Thanks for this proposal. Cause I am new to this I had a lot to read and I am still not sure if I got it all what’s behind this UBI/Circles project, but for sure it looks like an interesting experiment. What I missed, reading through the links you provided, are some numbers about participation and spending (e.g. how many ppl use circles and how often? What do they spend it for? How much of the circles are redeemed to Euro each month? How is the adherence of ppl joining the project). Is there a link I missed to get some of these numbers or are they not public?
1 Like
This is a very exciting proposal and personally, I’m a big fan of UBI projects like Circles. The WoT and Community Currency DEX components sounds fascinating and I’d love to learn more/get involved. These would be huge additions to Gnosis Chain and are a unique draw for users.
I support this without hesitation.
1 Like
Given the information shared by @mkoeppelmann, I withdraw my support for this proposal. I agree that a united approach would be much better and I look forward to seeing a new proposal that comes from the larger Circles community.
I love this idea! Nice design!
1 Like
Dear Gnosis community, dear Circles supporters,
After evaluating the feedback you gave us in the 2nd stage of our proposal we want to thank you for the overwhelming support: 96 % out of 121 voters saw value in the activities we offered and opted for funding the “Circles Coop” and the “bits”. We hear you and will try to continue with our work - even though we have decided to pause the launch of a stage 3 proposal for now.
The reasons for the pause are simple. Basically we don’t see the chances for winning the final round and getting funded by the Gnosis DAO without the support of key stakeholders, plus we are waiting for a concrete, alternative proposal promised by @mkoeppelmann for funding our work and catering more to his own vision. We expect the new proposal to solve our main problem: permanent financial insecurity.
A few points made within the forum thread need some clarification, so let’s address them:
The coop was and will always be open for collaboration within a decentralized ecosystem, especially due to the fact that we strongly relate to the International Cooperative Alliances (ICA) principles, among which “Cooperation among Cooperatives” and “Concern for Community” are major pillars.
In those regards, our proposal was certainly announced to and coordinated with the other Circles groups, who in the case of Joy from Expedition Grundeinkommen even gave us quotes on the success story of Circles to be used in the proposal. In addition we notified the coop’s board of supervisors, where Martin is part of, and asked for their support for the proposal.
As we recognize @mkoeppelmann’s wish for “a united approach and already more clear traction for this shared approach” of the different Circles groups, we ask for a concrete proposal on how a consolidated “Circles Movement” should look like outlining roles, responsibilities, accountability and expectations from the different parts in the new proposed structure in line with secured funding. Since we won’t move this proposal forward to the 3rd phase, we still need to take care of our short-, mid- and long-term funding situation in a different way.
“The funding for salaries (both new & existing) enables human existence in this world, and those key member nodes of the network should not still be living like seasonal/migrant workers. Knowing your job is funded beyond a month or 2 is important to well being, as well as attracting quality people.” As it was recognized in a forum post by @MalthusJohn, we need certain liabilities to be granted, for human ethos and good business practices. The coop and the bits cannot afford anymore to live and work on a two-month-time-horizon chasing a carrot that is directed towards ever changing demands which actually leads to the concerns of centralization within the Circles ecosystem.
Thanks to @BrettScott, who recognises the fact that “many Circles teams have been (at least partially) funded by Martin up until this point”. The coop and the bits are very grateful that we could benefit from those funds as well, but we also feel the strong need to diversify our funding sources as it seems to us we won’t manage to establish a stable financial situation as other Circles groups could do.
Almost completely in line with the perception of @maessedai, a “group of powerful people determined to make the amount of income less”, it’s important to note that this decision didn’t come organically from the coop and bits but from other teams, with Martin’s support. As he’s the person with power here, the community had no choice but to go accept it. We are aware of this contradiction and hence our proposal to decentralize funding to ensure such decisions can be made involving the communities that use Circles in Berlin and elsewhere moving forward, and avoid the “abuse of power” that @maessedai critiques us off.
And again as @MalthusJohn correctly observed, “importantly, this change came about from outside of the Circles Coop and Berlin”, calling it “an important indicator of decentralization”, we can underline that the decision outcome on the transition in the Circles economy was brought to us too. It took us a while to cope with the consequences and prepare an adaptation strategy aligned with our work and our partners.
While we still strongly believe in the incentivisation of pioneering business partners in some way or another (currently evaluating a shift from the local subsidy program to a different stimulus), we clearly have to acknowledge the concerns raised about centralized powers deciding the fate of the Circles ecosystem.
Concluding the above, we won’t move the proposal into the final decision making stage for now and for as long as we can maintain our financial survival. While waiting for a concrete alternative proposal which we expect to grant us a long-term planning horizon, we will work on funding strategies beyond the Gnosis ecosystem. Decentralization is important to us, so we continue to embrace other Circles groups to work on a resilient set of products and services, so we’ll keep the right to act as a joint alliance venture of coop and bits after transparently sharing our intentions.
Best regards on behalf of the entire Circles Coop,
Andreas (Circles Marketplace lead, member of the Circles strategy and finance group)
3 Likes
Governments are probably in the pole position to implement UBI schemes as they have the fiat means as well as the need to create value propositions to their “users”, but as we witness crypto and non-crypto attempts, various projects from the community become more popular. Perhaps this might be just another battle ground between forces of centralization and decentralization, though there are also changes of the different actors collaborating on the subject of UBI. Indeed, we see governments around the world rely on UBI infrastructure provided by local government actors, the market or the community, e.g. Gyeonggi in South Korea, Marica in Brazil, City coin etc.
Best regards on behalf of the entire Circles Coop,
Andreas (Circles Marketplace lead, member of the Circles strategy and finance group)
2 Likes
Great to hear that you are excited about Circles! As it was pointed out by other forum members, the coop (e.g. by enliven the Circles code with traction from the community and by onboarding businesses and creating values that cater for real people’s needs) and the bits (e.g. by developing the core protocol and the technical hubs other Circles groups can build their services on) have actually been among the main drivers of the project ever since its inception. I wonder why our future work around the WoT dapp and the Community Currency DEX needs more alignment with other Circles groups than an open and transparent disclosure which we have always been maintaining. It happens to be that other Circles groups have built their own wallets besides that fact that the bits had pioneered such a product already. Resilience and decentralization will strengthen our ecosystems, thus it should be fine, if not all groups align behind one objective.
Best regards on behalf of the entire Circles Coop,
Andreas (Circles Marketplace lead, member of the Circles strategy and finance group)
3 Likes
Wow
nice project work and succeed.
1 Like
Does this work?
How many circles do you have worldwide?
I see…this does not work anymore
On the other hand a similar project, Encointer , is still operational.
There is also a vote for it in Dash, asking for a Dash basic income to be paid to the Encointer members.
Proposal “ENCOINTER-SUPPLEMENTAL-OCT24” - DashCentral.org
QUESTION: How about making a (similar to Dash) proposal here in gnosis, and offer to the Encointer members a basic income paid in Gnosis cryptocurrency?
What do you think? Will it succed?
Offering a Gnosis basic income to the Encointer members
- yes
- no
- other
0
voters