Community Fund idea

I’ve been thinking about some of the comments made on various threads that appear to suggest there is a general interest in forming some sort of Community entity that would fund Projects and create similar entities to Pods.
I’ve been inspired by the article @happybeing posted about Enric and I think we might be able to benefit the Community and stimulate further interaction with the Safecoin economy. Firstly, I would like to make the disclaimer that I have no idea of any projects that people are working on or where existing ones can fit in, other than Safex really - which will be useful. Secondly, I intend the idea to compliment/partner/work with/share knowledge etc the Maidsafe Foundation - not compete with it.
I am thinking that the Community entity would aim to organise funding for interesting projects that would not normally be funded by the Foundation. I’m thinking these could be anything from “getting loads of Maidsafe badges made” to “Let’s make a plug in Farmer” etc. Maybe more orientated to creating “things”, possibly for sale on a Safemarket for example.
How it would work is that an initial group of investors come together in order to fund a Community Project to set up, maintain and run a website which will act as an investor community/project hub type of thing. (This step may not even be needed for the website etc, maybe it could all be part of the main site)
OK, say hypothetically we decide it doesn’t sound a bad idea and we look into how long it would take, can we work with others, share resources, how much will it cost etc? Say we come up with 5million m/safe – then we create 5m “Project A coins” using Mastercoin or similar and these are distributed to investors and can be traced on the Blockchain.

The goal would be that the coinholders decide every step the project takes as democratically as possible and form a community. The coins will be traded on Safex (hence the ability to tie coin to vote would be ideal)…

OK, so now we have community owned central website/hub where Projects can pitch for funding from the wider community.

When the next project is funded via the website, “Project B coin” is created in the same manner and again this can also be traded on Safex.
Eventually the website would have forums for each individual totally self-directed project/community/Cooperative spanning the alphabet.
Project updates would be made on the website and the larger community can assess a project’s progress and make judgements as to the relative value of each project’s coins and successful projects would see an increase in value and the less efficient will decrease, so a market will form which will increase Safex activity etc.

I feel that all this would lead to a very interesting series of social experiments actually as each project is a community and the best way forward will have to be decided between Capitalists and Post-capitalists, so to speak. Those not agreeing with a direction a project takes can sell……we will know one way or another which system is “Doomed….doomed I say!”

OK, everyone……please feel free to tell me if this is already catered for or why it is a rubbish idea etc. I’ve read a number of threads that suggest most of this is possible or going to happen etc, but nothing concrete, so I’m just putting it out there for people to pick the bones out of really…
I’m also thinking that there might be something that needs funding before launch.

PS: the “killer app” in the above system would involve linking the coins to a vote.
The website would also host a “commons” of useful material such as 3d printer designs etc to stimulate the eco-system. One persons badge, is anothers carrier bag or hand-crafted gold ring for example…ok …I’m done :smiley:


This, so much this.

I also really like the idea of having different coins for specific projects. One way to do this would be to have Mod’d Safecoins. So there is a floor value (that of the safecoin), but there is also a special value for the Mod Safecoin, in the specific project, which can fluctuate.

1 Like

Yes,I was looking into coloured coins etc, but from my limited technical understanding they would not be suitable. I think we would need something blockchain based (at least for near future) for the auditability aspect - Safecoin is more like cash, I’m thinking, but I recognise there will be alternative solutions in the future. I’m also thinking that using Mastercoin will boost the value of Maidsafe’s operating pot …I think.

So you are thinking of pursuing this prior to launch?

I honestly have no idea…I was just wondering what others thought really. :It is something I’d happily invest my msafe in if others were interested and thought it could work, but I don’t know the flaws in the plan or if it’s a good idea or not yet.
I’m just waiting to see what my detractors have to say… :smiley:

Hi Al_Kafir
It seems like your talking about a crowdfunding site/with equity. To be honest:

  • The idea to create coins using Mastercoin is bad (it costs 1 BTC to do this, far too expensive, there are cheaper alternatives). (I admit, it’s supersmart because it helps the Maidsafe’s operating pot)
  • The problem is, everybody is creating coins but to be really honest, all these coins mean totally nothing. Why would you want equity that you can later on trade on a market? (that is for old people). Equity, can be done way easier, if the community makes an app, they should get the profits from that app directly send to there wallet in SAFEcoin. (Here I go again, in the grey area, because I don’t even know if this is possible). What I do know, is that we should stop confusing people with new coins. We witnessed ourselves that false coins can be sold on other exchanges. All this info just gets to be to much for newb’s.

Apps are rewarded on the SAFE Network, with SAFEcoins, so you don’t need to create your own creative coin with unicorns on top. :racehorse:

There are a few ways, that the crowdfunding projects could be set up. For instance using Selfstarter, but I think it’s more interesting to use existing platforms like Swarm. The more sensible way to go is Koinify, because they release funds to developers after goals are reached.

