Thank you for your sincere and thoughtful responses, @erh.germany.

I would be interested in the German sources you have - and the existing UBI project you support.

The most dangerous, in my opinion, are those who want to "save the world" or the people. Such people with a lot of money do not have to seek advice, do not have to bring their decisions through committees, do not have to go through a parliament or a council in order to act.

I see this quite a bit here in America. It's an odd dynamic to witness.

Actually, a restriction would have to be built in, which would introduce an upper limit of capital in individual hands or organisations at all. Without this limit, I am afraid, inequality will continue to exist.

This is possible in a blockchain ecosystem. From a risk and security perspective, it would make sense to ensure the decentralization of capital. I wonder what Hive would look like if there was a mechanism that actively ensured a more equitable distribution of resources. I don't necessarily believe that such a function would even need to work like a tax. It could be a dedicated fund for smaller accounts with diminishing returns as the account scales.

Instead of overexploitation, the protection of species (animals and plants), instead of unhindered construction and the consumption of resources, a preservation of unused areas and habitats. Waiting and not acting would be necessary in many parts of the world where people do not have to fight for bare existence - i.e. food and water. To reduce oneself to the maximum and to reduce consumption sharply, to live from existing resources instead of always wanting to have the new.

You bright up a great point. The failure to recognize the importance of the Earth in the economic equation. We tend to think of the economy as consisting of economic actors and businesses, but we forget about the reproductive and generative environment that we all live in, and intimately depend on.