Socialist Crypto Dystopia

[Sparko]

This sounds like the plot to some dystopian sci-fi movie where some evil computer takes over the world and enslaves everyone, but apparently it's true.



It stars Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. It involves creating a global currency, cataloging all mankind by scanning their eyes to create unique IDs with some dystopian-named scanner called "the Orb", and gives a free basic income (Starlight will like that part) to make everyone dependent on them.

From my most recent Coinbase newsletter:

In 2023, Sam Altman has become the public face of ChatGPT and the latest generation of artificial intelligence in his role as CEO of OpenAI. But before the meteoric rise of the generative AI tool, Altman had also planted the seeds for Worldcoin, a crypto project that aims to provide a universal currency and a new standard for digital identity and privacy, in part by … scanning people’s eyes to confirm their identities.

Let’s take a closer look at how Altman’s initiative — which just raised $115 million last week amid a bear market for VC funding of crypto projects — works, as well as some of the questions raised about Worldcoin's efforts.

What is Worldcoin?

Founded in 2019 by Tools for Humanity, Worldcoin is a crypto-focused project with a three-part goal of creating universal online IDs (World ID), a global cryptocurrency (WLD), and a self-custodial wallet app (World App) that enables payments using WLD, stablecoins, and traditional fiat currencies. It was co-founded by Altman and Alex Blania, who serves as Tools for Humanity’s CEO.

Worldcoin’s lofty mission entails freely distributing WLD as a form of universal basic income to everyone “just for being a unique individual,” and to establish unique digital identities to prove “humanness in an online world populated with increasingly advanced artificial intelligence.”

The company, which is still in beta, says it has so far onboarded nearly two million users across five continents, however, U.S. residents are not currently able to receive the Worldcoin token. Its World App launched in more than 80 countries in early May.

How does Worldcoin work, and will it really scan people’s eyes?

It’s possible to use Worldcoin without scanning your eyes, but in order to claim a free share of Worldcoin tokens, an individual has to verify their identity with a five-pound, chrome imaging device called The Orb, which scans users’ irises in order to create a numerical code that confirms “unique personhood.”

Worldcoin explains their privacy measures (encryption, image deletion) in detail, and says that it “does not use your iris to identify who you are, only to verify that you’re unique.”

How will Worldcoin use its new $115 million funding round?

The latest capital raise will fund product expansion and also go toward bot detection, as well as an alternative to the universally despised, click-on-the-traffic-lights CAPTCHA test — both efforts to better differentiate between humans and AI on the internet. The series C was led by Blockchain Capital, and included firms such as a16z and Bain Capital Crypto. (Coinbase Ventures participated in a previous funding round in 2021.)

What has been the response to the project?

When Worldcoin was announced in 2021, the project received some criticism from privacy advocates such as NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who voiced alarm about how the project planned to handle its biometric information. (Altman acknowledged in response that he had “definitely underestimated the visceral reaction to using biometrics for identity verification.”) And in April of 2022, the MIT Technology Review detailed what it claimed were serious shortcomings in Worldcoin’s privacy and marketing practices. (Worldcoin addresses some common questions about its approach to data privacy and security on its website.)

Last week, Spencer Bogart, a general partner at Blockchain Capital, called some of the critiques of Worldcoin “wildly off the mark” in a blog post about the project. “What at first appeared to be a dystopian attempt to create a global currency … was actually something else altogether: an entirely privacy preserving solution to an increasingly pervasive problem” of distinguishing between humans and machines on the internet, Bogart said.

All it needs now is to put tattoos of 666 on people's foreheads.

But I am curious to see what happens if everyone can get free Worldcoins as a "basic income" How will this coin be worth anything if anyone can get them for free?


other articles about it:
https://www.theblock.co/post/229742/...coin-app-token
https://www.reuters.com/technology/o...ct-2023-05-25/
https://www.cryptovantage.com/news/w...-basic-income/

[rogue06]

But I am curious to see what happens if everyone can get free Worldcoins as a "basic income" How will this coin be worth anything if anyone can get them for free?

Sounds like more of the leftist "Modern Monetary Theory" where the government can print as much money as it wants without risking inflation.

[CivilDiscourse]

The thing about UBI is that it MUST cause inflation. The question isn't if it will, but by how much.

The reason is simple. UBI changes the fundamentals of an economy. Depending on the amount of UBI (and for this, I will focus on a full 'living wage' UBI), it eliminates the NECESSITY of work for the individual, but does not change the NECESSITY of workers.

We start with the hierarchy of needs.

UBI, essentially takes care of the base of the pyramid, and probably a decent amount of the third. (This analysis also covers the government deciding to 'guarantee' those basics as opposed to giving $$ for you to get yourself)

I work because I have bills to pay, and those bills are primarily the things I need to cover the base of the pyramid. I can't stop working because if I do, I'll lose my house, can't afford food, have water shut off, etc. I work, even though there are other things I would rather do with my time. I may decide to do jobs that I don't want to do, that are gross, or painful, or boring, just to cover those bills.

