The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions

The Consumerium Exchange (edit)

Revision as of 16:54, 1 October 2003

1,491 bytes removed , 1 October 2003

no betting please. there is already enough parties with vested interests to start manipulating the exchange

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,842

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 The consumer can override the view of a given company, product or industry with her/his own preferences automatically or manually.  One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.  This would require some tagging of opinions as per faction - probably by third parties here.
-Consider a model with three kinds of commitments, or tokens, users can employ:
+Every person gets two votes on each issue:
-*A bet.  This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc.  Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond.  If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps.  If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.
-**By keeping the bets visible here, we make the conflicts of interest visible too, rather than hidden as people move money in the background (which they will anyway).  It's also clear who has the most to lose if a company is about to lose status, and, more of the debate will become visible, and more of it can thus be passed on to the company or stockholders, whose interests are exactly aligned with the bet-maker
-**The money held in trust funds the whole Consumerium process and rollout, since it can be invested in various ways - ideally in ethical investing funds or sustainable forest product funds or something.  This may require a backer or insurer to cover catastropic losses.  No investment in any one company should be allowed for risk management purposes.
 *An indirect vote. This vote cannot be used directly, but can be assigned to an '''registered''' not-for-profit organsation, including potentially a [[political party]], that uses the voting power as decided by the governance of the organisation, thus rendering the identity of the vote holder anonymous. For verification purposes it might be a reasonable requirement that you must be a member of, or a donor to, the organisation that you give your voting power to. You may give your vote to only one organisation at a time. You may transfer it to an another organisation or just revoke it. The Burden of proof on the right to use a vote is mostly on the organisation in question.