A straightforward funding mechanism that rewards innovators and risk-takers while remaining sensitive to the social impact of new technologies and their reliance on their user’s network effects.
With Reasonable, founders and investors are rewarded for their efforts and the risk they are exposed to but don’t hold perpetual ownership of the company they help create. Instead, they commit to transitioning the company to be owned and governed by its users and other stakeholders in the long-term.
Reasonable recognizes the unique talent, grit, and abilities of entrepreneurs and the exposure of investors to potential losses, but don’t succumb to making them…
We at CollectiveOne are developing a platform to “create and manage open projects: projects to which anyone can potentially contribute, and which are distributedly owned and controlled by their contributors”.
It sure sounds nice, but achieving that vision is very challenging. From the many problems that it posses, we have focused on exploring solutions to two different (big) ones:
Isn’t it amazing how an “entire society” can come together around a common goal so strongly as it happens during the FIFA World Cup? Millions cheer their team, share the joy of victories, and the frustration of defeats. June becomes a month to come together, the sense of community gets amplified and suddenly the distinction between foes and friends becomes clear: anyone wearing your team’s shirt is a friend.
Isn’t this lovely? isn’t this nice?
Well, sorry if I’m ruining your party, but it’s not.
Much is being said about purpose-driven organizations: organizations that put the purpose before the profit.
While profit-driven organizations are seen as selfish organizations that only care about reaping value out from the society, purpose-driven organizations are usually seen as giver organizations that focus on the positive social impact of their activity.
Ironically, the opposite might be the case, and selfishness lies closer to the purpose-driven organizations.
The key thing to keep in mind is who gets to decide the social impact of an activity. …
In school we are taught that the line between selfish behavior and respectful (with the community) behavior is sharp, and it is: jumping the que is selfish, following it is respectful. In most cases, it is easy to know if you are being selfish or not.
What is not taught in school, and what no body talks about, is that selfishness is, usually, relative.
Selfishness is relative to the group within which the act occurs so that an act is selfish only if it affects people from within that group. …
Projects in CollectiveOne can be for-profit or nonprofit and include a “value accounting system” so that contributions are recognized and valued using a project-specific token called “participation points”. Participation points account for the distributed ownership of the project and for the influence of each contributor in the project’s governance.
The more you contribute to a project, the more you own and the more power you have over its decisions.
A basic version of the method (and of the platform) is already online at www.collectiveone.org! The idea is, now, to continue its development by applying the method to itself, this is…
Interest in reconsidering what “organizations” are and finding new ways in which they can work is rapidly growing, to the point that it is becoming a latent need in almost all realms of human activity.
From private companies, where transparency and social responsibility are in demand, but also extending to other kinds of organizations, including political parties, non-governmental organizations, and the government itself with its institutions, where renovation is clearly needed.
Imagine that the human race would had discovered a new planet full of magic stones, which, when touched by a person, became gold.
Imagine the first humans who arrived to that planet would had seized control over all the magic stones, and now would pretend to retain this control over them. Take into account that they arrived on a ship built by publicly funded research.
Imagine that now the planet is easily accessible to all the humans in the Earth, and that, basically, all the economical activities in the Earth now depend on each human travelling (it just takes a…
Companies, as we know them, have channeled human effort to achieve complex and long collective endeavors for centuries. However, it now seems possible that companies, as we know them, may not actually be the only (or the best) way to face these collective endeavors.
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) could represent better alternatives to attempt, and achieve, even larger and more complex ventures. If this is the case, DAOs will, nevertheless, need to find solutions to hard problems, problems that current companies already solved more or less efficiently.
Originally, when people worked mostly by themselves, or in small groups, (the baker…
I worked as an engineer for an engineering firm in Europe, perhaps things are different there, but I kept having this feeling that “things could have been done weeks ago, and much, much easier”.
I am being naive, I know. Firms, like the one I worked in, survive in a competitive environment which forces them to optimize their operation, and this is not easy. But yet, there remain so many blatant inefficiencies in them.
Maybe what occurs is that, perhaps, firms are not that inefficient, but they are indeed optimal; optimal for the environment in which they operate.