However, once that baseline is covered by a UBI, my work calculation changes. I no longer need to work to pay for my house, or pay for food/water/shelter. Those are covered. Suddenly, I can choose NOT to work, and just live off the basic UBI. The decision to work now becomes about improving beyond the basic, but it is now a trade off on leisure (and other 'extracurricular' activities). The valuation of work changes dramatically. Unskilled labor (which is often unpleasant in some way) becomes harder to justify prices on. After all, why do mind-numbing work, painful work, or gross work, that you don't want to, don't enjoy, when you can do other stuff you DO enjoy. There's no NEED for it. In order to entice people to do these unskilled/low-skilled positions, you have to raise the wages. However, many of those low/unskilled jobs also produce much of the items/services society needs to function. This naturally means that their prices are going to to up to compensate. Naturally as prices go up, the amount needed for UBI goes up, which means the wages will need to go up to keep up the level of incentive to do them. (None of this even factors in the cost of taxes to fund the UBI, at the moment it imagines the money magically shows up).

The problem is, you can't test this well at small scales. If the UBI doesn't cover the base of the needs pyramid, it doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. If it's not large scale (and long term), then it doesn't create the fundamental shift in the economy that would cause those problems. You could give me 2000 a month (~$15/hr after taxes), but if it's not very long term, I won't quit my day job for it.

[Sparko]

The thing about UBI is that it MUST cause inflation. The question isn't if it will, but by how much.

The reason is simple. UBI changes the fundamentals of an economy. Depending on the amount of UBI (and for this, I will focus on a full 'living wage' UBI), it eliminates the NECESSITY of work for the individual, but does not change the NECESSITY of workers.

We start with the hierarchy of needs.

UBI, essentially takes care of the base of the pyramid, and probably a decent amount of the third. (This analysis also covers the government deciding to 'guarantee' those basics as opposed to giving $$ for you to get yourself)

I work because I have bills to pay, and those bills are primarily the things I need to cover the base of the pyramid. I can't stop working because if I do, I'll lose my house, can't afford food, have water shut off, etc. I work, even though there are other things I would rather do with my time. I may decide to do jobs that I don't want to do, that are gross, or painful, or boring, just to cover those bills.

However, once that baseline is covered by a UBI, my work calculation changes. I no longer need to work to pay for my house, or pay for food/water/shelter. Those are covered. Suddenly, I can choose NOT to work, and just live off the basic UBI. The decision to work now becomes about improving beyond the basic, but it is now a trade off on leisure (and other 'extracurricular' activities). The valuation of work changes dramatically. Unskilled labor (which is often unpleasant in some way) becomes harder to justify prices on. After all, why do mind-numbing work, painful work, or gross work, that you don't want to, don't enjoy, when you can do other stuff you DO enjoy. There's no NEED for it. In order to entice people to do these unskilled/low-skilled positions, you have to raise the wages. However, many of those low/unskilled jobs also produce much of the items/services society needs to function. This naturally means that their prices are going to to up to compensate. Naturally as prices go up, the amount needed for UBI goes up, which means the wages will need to go up to keep up the level of incentive to do them. (None of this even factors in the cost of taxes to fund the UBI, at the moment it imagines the money magically shows up).

The problem is, you can't test this well at small scales. If the UBI doesn't cover the base of the needs pyramid, it doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. If it's not large scale (and long term), then it doesn't create the fundamental shift in the economy that would cause those problems. You could give me 2000 a month (~$15/hr after taxes), but if it's not very long term, I won't quit my day job for it.

In this case they won't need to tax people to create the UBI, they just create more Wordcoins magically! But that just increases the amount of WC in circulation which means that each one will be worth less. The scary thing is that if this does catch on, it would also undermine the value of any other currencies around the world. If people can somehow pay for goods and services with WC that they get free, then they will use WC instead of dollars, and the dollar loses value too. This has the potential to disrupt the world's economy. Unless it just collapses in on itself before it can even take off. The problem I see with most crypto currencies is that they are never actually spent as money by people very much. They are treated more like stock, being bought and sold as their value compared to fiat currencies go up and down.

[Diogenes]

Worldcoin explains their privacy measures (encryption, image deletion) in detail, and says that it “does not use your iris to identify who you are, only to verify that you’re unique.”

Our research showed that iris scanning offers the most accurate biometrics with an acceptable user experience that has been successfully tested at scale. This is because the iris has strong fraud resistance and data richness, meaning it can be used to accurately differentiate between billions of unique humans. The more data rich the biometric marker (e.g., the iris), the fairer and more inclusive the system.

What's the point of using the iris if not to identify the person given the alleged benefits of using the iris. I'll admit I've scoffed at Christian doomers in the past, but I'd admit they seem more and more to be on point.

A world currency coupled with Trudeau's willingness to freeze bank accounts for protesting does sound like Revelation. Having eye scanners to make purchase seems like fairly easy leap and corneal tattooing could function as the so called "mark of the beast".

[Sparko]

What's the point of using the iris if not to identify the person given the alleged benefits of using the iris. I'll admit I've scoffed at Christian doomers in the past, but I'd admit they seem more and more to be on point.

A world currency coupled with Trudeau's willingness to freeze bank accounts for protesting does sound like Revelation. Having eye scanners to make purchase seems like fairly easy leap and corneal tattooing could function as the so called "mark of the beast".

