Decentralized Impact Organizations for the Climate

'Olliten' has writen an essay proposing that a pilot Decentralized Impact Organization be formed to test the Social Policy Bond concept as applied to climate change:

Crypto has transformed grassroots-level organizing. For the first time in history, it is possible to economically align networks of strangers into working together by using programmable incentives and by providing them with tools to make decisions and govern shared resources in a decentralized manner. These new organisms are called by many “DAOs”, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations.

[A Social Policy Bond]and its bondholders together form an entity very similar to a DAO: the bondholders form a grassroots level organization and share an economic fate via the bonds they own. What is special about this type of "DAO" is that its token (the bond) derives its value from the quality of a public good. To distinguish them from generic DAOs, we’ll call these organizations "DIOs", Decentralized Impact Organizations.

The technology for creating crypto-native DIOs already exists. Six months ago, UMA Protocol launched a new crypto-derivatives product called "Key Performance Indicator Options". KPI options were originally created so that crypto protocols could trustlessly guarantee that their community receives rewards for hitting milestones such as increasing Total Value Locked (TVL). However, their design allows them to be used for SPBs, too.

KPI options are synthetic (ERC-20) tokens that will pay out rewards if a KPI reaches predetermined targets before the given expiry date. Every KPI option holder has an incentive to improve that KPI because then their option will be worth more.

The complete essay can be found here.

Paying people not to shoot

 Charles Fain Lehman writes:

San Francisco has a new plan to stem a recent surge in deadly shootings: pay potential shooters. That’s the principle behind the city’s new Dream Keeper Fellowship, which will enroll 30 individuals deemed at high risk of shooting or being shot and pay them a $300 monthly stipend. They can collect an additional $200 per month for completing such milestones as taking job interviews, complying with probation, or meeting with the life coach assigned to them. We'll pay you not to shoot, Charles Fain Lehman, City Journal, 17 September

 Mr Lehman is unenthusiastic: 

[W]e shouldn’t pay people specifically for their willingness to refrain from deadly violence—any more than we should pay them for not selling drugs or abusing their children.

My position? I don't have one. Social Policy Bonds reward outcomes, whoever achieves them and, so long as the means are within the law, however they are achieved. If paying a small number of people not to inflict casualties on others is more cost-effective than heavy policing, and interventions by the justice and corrections departments, then why not do so? Careful crafting of Crime Prevention Bonds' redemption terms could minimise some of the risks, and allow resources to be diverted into preventing or punishing activities that currently seem to receive little attention, such as white-collar crime.

However, Social Policy Bonds are versatile. If the ethical or moral arguments against paying people not to commit crime are thought to outweigh those in favour, then the bonds' redemption terms could stipulate that such payments would invalidate the bonds. 

More likely, in my view, is that Crime Prevention Bonds targeting the sorts of violent crime committed by a small number of people in the long term might see such direct payments at first, but these would be replaced by or co-exist with other, less controversial but more long-lasting projects, such as subsidising employment in crime-ridden districts, setting up sports or youth facilities, and other more creative routes out of crime.