Table of Contents
Motivation
The existing social networks are not tied to real organizations or communities in any way. Of course, social media platforms do support the concept of a “group” or “community” in one form or another, and they even serve as a platform for organizing both open and closed groups. However, there is neither the desire, nor the motivation, nor the tools for the members of a virtual group to be actual members of a real community.
Most of a user’s “friends” are not real friends, and “friendship” on social networks typically does not lead to genuine friendships among people. Essentially, individuals do not share any real common interests beyond the interest in communication, which can be satisfied equally by any of their virtual friends. Therefore, virtual friendship holds no real value. Instances where virtual communication leads to real-life interaction are only possible if the social network participants have become involved in some real transaction. Someone asked someone else to pass something along, someone shared something with someone, someone bought or sold something from someone, or someone organized a joint activity or acquired a resource for shared use.
Even themed communities, created from users of certain real objects, are fundamentally detached from the real world, and their actual gatherings in person are precisely that attempt to escape the virtuality of the community to which they belong.
At the same time, internet services specifically aimed at facilitating real transactions are even less likely to lead people to genuine close relationships (whether with a sexual undertone or not).
A clear divide is emerging: websites are split between those designed for transactions and those intended for communication. Communication itself is becoming a form of information exchange—both educational and entertaining. However, there are no real forces keeping people engaged online. No one is dependent on anyone else, and “likes” on a collective blog do not translate into real value. Sooner or later, society will become saturated with social networks, as they do not serve a direct purpose.socialThe social aspect of these platforms is virtual and fabricated. There is no trust in virtual “friends,” there’s nothing to share with them, starting and ending a friendship is very easy, and one can passively receive information and entertainment without engaging or, importantly, stimulating communication with other members of the virtual community. This overall passivity will initially reduce the number of active contributors, and then existing authors, losing audience support, will also stop writing. This has happened before in human history, such as with the rise and fall of the amateur radio movement, which is now a rather rare phenomenon. Social networks may lose popularity and, in any case, must evolve. If one can predict how social networks will evolve, they could be the first to offer such a project in the market with corresponding benefits.
The essence of the idea
It is reasonable to conclude that the only direction social networks will take is their “devirtualization.” This means a path where the participants in the networks are members of real communities, and the networks themselves will represent a complex intertwining of actual groups, united by the common membership of people in several groups simultaneously.
On the other hand, real communities have no motivation to retreat into the virtual world. They have very specific earthly needs. Additionally, a real community does not gain any “added value” from being present online. Members of a real community enjoy higher quality interactions, and there’s really no point in discussing anything else.
At the same time, if we understand where real communities come from and what brings people together, we can also speculate on what kind of “added value” should be offered to these real communities to encourage them to go online.
Perhaps real communities are united by some idea? It seems that they are not. Company employees are often not united by a common idea, and even less so are the residents of the same building.
Common goals? Perhaps. There is a shared goal among passengers on an intercity bus – to get from point A to point B, but the only thing that unites them is the bus itself.
It seems that the key issue lies in the “common bus.” Any real public structure is built around a shared resource that these people use or create. Even ideologically driven organizations become organizations when they start collecting membership fees and deciding how to spend them. Until that point, people don’t have any common interests; they only share a common opinion.
Even a married couple becomes one primarily to share common property and to have pre-established rules for its division or for sharing the expenses of raising children.
It turns out that a key drawback of existing social networks is the lack of a unifying common resource, which leads to a disconnection between people and the virtual groups of which they are members.
Search for added value
Thus, an effective method of “virtualizing” real communities will be to offer a tool that facilitates the shared use and management of a real resource.
The physics of the process
It is important to understand that the resources used by groups are characterized by the fact that their sole use is either unprofitable or completely meaningless. A political party can commission an advertising campaign for its idea, but an individual, even if they buy advertising space on a single billboard, will not achieve the desired effect. A gardening cooperative can pool funds to pave the road leading to the village, something an individual cannot accomplish alone. One can build a small pool for themselves, but much more enjoyment can be derived from swimming in a large pool, which it simply doesn’t make sense to maintain alone for just two visits a week.
Any management of a shared resource requires costs for administering the process. This is why buyers of pool memberships not only cover the cost and depreciation of the pool itself but also pay for the work of the pool administration, which, in turn, organizes cleaning, hires instructors, manages accounting, and generates profit for the pool owner. This profit should ideally be just a bit more appealing than a bank deposit for the total amount of investments made by the pool owner.