I think this is absolutely a good idea. What we really need is a SAFEcoin wallet, which enable us to do interesting stuff. Things like receiving your equity accordingly to your input amount.

1 Like

Some nice points,got to go to work as late already, but glad a conversation has started that could develop into Project A in whatever form it may take…or not. :smiley: I’ll chat later.

1 Like

What if the site/app was to offer (as an extended feature, alternative to equity) an “enterprise lottery”, where I can farm my own lottery ticket (coin), then vote from a selection of projects, in essence… a bit like the national lottery, except for local (SAFE) enterprise development, with the funds (minus the prizes) going to kick start local SAFE related business/ social enterprise ideas.

Not sure if this makes sense, is possible, or how technically and legally challenging it would be, or whether it would even be desirable, but we do have a problem!

The banks are lending a mere 7% to the real economy, in UK, the rest is (largely) going into property and international speculation, business development, at the expense of local economies…it’s a real problem, and especially so for any kind of digital experimentation, app/platform creation, etc.

Ultimately, the end result is a devalued life experience for all of us, stress, and people struggling to unlock potential, belief, in themselves, and others. imo.

I have never bought a ticket from the national lottery, I would buy a ticket to win the Safecoin lottery, local or global… while supporting/promoting change, potential, and wealth creation, at as local a level as possible.

Wondering if the likes of (open software) , for example, could be used. If you take out the business directory, and replace (or keep it) with a projects/fund us directory…not sure of technical’s, maybe white label, and see if they (or any other solution/app) can build the additional features required to make a fun, easy to use, unified experience/solution.

Yes, good point, in the model I propose for Project A, you would be accorded a vote in the issue tied to the amount of coin. For example the arguments would be made in favour of option A) go with Mastercoin, or B) Use a cheaper alternative - the best argument that appeals to most coinholders is the plan that goes forward. This process just repeats itself and the group/community grows organically.

Lol, firstly I’m almost 50,so quite old, secondly, I see it to be more about growing small interacting community Coops and be more about a collaborative economic model, rather than a for profit thing. Again though, arguments would be made for both directions and a direction chose. This is why I see it as more about a series of communities/projects working collaboratively and exchanging each others coins, thereby investing in each other too. Eventually original Project A holders would more likely than not end up with a varied portfolio of Projects they personally believe in for whatever reason. A potential “finger in every community funded project” potentially that mirrors a lot of what the Maidsafe Foundation does, but effectively de-centralises back to the community the consensus of what projects should be funded, without forming Central Authorities or structures as each Project is a self contained community within itself. Project A holders will have absolutely no say on subsequent projects, nor will they profit from their endeavours from any kind of “tax” or fee.

Remember these will be all separate but interacting communities, there is no Project (A) at the top structure. (A) would create the central hub/forums/website etc. Now, the decision as to whether (A) goes on to create apps or fund other projects is again done within the (A) voting community.
I would see that in the event the group decides not to make apps, but stick to a simple plan, then an alternative would be that you and others apply on (A) website for funding for Project (B) - (the app you have in mind.
You could exchange your( A) coin for ( B) coin and so forth.

A function of the Website could be to help newbies and coordinate and present simple to use functions. For example, just as an idea the coins could initially only be traded within the Community eco-system using an adaptation of the Safex just for community coins. If a project decides it wants to “go public” it could then be traded on Safex.

Not familiar with these things, but we could use the tools “behind the scenes” and present all their combined functionality in a more user friendly way - we simplify things for newbies. This could just be a means to an end, until such a point as a there are flourishing “Safe” versions of all these things.
(Projects C, D and E respectively…lol)

Dude!!! No way! I had this vision of you as this crazy teenager!! You are disturbing my understanding of the world. :smile:

On a more serious note, my thought would be some way of anonymously proving locality, so that the system can verify to others that A lives in this general area, while still allowing relative anonymity.

This would allow for more local projects, and help people to have confidence that the other members of these online communities, are actual members of their local communities and therefore have a stake in local projects.

1 Like

Lol…that’s coz that’s what I’m like…also of course I expect you are making your judgement from the high def Selfie I just sent you… :smiley:

Profit sharing is not a significant problem.
The challenge is how to manage and control funds while the app (or service or whatever) is being built and how to organize governance before and after the app is released.

1 Like

That’s good to know the functionality is there. Remember also that we have to decide whether to follow a for-profit model or not. This would be a matter for initial Project A investors to decide as fairly as possible via a voting system, which introduces an interesting dynamic right from the get go.
Do we want a 1 coin 1 vote system (my preferred option) or an alternative etc. My preference may be to distribute (A) far and wide as soon as possible by investing in other Projects.
When you get down to it, if we just follow a simple process/logic from planting an initial Acorn…then things start to happen Naturally. We will find out whether Post-Capitalist or Capitalist economic models will prevail.
I think we could both be happy within the eco-system created.

Yes, this would be the most pressing problem to find a solution to before doing anything else. An an initial interested group would have to be “happy with that” before anything else could happen.

