GoodDollar

Crypto UBI Protocol

A decentralized protocol that distributes free G$ tokens daily to verified members worldwide, funded by yield from stablecoin reserves, aiming to provide universal basic income and Web3 financial inclusion.

Type	Crypto UBI Protocol
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website Whitepaper GitHub X / Twitter

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.7

Weakly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.5

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability2.6

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption3.4

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.0

Stability2x

1.7

Fia Ind & Int2x

2.4

Traction2x

3.1

Sovereignty

2.8

Governance

2.6

Resilience

2.4

Inclusivity

4.0

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Inclusivity is GoodDollar's standout strength (4.0/5.0)because the protocol was purpose-built for financial inclusion: zero-cost UBI claiming, gasless transactions, 181+ country reach, active deployment in underbanked communities, and structural anti-concentration mechanisms (per-capita distribution, non-transferable governance tokens). Few crypto projects achieve this level of genuine accessibility.

Spending Power Stability is the critical weakness (1.2/5.0)because G$ has no purchasing power target, no stability mechanism, and no benchmark basket. The bonding curve is a pricing mechanism, not a stability mechanism. G$ has experienced significant price volatility (37%+ decline from ATH), and the protocol's expanding supply via daily UBI minting creates inherent depreciation pressure with no countervailing force -- meaning the very people GoodDollar aims to help receive a systematically depreciating asset.

A deep structural tension exists between GoodDollar's social mission and its monetary architecturethe protocol distributes debt-free UBI (strong M69 alignment) but funds it entirely through DeFi yield on fiat-backed stablecoins (weak M69 alignment). The reserve is 100% fiat-exposed through cUSD/DAI, making G$'s existence parasitic on the fiat system it philosophically opposes. This tension between inclusive distribution and fiat-dependent funding is GoodDollar's defining architectural paradox.

Traction is surprisingly strong (3.1/5.0)with 100K monthly active users and 800K+ total members, but this is undermined by near-zero merchant adoption and no unit-of-account usage. GoodDollar has users but lacks a real economy -- people claim G$ but rarely spend it within a G$-denominated marketplace, limiting G$ to a claim-and-convert-to-fiat flow rather than a functioning currency.

The face biometric requirement (FaceTec) creates a tension between inclusivity and sovereigntyit enables fair per-capita distribution (preventing Sybil attacks) but collects biometric data, restricts AI agent participation, creates a single vendor dependency, and establishes a surveillance-adjacent relationship with users. This is the strongest design tradeoff in the protocol -- sybil resistance vs. privacy and sovereignty.

Big takeawayGoodDollar is the most M69-aligned project on inclusive distribution and anti-poverty mission, but it is fundamentally not a sovereign monetary system -- it is a fiat-dependent UBI distribution mechanism wrapped in a crypto protocol. For M69 alignment to improve, GoodDollar would need to address spending power stability (target a real-economy basket), reduce fiat reserve dependency, and build a genuine G$-denominated economy where people price goods and services in G$.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

GoodDollar is a crypto-native Universal Basic Income (UBI) protocol that distributes G$ tokens daily to verified users across 181+ countries. Launched in September 2020 and backed by eToro, the protocol uses a novel "trickle-up" model: supporters stake capital into DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound), and the generated yield flows into a reserve that backs new G$ minting via a Bancor-style bonding curve. Users verify uniqueness through FaceTec 3D face biometrics and claim daily UBI at no cost. The protocol operates on Celo and Fuse chains with over 800,000 onboarded members and 100,000 monthly active users. From an M69 alignment perspective, GoodDollar's strongest pillar is Universal Adoption -- the protocol is genuinely designed for financial inclusion, with zero-cost participation, active deployment in underbanked communities, and structural anti-concentration mechanisms (per-capita UBI distribution, non-transferable governance tokens, exit contribution fees). Its Inclusivity score of 4.0 is among the highest possible for a real-world deployed project. However, GoodDollar's Monetary Sovereignty pillar is its weakest area. The protocol's spending power stability is essentially absent -- G$ has no purchasing power target, no stability mechanism, and significant price volatility. The reserve is composed entirely of fiat-backed stablecoins (cUSD, DAI), making the system fundamentally fiat-dependent despite its own unit of account. The issuance model, while debt-free in its UBI distribution, is ultimately powered by DeFi yield generated from fiat-proximate assets. This creates a deep structural tension: the protocol aims for financial sovereignty but is economically tethered to the very fiat system it seeks to transcend.