In practice, the owner of the pool may not even be present if a sufficiently large group of pool users comes together, takes out a loan from the bank, and organizes everything in the same way (with a director, accountant, instructors, equipment, and cleaners). However, instead of making a profit, the owner will have to pay interest to the bank. If there is no bank involved and the people build the pool at their own expense, then it becomes a joint-stock company or a cooperative.
The idea that a sufficiently large group of people can come together, organize a common fund, and purchase certain assets at their own expense is not new. It is the concept of a joint-stock company, where each person contributes a share to the enterprise and receives profits based on that share.
As mentioned earlier, administration requires human resource investment, leading to a situation where the administration becomes alienated from the shareholders. In this case, the administrator of an asset is no longer directly managed by the owners of that asset and may begin to abuse their position.
The larger the community, the more opportunities there are for abuse, as the voice of any individual shareholder goes unheard. The policies of the community administrators can always be structured in such a way that the number of dissatisfied members remains a minority. Modern decision-making methods, like voting, strip them of any means to influence the administration, allowing the administrators to openly appropriate the results of the community’s activities.
One way or another, the phenomenon of the administration abusing its official position to the detriment of the community members who hired or elected it is called corruption. This can be either overt corruption in the form of bribes and kickbacks, or covert corruption in the form of selecting certain suppliers or buyers, or hiring “insiders,” or even practically legalized in the form of bonuses for management. In this regard, link One can find an analysis of the mechanism of corruption in light of the topic of this article.
A community tolerates corruption as long as cooperative ownership of resources is more beneficial than individual ownership. This rule applies at all levels: from the state, which justifies its existence by the need to manage national projects (the military, public education, infrastructure), to a condominium that puts up with a property manager who embezzles funds.
Thus, the first point that can be improved in the organization of community activities is the optimization of community expenses and the transparency of its administrators’ activities.
The second aspect of community activity is its practical ungovernability by the community’s beneficiaries (its members). The community is managed by an administration that formulates decisions made by the silent consent of its members. Any live meetings of community members are moderated by the administration. Feedback is gathered through voting, and speeches from community members are not encouraged by the community itself, as they “waste time.” Any grassroots initiative tends to fall outside the agenda, and organizing a meeting that includes all interested parties is quite challenging.
It should also be understood that, based on the theory of group actions, each specific participant in the group… It’s advantageous to be passive. and not participate in the creation of public goods, such as any common decision made by a group. The passivity of participants can only be overcome by introducing additional incentives, both negative and positive. This is how taxes are collected in the world (negative incentive — penalties for non-payment) and how people are attracted to trade unions (positive incentive — vacation packages to resorts).
A living example of the ineffectiveness of meetings as a governing body is the gathering of members of a gardening cooperative or a homeowners’ association. The administration usurps the downward flow of information, essentially engaging in the promotion of ideas that benefit them. Group participants do not seek to take initiative, waiting for someone else to do so. Meanwhile, the upward flow of information is chaotic, drowning out the voice of each individual speaker; and it is very difficult for any one voice to find support among the others. link There is an article describing the phenomenon of the increasing power of the upward information flow, particularly due to social networks.
Thus, the second point that can be improved in the organization of community activities is enhancing the decision-making process within the community and stripping the community administration of its so-called administrative resources.
Sentence
An online service designed to bring people together around a common resource and created for discussing various initiatives or decisions related to the management of that resource.
The service is a marketplace for resource suppliers, contractors, and organizers. It is reputation-managed, meaning that users rely on both numerical reputation (karma, stars) and explicit reputation, which can be tracked through user activity, their posts, comments, initiatives, and reviews.
At the same time, users can be members of different resource-dependent groups, act as resource providers, and serve as resource administrators.
Rising information flow supported by the natural structure of the service, built with the experience of social networks in mind.
Mobilization of groups and liquidation the effect of fare evasion is achieved by introducing a new incentive into circulation — digital reputation. The stimulated group transforms from latent to mobilized, becoming capable of quickly making optimal decisions.
Alienation The administration of resource owners is eliminated due to the “instantaneity” of their powers – the absence of specific terms for their authority, transparency in their activities, and openness in discussing their work. In practice, the administration of such resources should be structured according to Lloyd’s principle Текст для перевода: ..
