It is entirely conceivable that such an endeavour will fail. Potential failure modes abound. Some are mitigatable: bad organisational governance, privacy concerns, security. Others are not: maybe contemporary Americans are too immediately self-interested for voluntary redistribution.
Entirely possible that if founded, the organisation model would fail. The wind-down approach would be to cease accepting contributions and new members, and pay-out any remaining balances to members as a lump-sum. The children’s funds (including 1/2 the wind-down lump-sum benefit) would remain in trust until the children reach the lump-sum benefit ages of 18 and 25.
Failure to attract a socioeconomically diverse member pool
There’s really no point to the organisation, redistribution being what it is, without a socioeconomically diverse member pool to redistribute amongst. It remains unclear whether affluent and ‘rich’ individuals would become members knowing in-advance that they would in all likelihood be net contributors. It remains unclear whether less well off individuals, who would likely be net beneficiaries, would trust the organisation and its intentions enough to become members. It is my hope that the local lodge model would help with member attraction and retention: seeing/feeling, not just ‘knowing’, that member contributions are being redistributed within your community.
Free-riding and abuse
It’s entirely possible that individuals will see the organisation as an exploitable opportunity for ‘free money.’ The prospective membership 3-month incubation period, submission of federal/state income/tax and penalties to ‘churning’ were designed to deter free-riders. The ongoing annual federal/state tax reporting and member meeting requirements are aimed at identifying potential abusers once members. Still, it remains unclear whether these structural protections will be sufficient to prevent free-riding and abuse.
In respect of the massive diversity of viewpoints and political orientations that constitute the basic income movement as well as the desire for 99%+ efficiency, the organisation would be wholly apolitical. Without a political ‘immune system’ to represent the organisations interest, the organisation may fall prey to regulatory capture or political attack by well-financed adversaries.