RiskSharingPassiveReturnBrainstorming

Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

Fridemar: The following conversation invites readers of AboutUs g , the SocialCommonWealth.com blog and beyond to be part of emerging new business opportunities in the wiki communities, straight from the beginning, i.e. the Brainstorming phase. All edit-links point directly to the AboutUs Wikipage: RiskSharingPassiveReturnBrainstorming, where you are welcome.

Martin: Here there needs to be a lot more brainstorming. The SEC needs to see potential sticks. Scam artists are very good at evaluating the carrot versus the stick. If the latter is insignificant they will make the calculated step of risking the stick, for the big money.

Contents

Possible stick

Fund Raising without Bad Apples

Martin: I suspect that if this system were operational that all manner of internet communities would have interest in using it for fund raising. In such regard they do not want “bad apples” to spoil the system for every body else.

A Policing Network?

Fridemar: And what do you suggest to keep out "bad apples"?

Martin: Thus to create a “policing network”. Just as we have “bad guy” hackers that can make people’s lives miserable, the community has potential to gain a lot of “good guy” hackers to make the lives of the bad apples miserable. How miserable, and in what ways is open to discussion. At a minimum this police network should “out” the scammers to make others aware that they are not legitimate. This network also has potential to do “due diligence”, to insure that people are who the say they are.

Extreme Transparency as a preventive Measure against Abuse

Martin: The “policing network” has potential for abuse. I don’t want to know if somebody making a posting is cheating on his wife, or is a rotten parent or boss – “the dirt” should be limited to whether or not this person has a relevant criminal record or similar activities, for example involving document forgery, embezzlement, fraud, and stealing. Even then there can be new bad apples that have no prior “bad history”, so the policing network should insure that “extreme” transparency is in place and functioning well. Lots of eyeballs “watching” can be a good preventive measure.

Fridemar: Yes, I agree. Transparency is extremely important to keep out those people, "who shy the light of the public".

Pre-certification

Martin: The SEC could require pre-certification prior to making postings, where one must provide them with answers to questions, that we should be thinking about creating.

Seek your ideas on how to make this work or more efficient MartinPfahler

Fridemar: Fortunately enough, authenticated public proposals and public transactions in an OpenBusinessWiki are the best support, the SEC could wish, ensuring the safety of the online-community.

Call for passionate participants

Martin: I have ulterior motives for getting passionate members of the Wiki and open source communities involved with this topic.

I am currently involved with meetings at some very large corporations, meaning communications with executives having Vice President status. Then nature of these discussions involves me trying to convince them to support in various ways, including funding, a mechanism that in effect has a virtual collection pot, to pay for execution of a novel project, and where I am pushing them to first throw some of their money into this pot, so that people within the populace see there is serious intent, not just talk – behind a project proposal.

Fridemar: Martin, to support your position, we need the collaboration of peers. So dear readers, plug-in your voice into this ActionOrientedWikiDialog g and transform it into an ActionOrientedWikiMultiLog g for LiterateMarketing g opportunities within Wiki-Communities and beyond.

Corporation and SEC Involvement

Benefit for Joe and Jane

Martin: Ideally the corporation would pitch in half the money, and then challenge Joe and Jane public to contribute the rest. The results of the project would have an upside for Joe or Jane, via something they can buy at a later stage, and ideally also to gain them passive income due to their sharing in the early stage risk, along with the corporation.

Benefit for Corporations

Fridemar: If millions of peers can pitch in small investments, this extends the Venture Capital. So it is an incentive for Corporations to widen the base for Venture Capital.

SEC attorneys

Martin: In this effort I also talk to cooperative and intellectual property and SEC attorneys, that are not currently part of the Wiki community, challenging them to figure out how to enable a general internet project posting, perhaps via a novel cooperative legal structure – that will be allowed by the SEC.

Fridemar: It would be nice, to report here on your talks with these people. But it would be even better, if you could find innovative SEC attorneys, who would plugin in our ActionOrientedMultilog g here.