The use of the Lloyds approach allows a large group of people to make decisions effectively without delegating their authority to any elected body for a certain period. People follow the opinions of various experts on the issues at hand, utilizing social media mechanisms (likes, comments, reputation). The choice of a “leader” is made by each individual in such a way that they can change their preferences at any moment, which deprives the leader of a certain “weight” in the decision-making discussion and prevents the development of alienation between the leader and their followers.
Value for users
User motivation to participate in the service comes from direct economic benefits and the convenience of making important collective property decisions.
Users are also motivated by having complete control over the outcome of their collaborative efforts. They all have the opportunity to participate in the project using a wiki-style approach, allowing them to assess the results of the idea’s implementation and, accordingly, evaluate the work of the leaders and administrators. This will lead to an increase in their reputation in the case of a positive outcome and a decrease in the case of a negative one.
The decisions themselves and their implementation, including the accounting, are completely transparent and accessible to those who are interested.
Thus, the designed system will provide a better solution for group users in all respects compared to solutions that require the use of an appointed or elected administrator (official).
Monetization
Monetization of the service will come from transaction fees between suppliers and buyers, targeted advertising, and paid add-ons for suppliers, such as a transparent cloud-based accounting system with basic (free) and advanced (paid) features, and so on.
Examples of usage
Barrier
Here’s the current situation: The residents of the building have decided to install a barrier in the yard. Right now, it looks like one of the active residents is going door-to-door with the idea of putting up a barrier, suggesting that everyone gather in the yard in the evening to discuss the details. At the meeting, only half or even fewer of the invited residents show up. The activist rationalizes the idea, and people agree with him as he presents one or more solutions. Often, the solution he advocates is subjective and contains elements of corruption. In any case, there’s always someone who says, “I agree, but this is too expensive. I’ll check how much it costs myself.” The decision gets delayed for another couple of months. Sooner or later, people manage to gather half of the required amount, trusting the activist. A wealthier individual contributes the remaining funds, hoping to collect debts later. The main thing is to get the barrier installed. Eventually, the barrier is set up. Some people try to avoid paying, but this is soon forgotten. Someone says, “I don’t have a car, so I don’t need it.” Some will pay more, while others will pay less. A lot of time is wasted from the initial idea to the final decision, the decision itself is not flawless, and there is still no collective participation.
How can it be: There is a service where a community of residents of a building is already united by a common resource (the building) and shared expenses for its maintenance (utilities). On a common “board,” one of the residents writes that it would be nice to install a barrier gate. His message gets “liked” by a number of other residents. A discussion of ideas begins. Eventually, a couple of people find suppliers of barrier gates on the same service, and everyone can see their reputation, prices, reviews, and examples of work. People decide which barrier gate to order from whom and use the “like” or “dislike” buttons. The most proactive person, based on the discussion, opens a new group for the new resource – the barrier gate – and invites others to join. The cost of the barrier gate is visible. It is clear that as soon as the necessary funds are collected, the service will automatically make the payment for the resource (like in thepoint.com).
Optionally, the resource, after its acquisition, is made available to all residents of the building; in this case, everyone pays a “rental fee” for the use and maintenance of the new resource, while the “shareholders,” meaning those who didn’t hesitate to pay for the barrier upfront, receive compensation from the non-paying residents, which is spread out over time and resembles investment income. If everyone has paid, then the “rental fee” should compensate for the “investment income.” If someone who rarely appears in the building hasn’t paid for the barrier, they will pay “rent” based on, for example, how many times they have passed under the barrier (ideally) or on a monthly basis (as will be the case with the current level of accounting methods).
The consequences of this transaction will be reflected in discussions that will shape users’ reputations, the weight of their voices, authority, seriousness, and so on. Additionally, reviews of the supplier’s work will be accessible to all users of the service, not just members of a specific community.
Swimming pool
There is a condominium that owns a shared pool.
Currently: Condominium members have a certain quota for using the pool and also pay membership fees for pool administration, without tracking where their contributions actually go. The total quota for all users is much less than the pool’s overall capacity, as the quota is calculated to prevent overcrowding during peak hours. As a result, no one swims in the middle of the day because a) they don’t want to waste their quota, and b) no one has signed up for swimming during that time. c) Those who didn’t get enough time during the “golden” hour of 7 PM will feel envious of those who managed to “grab” that slot during the last schedule allocation among residents. The schedule itself is organized through a paper log on a first-come, first-served basis. The resource is being used inefficiently.