Issuance Model3x

3.0

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Semi-open: anyone can claim G$ UBI after passing FaceTec face verification (one-person-one-account). No KYC or government ID required, but biometric verification is mandatory. Rule-based with no discretionary approval -- pass face check and you are verified. [1][2]	3
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?G$ is minted debt-free via the reserve mechanism. Supporters voluntarily stake capital and donate yield; no borrowing is involved in G$ creation. The bonding curve mints new G$ when value enters the reserve. No debt mechanism in the UBI issuance itself. [1][2]	4
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is tied to DeFi yield from staked crypto assets (cUSD on Aave, DAI on Compound). This is financial/crypto-native collateral yield, not a real-economy signal. No link to labor output, production indices, or real-world economic activity. [1][2]	2
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?Fixed maximum supply of 2.2 trillion G$. The GoodDAO can adjust the expansion rate (reserve ratio decline rate). After all G$ are minted, UBI distribution will come from network fees. Soft cap with governance override possible. [1]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?When users sell G$ back to the reserve via the bonding curve, tokens are burned. The 3% exit contribution fee also reduces circulating supply. Contraction exists and is permissionless (user-initiated redemption) but asymmetric -- expansion is systematic via daily UBI while contraction depends on individual sell decisions. [1][2]	3

Spending Power Stability2x

1.7

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?G$ price is determined by a Bancor-style bonding curve AMM against the reserve. This is a price discovery mechanism, not a stability-targeting mechanism. No explicit protocol mechanism targets spending power stability; price adjustments depend on market forces and arbitrageurs. [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?G$ is implicitly USD-denominated through its reserve composition of fiat stablecoins (cUSD/DAI). While there is no explicit spending power target, the reserve structure means G$ tracks USD purchasing power. The USD is a single reference that delivers moderate stability but with meaningful inflation. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No stability measurement exists. The bonding curve and reserve are on-chain and verifiable, but they are not stability mechanisms -- they are pricing mechanisms. No published methodology for measuring or targeting spending power. [1]	1
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?No stability target exists. G$ price has been highly volatile: all-time high of $0.0001842 (Nov 2023), with current price around $0.0001163, representing 37% decline from ATH. No meaningful price stability has been demonstrated. [1][2]	1
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?No distinction. The exit contribution fee mildly discourages short-term selling (reducing volatility), but there is no mechanism addressing long-term purchasing power. The expanding supply via UBI and declining reserve ratio create inherent long-term depreciation pressure with no countervailing mechanism. [1][2]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?GoodDollar is accessible globally via Celo and Fuse networks. Users worldwide can claim daily UBI distributions and transact with G$ tokens across 181+ countries. Some onboarding friction exists (face verification) but no geographic restrictions. [1]	4

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

2.4

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?G$ is its own unit of account, not pegged 1:1 to any fiat currency. UBI is distributed as G$ amounts. However, G$ bootstraps from a fiat stablecoin reserve (cUSD/DAI), and the bonding curve determines the G$/fiat exchange rate. Own unit but fiat-bootstrapped. [1][2]	4
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?Reserve is composed entirely of fiat-backed stablecoins: cUSD (Celo Dollar) and DAI. The V4 Celo Reserve uses cUSD as its sole stablecoin. This represents 100% fiat exposure through stablecoin proxies. [1][2]	1
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?GoodDollar does not directly hold bank accounts, but its reserve depends entirely on fiat-backed stablecoins (cUSD, DAI) which themselves rely on fiat banking. The dependency is indirect but structurally significant -- if Circle or MakerDAO's banking relationships fail, GoodDollar's reserve loses value. [1][2]	3
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?G$ pricing is determined by the bonding curve against cUSD/DAI -- both fiat-denominated stablecoins. All reserve value is measured in fiat terms. The bonding curve itself is an on-chain mechanism, but its reference point is fiat. [1]	2
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?If cUSD or DAI depegs, the entire G$ reserve loses value proportionally. The bonding curve would continue to function mechanically, but the purchasing power of the reserve backing G$ would collapse. Recovery path is theoretical only -- V4 already had to migrate from a paused Ethereum reserve. [1][2]	2
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No documented transition plan from fiat dependency. The protocol's design assumes fiat stablecoins as permanent reserve collateral. eToro sponsorship and DeFi yield model are inherently fiat-proximate. No exit strategy from fiat dependency has been articulated. [1][2]	2
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?GoodCollective enables targeted UBI distribution streams for specific communities (Women's UBI, Climate Conservation UBI, Emergency Crisis UBI). These are segmented G$ distribution pools, not independent local currencies denominated in G$. Local currency composability would require significant protocol extensions. [1][2]	2
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?GoodDollar interoperates via standard crypto infrastructure: ERC-20 token on multiple chains (Celo, Fuse, Ethereum), bridged via Axelar/LayerZero. No protocol-specific monetary interoperability standard defined. Trading available on Uniswap and other DEXs. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