Collaborative as new Partner for large Corporations

Martin: Today it is common place for large corporations to form business and development partnerships with large institutions like universities, the government, and other large corporations, and then to share in the risk as well as the later stage benefits. In contrast it is to be able to write collaborative legal contracts between a large corporation and some type of new cooperative, this latter entity being the new larger entity that will ideally become a more common place corporate partner.

Fridemar: What do you think about the following suggestion:

  • Make AboutUs an tax-exempt non-for profit organization (if it isn't already), which is the Umbrella (as you suggest it) and
  • let each authenticated BusinessWiki contributor of AboutUs be a (micro-) entrepreneur

Collaborative as an Umbrella

Martin: The point of the cooperative is to act as an umbrella so that the needs of the individual are better heard and met, by large corporations.

Fridemar: And what is the benefit for the corporations?

Martin: This also has potential benefit to corporations, such as reducing their risk costs, their market research expenses, their logistics overhead, and their public relations overhead. Making these types of explanations in detail is what has gained the attention of some corporate executives, I proposing at least some type of test or pilot project to see how the new process will work.

Fridemar: Your arguments in favor of the corporation are so significant, that I repeat them in a bulleted list, because you write such dense texts, that readers in skip-mode, might not catch them. Besides that, let me add a "gaining" argument (which strictly could be subsumed under PR):

Benefits to corporations, when collaborating with cooperatives:

  • risk reducing their risk costs
  • market research reducing their market research expenses
  • logistics reducing their logistics overhead, and
  • PR costs reducing their public relations overhead
  • Sympathy gaining the sympathy of millions of users by collaborating with them, instead of only serving them only press notes.

Integrating Social Networking into the legal Framework

Martin: In my ongoing communications with attorneys it is clear, and they admit, that they have little or no understanding about new Internet trends, social networking, Wiki culture, consensus polling, on-line trust building, etc. – so are not in a good position to think up novel money pooling/risk sharing dynamics that might occur “on-line”. In such regard it is the on-line community that has potential to give novel process suggestions. Then we could feed these to the attorneys, to see how they might shake out, or be implemented so they are “legal” and avoid SEC problems.

Currently I do not have the better process suggestions from the on-line community, put hoping under this Wiki topic, to get some. MartinPfahler

Fridemar: So dear reader, what keeps you from plugging in into this ActionOrientedDialog and transform it into an ActionOrientedMultilog? Your voice and action is for the mutual benefit.

OpenSharedDomainsPortfolioTrading for RiskSharingActiveReturn

Fridemar: Martin, what do you think about the idea of OpenSharedDomainsPortfolioTrading within a OpenBusinessWiki with collaboration in form of LiterateTrading or more general LiterateMarketing. It appears to be in accordance with some of your sketched ideas in the article: RiskSharingPassiveReturn

  • transparency of the whole business process
  • disclosed owner identity
  • disclosed financial status
  • efforts by public collaborations to develop domains
  • low cost involvement (of the Wiki-Entreprenuers, PennyBank.Biz)

fridemar 17:08, 31 July 2007 (PDT) imbedding the OpenDomainsPortfolioTrading idea into the SocialCommonWealth blog.

Meta-communication

Martin: Fridemar, thanks a bunch for your edit improvements!
Fridemar: Martin, there is so much content in your contributions, that my titeling only scratches the surface, emphasizing perhaps only a subset of your message. I feel nearly overwhelmed by the energy and information. On the other hand it prepares the refactoring of your contribution to a lot of pages. I thank you too, for the inspiring and highly motivating conversation. fridemar 16:40, 1 August 2007 (PDT)
Martin: From what I understand about the above (admittedly I still need to learn more), I find interesting.
Fridemar: The same with me. fridemar 16:40, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

Problem of public solicitation of a passive investment deal

Martin: That said, in any of the above, if at any time there is mention to the public, about a process where one contributes their money, with the expectation of a passive return (for example the community’s wealth increases and then a share is returned to a contributor) this can raise legal problems with the SEC, because they typically view this as doing a public solicitation of a passive investment deal.

Fridemar: Our conversation helps to clarify the difference between active and passive sharing.