How can it be: First of all, several reputable companies are responsible for the pool management for a fee, and they are invited to service the pool based on online discussions among the condominium members. The administrator keeps track of all expenses and income related to the pool within the same service, ensuring transparency and showing exactly how the funds were spent. Transparency is necessary for the administrator to maintain their contract and build a good reputation.
The residents are not just users of the pool; they are also its shareholders. They do not pay equal membership fees but instead purchase time in the pool, depending on its price, which is higher during peak hours and lower during off-peak times. They receive income from the swimming time paid for by others, minus the expenses for maintaining the pool and paying the administrator’s services.
In the end, if all the residents use the pool equally, then they will all pay equally, and it will simply be money for the maintenance of the pool. If someone wants to rent the pool for an evening for their birthday, they can do so, and the others will receive compensation. Ultimately, if someone wants to swim at noon in an empty pool, they will pay less than someone who only swims in the evenings.
The service for utilizing shared resources should be able to organize a type of usage where the users themselves are its “shareholders.” This eliminates the “equalization” in payment and resource usage. At the state level, this could lead to a new tax system. paradigm when the specific application of the taxes paid by the taxpayer is taken into account, and the taxes themselves are perceived not as “expenses going nowhere,” but as investments and a guarantee of future well-being.
Wi-Fi internet at school for all children.
Not at all.
How can it be: The solution itself, when broken down among all the parents, turns out to be extremely inexpensive. It’s the cost of the equipment, which will be less than $1 per person, and the subscription for a good channel, which will cost three cents per person (or another dollar for a lifetime). In other words, there are simply no parents who would oppose the implementation of this idea purely for financial reasons.
At the same time, it’s practically impossible to gather people for such an initiative. Even at parent meetings, not everyone shows up. Everyone is busy, everyone is passive, yet everyone wants internet access in schools for their children.
If there were an online platform for solving such issues, parents, at the initiative of one of them, could easily donate two dollars to a good and useful cause without leaving their homes (compared to the ten dollars they spend on school photos). The amount needed to address the issue is so small that no administrator would take on the task of collecting money. The hassle outweighs the benefit. Or they would have to collect ten dollars just to split the remaining eight.
Bus (and any group transport)
Current situation: Buses (planes) depart according to schedule. However, trips during off-peak times are unprofitable for the carrier, while trips during peak times are uncomfortable for passengers. It is impossible to predict demand and supply and adjust the service accordingly. Paying what a trip actually costs is also not feasible. Additionally, it is not possible to request a route that seems beneficial to a group of passengers but is not obvious to the carriers.
How can it be: There is a service where transportation providers display the schedules they prefer for their vehicles. People can sign up for specific trips, forming groups to share the resource. Consequently, the cost of a trip for one passenger will increase if the trip is “exotic” and requires just one taxi, and it will decrease if the trip is in high demand. Carriers do not take risks and therefore do not speculate on trip prices during peak times to compensate for off-peak times. At the same time, to maintain their reputation, carriers must operate with complete transparency. Their reputation is built on passenger reviews.
Passengers themselves, at the initiative of one of the service users, can create a new flight or schedule, and carriers can bid for that flight. A preliminary payment or agreement for automatic deduction of funds after the application is submitted serves as a guarantee for the carrier. Passengers may be offered options like “I’m willing to pay less, but leave later/earlier/within an hour.” They can promote their flight through social media to invite more people and thus reduce the cost for themselves. Passengers can also purchase a flight from the carrier, effectively investing in that flight or an entire schedule, and earn investment income from selling seats on the bus to other passengers.
In the end, a group of people organized around the resource “route A-B and back” can, with the help of an initiative administrator, find a driver and a bus (or airline) themselves, paying for regular trips along the route and earning from selling this resource to other users and to themselves. In other words, if everyone uses it equally, then everyone will pay equally—essentially covering the costs of maintaining the resource plus the driver’s salary. If someone pays a “founding” fee but uses the bus more or less than the others, then they will pay more or less than the others as well.
Condominium
Currently: The condominium operates on the membership fees of its residents (the rent), which are spent by the condominium administration with little accountability. The issues surrounding the formation of reserve and depreciation funds are particularly contentious, as the administration can manage or spend these funds quite carelessly. In practice, a condominium with an elected board or one that has entrusted its affairs to a commercial housing management company is no different from the old, corrupt housing maintenance services. If, for instance, the motor in the elevator suddenly fails, there won’t be any money for repairs, and no one will want to take out a loan. This is because the collection of rent from all residents is unpredictable. It is also unfair to use the rent to purchase certain capital resources, as not all residents will live in the building for the 20-50 years that a new boiler, elevator, or insulation is designed to last.
