Charity DAC

[mf-tzo]

I just thought of the idea of a Charity coin but I see this has somehow been covered.
However I don't see why something like that could not work:

X amount of charity coins are created pre-mined (maybe issue a contract in Counterparty? I don't know how that works just throwing ideas here. I am not following counterparty. It is too hackish for me).

x% of coins are distributed to PTS/AGS shareholders.

The remaining to be distibuted to charities. x% of coins each year at random days generated by a program so there is no speculation and manupulation of the price just before or after the charity date.

Initially PTS/AGS shareholders will do the trading of the x% amount distributed to them. Some will sell and just receive their free money from day one.  Others will believe in the social benefit of the coin, will believe that it will gain value from the publicity it will receive from it's good purpose and will want to buy it or not sell it to someone at low price.

The worst that could happen is that nobody cares about any charities and these coins have no value. Everyone wants to sell their coins, nobody wants to buy and when the day of the charity comes the chosen charity receives nothing and the whole project fails.

But what if some believe that they should hold to this coin? What if we decide that the x amount that we should give for the first charity should not be less than y and that we decide as a community not to sell those coins until someone who wants to do some charity pays not less than x amount to obtain our free coin and so on...What if out of thin air we create charity value?

The question is that when the charity day come someone will have to buy these coins to be transformed in whatever currency and be given to the charity. There must be a central authority that does the trading and sells these coins, receives the relevant fiat currency to give to the charity. I am not sure if we can do something centralised like that since we want to promote decentralisation.
 
People who would want to do some charity will want to obtain more coins beacuse they will believe their concept. People who want to make more profits will want to keep their coins as they believe that people out there care about charities and in the future their coin will get more value. In the end of the day people who don't believe in charities should not buy any of these coins.

In the end of the day maybe we could burn those coins? We create a charity coin that everyone who wants to do some charity obtain this coin which is then destroyed. And the procceeds from the sale of the coins are all placed in a bucket used for charities? And we only link this coin to AGS/PTS shareholders just as a mean of good publicity to PTS and cryptocurrencies in general?

If we can pull something like this, we will make worldwide known that cryptocurrencies are not bad. They raise money for something good as well. Governments will have more difficulties to ban bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. More people will start looking at PTS/AGS, Invictus and what cryptocurrencies can really do!

Probably all these have been analysed before. It would be nice though if through cryptocurrencies we can make a charity DAC so I just thought to share my thoughts anyway in case someone can think something out of all this and make it happen.

[CLains]

Here's one attempt at a Charity DAC. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

http://www.soccoin.com/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412331.0;viewResults

[MaxPWR]

There's a DAC for that - MemoryCoin.

The least efficient unit of labor or capital in a distributed economy is an isolated individual.  The basic unit of communication is a vote, i.e. approve or accept.  Markets are simply economic information communication systems.  An efficient system of market communication can provide the most efficient economic empowerment for individuals.

Every distributed economic system will need some form of voting - it's necessary for trade, (accept bid/ask), for business (corporate shareholder voting), and for politics (community voting).

The "voting system" can refer to either the technical implementation (how votes are cast, counted, or scored / weighted) or how they are valued by the community. The value of a voting system does not fall into "group trap"...a group falls into a "value trap".

MMC is basically a community charity development coin.  5% of new coins are "taxed" from each new block, and distributed to a group of elected Officers and an elected Charity.  The Officers perform community service and development.  If community leadership weakens, and the MMC economy stops growing, this is a non-sustainable enterprise since the community will become sclerotic and be slowly taxed to death.  But MMC is a bunch of crypto-users.  They act in their self-interest, and are most concerned with making a profit.

So, MMC is an anarcho-capitalistic distributed economy of profit-seekers with a net 5% loss taxed away for charity and community service...how to survive?

Cooperate, combine, adapt, evolve, grow, and excel...be capitalistic and marketable!

Real-world industries have already solved this problem, but just haven't applied it in the infinitely-distributed sense.  This is what policies, procedures, corporate governance, and project management address through quality assurance / quality improvement / quality management systems. 

