The unit economics is about adding value to tokens representing information. Let’s say a token was automatically created representing your question. Your question prompts someone like me to try to give you an answer, making me think about it.
I appreciate this has value so I applaud your question.
If your token had some means of recording my applause, then it records how much someone appreciated your information.
If my information prompted by yours also has a token, which is associated with your token, then each of our informations have tokens which can record applause, and the two tokens together represent a conversation.
If someone else was then crazy enough to applaud my response to you, and if that applause was added not only to my token, but to yours too, then we see your token accumulating the applause of everyone that might contribute to the conversation.
Similarly, Michael K. Spencer’s article could have had a token, with which the tokens of our conversation are associated, and it could have accumulated whatever applause you and I and any others put on it, but in addition, all of the applause made in all of the subsequent conversations that arise from it.
We can see a chain of tokens could be created, each with a history of applause.
Now let’s say those tokens are part of a much larger pot, representing the topic of blockchain UBI, and there turns out to be a practical solution, which really does deliver real wealth to all people.
All of the tokens in the pot would have appreciated to a very high value external to the community, reflecting the high value people would put on a successful UBI solution.
That UBI solution would be just one of many community projects, on many subjects, solutions to societal problems perceived by people. The system administrating all of this could be largely automatic, itself tokenised by a recognised crypto-currency, like Bitcoin or similar.
The system could afford to reward all contributors to all conversations with system tokens just from the appreciation of value which would be seen in the system.
There are some academic studies on the value of crypto-currencies related to the utility of associated systems (“Metcalfe’s law applied to Bitcoin”), that indicate some mind blowing figures are achievable in the increases that would be seen in the tokens. The $20,000 per token figure we saw at the end of 2017 could be just the start.
The reward paid by the system, in system tokens, to each contributor to a conversation would simply be in exchange for the tokens representing their information contributed, scaled by an amount appropriate to the applause received on them.
The system can be continually evaluating, rewarding continuously throughout all developments, thus each contributor would see a gradually increasing income.
There are many possible variations on this theme, but hopefully you get the idea.
Does that make more sense to you?
