3 ms·
It would be interesting to try this with non-poor people as well, in some closed environment, maybe covered by sponsorship. e.g. at a conference, vacation dest
by rdl 11y ago
It would be interesting to try this with non-poor people as well, in some closed environment, maybe covered by sponsorship. e.g. at a conference, vacation destination etc. Higher density (due to artificial time pressure).
Helping poor people is morally interesting but they're actually really bad early adopters -- because they're poor the usually have much more risk aversion (because getting screwed on something can be an existential problem; for me, if I lose $100 through anything but fraud or theft, I'll be slightly sad; for a poor person, they might starve or die), and because they're usually less educated/accessible/etc.
- Suncho 11y agoPoor people are actually great early adopters in this case because they have the highest marginal propensity to consume (i.e. what money they get, they're more likely to spend). Gresham Dollar's longevity depends on people spending it. Plus, with poor people, we can make a big impact with a small basic income. The way we'll set it up is that nobody will lose money they already had. I can get into detail about how this works if you want, but what it boils down to is that when we stop having enough USD to continue to back people's additional basic incomes, existing GD that they already have in their accounts is still guaranteed to convert to USD. The plan is to expand beyond poor people and beyond the United States, but we definitely do not want to start with non-poor people. Besides, if we get a foot in the door with poor people, it would be hard for government regulators to decide to to shut us down. For exactly the reason you said, they'd be harming a lot of people.