Martin: I agree Fridemar. In a case where cooperative group members contribute their money to in effect pay others to do something that none within the group can do, and where this activity then generates for the members a revenue stream, I would call this "passive sharing" I have interest in passive sharing dynamics because there are many activities where members of cooperative groups could gain revenue streams, even though they cannot do the direct work themselves.

Fridemar: ... and consequently can redirect their work to activities (useful to the community), where there is a thinner income stream. I understand. As we are in a Wiki, I inserted this passage later for the convenience of the readers and ask you: "Can you give us an example?"


Intra- and Extra- Community Supported Passive Income Stream For Free Scientists

Real Example MarvelMaterial

moves to RealExampleMarvelMaterial g fridemar 04:15, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Initially Passive Later Active

Martin: In this case the members are initially passive, letting the scientist to their R&D, but at a later stage the members become active, when they actually put the resulting product to use, and apply their labor to it, to add value along a supply chain. This is an example of how on-line activity, can help people that do not spend much time on-line, and need better "off-line" work opportunities. And it just so happens that this reflect lots of folks in the populace. Online folks tend to think people are not actively involved in the group, if they do not contribute on-line. In this example one can see that their initial on-line activity is rather passive, but later they become active in their off-line world - as a result of their minimal on-line activity. MartinPfahler

Risk Sharing Active Return

Fridemar: Another currently riskier but possibly much more incentive alternative for a revenue stream might be RiskSharingActiveReturn. The CreativeCommons create value, that has two parts:

  • the non-tangible value of publicized ideas, concepts, software, music, artwork, etc. round about a domain
  • the market value of the domain, that can only be estimated, as long as it is not sold.

To reduce the risk of the financial investment we can use shared domains, instead of buying them all in an isolated manner for oneself. The risk is reduced, when more active shareholders develop the value of the domain by collaboration.

Martin: By "Domain" do you also mean tangible stuff that cannot be put through a digital pipe? MartinPfahler

Fridemar: E.g domains like: DesktopManufactoring , PersonalFabricator , PrintersD , PersonalManufactor , ManufactureItYourself , ManItYourself , MakeItYourself,DoAnythingYourself, UniversalConstructor, EngineerItYourself. It is one thing to build such a product, but another thing to market goods and services based on this breakthrough technology. So it is wise to build one's portfolio round about one's own expertise. The risk is reduced, if the active shareholders don't put all their "eggs into one basket", i.e. if each one of them cultivates a portfolio of domains.

Transparency of the Whole Business Process

The Traditional Way to Secure Income by Protecting Project Secrets

Martin: I think in general this is good, with one exception. If there is a cooperative structure having members, and they are involved with R&D activity that can lead to a new invention or technology, and these members have contributed their own money, to fund this project, then in today’s business environment (as well as in the foreseeable future) the members are likely to make bigger financial gains if they keep some of the details of the R&D project secret. That enables them to gain intellectual property and generate licensing revenue. With complete transparency they would lose this passive revenue stream.

A bold CreativeCommons Alternative

Fridemar: Yet, there is a bold CreativeCommons alternative to this traditional approach. Please have a look at RepRap. The first search result's entry lets you find a non-profit organization, that develops a hightech 3D printer for DeskTopManufactoring. Anything is open and shared. Normally a 3D printer prototyp would cost 20,000 US$. These people give you all the information to build a prototype with materials, that cost 400 US$. Contrasting to the 'Linux OpenSource movement' they started the OpenProcess straight from the beginning and are confident, that at last they will have more momentum than any proprietory process.

The Danger of Losing Day Jobs

Martin: Fridemar, I am familiar with some of these "open innovation" efforts. The 3D printer is much lower in price – but how many decent paying “printing designing/manufacturing” day jobs are sacrificed for this lower price? I can imagine a world where everything costs only $10, but there are no day jobs left for anybody to earn the $10, so they still can’t buy it - and the only folks with the money, are the relatively few entities that maintain or started up a commons – just as today the content on Wikis does not enable day jobs for the many content providers, only for those few starting and maintaining the Wiki site.