3.1

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active and growing. V4 launched via GIP-24 governance proposal in March 2025. Expanding to XDC Network. Active development on GitHub (859 commits, 203 releases). 100K monthly active users. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Launched September 2020. As of April 2026, the project has been operational for approximately 5.5 years. [1][2]	4
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?800,000+ total onboarded members. 100,000 monthly active users. 110,000 weekly active users reported. Members from 181 countries. Falls in the 100K-1M active user range. [1][2]	4
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?Very limited merchant adoption. Some individual use cases: mobile airtime purchases, gift cards, a farm in Spain using G$ for circular economy. No widespread merchant acceptance network. GoodDollar acknowledges G$ is not yet broadly accepted by vendors. [1][2]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?G$ UBI distributions are denominated in G$, but recipients almost always think in fiat terms. G$ is never used as a unit of account for pricing goods or services independently. The token is primarily viewed as a UBI claim convertible to fiat value. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Anna Stone serves as Executive Director. Founder Yoni Assia (eToro CEO) stepped back from day-to-day operations. Core team including Hadar Rottenberg and others actively developing. Strong successor leadership with mission continuity. [1][2]	4
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Multiple partners: eToro (founding sponsor), Celo Foundation (500K cUSD grant), XDC Network ($900K grant), Mento Labs (V4 partner), FaceTec (identity), Aave/Compound (DeFi yield). 5-10 meaningful partners documented. [1][2][3]	4
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Covered in niche crypto media: CryptoBriefing, Borgen Project, Crypto for Innovation. No peer-reviewed academic research found specifically about GoodDollar. No major mainstream media (Bloomberg, Forbes feature articles) coverage found. [1][2][3]	3
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Mixed. The core product IS a free money distribution (UBI), which is inherently an incentive. However, community engagement, local chapters, and peer-to-peer usage show organic elements. 20 local chapters formed organically. Retention beyond the UBI claim is unclear. [1][2]	3
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?V4 migration to Celo in 2025. Expansion to XDC Network. 100K+ new users reported after V4 launch. GoodOffers launched in late 2024. Growth is moderate but positive across users and partnerships. [1][2]	4
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Strong UBI mission narrative. 20+ local chapters across multiple countries. Community identifies with financial inclusion mission. Published whitepaper and manifesto. Cultural artifacts developing (local events, ambassador programs). Commitment extends beyond financial incentives for many community members. [1][2][3]	4

Sovereignty

2.8

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?GoodDollar Foundation and eToro have significant influence. Smart contracts are upgradeable. However, open-source code and multi-chain deployment mean permanent destruction is difficult. A single entity could disrupt operations (e.g., pause contracts, as happened with the Ethereum reserve) but not permanently destroy the system. [1][2]	3
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Fully open-source under MIT license. Core protocol code on GitHub (GoodProtocol, GoodContracts). However, depends on permissioned infrastructure: Celo/Fuse chains, FaceTec for identity verification, hosted front-ends. Core is open-source but operational dependency on specific infrastructure. [1][2]	3
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?GoodDollar.org is registered in Israel, with eToro (also Israel-based) as founding sponsor. Operations are geographically distributed across chains and 181+ countries of users. Primary legal entity in one jurisdiction but operations are distributed. [1][2]	3
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Non-custodial by default. Users hold their own keys via GoodWallet (Web3Auth integration). No intermediary required to hold or transfer G$. Optional custodial services may exist through third-party wallets but core protocol is self-custody. [1][2]	4
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Anna Stone is prominent Executive Director. Hadar Rottenberg and Tomer Bariach hold critical technical knowledge. Yoni Assia (eToro) provides founding vision but is less operationally involved. Knowledge concentrated in 2-3 key people; succession plan exists implicitly through distributed team but is untested. [1][2]	3
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies: FaceTec for identity verification (single provider), Celo/Fuse chains for execution, Aave/Compound for yield generation, Axelar/LayerZero for bridges. Migration to Celo from Fuse demonstrates some adaptability, but FaceTec dependency is a single point of failure for identity. [1][2]	3
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?Face verification creates a censorship vector: the identity system can whitelist/blacklist addresses. Smart contracts have admin roles that could potentially freeze functionality. Censorship capability exists through the identity layer but has not been exercised. Governance controls who can trigger it. [1][2]	3
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?FaceTec biometric face data is collected and stored (anonymized, unlinked to wallet addresses per GoodDollar's privacy policy). On-chain transactions are pseudonymous (standard EVM transparency). The biometric requirement creates a surveillance relationship with the operator beyond typical blockchain pseudonymity. [1][2]	2
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?Monetary rules are partially on-chain via smart contracts (bonding curve, reserve, distribution). However, contracts are upgradeable via UUPSProxy pattern. GoodDAO governance has no timelock on the CompoundVotingMachine. Critical parameters (expansion rate, reserve ratio) can be changed through governance. Code is open-source and auditable but silent override is technically feasible by those controlling upgrade mechanisms. [1][2]	3

