4 ms·

I've been interested in forming this kind of organizational structure for a while. However, I have doubts about how to ensure sufficient levels of trust between

I've been interested in forming this kind of organizational structure for a while. However, I have doubts about how to ensure sufficient levels of trust between individuals involved, given the different dynamics in terms of monetary compensation and "hiring processes" compared to traditional top-down companies. In that light, I wonder if perhaps a better alternative is for each individual to remain independent as their own one-man company in a freelancer kind of way, and instead to focus on streamlining the process of establishing ad-hoc micro contracts whenever collaborative tasks are to be undertaken -- while still keeping the community aspect of a cooperative in place somehow. At the same time, I guess the reason this isn't done more extensively, is simply due to the overhead of having to reach a consensus of the worth of contributions on a task-by-task basis...

akvadrako 4y ago
I've worked on this idea too, except a little inverted. Everybody is a full member of the coop, but those who bring in more earn credits which can be used to fund new projects or bump up salaries to a point. You don't need to reach a consensus, you can just have an internal marketplace, like kickstarter. If you want something done, you can help fund it, perhaps getting some benefits in return, like a best-effort ROI.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store
- Jensson 4y ago
  > those who bring in more earn credits which can be used to fund new projects or bump up salaries to a point. So the solution to the problems with cooperatives is to introduce capitalism? Why not just make a normal company with normal money instead?
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    One difference is the reduced friction of starting new projects. Starting a new company now is major task, from legal to funding starting salaries to developer setup, but in a company you have everything ready to go. Some other differences are: 1. Salaries are limited, so hopefully more money stays available for new projects. 2. All the source code, docs and databases are shared.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    I’ve found the comments on this article interesting partly because of the discussion of specific implementation details without bandying about broad bucket terms like “capitalism”. So maybe you can be more specific and avoid trigger terms like that. What’s wrong with having a coop that still rewards for performance?
fimdomeio 4y ago
Trust is built over time. Specially on the trenches when dealing with difficult situations. The initial parts of a coop, need a little bit of trust but mostly people that can align their self interest with a collective interest.
timbit42 4y ago
I would want to work in a couple of cooperatives before forming one myself.

akvadrako 4y ago

I've worked on this idea too, except a little inverted. Everybody is a full member of the coop, but those who bring in more earn credits which can be used to fund new projects or bump up salaries to a point. You don't need to reach a consensus, you can just have an internal marketplace, like kickstarter. If you want something done, you can help fund it, perhaps getting some benefits in return, like a best-effort ROI.

pessimizer 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store
Jensson 4y ago
> those who bring in more earn credits which can be used to fund new projects or bump up salaries to a point. So the solution to the problems with cooperatives is to introduce capitalism? Why not just make a normal company with normal money instead?
- akvadrako 4y ago
  One difference is the reduced friction of starting new projects. Starting a new company now is major task, from legal to funding starting salaries to developer setup, but in a company you have everything ready to go. Some other differences are: 1. Salaries are limited, so hopefully more money stays available for new projects. 2. All the source code, docs and databases are shared.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  I’ve found the comments on this article interesting partly because of the discussion of specific implementation details without bandying about broad bucket terms like “capitalism”. So maybe you can be more specific and avoid trigger terms like that. What’s wrong with having a coop that still rewards for performance?

fimdomeio 4y ago

Trust is built over time. Specially on the trenches when dealing with difficult situations. The initial parts of a coop, need a little bit of trust but mostly people that can align their self interest with a collective interest.

timbit42 4y ago

I would want to work in a couple of cooperatives before forming one myself.