How can it be: Any resource consumed by the residents of a building—from the elevator to the boiler room, from the concierge to the lighting in the stairwell, from changing light bulbs to the asphalt in the yard—serves as a focal point for bringing people together in a community. People decide for themselves, as in the case of the barrier gate, who pays and how much, treating it as an investment, and how much it will cost for everyone to use that resource (depreciation, maintenance, payment to the service company, interest on loans or leasing for heavy equipment). The condominium administration is either completely absent, represented by proactive members of the condominium, or easily replaced by social media techniques like “likes,” and to maintain its reputation and, consequently, the flow of orders from various condominiums, it operates transparently, utilizing special features of social services. Residents’ meetings are nonexistent. There are discussions, online initiative groups, and a marketplace where services from plumbers, elevator technicians, and electricians can be purchased. Payments are made by deducting from the user’s account in the service’s payment system. Payment guarantees, as well as the “decision-making cost for procurement,” are ensured by the functionality of the online service.
When a resident leaves a condominium, they can sell all their rights to the already invested common property along with their apartment, or they can retain those rights, along with any investment income from them. In this case, the new resident will act as a pure “tenant” of the common resources.
Group discounts
Recently, group discount services have appeared online. Groupon The text for translation: ,. Purchon These services provide users with the opportunity to pay less for a particular service or product if a sufficient number of subscribers to the service sign up for the purchase by buying a discount coupon. Typically, these services offer discounts on services that have a significant fixed cost component, making it more advantageous for the service provider (vendor) to gather 10 people, collecting 20 monetary units from each, rather than three people, collecting 50 from each. The vendor lacks the tools to guarantee a large number of buyers and therefore sets the price at 50. Group discount services allow the vendor to achieve the required flow of customers, earn money, serve many people, and increase their own visibility. Some of the most commonly offered services through such systems include spa services, hair salons, movie theaters, boat tours, group entertainment, and so on.
Group discount services, when viewed in light of all the examples mentioned above, represent a step forward towards the idea of a social network built around real resources. However, they are designed for consumption; their business model revolves around selling discount coupons or charging vendors, and they lack the functionality of social networks. There is no reputation management, and users are unable to form groups through grassroots initiatives.
If we take the idea of group discount services a step further and replace the purchase of coupons (which serve as a guarantee of the buyer’s serious intentions) with a physical payment for a “subscription” or payment for a “subscription” upon reaching a certain acceptable price that decreases as new participants join the group, we could fundamentally change the economics by creating demand before supply. This way, we could “gather signatures” for the delivery of a container of Chinese bicycles, which “subscribers” would take apart immediately upon delivery, saving on distribution costs, storage, sales staff salaries, and the entrepreneur’s profit. We could organize a charter flight to an exotic country and depart as soon as a sufficient number of passengers is gathered. People could “subscribe” to a certain amount of laundry detergent or beer for a year in advance, guaranteeing suppliers stable demand, which would lead to lower prices for consumers. We could discuss/approve the technical specifications for a new model of mobile phone, which suppliers would start producing with a stable guaranteed demand already in place. And so on.
Actually, “how it can be” is already working. For example, in the “group purchase” section on parenting forums. Personally, I first contributed money for a sports complex for my child, and then a container with sports complexes was delivered from a couple of thousand kilometers away. The price is significantly lower than retail.
Mechanism:
1. The initiator is looking for wholesale sales.
2. People send money to the initiator.
3. A purchase is made when a certain threshold for the wholesale discount is reached.
Everything is based on a regular forum.
Example of functionality. Edit
From the end user’s perspective, the service resembles a hybrid of a social network with a payment system that implements subscription payments and an online store.
The user sees a stream of recent events, their own and others’ user profiles with their “friends,” a news feed of friends’ activities, friends’ statuses, “like” and “dislike” buttons, tracking visits (“who viewed my profile”), voting and polling options, and so on. However, this is not a social network; it reflects real-life relationships between people. The key differences from typical social networks are:
- The inability to form groups without a resource that is planned to be shared.
- The impossibility of virtuals. All participants are real with real profiles.
