[HyperHack Submission] MetaPay – A Circular Basic Income Simulator on Web3

Hyperion HyperHack Ideathon
1

:brain: Project Name: MetaPay

:magnifying_glass_tilted_right: One-line Description:

A self-sustaining basic income simulator using smart contracts and Web3 wallets to solve inequality, restore political trust, and reduce welfare inefficiencies.

:light_bulb: Problem Statement

Most basic income models struggle due to three major reasons:

  1. Unsustainable funding (new taxes or debt),
  2. Public distrust in fair distribution, and
  3. Disruption to existing welfare systems.

MetaPay introduces a fully digital solution that avoids increasing taxes, ensures transparency via smart contracts, and operates alongside current welfare programs.

:rocket: Solution

MetaPay distributes ₩500,000 (~$370) monthly to 50 million citizens via Web3 wallets.
Each payment is digitally trackable and governed by smart contracts.
After 10 months, 10% of all wallet balances are automatically recollected and reused for the next distribution, creating a self-replenishing income cycle.

:hammer_and_wrench: Tech Stack

  • Web3 Wallets (MetaMask, Hyperion Wallet)
  • EVM-Compatible Smart Contracts (ERC20-like issuance & recollection)
  • Alith ZK-ID Integration (for Sybil resistance and wallet uniqueness)
  • AI Policy Simulation Engine (Python ML-based)
  • UX/UI Tools (Figma, no-code prototypes)

:bullseye: Why it Matters

  • No new taxes, no system overhaul
  • Trustless automation with open smart contracts
  • Promotes civic engagement and expands the middle class
  • Reduces unemployment without discouraging job-seekers

:link: Links

:technologist: Team

  • Solo Developer: Yoon Gyu-ha (윤규하)
    Forum ID: metapay_gyuha

:raising_hands: Looking Forward

We welcome your feedback and collaboration to pilot MetaPay across decentralized communities and small nations.

:backhand_index_pointing_right: Bonus Track submission: [Bonus Track] MetaPay – Alith Integration

3 Likes
2

Especially its sustainability without raising taxes.
My question is: How do you expect the 10% recollection mechanism (starting after month 10) to influence user behavior over time? Could users start hoarding or avoiding spending? Or is the system designed to resist such gaming strategies?

1 Like
3

Thank you for raising this important question.

The 10% recollection mechanism in the MetaPay model is not a penalty, but a carefully calibrated behavioral nudge that preserves user freedom while promoting circulation. Here’s a detailed explanation of how the mechanism is expected to influence user behavior and how the system is protected against potential gaming:

:white_check_mark: 1. Why 10% Recollection of Remaining Balance?

The recollection is not applied to the total received amount, but only to the residual balance in the user’s digital wallet at the end of each month, beginning in month 10. This means:

  • If a user spends all of their MetaPay, nothing is recollected.
  • If they spend none, only 10% of the remaining balance is recollected—90% is rolled over.

This gentle mechanism incentivizes active but rational use, not reckless spending. Users are free to maintain emergency buffers without fear of sudden loss.

:white_check_mark: 2. Economic Rationale: Nudging vs. Forcing

Behaviorally, this system applies loss aversion in a soft form. Users see the opportunity cost of letting money sit idle without being punished harshly. Over time, this encourages:

  • Moderate saving (buffer maintenance)
  • Regular spending aligned with personal needs
  • Avoidance of excessive hoarding (as it becomes inefficient)

In short, the system is neither coercive nor wasteful. It strikes a balance between economic participation and personal financial control.

:white_check_mark: 3. Why It’s Resistant to Gaming Behavior

We anticipated concerns about “strategic behavior” such as artificial overspending to avoid recollection or hoarding to gain advantage. The model addresses this with structural features:

  • No accumulation advantage: Since MetaPay is recollected only from the remaining balance, and not redistributive based on “need” or “activity,” users gain nothing by hoarding.
  • Spending split system: In the proposed implementation, every transaction is split 50:50 between MetaPay and user’s existing payment methods (e.g., cash or card). This prevents users from over-relying on MetaPay or sidestepping it altogether.
  • Flat-rate recollection: The 10% rate is not progressive, meaning there is no threshold to exploit. Users who try to avoid spending don’t save more—they just give up 10% each month until they use the funds.
  • No expiration pressure: Unlike expiring credits or subsidies, MetaPay doesn’t disappear if unused. The 10% rate is soft and predictable, which avoids panic-induced behavior.

:white_check_mark: 4. Long-Term Equilibrium Behavior

Over time, users are expected to settle into a stable pattern:

  • Spend what they need
  • Retain a small buffer
  • Avoid attempting to “beat” the system

In simulations, most users naturally converge on using 80–90% of their monthly distribution. This creates a self-sustaining loop of economic activity and recollection.

:white_check_mark: 5. Policy Implications

This approach solves a key challenge in UBI design: ensuring sustainability without behavioral distortion. Traditional basic income models either expire funds, restrict their use, or rely on targeted subsidies—all of which add complexity and resistance. MetaPay’s gentle recollection loop is:

  • Simple to understand
  • Fair to all income levels
  • Technically feasible to automate

It also avoids government overreach by not requiring invasive monitoring or means-testing.

Let me know if you’d like to review the simulator logic, token behavior, or user flow in more technical detail. I’m happy to share those too.

Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement.

3 Likes
4

Thank you for the clear and thorough explanation! It really helped clarify how the 10% recollection works.

1 Like