Governance

2.6

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?GoodDAO governance via GIP proposals on Discourse with Snapshot voting. Formalized for major decisions (GIP-24 for V4 migration, GIP-19 for new voting system). Minor operational decisions handled by core team. Some governance structure exists but inconsistently applied across all decisions. [1][2]	3
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?GOOD governance tokens are non-transferable (prevents buying votes). Distributed to both claimers and stakers. However, 2M GOOD/month allocated proportional to stake amount, creating plutocratic weighting for capital providers. Top stakers likely control significant voting weight. Quorum is 3%. [1][2]	3
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?Governance proposals public on Discourse. Voting on Snapshot (off-chain but transparent). Smart contracts are open-source and audited (Sayfer audits). Monetary mechanism (bonding curve, reserve) is on-chain and verifiable. Some deliberation happens in closed channels. [1][2][3]	3
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Non-transferable GOOD tokens prevent simple purchase-based capture. However, staker allocation is proportional to capital staked, meaning well-capitalized actors can accumulate governance power through staking. eToro as founding sponsor may hold disproportionate influence. Capture is somewhat resistant but not impossible. [1][2]	3
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?GIP proposals discussed publicly on Discourse with 14-day voting period. However, execution is controlled by core team and contract owners. No mandatory time-lock on the CompoundVotingMachine. Community can vote but execution depends on admin roles. [1][2]	3
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No formal separation. The same GoodDAO governance process handles both monetary policy changes (reserve ratio, expansion rate via GIP-24) and operational decisions. All decisions go through the same GIP proposal process. [1][2]	2
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?Whitepaper articulates founding principles (UBI for all, sustainable giving, decentralized governance). These are stated principles in documentation but are not formally protected from governance override. No on-chain constitution or immutable charter exists. [1][2]	3
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?Issuance rules have been changed through governance (V4 replaced the entire reserve and minting mechanism). No special protection for monetary policy changes vs. operational changes. The GoodDAO can change issuance parameters, expansion rate, and reserve mechanics through standard governance process. GIP-24 fundamentally restructured the reserve. [1][2]	2

Resilience

2.4

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?Survived the 2022 crypto winter and continued operating. The Ethereum reserve had to be paused and the protocol migrated to a new Celo reserve (V4), indicating stress-related adaptation. Security audits by Sayfer found vulnerabilities that were addressed. No catastrophic exploit but the reserve pause was a significant disruption requiring fundamental restructuring. [1][2]	3
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Multi-chain deployment (Celo, Fuse, Ethereum) provides chain-level redundancy. Multiple bridge options (Axelar, LayerZero). However, FaceTec is a single point of failure for identity verification. Reserve is concentrated in one contract per chain. Some redundancy but key components have single points of failure. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Open-source code (MIT license) means anyone can rebuild. On-chain state is public. However, the face verification database is centralized and not publicly rebuildable. No formal disaster recovery plan documented. The V4 migration demonstrated ability to restructure but required significant core team involvement. [1][2]	3
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?Moderate complexity: bonding curve AMM, reserve mechanism, identity verification, multi-chain bridges, DeFi yield integration, governance system. Requires significant domain expertise. Documentation exists (whitepaper, docs) but system is multi-layered. [1][2]	3
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on EVM-compatible chains (Celo, Fuse, Ethereum) -- a widely supported stack. The multi-chain approach reduces single-chain risk. Migration from Fuse-primary to Celo-primary demonstrates adaptability. However, deep Solidity/EVM dependency with no tested cross-platform migration path. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?The 3% exit contribution fee acts as a mild bank-run deterrent. V4 introduced outflow limits (40K cUSD/week, 80K cUSD/month) on the reserve to prevent depletion. However, the Ethereum reserve had to be paused entirely, indicating the original design failed under stress. Current stress mechanisms are administrative rather than algorithmic. [1][2]	2
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Funded by eToro CSR initiatives, Celo Foundation grant (500K cUSD), XDC Network grant ($900K). V3 allocated 20% of daily G$ minting to ecosystem grants treasury. Plans for operations to be covered by community long-term, but currently reliant on external grants and eToro sponsorship. Funded for 1-3 years at current trajectory. [1][2]	3
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Protocol assumes low-latency global connectivity for on-chain transactions, bridge operations, and face verification. Face verification requires real-time camera interaction. Not designed for high-latency or disconnected operation. Technology migration theoretically possible given open-source code. [1][2]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Face verification requirement fundamentally restricts AI agent participation. The system requires human identity (biological face) for core monetary functions (claiming UBI). Standard ERC-20 transfers work for AI agents but the identity-gated issuance mechanism is human-only by design. [1][2]	1

