United Peoples: A proposal for a borderless governance structure representing all people on Earth

Hello Good People,

I wrote this proposal that attempts at tackling a structure that I feel could be useful to create a representative body that acts as a political force to lobby for the rights of all people, and the environment that we live in. The original proposal can be found here: https://steemit.com/life/@jkelsey/united-peoples

In summary, the United Peoples would start as an organisation that is NGO-like, and would act as a parallel force to the current United Nations. The short-term goal would be to assist in problems that our world is facing, yet it would be able to act quicker and more efficiently, and economically self-sufficient with a proposed cryptocurrency backing it (LIFT).

The system of assigning leadership is what I call a Qualitative Demarchy (randomised sortition-based from a pool of qualified candidates) made hyper-transparent and accountable through the process of voting out bad actors. There are parallels with the way Block Producers in EOS can be voted out. The Qualitative Demarchy is structured in a way to incentive good leadership, and efficiently onboard (and conversely eliminate) ineffective—or corrupt—actors. On top of it all, it includes a proposal for a system of Universal Income. This helps incentivise participation, as well as the value that can be gained by a large network of users.

I'm currently doing research into various blockchain-based solutions, but so far EOS looks like the strongest candidate. I'm also refining the rules and structures (and my research into what is being done with DPOS-based systems has influenced my thoughts).

My initial thoughts are that no ICO, presale, premining etc. would be a part of this. The genuine intention is to attempt a fairly distributed economic model with a potential amplification of the base Universal Income through participation. To gain access, either a verified identity OR a circle of trust (for the undocumented) would be required. This would have some similarities to the process of applying for citizenship of a country (in this case, a grassroots global representative body).

An inflationary model is to cover the costs of the UI + treasury of the United Peoples organisation. Any selected delegate that represents a head of a department of the United Peoples (via the sortition process) would be given temporary, conditional permissions to the portion of the budget. This budget needs to be used in accordance to mandates set by the head of the organisation.

Petitions can be lodged, either within the United Peoples, or by the global community at large (with different thresholds for each type of petition) to signal a vote of non-confidence. A successful vote of non-confidence removes the permissions that are conditionally given for such a delegate.

Ideally the Qualitative Demarchy structure that this organisation is based on can be used for other widely-distributed & borderless organisations that also find it a suitable structure, making this part of the process the MVP that is built first as an open-source project.

Potentially, to help fund the initial building of the organisation, applicants can apply to be part of a paid, private beta to obtain a head-start to the accumulation of LIFT.

All of these ideas are in early stages, and I openly ask for ideas and contributions to help refine the economy, incentives, design & architecture. And, of course if any developers wish to start with helping build the framework within EOS, I would also welcome such efforts.


  • The concept here is great. If I had developer skills I would definitely be on board. I think many people that are used to voting and having their voice heard would not understand this concept. Finally someone is bringing our election and government processes into the 21st century! With that being said I think voting should still be part of the process one way or another so people won’t start pointing their fingers at computers if an official is not performing up to par. There is enough information out there for people to make an educated vote on isssues themselves. Why vote for someone to vote for you? Why not vote on those issues yourself through secure blockchain technology? I like the idea I just feel too many people want their voice to be “heard”.

  • Hi @chefabate. Thank you for the feedback. You gave voice to one of my concerns: that people who are used to voting may not want to give up a voice. I'll have to look at ways of presenting this in a way that clearly covers this point.

    Essentially the reasoning behind such a decision has multiple reasons, as follows:

    • Currently the United Nations does not represent the people directly and the delegates are not voted. We currently do not have a vote, or a voice. It is an intergovernmental agency that represents governments, which may (or may not) provide true representation. At its best, the United Nations can indirectly represent democracy, but in many cases it does not.
    • The large amounts of people on Earth, and the uneven distribution of access, makes a direct democracy very unlikely at this stage.
    • Even if a practical way forward is developed, a democracy has tendencies towards becoming a popularity contest, and can be subverted via pre-grooming as a corruption mechanism.
    • Democracies can often have poor participation numbers. Apparently, systems on the blockchain that have democratic mechanisms have very poor rates of participation (~10%). Our increasingly fast-paced modern world does not help.
    • Democracies can be subverted fairly easily, especially as they mature and exploits are found. They have strong potential to erode into cults of personality, are prone to attempts at manipulating the public perception, and can allow for grooming of candidates.

    Actually voting is still part of the process, really... it just has been flipped on its head. Instead of voting in, people can vote out. The power to select may have been taken away from the public (which has many side benefits such as massively reducing the power of political parties, or lobbyist groups, as well as expensive election campaigning) but the power to 'fire' is substituted. In many cases people care the most when people aren't doing their jobs correctly... not when they are. Even if this process proves to not be viable, a case can—at least—be made for trying such a model... at a time when the technology to experiment and iterate a new structure like this is actually possible.

Sign In or Register to comment.