That's the question, isn't it?
I've been circling around this from a different angle. I think it requires a shift in how you think about it. This really isn't meant to be thought of like currency we currently have, requiring a majority-rule consensus social reality. This tracks closer to the personal relationships you have with other people.
So I'd start with using on tracking exchanges of favors among friends. Some people have tools or expertise they want to borrow, and this would formalize some of those exisiting exchanges.
Since I'm interested in strengthening local communities, I'm going to find a way to work with that.
Another is applied to open source projects -- start with a tipjar on the projects you use; offering bug bounties, for pull requests. etc.
I also think there is a danger in turning these interactions into transactions. Relationships are not only transactional; the most important relationships are transformational (that is, the participation in a relationship will involve a change in who you are). I'm not sure how to resolve that, yet.
It turns out you might not need a large percentage of businesses to accept digital currency, in order for the currency to hold value.
For a UBI to work people have to be able to actually spend the currency they receive. In places that people (especially the poor) actually spend their money. Let me know when the neighborhood bodega, grocery store, barber or daycare start accepting cryptocurrencies.
I don't see why this is true. People were saying the same Bitcoin, yet people still use that, which is turning this conversation in to a circular argument. The truth is a UBI has never really been tested out in the world, it's all theoretical, and a cryptocurrency UBI even more so. I don't think it's right to just write it off completely without actually testing it.
And by "hold value", i meant that humans find value in it. Although I admit that was a poor choice of words due to the traditional financial meaning.
>I don't see why this is true.
Because otherwise they can't pay rent, get evicted, and/or starve to death?
Unless I'm missing something here, isn't a key part of any UBI system must be using that income to spend it on things you need to survive, no?
It'd be an odd chicken-before-egg problem, where you would need everything required to survive to be purchaseable with whatever new cryptothingy you do UBI with, before you can actually distribute UBI with it. But who is going to support the thing which doesn't exist yet?
Edit:
Also, you seem to take it as proof that since people are buying BTC, there must be a demand for a currency that cannot even be spent anywhere. That's one way to look at it, personally I explain it with the Greater Fool Theory [1]. I think this because whenever I heard about people buying BTC who aren't die-hard true believers (ie normal people, not cryptocurrency enthusiasts), they don't know why BTC is valuable. They don't see any value in it, other than the fact that it's price has gone up a lot. They don't understand it, they don't think it's useful, they just see other people buying it and driving the price up and want to get in on the action.
Huh? Yes it has. There still isn't nearly enough data, but there have already been multiple pilots studying various basic income schemes, with encouraging results.
I like UBI schemes and I like novel cryptocurrencies but either I'm missing something big or this one is still at the stoned-dorm-room-conversation stage.