Blockchain Society – My Vision Of A Utopic System
The Blockchain society
Ever since I discovered Blockchain technologies, I was thinking about its possible benefits, or how could the world change under its influence. Nowadays the governments are too inefficient, but not only because of the corruption that exists when people do not administer their own possessions and all the other negative things connected to governments in general, but mainly because of the non-virtual administration and all things connected to it. Not effective financing (even if it wasn’t mainly due to corruption and theft), no background for “permanent elections” (about that later), non-fair rewards for the overall contribution to the community, not effective administration of public goods, and I could continue forever. I tried to make up a utopic scenario, if the whole humanity annexed Blockchain.
The Blockchain structure
The Supreme blockchain
First things first. Even the utopic scenarios must have a structure in order to be at least theoretically possible. In my vision, that government as we know it would be replaced by a supreme blockhain that would be the core for everything concerning the governed area (be it nowadays’ state or the whole planet). As with all the blockchains, the person would have to willingly sign a contract that he agrees with the rules (constitution) that has been set up. It would basically take today’s role of Ethereum in crypto territory. I have no idea whether smart contracts would be all it takes for the supreme Blockchain to function as necessary, but this kind of detail isn’t necessary anyway.
The area would be governed by witnesses. Those would be the most trusted, influential people seeking the best for the community (otherwise they wouldn’t be voted for right?). They wouldn’t have supreme power of course, since the algorithm would be the one executing everything that’s necessary. They of course would have predetermined objects that could be changed by them, but their main role would be moral leadership. It wouldn’t be in their powers to twist the algorithm to their current needs.
Tokenization
How is the decision made who is rewarded the Supreme Blockchain, or Blockchain city (read below) tokens you might ask?
So any work that person does is tokenized. Whether it is something easy(ish) like car factory, or something more complicated like a road building. Every single area of work would have its own Blockchain and every act of work, or the final outcome of work (depending on the nature) would be tokenized. Every token would be exchangeable for any token, but people could be payed ONLY with the token connected to their blockchain. Interesting thing associated to this system would be, that the community would decide which services are valuable and which are not. The more people buying some token (in order to afford whatever product is tokenized in it), the bigger value of the token and vice-versa.
Holding those tokens would of course grant voting power concerning the topics directly connected to the area of work. But not only that! Those tokens would also be exchangeable for the Supreme/city blockchain tokens, thus granting the holder bigger influence in those areas.
The more one does for the community (the more ones services are being bought), the bigger influence one has concerning that area. He can though sacrifice some of the influence there, to buy influence elsewhere. This would ensure fair distribution of tokens (wealth) to those who actually contribute. It would be up to them to decide about which topics they want have to have a valuable vote, or what areas are totally of their interests. There is no other objective possibility how to decide everyone’s contribution, than to leave it entirely to the free market.
Voting
Voting would work in the same way as the one on the Steemit does. Limited amount of votes, the more tokens one has the more influence he has. The limited amount of votes would force people to vote only on the stuff that either is important for them, or about topics that they have vast knowledge about. The “valued vote” would ensure that people can vote only with power equal to their level of contribution. The elections would be permanently on. Whoever tries to fuck the concept up can get “down voted” in a matter of minutes and immediately losing all the influence/financial support, etc. he had, or of course the very opposite way.
The Blockchain cities/villages
Places where people live would be formed by 3 main components. Stuff that belongs to individuals, public stuff and services.
Individuals possessions
The right to do anything that is desired on one’s land would be mandatory for me, but the rule would have to be set in the Supreme Blockchain. If that was the case, there would be no means how to order someone what to do, or not to do, on their territory.
Public places
Concerning the public places. It would work in the same way as the Supreme blockchain does, the same voting rules applies. The difference is that there is so many tiny things that can be voted upon (unlike in the supreme Blockchain) that it would be even easier to diminish one’s voting power.
People would need to take special care about what they are voting for. Just imagine if there was real-time voting about everything. Every single park, road, street, public house, etc. As soon as consensus would be reached, appropriate company would be immediately contacted and the contract would be self-executed. You can’t get more efficient than that.
Services
And finally, here we are. The most important thing of them all – the services. I feel like I said everything about them in the “Tokenization”. Even though most of the services would be located in populated areas, it of course wouldn’t be necessary. The points is that all the living beings that are part of the system would need to contribute in anyway (their services would need to be bought) in order to operate in the system. The products of human thinking, manual work, etc. would be tokenized, thus granting them the “proof-of-contribution”. Using the fruits of the “proof-of-contribution” one could engage in creation of the better system overall.
Summary
As you can see the idea is pretty utopic. Since there would be no fiat/regular crypto-tokenized proof-of-contribution, one would need to basically forfeit all their former wealth. If this was not the case, one could just BUY the proof-of-contribution and then it would be no proof-of-contribution at all:D.
Also probably the tokens would need to be burned upon death. It’s the same problem as monarchy has. One individual from the linage would be super awesome, contributing a lot, and his son could be total prick who would have huge influence.
What this system is trying to provide is equal CHANCES to prove the contribution. Would that be the case thought?
I do think that the system we are living in now is the definition of Babylon. Would though this system burn the Babylon, or be just Babylon v.2.0.? Let me know what you think guys. Would you do some adjustments? Did I miss something? Or do you love the concept and would you join me in my imaginary world?:D
And it was like rewarding everyone else
My support from the redfish corner
The redfishcoin community
If you tried to convey some kind of meaning you didn’t succeed...try again:P
I love the idea of blockchain cities and public spaces. I come from an urban design background... so it feels only natural that a public space become infused with blockchain at some point in the future.
Here's a post I wrote a while back that you might be interested in.
https://steemit.com/cities/@voronoi/on-cities-a-new-formula-for-the-public-realm
We actually had a little conversation there 5 months ago:P Because of this post i learned about @sndbox and both of you guys:)
Very interesting idea. I especially like the part that tokens (wealth) are burned when the individual dies so they cannot be passed on to future generations. This forces individuals to actively take part in society and contribute. Along these lines there may need to be something in place where tokens cannot be transferred directly to individuals while one is still alive otherwise people would pass on their wealth before they die, which would defeat the purpose of token burning. Not sure how that would work but It would eliminate the notion of "coasting" or consuming resources without contributing back into the system.
Cool idea. Nice work. Hopefully people will keep adding to this idea. I am sure there are lots of things to consider. It could really develop into something incredible.
Oh I’m glad that you like it! You’re totally right that’s what i though too. What i came up with now is this: You wouldn’t be able to send the tokens as "gift" to anyone (it’s after all individual contribution). What one could do is buy tons of stuff and give the physical object to someone. It would then be up to the person to do as he wills with that. If he tries to sell it back to the community for lower prize? Well then that’s contribution too.
It would be awesome if people brainstormed here so we could actually create a slightly less utopic version:P
Yeah I like that addition, it makes sense. It may also be beneficial if large purchases were on the blockchain, like houses for instance or purchases of gold or anything above a certain monetary threshold. It might be beneficial to this utopia if ownership cannot be gifted. That would stop individuals from putting there money into land and property ownership that could then be transferred to one's offspring. If these practices were allowed then there would be no real difference in transferring tokens to ones offspring or property. A transference of property would equate to a loophole around the idea of an undeserved wealth and power scenario.