfare programs have become pitfalls instead of trampolines. Never before has the time been so ripe to implement a universal and unconditional basic income. Our ageing societies are challenging us to keep the elderly economically active for as long as possible. An increasingly flexible labor market creates the need for more security. Globalization is eroding middle-class wages worldwide. Women’s emancipation will only be completed when a greater financial independence is possible for all. The deepening divide between the low- and highly educated means that the former are in need of extra support. The rise of robots and the increasing automatization of our economy could cost even those at the top of the ladder their jobs. Legend has it that while Henry Ford II was giving a tour around a new, fully automatic factory to union leader Walter Reuther in the 1960s, Ford joked: ‘Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?’ Reuther is said to have replied: ‘Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?’ A world where wages no longer rise still needs consumers. In the last decades, middle-class purchasing power has been maintained through loans, loans and more loans. The Calvinistic reflex that you have to work for your money has turned into a license for inequality. No one is suggesting societies the world over should implement an expensive basic income system in one stroke. Each utopia needs to start small, with experiments that slowly turn our world upside down — like the one four years ago in the City of London. Switzerland may be the first country to introduce a basic income.One of the aid workers later recalled: ‘It’s quite hard to just change overnight the way you’ve always approached this problem. These pilots give us the opportunity to talk differently, think differently, describe the problem differently.’ That is how all progress begins.
  11. 我们知道Enumivo的UBI是个很宏大的计划,如果它成功了很可能会成为区块链历史上最伟大的项目。但是实现这个项目的难度肯定也是很大的,其中难度最大的地方我想应该是审核UBI申请人的身份。在这里我想对UBI申请可能遇到的作假和应对方法说一下自己的看法。 首先我们知道,肯定会有一些人想通过申请很多账号的方式来获得更多的UBI。由于UBI没有发行数量限制,这样的情况如果泛滥,最终将会导致UBI严重通货膨胀,UBI计划也只能宣告失败。为了应对这种情况,UBI采用投票来验证UBI申请者的真实性,如果一个UBI申请的发起人发起了一个明显是伪造的申请,那么大多数人会投反对票,申请宣告失败。申请发起人也会损失一定数量的UBI。自然他会放弃这种偷鸡不成蚀把米的行为。 但是上述情况只是最简单的推测,因为我们假定每个投票人都是正确无恶意的。但是假如有很多人窜通起来作假呢?比如假设我们有20个投票人,其中15人是正常投票人,另外5人是有恶意串通起来作假的。这5个人发起一个虚假的申请,然后很快的投票。当另外15个人看到这个申请时,虽然他们感觉这个申请很可能是虚假的,但由于已经有5个支持的投票,他们则很可能会放弃投票或者甚至跟着支持这个投票。因为这样可以让他们免于损失UBI或者让他们得到UBI。这样的话即使只有20%的恶意投票人,也足以制造出很多的虚假投票。最终毁掉整个UBI生态。 不过Aiden肯定也考虑到了这种情况,所以在UBI的设定里,最先就会有1000人的定居者。因为1000人里200个人串通起来的难度肯定远大于20人里面5个人串通起来的难度。与其费劲心机的发出虚假申请作假,还不如花更多的时间和精力去发展更多的真实UBI申请者。毕竟作假很可能无功而返,而用同样的精力去发展更多的真实UBI申请者会得到大量的收益,为什么还要费力不讨好地作假呢?就像POW里面的51%攻击,虽然理论上它的确是可以实施的,但实施它的代价太高。更何况持有矿机的人都是挖矿的受益者,他们为什么要联合起把自己的金矿炸掉呢? 基于以上判断,我认为UBI的KYC设计是非常完美的,我暂时找不到任何大的漏洞。我觉得面对升值期望非常巨大,而且成功几率并不低的项目就应该大力投入。我已经把90%的数字资产换做了enu,你呢?
