yes exactly this is the exact problem I want to see solved. I think high trust demand co-ops like JCCU(https://jccu.coop/) have solve this issue. I will definitely read your article.
This idea is model after those consumer coops from JCCU to mondragoon to some other smaller american consumer coops. Our proposition is that the openly displayed set of the CO-OPs goals along side AI moderation may help with alleviating these issues
I believe this is the right solution and the one cahootz is proposing. The Coop AI moderator can be fed goals in the json and a unstructured charter that anyone in or out of the coop can see. Then before decision are made you would be required submit a proposal. This would allow the most and least significant member access to the funds on a more equal basis.
Thats going to happen anyway but whats keep everyone from building replacement companies that arent just gonna optimize on price then buying from those vendors?
Mostly its what you get equity from. A consumer coop you may pay a one time fee for voting rights. A demand coop gives you equity everytime you shop or buy from a coop business that you coop either owns or gets benefits from.
In this case your demand coop might buy REI using the funds your contribute to its wealth fund, while REI you might only just be able to get items for cheap from being a member and the ability to vote on new products.
The idea is that one can drive the other. Because if you direct that capital without consumption the investment is worthless. You can do both. You can direct the consumption in exchange for part of that consumption you get equity in a wealth fund that funds product the coop will gain equity in if they use. I think one the obvious ones would be a replacement for github.
We build a replacement for github, the most you personally drive demand to the git replacement and for that demand you gain equity. And for that equity you get a larger say on how the fund is used and increased access to privileges
yes, I was going to write another paper on how we can have lil trusted person who evaluates proposals. My idea would be that each coop will create a charter and mission goals. These goals can be changed through quarter voting.
But after you create this charter the person who would evaluate it would be AI steward. He can tell you why your proposal aligns with the charter, why it doesnt. How it can come in line with the charter. After that given the money you need falls under a certain amount it just gets passed. If its over a certain amount though it goes through the vote.
but no proposal goes forth without AI steward being the fair evaluator of whether your proposal aligns with your coops charter.
I think this is where youre missing it
> The US still has immense military power.
Because this isnt true anymore and its been proven over and over in the past few years. As industrial power goes so does military and the US military is showing huge cracks while facing 3 massive wars in the pacific, ukraine, and middle east. Its already admitted it cant protect all 3.
The chinese just this week shut down the entire US auto industry because of rare earth if they blockade taiwan how long until they win that.
You explained the issue perfectly we are moving past a age and time where we care what portfolio mangers/equity investors want. The point is to do things those investors hate but benefits the US government which you explained they wont do without force.
