IsWith - Common companies (ComCom)

It's the system, stupid, decentralize it!

Welcome to the official collection of the IsWith public documentation (- the IsWith's works). You may also want to visit our social ComCom networking and our projects framework.

In a single sentence: The inner structure of (the power over) any ComCom allows for a new type of owners being the Common shareholders (all of which always share equal number of shares unalike the private shareholders in the same company), such that its customers and/or producers can smoothly become also its shareholders and such that in consideration to the functionality of such common shareholders the integration of such ComCom can be easily structured in many layers (of ComCom being shareholder/s in other ComCom) and still leave an open door for investors (as private shareholders), but never for overtaking that kind of companies, all together providing a very powerful bottom-top net of companies.

What is your Interest and what is your Function, yours, as well as, those of all the other shareholders with whom you sleep? These are the factors which are to produce, not only to be defined by the abilities of all the shareholders together.

But these factors in ComCom can be taken regardless of the captialist side-effect of taking it over to hand it over - which, in essence - is the engine producing bad distribution of wealth on our earth as it has been already emerged, and proven to be beneficial not to society as a whole, but only temporarily for only the few serving as a hook for the remote to take it over. (e.g. for a current hostile takeover attempt see the Microsoft and Yahoo case or any of those corrupted allies with whom your government and other big power players are to sleep.)

Due to the fact that in ComCom, there is always a confined and protected portion dedicated only to common shareholders who share the same number of shares (and as in the same ComCom: A common shareholder, which can only be either a ComCom or a person, can not be a private shareholder, which can only be either a company or a person), such taking it over to hand it over is completely neutralized as for that protected portion of any ComCom !!!

Now, decentralizing human systems is in your hands, also in the commercial world and in parallel to the political change we already observe. You don't need to fight, flatter and/or be ranked against the Huge ones even as they gain their power by lobbies, when you can simply neutralize them.

So, how can you still own what you (must for your own profit) share we are to answer in this page also in respect to the free-software/open-source movements, which do solve the knowledge aspect of distribution but never the over-centralized (capitalistic and/or governmental) power attached with such knowledge. (and now just think of the trend of social networking involving developed applications in their platform)

Please do not forget to go to this page to see the exact price for such privilege and/or for learn how to become a Common shareholder in IsWith LTD: The first to promote and become a ComCom.

Here we begin with a strong belief that it is a good thing for any one to interface with ComCom (and that this is the main choice to make for any one at least as client if not also as an artist developer and/or a researcher - aka power producers).

Introduction (ComCom Social why),
Geting Into IsWith - the HowTo (This is how we do it),
The ComCom (Common Companies),
The IsWith: The company in London, its business and its networking,
The ComCom Social Networking in general and in practice (recommend almost anyone - to be its founder, to initiate it and/or to share, to own and use it)
The News, Links, Forum, RSS, Todo etc
This site & the HowTo use this page

show comments

The ComCom Social (or the Social Networking for ComCom)

ComCom Social is the next big thing in the social networking market, why?

Because it lets its members producing unique content, such members as the artists, the developers and/or the researchers, together named here the power producers, be also the power owners (i.e. the shareholders) of the company owning the networking channeling their works (think of it like this: How many of us are members using social networkings and how many of us own it? Since only the owners could benefit from its increasing worth due to the increase of such use!)

and so, ComCom Social lets You (still) own what You share in it;

Because it lets such businesses (as ComCom Social) to grow from their members naturally sharing its ownership, while still being attractive for investors, rather than still being exhausted from attempting to attract ads, which their member and/or their guests might somewhat suffer (and/or even be annoyed from the spying and spamming attached with such ads).

ComCom are Community like companies, but still able to attract investors and without giving away control;

Because its structure fits to close-source, open-source, the Web2.0 AND the social-networkings strategies while providing an answer for making money from your contribution in the long tail, if you are an artist, a developer, a researcher, an activist and/or a social/spiritual warrior.

All what it takes is some friends-in-your-networking sharing small amount of resources for opening and initiating your-and-their company to be used for your common needs and one formula: The $t*d=v*c$ , which determines the structure of such company allowing the new type of owners being the Common shareholders.

@bring back@

Get Into IsWith - the HowTo

For better understanding the $d$ , $v$ , $c$ and $t=(v*c)/d$ , please see the 6 points defining ComCom

The mission of IsWith LTD - London is developing the market of ComCom.
Its target market consists of those who require/create information around ComCom.
Its services are provided either for free or only to its shareholders being already members in its networking.
Itself is (still) a private company (but already) intended to become a ComCom and for this we now invite you to become its shareholder. This is how we do it:

We weekly issue rounds, per each of which we allow entry of only $55$ Intended Common Shareholders (Ics) being shareholders intended to become common shareholders,
where each Ics pays dollars in return for holding of the company and where all Ics amount together to ,
- as starts with $10 and increases in each round by $1 until reaching $100,
  - (and in parallel $d$ starts with $0.05$ and is increased by $0.005$ until reaching $$0.505$ ),
- until then, when still $d < 0.505$ , no private shareholders could join the company (although cooperations with 3rd parties are still possible);
and from then, that is when ,
- as long as still $d < 0.8$ and under the decision of all its shareholders to form itself as ComCom,
- or otherwise exactly when , even if this decision is not yet made,
  - the company becomes ComCom and the Ics become its Common shareholders.

For more about this calculation please also see the profile of the company.