Fridemar: I suppose, that money will lose its traditional value ( StagFlation ) the more people can help themselves to do their own production ( ProSumer )

Material Science as The Bottleneck

Martin: With your 3D example I suspect you will find it much easier to gain technical talent willing to provide the printer expertise to the commons, related to the engineering features, than to the material that comes out of the nozzle. Go to the material science community and ask the PhD research talent that you would like them to invent, and then contribute without payment to the commons, a radically new material for deposition or extrusion from the digitally controlled nozzle, I suspect few takers – a different scientific field is involved in that type of research work. MartinPfahler

Fridemar: "Few takers" are enough to break the Bottleneck.

Tasty Morsel Actions For Stalled and not so Stalled Projects

Martin: Fridemar, I work in this space a lot. If you have any interest I can give you some actual projects that are stalled exactly because there are no takers - if you could find just one taker in this space I would be impressed. MartinPfahler

Fridemar: Yes please. I suggest: opening a new wiki page ( if there is not yet one) and I am with you. To get participation of as many as possible peers, I suggest to try to contribute on many small "tasty morsel" pages. (-> TastyMorselPage )

The Digital Divide between Wiki Culture and Stalled Scientists

Martin: Fridemar, from what you suggest above, I suspect you still do not understand the nature of the underlying problem in this space. None of the people I currently engage in this space know about Wiki, or if they do, they to not use it - they simply don't participate in this online community.

Fridemar: Sorry Martin, I misunderstood the language, because I associated stall with "stale" and also with "a compartment for domestic animals in a barn or shed" :-)

Martin: For example there is a team of scientists at Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, a federal reach lab, that has the very specialized talent needed to get a particular job done. I could spend the next five years trying to get these people to understand about Wiki, and then to use it, and at the end of that effort they still might not engage.

Fridemar: No wonder, that I had the above association. But isn't there a light on the horizon?

Martin: And assuming they did, then they still would not likely do the job for free. They work as employees inside a federal research lab – that has procedures in place that boil down to "no payment no workie".

Focussing the Online-Community

Fridemar: "They" is a very big set of people (esp. scientists and engineers). I am not so sure that all of them are money-only driven. There are other cultural values too and I am confident, that the "stall" mentality StallMentality won't prevail in the end.

Martin: Fridemar, you are right. I don't think any of the scientists I get involved with are "money only" driven. But that does not take away from the fact that they want to get paid for their labor to put food on their tables. Also it does not take away from the fact that a US federal research lab that employs them and owns the “very expensive” lab equipment they need to do their work, has procedures in place, that in effect require one to fork over money to gain their help and labor. And the last time I checked the Federal government was not the entity I would hold up as an example of being progressive in structure and willingness to change - the same can be said for academia as an institution. And it just so happens that today, that is where the type of scientists I deal with are found (in addition to corporate labs). MartinPfahler

Fridemar: So my conclusion is, let's more concentrate on those online people and markets, that are OpenBusiness capable. I want to collaborate with peers of an OpenBusinessWiki g, because in this pioneering field I feel at home and I am sure you and our (still) passive readers would prefer this too.

Martin: If you try to find other talent that can do the same as this team, then good luck. I am expert at isolating specialized research talent to do specific R&D tasks. This type of talent does not grow on trees and is tough to find. In fact it is at times the case that one cannot find the right talent at all. This is a radically different operating environment than “everybody in the populace has potential to contribute content” upon which Wiki modes are based.

Fridemar: Yes, Martin. Perhaps that's the main reason. Talent is tough to find, because it works in "stalls".

Martin: Fridemar, if one expects to get such talent out of their stalls, then from their (not our) perspectives they will need an environment that they view as equal or better than their current stall environment - and they still being in their stalls is one indicator that this alternative work environment still does not exist. I also don't see such folks blazing the trail to create this new environment. Rather when it exists they might move to it.Martin Pfahler

Fridemar: You have made the situation crystal clear. So let's concentrate on the online-part. I think there are some pioneer premiums for the "early birds", like in the early stage of the "Dotcoms" and we should share this special kind of opportunities.