  12. I started my crypto journey last December 2017 when someone told me to buy EOS. I bought EOS even if I wasn’t sure what it was about. I got all excited when my initial investment started to grow. Crypto currency really got my attention! Everyday I’d read stuff about trading, blockchain technology, ethereum, EOS, ICO’s, airdrops, etc. Then February came, market wasn’t doing good. Everything was down. All my tokens were bleeding. Bitcoin was priced at 7,000 from an all time high of 19,000 US dollars. I was hesitant to inject more money into my trading accounts because I was afraid to lose more due to the bear market. February 8, 2018, It was during this day when someone told me to do some googling on Enumivo. I did some searching online then found out about it on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2903323.0 I really hate joining airdrops because most of them are scams. But that time I had a feeling ENU was different. Plus it was mentioned on the post that ENU is an EOS clone. To be frank, I like EOS! I fell in love with it more after finding out what the project was about and how brilliant the CEO was. So this got me more interested in getting ENU tokens. I just followed the instruction on how to get ENU from the contract address. Basically you get as many Enumivo tokens as you want until you get tired of getting more (starting from 4,000 ENU and will drop by 0.001% each time a person requests for it) The requirement to acquire ENU tokens was simple, you just have to have a unique ERC20 wallet (in my case it was MEW) and you just have to send 0 ETH to the Ethereum smart contract address to get ENUMIVO. So I made as many wallets as I can at that time, around 10 unique MEW wallets. I wanted to get more ENU however I ran out of gas. ( Your ERC20 wallet has to have funds for you to send 0 ETH to the smart contract address) I got lazy and didn’t want to buy ETH just to have more gas. So I only got 33,000 ENUMIVO tokens. 33,000 ENUMIVO tokens which were worth nothing. It had no value. So I decided to keep all my ENU tokens in my Trezor wallet hoping that someday maybe it will have a value greater than 0. To Be Continued…
  13. 据国外媒体报道,特斯拉首席执行官埃隆•马斯克(Elon Musk)和Facebook首席执行官马克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)都表示,全民基本收入(Universal Basic Income,简称UBI)是个好主意。 随着不平等的扩大,政府定期无条件的向每个人提供现金的想法突然变成了一个热门话题。这个想法是,不管一个人是失业还是富有,政府每月给予1000美元现金可以取代所有目前的福利计划,包括社会保障。 卡托研究所高级研究员迈克尔•坦纳(Michael Tanner)表示:“我认为,从理论上讲,它将优于现有的社会福利体系,这样会更有效率,它会更人道,也会更少有家长式作风。 机器人来了 随着劳动力越来越依赖技术,关于UBI的对话已经达到了高潮。根据牛津大学的一项研究,在未来的十年或两年内,近一半的美国工作岗位将被机器人取代。 去年11月,特斯拉的马斯克表示:“我们很有可能会得到一个全民基本收入,或者类似的东西。” 由于自动化的原因,越来越多的工人失去了工作。 UBI的支持者说,政府的现金可以为基本需求提供资金,比如食品和住房,让人们能够在数字经济中找到新的工作。 前总统奥巴马首席经济顾问詹森•弗曼(Jason Furman)说:“很多人第一次听到这个想法时都很喜欢,但当你看到细节时,发现结果是行不通的。它要花费2到3万亿美元,你需要将当前的所得税提高一倍,才能使它发挥作用。” 哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院教授弗曼(Furman)补充说:“这一假设的前提是错误的,将会有很多自动化,但也会有很多工作,我们的重点应该是确保人们能得到那些工作而不放弃,而全民基本收入代表着放弃我们所面对的挑战。” 然而Tanner瞄准了目前的社会安全网。他认为,目前的“社会福利制度每年花费近一万亿美元来对抗贫困,而这并不能很好地帮助人们摆脱贫困,掌控自己的生活,寻找新的替代方案并不是一个坏主意。” 欧洲向公民提供UBI的实验结果喜忧参半,引发了这场争论。这些实验放大了在美国尝试类似方法的呼声。 弗曼说:“我们目前的体系当然是不完美的,我不想成为现状的捍卫者。”他指出,目前政府投资儿童提供食品券、医疗补助和住房券的反福利项目是成功的,而且增加了他们的流动性。” 但弗曼补充道,“说得太简单了,只是给每个人写一张支票,让我们花上数万亿美元来做这件事,而不是努力让政府进行该项目。” Tanner反驳说:“很难确定哪些联邦项目是有效的,哪些不是。我们有超过100个不同的福利项目,都有不同的规章制度,他们由几十个不同的机构监管。我认为,简化,整合和转移现金会带来很大的不同。” 那么UBI项目在美国也能奏效吗? Tanner承认:“我们没有大量的证据,但在芬兰、荷兰和加拿大等地进行了大量的实验。” 不过,弗曼并不认为UBI或“机器人的崛起”会很快到来。 他说:“也许在50年或100年后,我们有足够的机器人来制造一切,他们可以把收益交给我们,但我正试图以未来10年、20年、30年的规模来思考,机器人不会在我能想象的任何时间范围内夺走我们的工作。”
