Burn-Ring Funding Model

From Sharewiki.org
Revision as of 05:54, 24 October 2011 by AGNUcius (talk | contribs)

This is a copy/paste from http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/09/burn-ring-funding-model.html

I am the author of that piece, but wanted to move it here to work-it-over and simplify it.


Please take a shot at it, I can always put back anything you change. :)


Let's fight a little and see if we can get this right! Come on, take a chance, make a change.

Maybe chop it up and rearrange things, put it in an order that makes sense to you.

Rewrite sections that sound weird to you - that you think would be better phrased another way.


Once this model is close enough to correct, we can buy the Land and Tools to begin!

In some places we won't even pay property taxes if we qualify as a non-profit.


---

  • Potential users pre-pay to fund the purchase

of land and capital to form a Vertically Integrated, Permaculture Mosaic (VIPM).

  • The VIPM is a set of carefully chosen plants, animals

and tools required to create the solutions needed by all of those workers such as food/drugs, shelter, cloth, soap, sanitation, health care, dental, eyes, etc.

  • If a payer has skills needed by the VIPM, they can

contract to work somewhere within the VIPM in exchange for the VIPM supplying them with Products they need.

  • Those workers receive co-ownership in the VIPM in a

form we call "Use Shares" which are similar to full co- ownership, but with some initial limitations on selling or renting those Tools or Products.

  • Use Shares are used by the holder to prove that he has the

right to use the Tools (limited by schedule) or consume some of the Products (limited by % of holdings within that Unit) of any restaurant, apartment, bus, hospital, etc. operating within the VIPM.

  • The workers do not buy products from the investors, but own

those products already because of their Use Shares in the VIPM awarded for commitments to Work or from commitments of Land or Capital.

  • After some amount of time, or after some series of events

the Use Shares should vest more fully to the payer to allow for selling and/or renting of those Sources or the Products of those Sources.

  • Initial stages of development might have some workers living

in mobile homes and eating food the VIPM bought in bulk.

  • Later, after the agriculture is installed and producing, the

system will become "self hosted", being able to operate without requiring any external inputs.

  • Soon afterward, the system will be producing surplus that can

be sold to outsiders to collect Profit.

  • If Venture Capitalists helped fund the operation, part of the

Profit will be used as their ROI.

  • We may want to distribute part of the Profit to the Workers,

since that is a popular thing to do.

  • We may we to distribute part of the Profit to random charities,

since that is a popular thing to do.

  • But we MUST handle some non-zero % of the Profits as though

that overpayment were an investment from the payer.

  • We should charge Profit during those sales, for if we don't

collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all that we offer at Cost, and then resell it for a Profit anyway...

  • So we will charge Profit against the Payer, but we will also

treat (at least part of) that magic value as Payer Investment.

  • This causes these late-coming users to slowly gain ownership

and therefore to eventually stop buying that product too.

  • Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through Copyright,

we propose to create a PropertyLeft document enforced through Property Rights used to apply this requirement to the VIPM.

  • This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any

material assets to insure freedom for all users.

  • Notice this is also a literal form of Insurance.
  • These users must cover all the real cost of production

just as any owners do, but they do not buy the product since they own it already - and they don't sell the product because they need to use it directly.

  • The product is not traded unless there is surplus, and

in that case the Payer must cover all the Costs of that production so the owner of Sources can be compensated for paying when they didn't need to...

  • The Payer will usually also pay Profit, according to how

much the "market will bear". Some % of that overpayment must be treated as an investment from that payer so the growth of the VIPM is incrementally autodistributed to all those willing to pay for that growth.

  • At some point, and under certain constraints, and mostly

to resolve disputes, subgroups must finally be allowed to fork from the rest while retaining property ownership.



Ecologically, the system must be able to operate on it's own, without external inputs.

This is done by the VIPM owning the Physical Sources of all the Products being used. Another term for this is "Vertical Integration".