Martin: With Wiki content creation, the supply side is high - anybody in the populace, and the demand side low – which is why the labor value of content creators is so low. In contrast, in this space, the supply side is very low, and the demand high, thus the scientists labor value is very high, which has a lot to do with why they do not get excited about doing their work for free. MartinPfahler

Fridemar: What you write sounds plausible 

"With Wiki content creation, the supply side is high ..".

Wikis for CreatingAndSharingWealth

Fridemar: But by focussing on the economic part, I would reformulate it as follows 

"With Wiki content creation, that creates Wealth , 
the supply side is currently extremely low ..".

I have not seen such a marvel yet. If anyone knows something like that, please plugin your voice and your links into our open conversation.

Martin: Fridemar, I don't get the meaning of the above statement MartinPfahler

Fridemar: I think of at least two models of wikis for CreatingAndSharingWealth g:

  • CommercialShareAlike MultimediaWiki: Imagine a CreativeCommons wiki, where teams of multimedia authors sell content, allowing explicitly derivative work under "share alike", as CommercialShareAlike g and a
  • DomainsWiki: where domains and domain shares can be bought, developed, sold, traded, bartered, rent.

As soon as Wikis integrate revenue, we will get all the "really" smart people, currently working in "stalls". Creative, constructive and friendly people, who prefer freedom and openness in their life will join.

Martin: Fridemar, personally I hope the above happens. The practical question is when? In the mean time the problems I speak about, involving scientists, are happening right now, so I look for potential process solutions that have a chance of working within my lifetime – I have a hunch some of the cultural changes you mention might have a longer social change curve.

Fridemar: I am glad to be your optimistic counterpart and ask our readers for optim[al/istic] support :-)

fridemar 17:13, 5 August 2007 (PDT) , embedding the contribution in the SocialCommonWealth.com Blog as a CommunityConnector, where you are invited to click the community connector icons at the top of this article.

“How do you Plan to Maintain a Barrier to Entry?”

Martin: People involved with computer technology are often familiar with “open source” modes. Computer technology relative to the entire world of all technologies, is a small segment of the larger world, and the vast majority of this “other” technology world is still heavily grounded in secrecy and patents. To gain a better understanding of "why?", try to pitch an R&D project to an angel investor, and you will discover one of the first questions they ask you is, “how do you plan to maintain a barrier to entry?” – without the typical secrecy and patents you are unlikely to get their money.

Fridemar: The "Barrier to Entry" is created more and more by the complexity of OpenSource and OpenBusiness processes. Although the sources of OS/Linux are in the public, there is meanwhile such a complexity in the system, that only experts can successfully make precise adaptions to individual needs. I think, it is a giant waste of resources to create and maintain artificial barriers. The natural barriers of inherent complexity are big enough and accelerating. Consequence: OpenProcesses will work much more cost-effective and at last surpass the OldEconomy. The real prudent innovative entrepreneurs will take this trend into account.

OpenProcess capable Projects

Fridemar: One possibility is to concentrate on projects, that are OpenProcess capable, like OpenSource development, but also OpenEngineering like visible in the RepRap project.

Martin: What does "OpenProcess capable" mean? One process issue that I worry about is the generation of so many new terms, that a new comer gets overwhelmed in trying to understand what is going on, then simply drops out.MartinPfahler

Fridemar: Before this page gets too big, let's anticipate this by modularizing with enough stubs OpenProcess OpenProcessCapable. Yes, we need both: some humble theory and a lot of praxis. We need all our creativity to invent income models for CreativeCommons people to get food on the table.

Again: “How do you Plan to Maintain a Barrier to Entry?”

Martin: I think the aboutus founders pitched a version of, “our barrier is the community we are building up – it is not fast or easy for a potential competitor to do this – and community building can also be more difficult than trying to copy a typical widget technology”. The point is, even with aboutus, where there is passion for “openness”, some of their risk investors want to know, “what are your barriers to entry?”

