I'm having difficulty seeing the need for any other currency in the world other than G$.

If it works, and it is decentralized, then why would we need more than one global-reach currency?

If it does the job perfectly, then why do we need another?

I don't mean there won't be others. What I mean is that maybe Crypto UBI will be like the existing non-democratic crypto market ranking. There will be a first-place market cap amount, and exponential decay to the #2, #3, #4, etc.

This is in contrast to the simplistic view where we assume there will be X systems and they all have more or less the same abstract Y market cap or reach, and they all add up to an integrated system with X*Y market cap.

All you have to do is design the controls the way they want to be designed. If you don't introduce some unneeded damage in it, then there won't be the need to come up with another system that fixes the damage and actually does complete "the system" that we will use.

E.g. Bitcoin would have worked, except it introduced the damage that is Proof-of-Work, which means it is unusable and will be replaced by Ethereum, which will use PoS, thus fixing the damage.

The US peoples could create an organization that issues a RENT token that is nominally worth 1 USD each of debt as a kind of bond to every homeowner so there is no excuse and you will not be making other people homeless.

The government can do this kind of thing very easily and in fact, every government is doing this, but if your government won't and you have the tech and the social climate to pull this off without being assassinated then you should do it because it would work.

Social debt can be redeemed by anyone, anytime. The origination mechanism of a token tells the story of whether it will be redeemed by society in an entirely volunteer fashion.

If a RENT token exists, you know that it was created by people to avoid other people being evicted. Then you can choose to honor it if (i) you can (iia) you think rent is legitimate or (iib) you think it's strategic to help pretend rent is legitimate (iii) you believe the issuer

Democratic, bottom-up currency creation is a technology that we must hand to people. It must be trivial to create tokens, and we must learn the power of volunteering *towards currencies*. This is an entire social language that's going to emerge.

OK let me try math again.

GoodStaking: you invest X, like you would in a savings account. After many years it produces Y interest, of which Y/2 go to the reserve over time, and Y/2 becomes G$ that you own.

No, that's wrong. Jesus.

The entire Y goes into the reserve, and that generates a Z amount of G$.

Z/2 goes to people as UBI.

Z/2 goes to you.

OK, so I wasn't that far off.

If I donate a large amount of money to the reserve, what I am doing is emulating a large Y. I'm taking a ton of money that I *have* (so it would be a "principal" today, a X) and pretending it's like a Y of someone else that will do GoodStaking.

The money that I have is a small X. It will generate a small Y. Instead, I want to take my small X and pretend it's a large Y, which would originate from a large X. That I don't have. Because I'm poor.

So if I want to make the largest possible impact into the UBI reserve, to make a splash, and help it be noticed, I can take the small amount of money I have, the X I have, and pretend it's a Y of staking, and time warp it to the present and use the X to buy G$ from the reserve.

Before I try to solve the GoodReserve vs. GoodStaking problem, which involves math and time and interest, let me solve something easier, which is all of modern politics.

Here's an example. When the pandemic was in the first wave here in Brazil, you could see lots of cultural noise about the fact that rich people were not dying because they got hospital care, whereas poor maids etc. were getting infected by rich people e.g. coming back from Italy.

Then, after a while, this story died. We "know" this now, but nothing happened.

When this sort of thing happens -- lots of noise, followed by normalization -- we are trained to think that that's *OUR* fault as cultural noisemakers.

IF ONLY WE MADE MORE NOISE, we think.

Why do we think that?

We think that because of all the times making noise worked.

Or did it? Did it actually work? Was it actually the noise that "changed" things?

Nope. The noise doesn't change anything.

EVER.

Here's how this works.

This is still the dark ages of software development. I don't mean that in the common nonsense sense of "methods," but of perception and of goals.

As a whole, this behaves exactly like a primitive age does: all effort spent solving the same problems over and over again.

A "technology," if it means anything, is something you do that stops you from solving the same problem over and over again. You can spend J energy solving every instance of problem X as it manifests into infinity, or you can spend J energy abolishing X through a "technology."

Capitalism rewards every industry, not only "tech," to never abolish a good X. Instead, it encourages us to create some machinery to sell temporary remedies for getting rid of every instance of X as it crops up everywhere.

If "technology is what matters," then we must change the social system and culture we live in, because that culture is the greatest meta-machine for mass suppression of technology that has ever been invented.

People's instincts, individually and collectively, are always to correctly decide when to erase instances of problem generators, and when to attack the problem generators themselves. The current system and culture eliminate 99%+ of that wisdom. It's massively stupid.