P2P Foundation

The Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives

Hello friends, myself, Michel, Adam Arvidsson, and some others are going to experiment with pooling money, and non money resources. We are at the "brainstorming and feedback" stage of this project (although, I am also applying resource pooling projects elsewhere)

The reosurce pool is intended to be governed as a "commons". Which means it is voluntary, co-governened, common pool resource. The money pooled is counted as a cooperative donation. In the case where we invest, we still count what is invested in as part of a donation pool, and collectively decide what to do with it.

The framework we are brainstorming is as follows:

1) people contribute $/EURO 5 or 10 per month to the common pool

* People can give multiples of the basic sum, which counts as a separate identity, with a maximum of five contributions per person; additional support can be gifted to other individuals



2) 40% of the money is given back to contributing individuals in a monthly pool of money

Every contributor gets an ID number; allocation through seniority of membership;



3) 40% is available for for-benefit activities. People describe their activities, and if x number of members say 'ok', the money is given to them

* There should be a minimal threshold of EUR 500 that can be given to projects. Every time the threshold is reached a unit of support is created

* Proposed process:'

1) the individual in need of support for a particular project offers a description and finds at least one person to second him; projects can describe how many units of support they require and can either bundle them, or slice their project.

2) the project can be described in terms of a) general support; b) a bounty. A bounty is conditional on result; a general support wish supports the effort but is agnostic on the result

3) each month, participant members are obliged to vote on projects; each member gets a vote of 3 points, a vote of 2 points, and a vote of one point

4) each month, or when the threshold is reached, the project with the highest numbers of votes get the amount; those votes disappear from the tally; surplus votes (more than +1 in comparison with 2nd project, can be re-allocated to the five preferred project of recipient)

5) projects with deadlines; if the deadline passes, the votes garnered by the project are shared by the five projects of choice by the intended beneficiary

6) limitations: each member can only get one unit of support every 3 months, maximum 2 per year

* Reporting: each project that receives funding, reports after one month, three months, and at the end of the process

* Payment: the bounty is offered at the start of the process; if the person does not finish the project as indicated, this is indicated in the report, and will affect the trust in that person, affecting future votes

* Conditions: result of the work must be put in the public domain or use free licenses



4) 15% of the pool is invested in some venture that can generate a return

* A revolving jury of three members is created, using objective rotation amongst the members; each 6 months, the oldest member is replaced

· The investment should be visible through some form of objective ownership of the resource

5) 5% is given to the person or persons who maintain the pool, the website, perform technical support, etc



Your feedback is greatly appreciated

Views: 18

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would like to start feedback off:

1) people contribute $/EURO 5 or 10 per month to the common pool

* People can give multiples of the basic sum, which counts as a separate identity, with a maximum of five contributions per person; additional support can be gifted to other individuals

Sam writes: I like the idea of choice, but this is complex to track, manually or programatically. I think we should phase in complexity like this later. I think we should start with simple pooling of fixed amounts, and then introduce options once the simpler system is stable. Plus, those options could then be based on what the individuals who make up the pool actually want to do (in this case, it could be what is mentioned above, since of course, you will be one of the actual people :-) )


2) 40% of the money is given back to contributing individuals in a monthly pool of money

Every contributor gets an ID number; allocation through seniority of membership;

Sam writes: This is seems fair


3) 40% is available for for-benefit activities. People describe their activities, and if x number of members say 'ok', the money is given to them

* There should be a minimal threshold of EUR 500 that can be given to projects. Every time the threshold is reached a unit of support is created


Sam writes: I like this. Conversely, we also need a process that lets people transparently collaborate on valuation and due dilligence. I am actually working on this with Steve Bosserman right now for http://socialsynergyweb.org/oardc and some of what we are coming up with can be re-used. Basically, people show why they need money, or why they need other resources. This way, if others have resources to offer, it can reduce the overall amount of money needed. This is based on a pattern theory template

* Proposed process:'

1) the individual in need of support for a particular project offers a description and finds at least one person to second him; projects can describe how many units of support they require and can either bundle them, or slice their project.

Sam writes: I think this should be coupled with process I describe above for at least some basic transparent due dilligence

2) the project can be described in terms of a) general support; b) a bounty. A bounty is conditional on result; a general support wish supports the effort but is agnostic on the result

Sam writes: This is good

3) each month, participant members are obliged to vote on projects; each member gets a vote of 3 points, a vote of 2 points, and a vote of one point

Sam writes: agree

4) each month, or when
the threshold is reached, the project with the highest numbers of votes get the amount; those votes disappear from the tally; surplus votes (more than +1 in comparison with 2nd project, can be re-allocated to the five preferred project of recipient)

Sam writes: Couldn't we just use instant run-off voting? I have an instant runoff voting solution that we could use right away. It would accomplish the same thing.

5) projects with deadlines; if the deadline passes, the votes garnered by the project are shared by the five projects of choice by the intended beneficiary

Sam writes: I like the idea
6) limitations: each member can only get one unit of support every 3 months, maximum 2 per year

* Reporting: each project that receives funding, reports after one month, three months, and at the end of the process

Sam writes: We can do this manually at first, but should look towards making it programmatic, as part of the website that we construct

* Payment: the bounty is offered at the start of the process; if the person does not finish the project as indicated, this is indicated in the report, and will affect the trust in that person, affecting future votes

Sam writes: Yes, although, we can also work as a group to *help assure* success of participants. After all, money alone cannot solve problems, and this combined help can and should be part of the non-money pooled resources. at the same time, people should be held accountable for their actions for sure. The hope is the due dilligence up front, social negotiation about what to put resources towards, should help raise the likelihood that people can succeed.


* Conditions: result of the work must be put in the public domain or use free licenses

Sam writes: hmmm.... this seems like a potential point of serious debate. Not from me personally, but as participants grow. Is it possible that we might accept a range of licensing? If some people perfer to release under a copyleft license, instead of full and total public domain, for instance? We should be flexible here, or risk dwindling participation.

4) 15% of the pool is invested in some venture that can generate a return

* A revolving jury of three members is created, using objective rotation amongst the members; each 6 months, the oldest member is replaced

· The investment should be visible through some form of objective ownership of the resource



5) 5% is given to the person or persons who maintain the pool, the website, perform technical support, etc

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by Josef Davies-Coates.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service