Is this truly going to be a basic income experiment, or is it going to be a charity experiment? To me it's only a valid experiment if somehow it is self-sustai

Is this truly going to be a basic income experiment, or is it going to be a charity experiment? To me it's only a valid experiment if somehow it is self-sustaining (e.g. it's funded by the same population it's distributed amongst, not by external donors). Taking Oakland's population of roughly 450k, presumably this experiment doesn't cover the entire city (guesstimating a minimum income to be ~$1,000/mo for that area to cover rent + all expenses, that'd work out to be a $450 million per month price tag). So right off the bat it probably is going to be limited heavily in scope, which diminishes it's value as a test of "universal" basic income. Even if it ends up being self-funded (which I'd be surprised if it actually is), you have to figure out how to get people to pay for it. People probably won't sign up to voluntarily give up more than they'll receive, which makes it tough. And you don't have the same enforcement that the IRS does (e.g. you can't forcibly take money/property from people). And on top of that you don't have the power to truly create money, although you can approximate it by taking charity donations from folks in SF. I guess I'm just really skeptical of what any results might actually mean.