Opportunities in OpenBusiness and Non-OpenBusiness

Fridemar: I think in the short run, there are opportunities to invest in both: OpenBusiness and Non-OpenBusiness, but in the longer run intellectual property mechanisms and non-open R&D will be inferior and diminish into thin air. See EndOfIntellectualProperty.

Patents are expensive and Slow

Martin: Note I am not “pro patents” – they are expensive and slow to get, and expensive to maintain. Fridemar: Agree, I myself made some bitter experiences with it.

Free-Riders Can Demotivate Contributors

Martin: In contrast I am anti-free rider, because that creates a dynamic that makes lots of people less motivated to contribute to early stage financial risk. In such regard we need new ways to prevent free riders from taking advantage of people that have put their “skin in the game”. Fridemar: I am confident, this problem can be solved.

Can somebody offer some solution to the Free-Rider problem?

Martin: I am still not convinced that one can do open R&D yet still prevent the "free rider" problem. Can somebody offer a solution to this problem? Also I still to not see clearly how the average Joe and Jane will put food on their table with OpenBusiness. Just because I don't see it does not mean it can't happen - it could reflect my tiny brain. But in the populace there are other tiny brains, and to gain critical mass they have to understand to "buy in". MartinPfahler

Fridemar: I read some time ago about the FreeRiderProblem in the WikiPedia. I think, riding the wave of the future, needs more and more qualifications, to keep in the saddle. To discuss this, I recommend the page CC-Rider :-).

Still common Secrecy and Patents

Martin: In other fields of technology one is not dealing with networking issues like with the Internet, rather stuff one cannot shove through a digital pipe – like “widgets” – and in those cases it is still common to have secrecy and patents for new innovation. Fridemar: However I am convinced that the CreativeCommons will make this dark age of the humanity soon history.


Agreements

Martin:

  • disclosed owner identity – I’m for it
  • low cost involvement (of the Wiki-Entrepreneurs, PennyBank.Biz) – I’m for it, if it is high cost then few people can afford it.

On Discussion

Martin:

  • disclosed financial status – Not sure what this means?

Fridemar:

  • All assets in the domain portfolios
  • consolidated account statements

Martin:

  • Efforts by Public Collaborations to Develop Domains

After reading about your domain vision, I still am not sure about how it works. To me it reads a lot like the following pitch: I go to a person on the street and say, “would you like to invest in a neat company name I just thought up? The upside for you, if you invest your money, is that this neat company name will turn into a real company and make real profit, at which time you will gain a return on your investment” – to which I suspect many folks would reply to this pitching person, “no thanks, first show me you have a real company with real products, making real profits”.

Fridemar: 

