>Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a mean

>Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a meaningful return It's unfortunate your analysis of Circles cryptocurrency not solving for _value_creation_ is not near the top for further discussion by more than one person. A very similar currency proposal (Group cryptocurrency) also didn't account for sustainable _value_creation_ that I discussed with its creator on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 Both the UBI cryptocurrency proposals are flawed because they get the wealth-to-money cause & effect backwards. It's the wealth creation (the value of labor / food / calculating the stars to predict floods / singing poetry / catching fish / etc) that causes money to be worth something. The Circles whitepaper using concepts like "validators" and "transitive exchange" doesn't solve the value creation.