The eye scanner is to create a "unique identifier number" for that person. You know, like "666"

It supposedly is deleted after that and then they just use your number. They claim they want to scan you to make sure you don't try to create extra accounts, and that you are a human.

They also say they won't sell your data. Ever. like data miners never lied before huh?

But once you use their software and have it on your phone, they can track your location and everything you buy or sell with the worldcoin wallet. And like you say, they can freeze it or suspend your UBI anytime they want.

[Diogenes]

The eye scanner is to create a "unique identifier number" for that person. You know, like "666"

It supposedly is deleted after that and then they just use your number. They claim they want to scan you to make sure you don't try to create extra accounts, and that you are a human.

They also say they won't sell your data. Ever. like data miners never lied before huh?

But once you use their software and have it on your phone, they can track your location and everything you buy or sell with the worldcoin wallet. And like you say, they can freeze it or suspend your UBI anytime they want.

They would still need a means to link the identifier number to the actual person with verification maintained to prevent as you said multiple accounts or simply to prevent fraud. It's creepy and frightening even from a non-religious pov.

[Mountain Man]

Governments will use this sort of thing for social control. Think about during pandemic if they could have linked people's bank accounts to their health records and refused you access to your money until you were vaccinated?

[Mountain Man]

[...]

However, once that baseline is covered by a UBI, my work calculation changes. I no longer need to work to pay for my house, or pay for food/water/shelter. Those are covered. Suddenly, I can choose NOT to work, and just live off the basic UBI.

[...]

Look what happened during that pandemic when the government was giving people thousands of dollars a month in unemployment: they stopped looking for work and stayed on unemployment as long as they possibly could. In many cases, that was the most income they had ever seen in their lives. And when employers complained about people not returning to work, Joe mocked them and said they should raise their wages in order to better compete with the government.

[Starlight]

I think crypto-currencies are a joke, so I don't have much interest in the OP other than laughing at it.

Depending on the amount of UBI (and for this, I will focus on a full 'living wage' UBI),

I certainly wouldn't support introducing a UBI at full living wage levels until it was extensively tested at lower levels.

As your post is imaginative speculation, I don't really see a point in arguing it. I could produce some other imaginative speculation and claim some different answer. That's why we have to test these things empirically.

The problem is, you can't test this well at small scales. If the UBI doesn't cover the base of the needs pyramid, it doesn't eliminate the necessity of work.

I disagree. There can be people who have savings or other income streams (spouse, part-time-job, etc) who are affected at any incremental UBI level and put over the threshold of not having to work any longer, dropping their second job, or working fewer hours.

UBI test projects with small amounts have found people made such choices to work fewer hours and spend more time studying or looking after family in lieu of that, so it really can be tested at smaller scale.

[Machinist]

UBI test projects with small amounts have found people made such choices to work fewer hours and spend more time studying or looking after family in lieu of that, so it really can be tested at smaller scale.

So it would need to be tested globally in order to know if it really works? Yikes! What if it didn't work?

UBI would work if every citizen were productive with their off work time.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think crypto-currencies are a joke, so I don't have much interest in the OP other than laughing at it.

I certainly wouldn't support introducing a UBI at full living wage levels until it was extensively tested at lower levels.

As your post is imaginative speculation, I don't really see a point in arguing it. I could produce some other imaginative speculation and claim some different answer. That's why we have to test these things empirically.

I disagree. There can be people who have savings or other income streams (spouse, part-time-job, etc) who are affected at any incremental UBI level and put over the threshold of not having to work any longer, dropping their second job, or working fewer hours.

UBI test projects with small amounts have found people made such choices to work fewer hours and spend more time studying or looking after family in lieu of that, so it really can be tested at smaller scale.

You called everything speculative, then you point out that my baseline "speculation" is actually met (to a small degree) with existing small scale tests.

Of course, what I'm talking about is the full blown impact to the economy and inflation.

[Starlight]

So it would need to be tested globally in order to know if it really works?

No, I said the opposite. It can be tested at a small scale.

Such tests have generally been fairly positive: Unsurprisingly, people who have slightly more money can use it to lead slightly better lives.

The biggest barrier to something like a UBI (at any level of amount) is how to fund it. (e.g. Alaska currently has a UBI funded from oil revenues, but not every state has such abundant revenues from natural resources relative to population.) The second-biggest barrier to it is the outstanding question of whether a UBI is the best use of such large amounts of money, or whether such money is better spent on targeted assistance programs (e.g. food stamps, medicaid etc)

[Machinist]

Such tests have generally been fairly positive: Unsurprisingly, people who have slightly more money can use it to lead slightly better lives.

The problem though that I see, is that most people probably wouldn't use the money wisely.

So is this plan working ok in Alaska? That's interesting. I'll have to look it up.

[CivilDiscourse]

The problem though that I see, is that most people probably wouldn't use the money wisely.

So is this plan working ok in Alaska? That's interesting. I'll have to look it up.

If my recollection is correct it's 1k a year. Hardly anything like what UBI proponents suggest for a UBI.