:-) Your formulation is provocative and helpful to make the point clear.
  • Portefolio Collaborators don't go to anyone on the street. Instead of this they build their portfolios within AboutUs, where there are a lot of smart, friendly and open community oriented people.
  • They invite qualified peers to share by writing this in the wiki.
Martin: You say share by "writing this" - what is the "this?" - is this portfolio content only limited to and engaging people that like to write text, or share "digital" stuff? MartinPfahler
Fridemar: The commented portfolio is only the operationalized InterestStatement, that is to be connected with the InterestStatements (i.e.portfolios) of other peers. In the comment section, there may be calls for partners. So far to the "write text". Authors of digital goods and services (Natural and Mathematical Text, Programs, Music, Art, Videos, Services ...) are usually encouraged to explicitly share work and income. The revenue is generated by a mix of 'shared domain trading' and 'separate selling of digital goods and services'.
  • Peers qualify themselves by offering to "share alike" their open portfolios
Martin: So I am thinking, "what could I offer to 'share alike' to qualify myself with peers? - and then how does this put food on my table? MartinPfahler
Fridemar: Suggestion: Make an open InterestStatement on your Wiki Homepage, or elsewhere with a link here and I try to find some Domain names you could buy. Let's try this as an experimental rôle play. You needn't buy the suggested tentative Domains. But there might be peers who would do it and even share it.
Martin: Fridemar, currently I cannot do as you suggest above, because I do not know the meaning of "open InterestStatement" MartinPfahler
Fridemar: In Meatball, there is a sketchy definition of InterestStatement. I saw somewhere a profile of your interests with MartinA, MartinB, but unfortunately I didn't tag it. I don't know, if it is your current publicized profile. If you leave a link here, I could perhaps make some suggestions.
Martin: Can you give me some examples of what is inside a portfolio? MartinPfahler
Fridemar: In the next days, I will build a portfolio as a real example.
  • Currently all portfolio owners are in charge of all their domains in their account (as PrimaryOwners), but after a sharing agreement, they pledge a share of the resp. gain, when the share is sold. (I.e. not necessarily at the time, when a real company with real products .. has evolved)
  • The nice thing is, that pledges can be reconfigured, when all involved partners agree. This reflects the involved timedependant collaboration profiles of each peer.
  • There are no financial transaction costs when sharing agreements are made in public and authenticated on their blogs or by OpenId.
Martin: I get hungry (I am a weak human). At this time, how do I convert the sharing agreements to money, so I can go to the store and buy some bread? MartinPfahler
Fridemar: You should have first established another (traditional) income stream, before depending on shares. After that, you can offer to sell some of your shares on the Domain trading market. We don't know still yet the love potential of the community to share quality of life beyond that.
Martin: Let's assume this "other" (traditional) income stream is established already, now where is this Domain trading market located? - seems that before one can sell shares this place must exist. Let us also assume that a person is offering some shares for sale. What would motivate me to buy these shares? Also how fast one can sell their shares when they want to, is I think, a major issue. For example when I invest in stocks via the US stock market, I know the number of traders and participants is very high, so the chance of there being a buyer when one is ready to sell shares is good. Without that type of certainty in chance of selling, I suspect lots of folks will be leery of investing real money. MartinPfahler
Fridemar: One of the bigger Domain Trading Forums is dnforum. This forum could be probably much more efficient in form of a Wiki. Yet, I have not seen a single Wiki on the planet, where LiterateTrading / LiterateMarketing takes place.
  • Each open portfolio operationalizes the GoalStatement / InterestStatement in a clearcut way and can be monitored by the community, which builds trust.

Gaining Critical Mass to attract support of Corporations

This section moved to GainingCriticalMass g.

Another MetaCommunication

Fridemar: Thank you Martin, it is 3:35 in the morning and I must go to bed now, to get new energies for continuing our conversation and actions. I think we need a new page where we collect the tools and make efforts for GainingCriticalMass StrengtheningTheGrassRootsMovement.

StrenghteningTheGrassRootsMovement

Martin: Thanks for all your input Fridemar! Fridemar, how is starting this new GainingCriticalMass page and StrengtheningTheGrassRootsMovement page going to be different than similar pages started by other people at different places on the Internet, trying to do the same? Seems this just causes one more fragmentation - that can make it harder not easer to gain critical mass. I feel it is still "WAY" too hard and slow to find all the like minded people on the web - so no critical mass. Am I missing something? MartinPfahler

Fridemar:Yes sure, we all are missing something and therefore we help to complement each other. Please let's expand this on the separate page StrenghteningTheGrassRootsMovement, where we can:

  • leave links to connect with other people at different places
  • leave links to tools that help connect
  • actually do some WebWeaving, especially WikiWeaving by WikiTrails.

There is a ingenious 'Wiki like' tool, called TrailFire. In the sharing option "wiki-mode" , it allows pervasive Social Annotations. It is nearly unnoticed. Let's use it to "defragment" scattered initiatives to get critical mass. WikiTrails are much more than WebRings on the fly.

fridemar 17:34, 2 August 2007 (PDT) embedding our conversation in the SocialCommonWealth.Com blog, where

  • there is a link to a video introduction into OpenId
  • peers are invited to connect to a bunch of communities, by clicking buttons.


fridemar 18:43, 1 August 2007 (PDT) embedding the whole page in the SocialCommonWealth.com Blog.

fridemar 19:17, 3 August 2007 (PDT) embedding the whole page in the SocialCommonWealth.com Blog as PermaLink, where you are invited to click the community connector icons at the bottom of this article snapshot.



Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.