You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Separate Basic Income Posts?
In general, I support any idea that will help clean up the blockchain, specifically communities and trending threads, from low-quality posts. Your idea is a bit more complicated and unfortunately requires a hard fork, which is impossible under the current conditions, in my opinion.
I would like to clarify some details. Will basic income change STEEM's inflation pattern? Do we need to print more STEEM to satisfy everyone who wants to get a basic income?
In your idea, any post will receive a basic income or only the posts of those people who identify themselves in one of the proposed ways?
I agree that a hardfork isn't possible, but I don't think what I'm proposing requires a hardfork.
The essence of this idea is to separate the idea of basic income into two different parts: where does the money come from and how does money get delivered to people. And this is only about the second part -- we leave the "where does the money come from" question open (many people already have an answer to that: they're using delegation bots). The idea is that putting this kind of "basic income" post on the chain is opening the door to say "I would accept rewards up to one day's worth of basic income via this post" but someone else would still need to provide the votes to actually bring the reward payouts for that amount. Since I'm not suggesting a new source of funds I don't think we would need a hardfork. (I think a hardfork could enable a fully featured version of this idea, with different post types, maybe splitting the reward pool, etc., but that what I'm proposing could be done with just frontend software changes and a cultural change).
If the chain actually promised to provide basic income from the rewards pool to any human that showed up I think it wouldn't work because we'd be flooded by people looking for free money and there wouldn't be enough value from inflation to provide it. But if we develop the infrastructure to enable provision of basic income and then it could be beneficial.
Thanks for the clarification, now I understand your point better🙂. I will think a little more about your words. However, there is one weakness here - people's greed and self-love, due to which there is hardly anyone who would provide a basic income by selfless voting.