GoodDollar UBI vs Digital Gold

From Matterpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My current tendency is to think of GoodDollar the-digital-currency (G$ itself) and GoodDollar the-UBI-fund(s) (GoodReserve, GoodStaking, the donation contract, and others) as two distinct layers. They are integrated, but still, two components which invoke a different kind of participation.

There's no difference between the G$ token itself and e.g. Bitcoin (and many others), because they're all capped-supply tokens. The only fundamental "tokenomic" difference between G$ and Bitcoin is that Bitcoin has 21 million units, and G$ 2.2 trillion. That means each ~104,762 G$ is equivalent to 1 BTC in terms of percentage of total token supply. But otherwise they're the exact same thing: a token with a limited supply that is run on top of a secure blockchain architecture. Two different "brands", but mechanically the same.

In essence, people receive interest from the various UBI funding systems in a "store-of-value" currency. That currency happens to be the G$, but it could, in theory, be e.g. ETH or some USD stablecoin. It would still work.

So, receiving an UBI in G$ is mathematically, mechanically the same as receiving an UBI of BTC in its early days. Brand recognition of "store-of-value" tokens aside. If you collect e.g. 10 G$ in a day, it's like you're collecting e.g. 0.00009545 BTC (adjusting the G$ amount to the max supply of BTC).

It is inevitable that the mode of participation of several people in G$ will be the "BTC mode": speculating on the increased valuation of a "store-of-value" token. HODLing it and periodically going "my preciousss" while staring at their crypto portfolio, as if G$ was this valuable collectible token -- like people do with BTC, challenging each other to always accumulate more and hold more, for some bizarre (and fun) reason. The question will be how to deal with that, since the UBI component works completely independent from the valuation of the "store-of-value" token.

If the price of 1 G$ keeps falling, the UBI still works exactly the same way: recipients receive the market value of the interest generated by the funds *through G$*, but it doesn't matter how much one G$ unit is worth. The UBI funds don't increase or decrease in value while the G$ price fluctuates. The UBI payouts are worth the same on the day they are issued, regardless of the market price of 1 G$.

Others will participate valuing G$ subjectively or implicitly at, say, 1 dollar, for trades within the community, where the "open market value" of G$ is not important. That's what's happening in the marketplaces if I understand it. That's when a currency works as a catalyst, to get people to work together and to engage in "win-win" at the economic level, at the real level of things happening, instead of the currency working as something that's supposed to settle hard debts at the point of trade so that you can take the currency anywhere else and get the same thing you gave for it in the first place. It serves as a marker for a reciprocity economy, a gift economy, which gets people off of Netflix and interacting and generating value in physical, "real economic" terms, hopefully also having more fun, learning about crypto, about other people, about themselves, about UBI, which is better than just binge-watching Netflix incessantly.

The success of the UBI funds is central, and the end goal, because that's what pays the UBI. The success of G$ as a Bitcoin clone, where 1 G$ is 1 USD or something like that, does nothing by itself: that just means people will receive 0.01 G$ per day or something like that as the UBI (considering the current UBI funding level vs. the number of claimers). I wouldn't say it is irrelevant, because G$ increasing in the "market cap" rankings would attract attention to the system as a whole. The more people notice it and understand it and get involved, the greater the amount of philanthropists, of UBI funders, it will attract.

I wouldn't say there's a "conflict," as you said, between the "store-of-value" and trading aspect, and the UBI and community aspect. It should not matter to the core of the UBI system -- the UBI funds -- if people are speculating in G$ as a "store of value". The UBI system works exactly the same regardless. I think the opposite: interest in the G$ token by traders means more people discover the project.

It is a sad reality that humans pay attention to displays of power and to the next material or symbolic thing to be hoarded and put on display, and not to just the solidity or nobility of ideas like a fully-democratic planetary UBI system that would abolish poverty by distributing money to everyone, every day. The world is suffering an unprecedented economic downturn (not to speak of the accelerating ecocide), and I'm not sure we can afford to ignore every means at our disposal to get this "Crypto UBI" revolution kickstarted.

I don't think the GoodDollar project is going to be pushing G$ as a "digital-gold" alternative to Bitcoin. No, obviously they won't do that. That's not what the UBI system is about and that's not even what an actual currency is about (BTC is notably terrible as a currency because of its level of instability). The main evolutionary path is community and engaging with the big sources of philanthropy ("Corporate Social Responsibility"). But *I* am going to be pushing G$ as a green an ethical alternative to Bitcoin for sure, because I can, and because I think it's a good idea. If anything can replace the terrible idea that Bitcoin is, it's a green and actually-democratic alternative.