exhibit A: a garbage man who is happy because he's getting paid in appcoins
Recently, I sat down with a mentor of mine and we got to talking - really nerding out - about the possibilities of the blockchain.
One of the topics that our conversation grew into was the topic of currencies and their isolation within specific distributed applications. What do I mean by isolation? Well, think about the United States Dollar (USD). We use the USD for everything; we use it to buy our groceries, pay our rent, or for services such as lap dances. The USD has uses all across the entirety of human interaction (read: 'the' economy) and so, in this sense, the USD is not isolated. Not only does the USD span across the entirety of the US economy, its value is of course also closely tied to many components of the entire world economy at large. Cryptocurrencies, or more specifically, appcoins are, on the other hand, isolated within the distributed apps they reside in.
But I digress as this a tangent which detracts from what I want to focus on. Let's definitely come back to it in a later post, though.
The folks over at coincenter.com put it nicely, when they said: "Open platforms have proved difficult to create because it has been historically difficult to monetize them even if they become successful—by nature they are public goods."
Ok. So this all makes sense, especially when you think of internet 'projects' such as Twitter or SoundCloud. Many would find it hard to argue with the idea that these services provide immense value to society.
For example, Twitter was the place for information during the 2011 earthquake in Japan.
Chance the Rapper gives a shoutout to SoundCloud at the Grammy's.
And SoundCloud is attributed with the birth of whole new music genres and the unearthing of blockbuster talent, adding to the colorful fabric of human culture.
Where these platforms have fallen flat is monetizing. Again, at this point, I have more or less made some pretty obvious statements for anyone living above ground and out from under rocks.
So the question is: if decentralizing apps will create an ecosystem where such public-good-like platforms can thrive, would this also apply to other public goods, in real life (IRL)? Is it feasible to incentivize public services and goods using blockchain technology?
I will end this here and hopefully it is a nice place for us all to start a discussion.
Look out for further musings on this topic and more.
Edit: I've since added a Part 2 where I answer some of these questions.
You can't use decentralized money for centralized government.
Ah, I see that you are catching on to where this is going.
The underlying assumption within our current economic system is that public goods are not monetizable, so a centralized government should provide them. So should we assume that that will continue with the introduction of blockchain technologies? Or would it be possible to have a 'decentralized' government of sorts sort many public goods and services out for us?
This could already be the case. Government could let you appropriate money to whatever public services it offers, but it doesn't.
Yeah, it definitely falls under the same umbrella of arguments for and against things such as school vouchers. While I posed the questions here, I actually don't believe that blockchain will be any sort of panacea for the market failures that are borne out of public goods.
I've added some more detail to that answer and further use cases in a second post here:
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@bdeely/what-if-we-used-blockchain-for-part-2-funding-public-goods
There is no such thing as a decentralized government. So, the only solution would be to eliminate the need for the government to provide things that the government shouldn't be providing in the first place.
I would not let the pedantic details of what currently exists or does not exist bog you down.
You and I are saying the same thing. I am simply using language (read: decentralized government) to express concepts that don't exist today, but that may exist in some form or another in the future.
As you put it, this would mean eliminating parts of the government in favor of systems that provide it in a decentralized manner. While the resources, procurement of, or delivery of such goods and services might not belong to a centralized government, I think it is safe to say that it is a good place for a dApp to be introduced to mediate such public goods and services. In this sense, the mediation of goods and services would be centralized. In such a system, I would not want to have to deal with N number of dApps for N number of public goods. I would expect some sort of consolidation for certain goods and services into a single dApp.
So on the one hand, the gathering and distribution of resources would be decentralized. But the mediation of that gathering and distribution would be something consolidated, and in some sense 'centralized,' within a single or some small number of dApps.
They existed in the past.
It wasn't until the 1900s that the government started doling out money for things that were supported by the community.
In order for what you suggest to work, you would have to convince those making money off of the current situation to give it up, which would go against their own interest and wallet.