Policies are "objective / mission statement / overall strategic goals".  Procedures are "requirement / instructions / detailed tactical directives".  In a traditional, rigid, strict corporate management structure, these are controlled to be the same.  But, the farther from top-management (overall corporate mission), the more muddled and confused the directives and operations.

Enter matrix-based project team structures - small local teams of various disciplines assigned to specific tasks distributed and derived from an overall project goal.  But now the traditional corporate structure has infinitely more "moving parts" to check up on...

Enter the parallel quality improvement leadership team structure - a separate team of individuals responsible for inspecting output, evaluating quality, correcting defects, and improving operations to re-align local project team output with overall organizational mission goals.

In a fully distributed sense, this allows individual local operations to have complete opposite goals than the overall organization, but still net benefits for overall organizational goals at higher levels. 

That is, MMC is a group of profit-taking individuals working under strong Officer quality leadership with community self-regulation and accountability to integrate into an overall charity-giving organization.

Furthermore, this combination is widely applicable and scalable.  Some US states have already started a new class of legal entities known as "benefit corporations" - for-profit corporations with official licensed commitments for portions of their profits to serve charitable purposes. 

Any real-world organization could form a separate "nonprofit" subsidy as a nonstock, cooperative corporation open to all MMC holders.  A business trust could then be established between the parent company and subsidiary.  The parent company performs "for profit" fiat-world business.  The subsidiary performs "non-profit" real-world business through the MMC network charity fees, while also performing "for-profit" crypto-world business.

By appropriate classification and accounting throughout the system, the "charity" and "profit" aspects can be efficiently separated, focused, and grown.  Since the overall MMC network results in a net real-world charitable benefit, any existing corporation can create a non-profit subsidiary entity to perform business denominated in MMC if fellow MMC members vote that it serves their common interests of profit-taking and/or charity-giving.

[bytemaster]

Overall, 8/10 on shutting my idea down.
Back to the drawing board for me!

I love your attitude!   This is how problems get solved.

[CLains]

"the purpose of this DAC would be to fund CENTRALIZED charity rather than decentralized charity,"
"group trap"

Good points!

"rather than focus on treating symptoms"
"honoring of property rights and equal opportunity"

Medium good points! Sometimes one has to deal with symptoms. Likewise there does seem to be some tension between honoring property rights and equal opportunity.

"All life forms must produce more than they consume or they will die"

I think we should be careful with this quick abstraction. If we define life as necessarily productive then of course non-productive will be non-life, but then it becomes a triviality. Consider "survival of the fittest." When we look at species, they are fit in all kinds of ways, to the point where the word "fit" just means whatever it takes to survive, which makes the original statement circular. The range of life reminds us how impossible it is to intuit in advance the possible forms of survival, e.g. the strength of intelligence, the capital of non-profit organizations, the power of non-violence, etc.

Overall, 8/10 on shutting my idea down.
Back to the drawing board for me!

[bytemaster]

I have addressed the topic of charity many times, but I will state restate it here one more time to address your designs.

1) All life forms must produce more than they consume or they will die, so a charity must make a profit providing services and be self-perpetuating and growing.   The more profit it can make the more resources will be contributed to the charity.  So instead of the focus being on giving money away (give a man a fish....) the DAC should instead (give a man a job).   Not only this, the job should be providing more value to society than it is consuming.   All DACs create new jobs, so find a DAC that needs low-skilled labor and can put that low-skilled labor to positive use and then make as much money doing so as possible.   The end result is that you will help far more people.

2) I will never approve of voting systems because they fall into the 'group trap' and ultimately the minority has their resources spent in ways they do not approve of.  The whole process becomes political rather than about the cause.

3) The term "fair" is very loaded and I suspect it usually means that someone gets something for nothing.  What I consider "fair" is honoring of property rights and equal opportunity.   In any event, when people get something for nothing they do not appreciate the value of what they received and more often than not do not know how to properly invest it.... see the guy who spent his early PTS to buy a computer.

