3 different funds were set up to support co-ops affiliated with either;
1) The Lega (Left of center),
2) ConfCoop (Catholic center Right), or
3) ACGI (Republican parties)
The Lega’s #Coopfond (Fund for the Promotion of Cooperatives) is the largest of the three and is used here as an example."
Maybe with social.coop and the holo and metacurrency we can be ready for mass adoption. But for full democratic organization we must be able to elect representatives to vote and make decisions on our behalf. So with the token systems we can delegate our vote to anyone. But with this comes another challenge of increasing difficulty to secure organization from hacking. So I suppose maybe we are not ready for mass adoption until this problem is solved our old fashion paper ballots?
People shared a lot on this post to the p2p group. People shared concerns like the users and consumers of social media platforms are not able to organize effectively to manage a platform democratically. But I believe the solution is the same for national and local governments, users can vote for a representative to represent their interests in the governing of the organization.
I don’t feel comfortable using Facebook anymore after they betrayed our trust by allowing our society to be socially engineered by Russia and anyone that pays them. I think it is time we transition to a social network owned and operated by its users and builders. How should we do this? Also with the end of net neutrality we need to transition to commons owned internet providers now more than ever before things get real bad. How do we transition to commons ISPs?
italy, coop ecosystems Show more
"The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP
Six things we can learn from Northern Italy’s Emilia Romagna region, where cooperatives drive the economy."
tired: centralized crowdfunding platforms
wired: distributed crowdfunding protocols
** Classic Mastodon Paintings **
@Gargron submits a new Pull Request
Co-ops in France (data from 2016):
> 2,991 co-ops
> employing 53,850 people
> 4.6 billions in sales turnover
"We need to think about #publicservices in a new way… take full advantage of the internet and de-silo their #datasets… giving back to the general population the data produced in #socialmedia and other cloud services, instead of just monetizing it for marketing purposes" @plevy
#Government as #platform
@h @ntnsndr @mattcropp I think h has made interesting points. In addition to this, I wonder: What is the purpose of the tokens here? Are people from all over the world expected to "trade" microloans and generate profits from them? The last time people from all over the world (with no ties to local communities) tried to make a "quick buck" from microfinance, the outcome was devastating.
Possibly a meta-coop chapter of platformcoop, but with areas of focus on finance / microeconomics, blockchain tech and related matters, and political organisation to support economic policy.
It's too much to wrap around anyone's head by themselves alone. This demands some sort of collaborative effort, a skunkworks operation with representatives from coops at the very least.
All that it means is that nothing of that is clear or transparent from this whitepaper, and nothing can be extrapolated from it.
Maybe it's a raw draft and it's very, very green, I don't know.
What I know is that blind trust in business doesn't tend to work very well, especially not with secret proprietary technology.
Sorry for the brief dyslexic lapse... in (1) I meant to say '"n my opinion coops trading their own self-issued tokens is a better model than a currency play like Faircoin's"
However, without an inter-coop token market, without an actually existing prototype, scientific paper, or deployed customer base, tokens are just air and their value is zero or less. (meaning the trust you place on the issuer)
@mattcropp @ntnsndr @stefanieschulte 1) Technically, anyone can make an ERC20 token and I favour that every coop issue their own, IMO model than a currency play like Faircoin.
2) What they describe in 2.6 is basically "trust us, just give us money".
3) They don't describe what's their "proprietary technology" in (3), they don't say what magic it does, and it's certainly not FOSS, not auditable. Awful.
4) In 4.4 and 4.5 they don't say what how shares will be split. Terrible.