Initially no VIPM will be strictly closed-loop because we will just buy shovels instead of trying to mine Iron ore, etc.


Economically, the system must allow the users to create value for themselves without paying external entities.

This is done by helping the users gain real ownership whenever they pay for that growth (usually when paying profit), and to retain that ownership when paying costs (usually through work).

This can be imperfect as well, just so the payer receives *some* ownership - for it is the ownership in Sources that eliminates the need to buy Products. In computer terminology this is similar to the concepts of "predictive schedule", "pre-cache" or "pre-allocate" because the Product is not moved (sold) at the last moment, but is already the property of the entity that will use it.



This part is from http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com/2011/07/14/crowd-control-funding-freedom-in-closed-loop-production-aggregates

Crowd Control: Funding Freedom in Closed-Loop Production Aggregates

This Production Model uses Imputed Production at it's core with optional funding from traditional Venture Capital.

  • Potential users pre-pay to fund the purchase

of land and capital to form a vertically integrated, permaculture based system we call a Production Aggregate.

  • This Aggregate is a set of carefully chosen plants, animals

and tools required to create the solutions needed by all of those workers such as food/drugs, shelter, cloth, soap, sanitation, health care, dental, eyes, etc.

  • If a payer has skills needed by the Aggregate, they can

contract to work somewhere within the Aggregate in exchange for the Aggregate supplying them with Products they need.

  • Those workers receive co-ownership in the Aggregate in a

form we call "Use Shares" which are similar to full co- ownership, but with some initial limitations on selling or renting those Tools or Products.

  • Use Shares are used by the holder to prove that he has the

right to use the Tools (limited by schedule) or consume some of the Products (limited by % of holdings within that Unit) of any restaurant, apartment, bus, hospital, etc. operating within the Aggregate.

  • The workers do not buy products from the investors, but own

those products already because of their Use Shares in the Aggregate awarded for commitments to Work or from commitments of Land or Capital.

  • After some amount of time, or after some series of events

the Use Shares should vest more fully to the payer to allow for selling and/or renting of those Sources or the Products of those Sources.

  • Initial stages of development might have some workers living

in mobile homes and eating food the Aggregate bought in bulk.

  • Later, after the agriculture is installed and producing, the

system will become "self hosted", being able to operate without requiring any external inputs.

  • Soon afterward, the system will be producing surplus that can

be sold to outsiders to collect Profit.

  • If Venture Capitalists helped fund the operation, part of the

Profit will be used as their ROI.

  • We may want to distribute part of the Profit to the Workers,

since that is a popular thing to do.

  • We may we to distribute part of the Profit to random charities,

since that is a popular thing to do.

  • But we MUST handle some non-zero % of the Profits as though

that overpayment were an investment from the payer.

  • We should charge Profit during those sales, for if we don't

collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all that we offer at Cost, and then resell it for a Profit anyway...

  • So we will charge Profit against the Payer, but we will also

treat (at least part of) that magic value as Payer Investment.

  • This causes these late-coming users to slowly gain ownership

and therefore to eventually stop buying that product too.

  • Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through Copyright,

we propose to create a PropertyLeft document enforced through Property Rights used to apply this requirement to the Aggregate.

  • This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any

material assets to insure freedom for all users.

  • Notice this is also a literal form of Insurance.
  • These users must cover all the real cost of production

just as any owners do, but they do not buy the product since they own it already - and they don't sell the product because they need to use it directly.

  • The product is not traded unless there is surplus, and

in that case the Payer must cover all the Costs of that production so the owner of Sources can be compensated for paying when they didn't need to...

  • The Payer will usually also pay Profit, according to how

much the "market will bear". Some % of that overpayment must be treated as an investment from that payer so the growth of the Aggregate is incrementally autodistributed to all those willing to pay for that growth.

  • At some point, and under certain constraints, and mostly

to resolve disputes, subgroups must finally be allowed to fork from the rest while retaining property ownership.