In my opinion a DAC should focus on the real goals (creating value in society that benefits everyone, poor alike) rather than focus on treating symptoms of our corrupt crony capitalist system (poverty).  Every dollar given to generic charities is pored into a black hole.  It would be like giving the money that could be spent on a cure to buy alcohol to dull the pain. 

Charity is best done on an individual basis and not done through a global organized system.  Namely, the purpose of this DAC would be to fund CENTRALIZED charity rather than decentralized charity.

The Group Trap

Next is the Group Trap, which is the belief that you can accomplish more by acting in groups than you can by acting on your own. Harry didn’t believe that there’s anything inherently wrong with participating in groups; you may enjoy the social aspect or something else about it. But you should be consciously aware that, if you just want to accomplish something, you not only don’t have to go through a group, but it’s actually easier to act on your own.

The heart of this Trap is what Harry states is one of the most important keys to finding freedom in life, which is understanding the difference between what he called Direct and Indirect Alternatives. An Indirect Alternative is one that requires you to go through others to get what you want; a Direct Alternative involves you acting by yourself to get what you want, without having to convince anyone else that you’re right.

An example Harry gives is a college student who’s dissatisfied with his school’s curriculum. An Indirect Alternative would be to circulate a petition around campus or to lobby the school’s board of directors to implement your change. Direct Alternatives would be to change schools or study the missing subjects on the side.

It’s not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with trying to improve the world or with wanting to be apart of a movement that‘s bigger than yourself; it’s that you should be consciously aware that you don’t have to do that to get what you want out of life – if you do it anyway, it should be for other reasons.

Harry’s example also illustrates the permanence of involvement in social or political movements. Let’s suppose our student decides to use an Indirect Alternative, working to persuade others that what he wants is right – and he succeeds. Will that be the end of it?

Probably not. Others probably liked the curriculum as it was; while still others also wanted it changed – but to what they wanted. Do you think they’ll just roll over and accept the changes? If anything, his success will show them that they, too, can change things. Our student has just unwittingly enlisted himself in a battle that won’t end until he graduates (and even then it won’t end, although it won’t be his problem anymore).

As another example, consider the abortion debate. Forty years ago, many pro-choice people probably worked for their cause with the vague notion that, if they succeeded, it would be V-J Day for them and they could quit and go back to their regular lives. But they found out quickly that their opponents weren’t giving up, so they’ve had to spend 35 years safeguarding their victory. Today, many pro-lifers probably toil under the same mistaken notion of chasing their phantom V-J Day.

Also stop to consider the issue mathematically. For example, in a group of 100 people, you contribute 1% to the total if everyone works equally hard, which of course they won’t. If you do less than the others, you contribute even less than 1%, so your efforts are statistically meaningless; if you do more, your efforts are subsidizing the slackers – but you’ll still have to share the reward with them.

Again, the point isn’t necessarily that you shouldn’t fight for causes bigger than yourself if you believe in them that much and it gives you some sense of joy or accomplishment; the point is you should be consciously aware that you don’t have to do that to get what you want, that there are easier, much more direct ways to keep the issue from affecting you adversely, whichever side you’re on, that you don’t have to spend your life fighting for or against something that’s never going away.

[CLains]

X% saved for charity fund.
As much transactions fees as possible go to charity fund.
A voting system.
Designed to have an extremely fair launch.

The premine is impossible to use until the coin reaches randomly specified milestones where x sums of money will automatically be given away to the charity with the most votes. This way no one will know in advance when the price falls, small "donations" to the charitycoin will generally push the price in a positive direction leading to speculation, and ever larger donations to charity will increase the publicity of the charitycoin. Would this work? Ideas?

Call it Bitshares Charity and it would be great publicity for Invictus and  AGS/PTS holders even if we earn nothing.

Inb4 bytemaster telling me why I'm wrong and that he has written a novel on this topic.