It’s not mutually exclusive - nothing can prevent the participants to give away their wealth like Bill Gates is doing.
For example, payouts are distributed to token holders based on the share of each address that owns it.
If you wanted to create a list of most generous capitalists you could query them to see how many tokens were donated to known MaidSafe non-profits, charities and community projects in good standing and perhaps divide that amount by the total amount of token at the address to create a list of top donors and most generous addresses.

I don’t want to turn this into a 97-comment long topic so I’ll just say “OK”.

Here’s a piece of latest news about this new trend of “post-capitalism”.

Such undertakings tie up large sums for money for long periods before any profit can be realized, in the capital cost of ships and the expense of their crews on journeys lasting months and sometimes years. A large number of speculators need to be persuaded to share the risk.
The resulting organization is the joint-stock company, in which investors can contribute variable sums of money to fund the venture. In doing so they become joint holders of the trading stock of the company, with a right to share in any profits in proportion to the size of their holding.

Source: HISTORY OF CAPITALISM (about 16th century capitalism)

Related to voting, a number of blockchain-based platform support 1 token 1 vote, but there are certain situations where gotchas may appear. For example someone could acquire 51% of tokens and propose and vote for some insane plan (in theory it wouldn’t be in his interest, but in practice it might, say if he’s a big (or closed source) player trying to derail a project that threatens his interests but hasn’t taken off yet). I’m not saying this particular scenario is likely, but that weird situations in general are possible and this is where managing organization of any size takes significant efforts and planning (it just occurred to me that the MaidSafe launch was another example of unforeseen circumstances).

Folks like Koinify and Swarm add value to the whole process, but for tiny non-profits maybe it’s okay to take the DIY approach and learn by doing. (OT: It’s interesting how as recently as say 20 months ago people (including myself) thought that Bitcoin 2.0 & friends will make it possible for everyone to easily issue tokens (“shares”) and run their virtual company, but it’s still far from easy. It’s still a laborious and tricky process.)

1 Like

Yes, maybe keeping the coins within an “incubator” eco-system with the safex adaptation for an initial period of time would mitigate this? This might not be a bad idea actually because it gives potential future investors a “window on the project” for a period so value can be assessed.
One idea could be that the Project can’t be listed on Safex until 51% of shares have been swapped for other Community coins or something ? We would have to cover all the angles and maybe even limit initial investment in Project (A) to a certain amount, say 10, 000 msafe and 1000 investors? A record of who holds these may need to be published, just for the initial (A) allocation?

This is where I think the (A) website should use all the tech, but present it as 1 coherent easy to understand service. For example each individual project will likely want various options to reward the Community. This is where the "Smart contracts come into play I think. (A) brings all these things together to offer a simplified, more user friendly experience - it harnesses the other tech until similar tech is made “Safely” .

Could it be used to fund an honor system mail exchange where open hardware could be shuttled around at cost anonymously to help overcome issues with hardware trojans and dumping the world’s so-called secrets? It would be linked to open access accounts SAFE accounts. The hardware would have to be blind and simple to the point of being obviously tracker free or at least unpowered up to the point of use. I suppose this presumes SAFE mesh and someone remembering not bringing a possible pocket tracker phone to the point where the unspecified or random piece of open hardware might help correlate its own location at power on with that of that of thr pocket tracker. High likihood that such hardware in use would get tampered with, so it might have to be randomized disposable.

“It” (A) doesn’t actually fund anything directly itself (unless shares swapped), the Community would. In regards to your idea, if an investor in (A), then you would have to argue your case to be voted on.
Alternatively, you could polish your pitch and propose a business plan on (A) website and so forth.

That’s one way to go about that, but you may lose some potential investors who don’t like to ID themselves to the government.

It’d be great to run into the other two problems (too much money, too many investors).

Ok another shot. Verified open source code to print a blown up version of an ancient Intel 4004 and wireless antenna other super basic pieces on a fabber. Verified file that can be loaded in to a very high resolution phone camera to optically confirm what was printed out was as intended. Verified file to also soft proof super simple design from the inside that anything that might have been added in the fabbing wasn’t. Beyond this the fabber itself would have to be printed from a verified file and verified.

Then all the community is paying for is development of the software system and the SAFE space to distribute it.

And @luckybit please comment on comfort with hardware trojans assuming this level of abstraction and a SAFE mesh to plug into.

Yes, either (A) would go forward with maybe pseudo-anonymous entities or a better solution should be sought. I’m thinking the Investors only need to know each other and only to a limited certain degree and maybe only a few people. Maybe only wallets.coins/votes need to be tied somehow, is tracking the coin movements from Blockchain not suffice?
If all initial wallets/balances only are published/tracked maybe, or only the top 20 wallets or something,discouraging holding large amounts? I think there may be a way round this?
If the wallets could only hold Community coins,and others can’t then problem solved, but how to do this if same as other Mastercoin tokens or similar?