  14. 如何评价无条件基本收入(Unconditional Basic income)? https://www.zhihu.com/question/53416912
  15. Congrats ENU team! I hope, UBI will be rolled out soon, too. Speaking of which, I have my eyes on Saranggani province for a social experiment. It's tagged as the #3 depressed area in the Philippines. Yes. May #1 and #2 pero Saranggani is the closest to my location. So... The most challenging part, perhaps, is educating the respondents of the study. But I'd be happy to do it to help and see how this UBI thing will change them. Ain't that exciting?
  16. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg supports an idea called universal basic income. by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg said at his Harvard commencement address Thursday. So, what exactly is it? It's a concept that's getting a lot of attention, especially in Silicon Valley. A country that has universal basic income guarantees every person a set minimum income regardless of criteria -- age, wealth, job status, hometown, family size, etc. That means everyone gets a paycheck, whether they have a job or not. However, the countries actually experimenting with the concept, Canada and Finland, aren't embracing the universal nature of it. So far, they're only giving guaranteed income to residents who were were either recently on unemployment benefits or are low income. Proponents say the aim is to give workers greater financial security as concerns rise aboutmachines taking away jobs. It's also intended to alleviate income inequality. Critics say the idea has good intentions but it doesn't solve bigger problems related to abysmal wage growth in recent decades. They also say it challenges the notion that you need to work to earn money. "It's a misguided mission," says Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center. "It's a tech CEO view of the world that I think is distorted." Countries are experimenting with UBI in varying degrees. Starting this year, Finland is giving out a guaranteed monthly income of nearly $600 to 2,000 citizens. The citizens were randomly selected but had to have received unemployment benefits or an income subsidy. The money they are paid isn't taxed. It's a two-year program that could be expanded nationwide depending on the results. Canada's province of Ontario, which includes Toronto, started a pilot program in April that provides 4,000 citizens with an unconditional income of about $12,600 a year. Applicants must be between ages 18 and 64 and living on a limited income. But there are plenty of skeptics. Voters in Switzerland shot down a referendum last year to provide a basic income to citizens. Could the US ever implement a system of universal basic income? It looks highly unlikely. Experts argue that a UBI program and the costs associated with it could put other US safety net programs -- social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Pell grants for low-income college students -- at risk. The US is also going in the opposite direction on similar programs like unemployment insurance. Some states, like Florida and North Carolina, have reduced those benefits to 13 and 12 weeks respectively, down from the typical 26 weeks paid out by most states. source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/26/news/economy/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income/index.html
  17. Hello, guys. Does ENU targets EOS? Sounds like a very good project.
  18. Can anyone explain the way or the regulation to select initial settler for the UBI ?
  • Create New...