- A very serious reputation tracking system. Nothing can be deleted.
Creating a group
Any user can create a group to share a particular resource. They can invite other users to join the group. It’s possible to invite all members of another group at once. For example, a condominium manager might create a group for paying their own salary, and then create another group for the shared use and maintenance of the pool (or heat meter, elevator, etc.) and invite all members of the previous group to the new one. The next day, one of the condominium residents might decide to arrange a school bus for their children and their neighbors’ children, creating a corresponding group and inviting the other neighbors, and possibly residents of nearby condominiums. To avoid spam, such invitations can be sent to groups of which the user is already a member or to a list of friends.
When creating a group, the user describes the resource, rationalizes its necessity, and proposes a method for shared use (how to pay, how to use it). The key rule is that there are no empty groups. The first step in opening a group should be understanding why it is being created and what resource it will be associated with. Groups can be either limited in the number of participants or unlimited. The limitation on the number of participants may stem from the very nature of the resource. For example, a school bus has a fixed number of seats.
If a resource is movable, one of its properties will be its holder. By default, the holder is always the last user, but the last user can transfer the resource for safekeeping to someone else. For example, a farming cooperative uses a combine harvester.
The user who creates the group immediately sets the rules for moderation and becomes its first moderator. Other members who join the group automatically agree to the moderation rules, which dictate the power and decision-making processes within the group. If you don’t like it, you don’t join. The moderation rules, as well as the appointment or election of new moderators, can also be changed according to the rules established by the moderator. For example, this may require 100% of the votes from participants or 75%.
In principle, creating a group is not much different from the legal norms used in the formation of joint-stock companies, with their charters, founding documents, IPOs, and so on. The weight of a vote is also established in the rules governing the group’s existence. It can be equal to 1, it can be proportional to the contribution or the reputation score (karma) of the user, and so on. There can also be rules stating that people with the highest reputation automatically become moderators.
Membership Edit
The creator of the group is its first moderator. They can immediately invite other moderators or hand over moderation to another member. Group members can choose to act as resource consumers or observers. Consumers can be of two different types: hosts and guests. Generally, this division can be used to provide different priorities. For example, guests can use the resource and share the costs associated with it, but they cannot be moderators, elect moderators, and they have a separate common bulletin board distinct from users and observers. A real-life example: a condominium has a shared parking lot, funded by some residents, which it can offer to guests for a fee. A moderator can be an observer (especially in the case of hired management), and anyone can view the membership and membership type of anyone else in other groups. Conversely, everyone can see who has viewed their profile.
Types of groups Edit
Closed: Membership in the group can only be granted by the moderator’s decision. To become a member, you need to send a request to the moderator. Open: Everyone is welcome to join. The type of group can be changed according to the rules established at its creation or modified by the group members.
The role of a moderator Edit
The moderator can, among other things:
- Set up a resource that will be shared.
- Defines the algorithm for cost-sharing and reimbursement.
- Creates and manages a resource calendar and its time slots (important for courts, pools, transportation).
- It defines the pricing system or simply sets the cost.
- Resolves conflicts
- Defines communication rules and moderates the message board.
- Allows or prohibits certain (or all) advertisements on the group’s page.
Marketplace Edit
Any user or group represented by a moderator can become a vendor (supplier) of a resource, showcasing it on a marketplace that is accessible for viewing by other users. A user wishing to start using a resource a) creates a new group and b) invites others to join that group. The resource owner can also create a group and invite others to it. The marketplace has an interface very similar to that of an online store. Resources can be sorted by groups, geographical location, price, age of potential users, purpose (food, sports, entertainment, transportation, children’s items, etc.), availability timeframes, and more. By default, the filters are user-friendly (for example, specific geography). There is a developed search system for resources, their keywords, type, and so on.
Resource providers can use advertising. Advertising is paid, and participants in the group who allow advertising on their profiles also earn money. Creating a resource can be done by a resource provider. Generally, anything can be sold through the system. However, the main focus is on selling resources that can be used efficiently together. Creating a resource involves filling out a resource profile. The profile includes all essential details, from geographical location, availability schedule, and a description of the resource, to media such as photos and videos.