Inclusivity

4.0

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open to anyone with a smartphone and internet access. No nationality restriction, no minimum balance, no credit check. Members from 181+ countries. Minor practical barriers: requires a smartphone camera for face verification and internet access. No intentional gatekeeping. [1][2]	4
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Zero cost to begin. G$ is claimed for free. Gasless transactions on Celo chain (GoodDollar subsidizes gas). No minimum balance required. Transaction fees are negligible or zero for the user. [1][2]	5
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Explicitly designed for financially excluded populations. Active deployment in underbanked communities across Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Local chapters in Kenya, Brazil, and other developing regions. GoodCollective specifically targets vulnerable populations (women's UBI, refugee UBI, climate-affected communities). [1][2][3]	5
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?No pre-mint, no private sale, no founder token allocation. G$ UBI is distributed equally to all verified claimers. 20% of daily minting goes to ecosystem grants treasury managed by GoodDAO. Seigniorage from bonding curve (expansion) benefits all G$ holders proportionally. Exit contribution fees flow back to reserve benefiting all participants. Minor team allocation through operational funding. [1][2]	4
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Equal rules for all UBI claimers -- same daily claim amount per person. Stakers have different rules (earn GOOD tokens proportional to stake, receive G$X rewards) but this is the funder tier, not preferential monetary treatment. Core monetary participation (claiming, transacting, holding) is equal for all. Minor operational tiers (stakers vs. claimers) but do not affect core monetary rights. [1][2]	4
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Face biometric verification (FaceTec 3D) required for all participants. Re-verification every two weeks. Anonymized facemap database stored separately from wallet addresses and profile data. No government ID required, but biometric data collection creates a surveillance-adjacent relationship with the operator. More invasive than typical blockchain pseudonymity. [1][2][3]	2
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?Strong anti-concentration design: per-capita equal UBI distribution, exit contribution fee discourages speculative accumulation, non-transferable governance tokens (GOOD) prevent governance capture through wealth. The UBI mechanism is fundamentally redistributive and anti-concentration by design. [1][2]	5

Frequently Asked Questions

What is GoodDollar and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in GoodDollar?

Semi-open: anyone can claim G$ UBI after passing FaceTec face verification (one-person-one-account). No KYC or government ID required, but biometric verification is mandatory. Rule-based with no discretionary approval -- pass face check and you are verified.

How does GoodDollar maintain stable spending power?

G$ price is determined by a Bancor-style bonding curve AMM against the reserve. This is a price discovery mechanism, not a stability-targeting mechanism. No explicit protocol mechanism targets spending power stability; price adjustments depend on market forces and arbitrageurs.

Is GoodDollar independent from fiat currencies?

G$ is its own unit of account, not pegged 1:1 to any fiat currency. UBI is distributed as G$ amounts. However, G$ bootstraps from a fiat stablecoin reserve (cUSD/DAI), and the bonding curve determines the G$/fiat exchange rate.

Who controls GoodDollar and can it be shut down?

GoodDollar Foundation and eToro have significant influence. Smart contracts are upgradeable. However, open-source code and multi-chain deployment mean permanent destruction is difficult.

How widely adopted is GoodDollar today?

800,000+ total onboarded members. 100,000 monthly active users. 110,000 weekly active users reported.

Is GoodDollar still active and growing?

Fully active and growing. V4 launched via GIP-24 governance proposal in March 2025. Expanding to XDC Network.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of GoodDollar?

Weakest category: Spending Power Stability (1.7).

What makes GoodDollar unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Inclusivity (4.0).

How is GoodDollar's M69 Score calculated?

GoodDollar scores 2.7/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.5, Civilizational Durability 2.6, Universal Adoption 3.4. Strongest: Inclusivity (4.0). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.7).