I’ve followed basic income closely, as I believe it’s a viable and desirable option for dealing with automation—and also, for generally improving the human condition. I’ve read many recent developments and arguments with pleasure, including an announcement today about a quasi-basic income in Quebec, progress with a pilot in my province of Ontario, and recent proposals for social welfare funds in Bloomberg and The New York Times. (I also donate to GiveDirectly.)
So I’m surprised that I hadn’t previously read much about the idea of a basic income cryptocurrency. It wasn’t until I joined Steemit and read posts such as this one and this one that the idea had occurred to me, though I have subsequently discovered Grantcoin and Mannabase. My interest was further piqued by a sidebar conversation with 
And this all leads me to a thought: if a basic income cryptocurrency were actually successful, and widely distributed, it could ultimately unravel states and state-based citizenship. My thinking is as follows:
- If citizens receive a basic income cryptocurrency that their government doesn’t administer…
- And if people spend this cryptocurrency to purchase goods and services in an anonymous, untraceable way…
- Then a significant portion of various countries will have little economic involvement or attachment to their state (about 13% of people live in poverty in the US, for example)—they will not be taxed by their state, nor pay taxes to their state.
- Which may significantly weaken their political attachment to their state, given that voting would have negligible impact on their standard of living.
- Which would almost certainly be destabilizing to our current political systems and structures.
For this reason, I wonder if the biggest impact a basic income cryptocurrency might have is providing further impetus for governments to get ahead of the game and institute something themselves—before it’s too late.