| Question |
Is there a mechanism that does not involve community, government, or politics to decide when unused resource units expire?
|
|---|---|
| ChatGPT |
One possible mechanism that does not involve community, government, or politics to decide when unused resource units expire could be a market-based approach.
Under this approach, individuals could trade their resource units with each other on a decentralized marketplace. The expiration date for each unit could be determined by the seller, and buyers would be able to choose which units to purchase based on the expiration date that best suits their needs.
For example, if an individual needs resource units to access healthcare services in the near future, they may choose to purchase units with a shorter expiration date, while if another individual wants to invest in a longer-term project, they may choose to purchase units with a longer expiration date.
The expiration date for each unit could be determined based on supply and demand dynamics on the marketplace. Units with shorter expiration dates may be in higher demand and therefore command a higher price, while units with longer expiration dates may be in lower demand and therefore command a lower price.
While this approach would not involve community, government, or politics to determine expiration dates, it would require the development of a decentralized marketplace platform that is secure, reliable, and accessible to all individuals. Additionally, it would require individuals to have a certain level of financial literacy and access to digital technologies in order to participate in the marketplace.
|
| Question |
What do you think of an institution in a business where everyone in the company receives an equal fraction of the profits, but has to give them to other people? They cannot keep the fraction for themselves.
|
|---|---|
| ChatGPT |
The idea of a company where everyone receives an equal fraction of the profits but must give it away to other people is an interesting concept. It could potentially create a culture of giving and generosity within the company, and encourage employees to think beyond their own interests and needs.
However, there are several potential challenges and considerations to keep in mind with this approach. For example:
Motivation and incentive: If employees are not allowed to keep any of the profits for themselves, they may be less motivated to work hard and contribute to the success of the company. Without a direct financial incentive, employees may not be as invested in the Company’s success, which could lead to lower productivity and lower overall profits.
Administration and logistics: Distributing profits to others would require a significant amount of administration and logistics to ensure that the money is being distributed fairly and effectively. This could be difficult to manage, especially if the recipients of the profits are not clearly defined or if there are disagreements over who should receive the funds.
Legal and regulatory considerations: There may be legal and regulatory considerations to take into account with this approach, such as tax laws, labor laws, and securities regulations. Companies would need to ensure that they are complying with all relevant laws and regulations to avoid any legal or financial repercussions.
Overall, while the idea of a company where everyone receives an equal fraction of the profits but must give it away to others is an interesting concept, it may not be practical or feasible in all situations. It would require careful planning and consideration to ensure that it achieves the desired outcomes without creating unintended consequences or challenges.
|
| Fiat | Because I say so |
|---|---|
| FIAT Ownership | Power comes from capital |
| Co-Ownership | Power comes from contributions |
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Let’s try and address some of the things that came up in these answers,
| Market-based approach |
The assumption here is of a perfectly open market. Unfortunately, there is no such thing: markets are gamed, corrupted, by big capital players, governments, etc—mild forms of force. It seems that the data source chatGPT uses is biased towards this assumption of “perfection.” Unfortunately, this makes this response meaningless in the Radical context. A market is not a solution. |
|---|---|
| Expiration Date |
This had us going until we realized that 1) “expiration date” is a RAD concept that involves negotiating, convincing, etc., and 2) instead we have a built-in change rate for RADs. RADs are created every day, so the percentage of RADs that you own changes ever day. A new co-owner make may outstanding contributions and in a short time end up with a large percentage of RADs. |
| Motivation and Incentive |
Maybe the question mislead chatGPT, but one of the aspect of RADs is you get one every day, but if for you to give to other people, you don’t keep. If you believe that we are all homo economicus and our main motivation is money, then the motivation is to contribute because that translates into RADs. If instead you believe, like we do, that money came after we have evolved to homo sapiens, the you are motivated to contribute because it gives you satisfaction. In other words, one way or the other, the motivation is there. We believe that people bring their motivation with them when they aim to make an impact. The homo economicus concept confuses motivation to work when it really is motivation to survive. And when survival is based on how much money you have to spend… |
| Administration and logistics |
We have a Open Source (free) RADs! mobile app that does all the administration and logistics needed. You could also do it with stones, if it came to it. The point is that “administration and logistics” is a default RADs excuse for not doing something. |
| Legal and Regulatory |
OK, this is a fair concern: we have not done anything about the legal aspect of this or about RADs tax implications. Whenever that comes up we either skip to the next topic or handwave furiously as we’ll deal with that later. We definitely need to talk with competent Fiats lawyers and have them come up with a contract that 1) protects the work of the community, 2) the co-owners from frivolous attacks, and 3) keeps co-owners squared up with their taxes. |
| It may not be practical or feasible |
This is another default Fiats system reaction to anything that is perceived as an existential threat. Be very afraid. Walk away before you get hurt. An alternative to Fiat is practical, feasible, and necessary. And it is a better option for business individually and the overall economy. We admit that it is a bad alternative if all you have is capital and can’t offer anything else. |
