So Crazy it Just Might Work . . .
A Proposal for the Open
Capital Corporation ("OCC")
Our little company, Open Resource Group, LLC, is obviously
based on opening up resources to an enterprise that it might otherwise
not be able to tap into. By "enterprise," I mean any project that has a
vision, a mission, a plan and is ready to start executing the plan. The
Open Source Software movement has taught us that a project no longer
requires a formal organization, so "enterprise" does not even mean a
company or a non-profit, but it helps a lot. Just as open source
software commoditizes the code we combine to create value, so must
organizations assemble tangible resources to create value. Blaser's
Second Law states that "There's no such thing as a resourceless
project."
That's why I'm not a fan of what you might call the Kumbaya
school of project development, because it ignores the money side of the
equation. Face it: we all like money - a lot. We like it so much that
we get resentful of those who are more skilled at acquiring and
spending it than we are, which drives some of us - the more disaffected
- to shun projects that reward people well for creating value. Portable
money is one of society's most egalitarian inventions, but sometimes it
needs a little help to keep the playing field level and to ensure free
entry.
To get money we have to put up with accounting systems.
Accounting systems are closed data structures designed to grab as much
money as possible from a collective effort and to concentrate it in the
hands of those who set up the effort's accounting system. We
may not like those folks much, which is why we don't actually go to
work for them, even though they think we do. We go to work for their
accounting system.
In their defense, accounting systems are the arteries which
nourish society and bathe us in the creeping abundance that is set to
wash over the world. It's the closed part that we have a problem with,
unless we're skilled at setting up those closed data structures. In
that case, we see the capitalized value of a going concern as the
natural order of the universe, to be defended to the death. Some people
confuse that zeal with patriotism.
Open Capital Company, Unlimited
Under corporate law, the terms "Inc." and "Limited" are
interchangeable. All they mean is that the participants in the
corporate legal fiction enjoy limited personal liability for the
actions they take on behalf of the corporation. That's why people with
families and mortgages like to work for them and own them. Crooks like
to own them too.
So what would an "Unlimited" organization look like? It
would have a way of attracting enough capital via a tip jar. Above all,
the OCC's accounting system must be totally open and
transparent, maintained in real time on the web, with clear
mechanisms to demonstrate that the money's being spent somewhat
reasonably. This is not a big deal – public companies must
also be transparent. The OCC would simply do it on the web.
Now let's imagine the OCC plans to create something we care
about. How might we put together our time and money to incentivize some
of us to do the work we consider important, especially when those
laborers are highly valued in the marketplace and cannot just give away
their time and effort? Another way of putting it is that we want our
spouses and children to think these projects are as cool as we do. Jeff
Jarvis described something similar and called it Mutual of Blogosphere.
Here's the Twelve Step Program I propose to harness our
idealism and our greed into a more useful structure than the current
one, which Shoshana
Zuboff has labeled "Managerial Capitalism."
- The Vision
A group of people collaborate in public to develop a product or service
that others like the sound of. They may have a leader – a
Linus Torvalds of the concept.
- The Mission
The group, now fortified and aided by the participation of the public
they're attracting, refine the vision into a mission that's well
defined, explained and has the essential snowball characteristics: a
catchy but consequential meme that's not saddled with the kind of
tiresome "Mission Statement" that most groups come up with. I call such
a mission buzzword compliant.
- The Plan
The OCC snowball
grows into an actionable plan that is straightforward but also detailed
enough to explain the challenges and the costs of meeting those
challenges. In our Open Capital Concept, the costs are mostly tangible
development costs, not marketing costs. That's because, if a
significant amount of money flows into this project's tip jar, the odds
are that it's compelling enough to do well in the market place. The OCC
also saves a slug of money by not paying the lawyers and specialists
who live off the arcane needs of a corporation.
- The Promises
As with any form of capital concentration, the people putting up the
money deserve some promises from the folks who want to manage the
money. In this case, repayment isn't part of the deal any more than it
is in a political campaign, so the promises have a different character.
Workers pledge to sell their services at a provable discount. They
should also agree to provide all the equipment and utilities needed to
do the project: This enterprise should own no tangible goods. Who wants
to throw your pin money to help buy an Aeron chair? All those are
guidelines, but probably a marker for the more successful OCC's.
The OCC must, however, hold intangible property: checking accounts,
contracts with the workers, leased servers, domain names, maybe even
copyrights and (shudder) patents.
The OCC is a one-trick pony. It's only purpose is to develop something
valuable to the public, since there's no way to pay back the tippers
without getting embroiled in the securities laws. Nope, the "investors"
are really cheerleaders, sending the OCC a lot of tangible attaboys.
- The
Corporation
Like it or not, the OCC must be a corporate entity to do this. The
money has to be held someplace, which means bank accounts and the
accounting system which must be maintained around those, well,
accounts. There's just no other way to focus creative energy in the
presence of capital without a corporate entity, unless someone puts it
in their personal account, which creates a suite of risks that no one
should expose themselves to. Even our beloved Mozilla is sponsored by
Netscape.
- The Money
With documentation and transparency established, the tip jar is put up
and the funds flow in to the extent the ideas and the co-created
descriptions attract people's interest. This is where we see that money
in a tip jar or a campaign is just another form of expression. I
watched with fascination as Howard Dean's tip jar filled up with
$803,000 on June 30, 2003.
- The Lead
Investor(s)
. . . are the founder(s). Every project requires some investment by its
originator(s) before the Tip Jar goes up. There's a real cost to
creating the entity and opening accounts, etc.
- Over-
& Under-Subscription
It's impossible for the Tip Jar to modulate precisely to the project's
needs. If tips are slow coming in, the project will be pared back or
experience a featurectomy. Like survival of the fittest, both of those
are usually A Good Thing.
If the public's enthusiasm exceeds the project's needs, it's OK. In
public deliberation, the originators and workers can justify a working
wage or even, (gasp!), some real wealth.
If this OCC is a really good idea, the core team may be limited in how
many customers it can support, or in the features it schedules. So it
makes sense for anxious customers to also be owners and also to have a
way of lobbying for a desired feature.
- The Pay-off
The benefit of tipping the OCC is intangible. There's no stock owned or
dividends or coupons to clip.
- TBD
- TBD
- TBD
*It might look a lot like what Jeff Jarvis
described as the
"Mutual
of Blogosphere." That's the term he coined after Terry
Heaton's
health
scare last year, which resulted in a spontaneous outpouring
of
financial support for Terry's medical bills. Like Howard Dean
supporters or Katrina donors, many of us are willing to throw a sawbuck
or five into the tip jar for someone who is facing an underfunded
medical crisis. And we'll do it without an explicit expectation that
we'll be similarly supported.
3:40:43 PM 
|
|
