These are only suggestions. It is meant to provoke discussions and to enhance the potential for the voluntary basic income experiments.
1) Create a new software license called the voluntary basic capital license (VBCL). This would be similar to the GPL but would designate by law that anyone using the source code has to agree to the social consensus. So if the social consensus is that all verified humans get some percentage of all businesses who use that license then the license now has the teeth of the traditional legal system similar to the GPL.
2) A DCO is required. Swarm got this part right and did the legal legwork to formalize the “community oriented DAC” into the DCO. I think Swarm got this part better than right.
3) Enforce the social contract of the community as a smart contract, in code, so that the moment the person installs the app instead of seeing “terms of service agreement” legalese they are asked “do you agree with the social contract of our community”? At that point the social contract should be presented to them and if they agree to it then if the app has transaction taxes then their use of the app will become basic income through transaction taxes.
4) The community should enforce through reputation. Most people want to give back to society, to their community, to mankind, because it helps them to look good and it’s good for reputation. In a blockchain based world reputation can be decentralized, transparent, and people who use certain apps will be looked upon differently. So reputation is an enforcement mechanism for the social contract along with the voluntary basic capital license if it’s a corporation the community has to deal with.
The software license should exist to protect the community from corporations coming along, forking, taking the best technologies developed, and then not giving anything back to the community.
The DCO is to protect the community from government legal actions.
The social contract existing as a smart contract or in code embeds it into the app to protect the social contract from being tampered with without community social consensus backing it.
The decentralized reputation element is to encourage the community to support itself. It’s easy to encourage people to give something back when the givers get a reputation and the takers get a reputation. Bittorrent used this idea of seeders and leechers to great success and while it isn’t something directly enforced there is a ratio which easily allowed people to not share with anyone who has a bad ratio. The same could happen in business interactions where smart contracts could look for some adherence to the social contract of the community and if the entrepreneur doesn’t meet the minimum then the community doesn’t have to provide any sort of good reviews to their business.
Below are a few references and shout outs
Social Networks as Contract Enforcement: Evidence from a Lab Experiment in the Field
https://www.nber.org/papers/w202594
Decentralized reputation based reward networks and gift economics
http://darkai.org/?p=1906
On social contracts – Part I
blog.synereo.com/2015/02/10/social-contracts-pt/
On social contracts – Part II
blog.synereo.com/2015/03/06/social-contracts-pt-ii/
Acknowledgement to Dan and Stan Larimer for coming up with the idea of social consensus and social contract, for being among the first to declare the importance of profitability and competition.
Acknowledgement to Vitalik Buterin and his team for their efforts with Ethereum and for being the first to not only set record breaking crowd funding numbers but to attempt to implement a Turing complete scripting DAC.
Acknowledgement to the Synereo and GetGems team for their effort to help create an attention economy.
Acknowledgement to Satoshi Nakamoto for making all of this possible.
Nice experiment thanks for sharing