TL;DR - Objectivists won't like it, but they will. Hilarity ensues.
Let's say that all of the technical features of Dan's hypothetical currency idea are perfectly implemented. Let's also assume the currency is wildly successful, and let's fast forward 20 years into the project.
- BIC Price Stability - Works as intended; Widely accepted.
- BIT Dilution - Pretty much in check.
- BIC Bonds - Also wildly successful because it's used as a speculative instrument in future volatility. Comes in handy when platform blind spots are found (rarely).
- Fraud - It's always a problem, but it's mitigated and frankly more efficiently policed than traditional solutions because there's an incentive to maintain trust for the platform.
- Blind Spots - Every so often, a huge unforeseen exploit is revealed. It always challenging to deal with due to the nature of these exploit, but eventually the platform was adjusted and witnesses approved the changes.
- Reserve Currency Status - People laughed at the idea for a while, but BIC eventually achieved functional reserve currency status.
Icing on the cake:
- IMF and the World Bank collapse as a side effect because the "Third World" no longer exists.
- People can show, with cryptographic verifiability, how productive they are. It's right there in the blockchain.
It's Not Perfect
Let's even be realistic and assume that even in this hypothetical, it's still not perfect, but it's way better than any of the traditional (non-voluntary) implementations. This is because as an alternative to coercive taxation, where only 20% of the funds taxed to power traditional basic income schemes, BIC investors enjoy a tidy profit.
In fact, in this hypothetical, let's assume no government tries to offer anything like a basic income anymore because BIC just does it better.
Anyone with a desire for altruism needs only to invest in and hold BIC. Want to see how altruistic someone is? Just check their portfolio.
So how can you be against Basic Income in this scenario where it's implemented like this?
Won't Someone Please Think of the Objectivists?
In this hypothetical scenario, anyone against the general idea of Basic Income cannot use any pragmatic argument because BIC works fine.
They have to use purely philosophical arguments. In fact, there's an objectivist argument that non-producers who get hand-outs will have a lower self-esteem, which will damage them. That makes Basic Income, no matter how it's implemented, immoral.
But all of these objectivists must invest into BIC because it's profitable for them to do so.
Why? Because the objectivists are outnumbered by the altruists, and BIC made altruism profitable in this hypothetical.
Will an objectivist intentionally hurt someone's self-esteem by supporting a successful investment instrument?
Or will an objectivist intentionally ignore a successful investment instrument in order to dismantle the only working Basic Income implementation?