Can UBI-style utopia really succeed? Why is Bitcoin not utopia?


 133 total views

After V God’s repost, Amber began to pay attention to the circleUBI project again. UBI is short for the basic income of the whole people. In simple terms, it is an undifferentiated money distribution, similar to Amber’s unconditional airdrop, in many amber groups. People here constantly ask others to “trust” themselves and get airdrops, but after most people have generally opened circlesUBI accounts, circlesUBI, which has just been popular for two days, has basically been attracted by the popularity of OKEX and FILECOIN. But the discussion on UBI did not stop.

Except for some people who plan to squeeze wool, the public is more concerned about whether UBI can achieve the basic income of the whole people, or whether circlesUBI can succeed, rather than simply scalping wool. Most people still regard such projects as one. Some people think that this is a utopian project, so whether UBI can go further depends on many aspects.

For circlesUBI, everyone who signs up for an account must trust their friends around him, and then be trusted by friends around him continuously. This results in a “scoring” of a person. We can think of this as an overall score evaluation. Whoever has a high “score” will get more system tokens, if someone has a low “score”, then whoever will get fewer tokens, even if you “trust” the account through layers of relationships Come to evaluate your “trust score” in the system, and finally figure out how many coins you should get the system airdrop.


With such a complex algorithm, the main thing is to achieve a balance between “trust points” and “airdrop tokens”. We can think that everyone’s “trust” in others is equivalent to us in the real world. Everyone’s only goal is to gain the “trust” of more people and then get more system token rewards. Isn’t this interesting?

circlesUBI is not an undifferentiated airdrop. This is different for general UBI. The key factor established in this system is “trust”, and the operation is relatively simple. You trust me, I trust you, if it is in reality In the world, the author believes that this is a certain possibility, because the world we live in is a world where people interact with people and build a foundation of trust through continuous communication and exchanges. People who gain more trust will naturally get it. high profit”.

For example, the old party secretary in the village basically needs a person of high esteem to serve. Correspondingly, because the old party secretary has high ethics and obtains this position, then he also gets the corresponding government salary as income. This is actually possible in many circles. Copy it.

But in the Internet? There is a problem here, and that is the anonymity of the Internet. If a stranger adds your WeChat ID today and directly asks you for 100 yuan, and promises to return you 110 the day after tomorrow, would you be willing?

The answer is, of course not, because I don’t know whether this person’s integrity is going to be fraudulent or not. This creates a problem, that is, the convenience of the Internet reduces the trust between people.

The birth of Satoshi Nakamoto’s blockchain and Bitcoin has solved this problem to a certain extent. This is not enough. Ethereum smart contracts are basically close to an optimal answer. Smart contracts only believe in code. Of course, here There is a flaw, that is, smart contracts are also written by people. Intentionally leaving the back door or unintentionally loopholes will actually affect the establishment of the entire trust system, but this is a major breakthrough in the Internet trust field.

In contrast, UBI-style “trust” may be more about turning this “trust” into a kind of “asset” through the form of blockchain, allowing people to maintain sufficient “integrity” under monetary incentives. Can it be done?

The author believes that whether it can be achieved is mainly related to the amount of funds involved. Simply put, it is to maximize the benefits. In the real world, many people are unwilling to lend money to low-income people, but are willing to lend money to the rich In fact, this is the reason. What is reflected in the “trust” system is that fewer people are “trusted” by low-income earners, and more people are “trusted” by high-income earners. Therefore, a problem arises. The rich are richer and will get more system token rewards, while those who have no money basically can only keep food and clothing, so is this unfair?

Through this derivation, in fact, we have discovered the problems here. CirclesUBI can only use incentive measures to maintain a certain degree of trust. What is the value of this trust? In fact, it is the value of the reward tokens every day. For example, if I got 7.16 circlesUBI rewards from the system today, then if the dishonesty allows me to get much higher than 7.16 circlesUBI today, then I will choose to lose faith (based on rational people and network communication You can remain completely anonymous and not be tracked, not including your own conscience being condemned by morals). If the dishonesty brings only 7 circlesUBI rewards or less, then it will naturally choose to maintain integrity.


Although the incentives will allow participants to maintain a certain degree of “integrity”, there is still a problem, that is, over time, everyone’s situation will change. Amber often said, “Seeing him get up from Zhulou, see him The banquet guests, seeing his building collapsed” is actually this situation. This situation may be more obvious on the Internet, and the “efficiency” is higher. The first second he was a big boss, the next second he went bankrupt. Highly leveraged contracts), the time difference generated in this way may also make personal integrity not well reflected on this blockchain.

A simple example is that the bankrupt boss borrowed 10,000 yuan from you, but you didn’t know it, you loaned him, and then he ran away.

Then we can basically say that the circlesUBI project may be just an attempt. It will play a certain role in certain small-scale or small incentives, but it may face failure in large-scale social practice. The existing rules still need With more perfection, it is more difficult for utopias like circlesUBI to develop and grow.

Then some people may have doubts about the current development of Bitcoin and think that Bitcoin is also a “utopian” currency and value system. What is the difference between the two?

For utopia, what we need to understand is an idealized thing. In many cases, it exists in people’s imagination of beautiful things. There is not much foundation here. For example, the world is unified, everyone can be rich, etc. UBI is also a form of universal basic income, that is, everyone has money, but circlesUBI also has a “rich and poor gap” when it is realized. The “rich and poor gap” here is the “trust” of each of us in others. , May be achieved on a small scale, but on a large scale, the desired effect may not be achieved.

And what is Bitcoin like? We have to realize that Bitcoin is based on the most basic technical realizations, not the illusory or unrealistic. This is fundamentally different from UBI. If the UBI project can find a perfect rule, So that it can be operated on a large scale or even globally, then we can think that it is not a utopia, but a revolution like Bitcoin!