3 ms·
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 fu
by 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 agohttps://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 agoOne 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 agoI’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?