The ideas outlined in this post are backed by the same type of thinking at the basis of the Steemit platform : great insights, wrong assumptions.

The most problematic assumption I would mention here is the idea that "money is effectively a share in the means of production. If the economy was a company, money would be its stock." Money gives you access to a fraction of what is created through the means of production, but it does not give you ownership over the means of production themselves. And there's a considerable difference. Money does not give you any direct power over how the means of production are used - your use of it does influence what is produced but your ownership does not entitle you to any right in terms of economic returns (dividends) or voting power (what and how the economy produces).

Money is just a means to exchange your workforce with someone else's. It is a token of trust, nothing more. The other components of the monetary ecosystem (interest rates, financial derivatives and so on) are just other tokens created on top of it. But ultimately, money is just what allows us to exchange our workforce in a complex environment in which trust needs to be validated by a common denominator.

So why is this assumption problematic? Because if money is not a share of the economic apparatus, then there is no reason to expect any dividend on what the economy produces (i.e. the basic income).

Your vision would probably make sense in a world in which the vast majority of the economic apparatus were automated. Companies would be owned by citizens who would thus benefit from the fruits of automation. But we are very far from this: automation occurs mainly in the primary and secondary sectors, which only represent 30% of the economy in countries like the US. Optimistic studies estimate that about 45% of our current economic activities could ultimately be automated, which still leaves us with a significant portion of the economy requiring human activity - without even counting the human input needed to produce, operate and maintain the automated economic sector. All this to say that your vision is not conceptually applicable in the current context or even in the medium run.

SO what could be done right now? There are lots of options to investigate, such as the creation of public investment funds specialized in automated technologies. The fruits of automation need to be shared throughout the whole society. Otherwise, the next technological revolution will only benefit a few ones, thus perpetuating the viscous cycle in which we already find ourselves.

Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas, it's important that we collectively think about these issues. The only suggestion I would make is that you identify more clearly the assumptions on which these ideas rely. The logic underlying your reasoning (A+B=C) is sound but the validity of your assumptions is questionable (are A and B good representations of reality or misconceptions?).

See you around!