Discussion boards Edit
Any object in the system has a bulletin board or “wall.” The group moderator can create other “walls” and invite other users with different roles: users, observers, guests. Any user who has a relationship (see below) to the object can leave a message on the wall of the resource, the resource provider, the guests of the resource, and the wall of another user. All messages can be commented on in comment threads. Only the owner of the message or comment can edit it. However, the entire history of changes is preserved. A comment or message can be deleted within 24 hours of its creation by the owner of the message or by the moderator, provided that the message did not contain comments or that the comment did not have any replies. The owner of the wall (end user, resource owner, group moderator) has the ability to leave a main comment on a message, which is displayed alongside the message itself. All messages are only partially visible if they are large enough. The full text can be viewed by clicking “read more.” Any message or comment can be rated (+1, 0, -1). Ratings cannot be given after 5 days from the date of the last comment on the message or the last reply to a comment. There is an option for users with a relationship (see below) to see the overall score of all messages or comments from someone.
Karma. Edit
Every object in the system has a “reputation score” or karma. Each user can assign a karma score of no more than +1, 0, or -1. A user can change their score but cannot rate twice. In other words, giving a +2 is not possible. To assign or change a score, a user must create a message on the object’s “wall” explaining the reasons for their decision. Any user with a connection can view another user’s karma. Everyone can see who has rated their karma and the reasons behind those ratings (the motivational message). Generally, karma can be displayed as both absolute values and relative values, where karma is the sum of the products of the ratings multiplied by the karma of the raters.
The concept of users in a relationship. Edit
The user can view messages, create messages, study and assign karma, etc., if they are related to the object:
- The group’s wall is accessible only to group members.
- The group guest wall is only accessible to group guests.
- The moderators’ wall is accessible only to the group’s moderators.
- Personal wall – only for friends and group mates.
- The resource wall is for those who are in groups using this resource.
- The supplier resource wall is for those who are in groups that have used any of the supplier’s resources.
Thus, a user can see the karma or rating of messages or comments compiled only by users they are connected to. Therefore, if a person is in two groups at the same time, members of different groups will not see the user’s overall karma; they will only see the portion of karma compiled by members of their own group. Only those who belong to both groups will see the entire karma. In other words, a user can have both positive and negative karma, depending on the perspective taken.
Only “friends” or fellow members across all groups that a user belongs to can see the entire karma. Each user can share their “point of view” with another user, choosing what and with whom to share. The group moderator can set the visibility of users’ “walls” for each other—moderators, guests, and users—in any combination.
Other interfaces Edit
One of the key features to mention is the subscription management interface for resources. It should be very similar to the service offered by portmone.com, where users can specify which bills they pay and when, either manually or automatically. The service also sends reminders about new bills—such as rent, phone, electricity, internet, and so on.
There should also be an interface for resource accounting, necessary for managing the availability of the resource by the supplier, as well as an interface for cloud-based transparent accounting.
Conclusion Edit
In principle, such a system or service could serve as a platform that replaces the registration process and all statutory activities (meetings, supervisory boards, audit commissions) for partnerships or joint-stock companies. Essentially, all statutory documents are registered with government authorities to ensure their immutability, while all company documents merely reflect the entries in existing registries. For example, in Singapore, all such procedures are already conducted online, and the concept of a “share certificate” no longer exists in that country, as anyone can visit a website to view the composition of a joint-stock company, the number of shares, the charter, activities, financial reports, and so on. Everything is transparent and free of bureaucracy.
A joint-stock company is nothing more than a group of people (or other entities) gathered together to collectively utilize a resource. However, shareholders, needing management, will always agree to corrupt losses, as they have no (or rather, have had no until now) other options.
The practice of “taking expenses upon oneself,” stemming from a gradual loss of trust in the current bureaucracy, will lead to an increasing number of groups, with their growing numbers, finding it more convenient to “chip in money and get something done” rather than waiting for officials to stop stealing and actually build a road, bridge, power plant, ship, train, etc.
With the development of mass accounting systems and the penetration of the concept of a material-oriented social network, it will be possible to implement increasingly large projects. And if the residents of a city suddenly want to build a bridge, they will build it. Moreover, they will invite others to participate, and those who wish can join in. After all, a bridge is an investment, and by making its use paid (and with the advancement of accounting technologies, tracking who used the bridge and how much will not be a problem), one can ensure a comfortable retirement.
Ultimately, the state, as a necessary structure for administering tax distribution, will become unnecessary. People will figure out for themselves, with the help of a material-oriented social network, where, how, and on what to spend their money.
And finally — video for you Текст для перевода: ..