The services under payment (additional to $v$ ) which are provided by IsWith LTD are given to its clients only if they are also its shareholders and are:

Changing the licensing of its works from non-commercial to commercial ones (but always with attribution to the networking);
Consulting around building ComCom;
Allowing in its networking to groups developed in the networking, or to individuals upon theirs works, to require payment.

subscribing to the Ics-pending Group

@bring back@

ComCom - Common Company and Common Companies

Introduction to Common Companies - the ComCom

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] Introduction to Common Companies - the ComCom

Common companies (ComCom) are useful tool for building communities like of artists, developers and/or researchers (power producers) in form of commercial companies. Such companies Fit to close AND open source, including Web2.0, strategies and epically the social-networking ones. In short: ComCom make your knowledge profitable (for you) while being shareable (with the others) in your commercial form at the commercial world.

As commercial companies the ownership over each ComCom is divided into 2 bound portions, of which one is the Private acting as in any other company and the other is the Common equally shared between all its (Common) shareholders, each of which is either a person or a ComCom.

Generally speaking: The Common portion of ComCom is intended for who otherwise would be excluded form the ownership over the company but would still share some common interest/attributes in/with the company, where such interest/attributes support the growth of the company and such new type of owners in relation to the company may be its clients and/or contributors cooperating with it (such as power producers).

In nutshelll: ComCom, respectively in their both portions, integrate both type of motivations:

the socialistic being of the common, as it is driven from unity and held by the common shareholders and
the capitalistic being of the discrimination, as it is driven form individuality and held by the private shareholders .

The business of IsWith LTD is made also as a showcase for making your ComCom, it is based on 3 services for its clients being also its shareholders, where the services are

changing licensing of its works from non-commercial to commercial one but with attribution to here,
its networking at iswith.info networking
and consulting around building ComCom.

We are using this wiki and other such free services for not only catting expenses but also proving a show case for other to come to build their own ComCom. We want anyone to make ComCom.

@bring back@

ComCom - Just for to grasp it

ComCom - 7 Short Descriptions (node/38),

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom - 7 Short Descriptions (node/38),

Here you can learn what is a common company (ComCom) and how it helps you to earn from contributing your licensed content regardless of any ads, become a member in this networking and/or a shareholder of the provider providing this networking and as such also become its client able to sell products in the networking:

Seven Short descriptions:

What are common companies
A short example for the benefit
Common and individual Dependencies
A short example for functional formation
Mapping the distribution of powers
With common companies you can
Why and how decentralization now? (strangely enough, even the pope starts asking for it)

Common Companies are commercial ones distinguished by having one simple rule accepted by all the shareholders of such company. This rule defines a portion of the company to be shared (dynamically and) equally between all the shareholders owning (equal) part in that portion, hence those shareholders are the Common shareholders of the company versus its Private shareholders only owning any part of the other portion of the company, where the proportion of the common portion out of all such company is unchangeable and defines the decentralization factor of the company (aka its d going from 0 to 1).

A short example for the benefit: Have 2 stores; the A and the B. One is in front the other and both sell the same in the same price, but store A, unlike store B, lets its clients be also its common shareholders. So for once payment for the shares, each client of A (by becoming also its common shareholder) get also a hold (result in profit and power of decision) in store A and for that the client might bring the others to A and be more loyal to A (and still the schema of A is NOT of pyramid, since all the common shareholders have equal number of shares all the time). In this way A would get also extra investment. The question then is where from would like to buy, A or B?

Common and individual Dependencies: Common companies in the level of their owners are useful in integrating Common Dependencies with the individual ones.
- Common Dependencies are such in which dependency of/in one can NOT benefit from the failure of the other,
- whereas the individual Dependencies are such in which dependency of/in one can benefit (by better positioning the one) due the failure of the other.
Common Dependencies are desirable at least in resolving the man cause climate changes and can be found in marriage when sharing bank accounts, in democratic schema, in communities, in networking and/or in being fans of, whereas the individual Dependencies are found in any individual assigning of ownership and/or position and can be found in competition useful in systems depended on making themselves distinguished over other such systems.

A short example for functional formation: Common companies in their formations can take advantage of their natural integration of Common Dependencies with the individual ones, here is an e.g.: some developers (comparable to core developers with their project manger in an open source development) form the ComCom A in which they are a private shareholder inviting other developers as common shareholders in A, where A is a private shareholder in B of which common shareholders are also testers of the products of A and where the B is a private shareholders in C, of which common shareholders are clients of C and users-buyers of the product of A. This is only 3 level structure of formation of common companies, which could be deeper and wider with combining also specific services and integration of products.

Mapping the distribution of powers: The real producers of the power of/upon the people (i.e. those who make any significant advantage), are the artists, developers and/or researchers, but the power owners (i.e. shareholders) and power holders (i.e. CEO under the shareholders) control for to have their own benefit-from, and/or their own production-process-until, realizing any products/services to deliver out of the power producers.

With common companies you can use your own talent as a power producer by being one of such (Common or Private) owners for making your difference together with making your profit. Such companies can also regulate who may be their desired clients being also their (Common) shareholders, hence the structure of such companies is a perfect match for the web2.0 environment, even to the extent of cutting the investors situated between the work and its use/users.

Why and how decentralization now:
- The problem to solve: We live in an era of both extremes, namely; privatization (resulted in reduction of the power of all states and political powers with increase of corruption caused by "big players") AND centralization (resulted in fewer possessing the most of the currently proven to be unbalanced global market), what could we do about it and how could we even earn from such doing?
- Is it a problem, why is it a problem, or why is it my problem? What we now face (unbalanced and centralized globalization) was predictable to be so and not only because its unmoral appearance but mainly because being inefficient and heading toward its own collapsing, since any centralized system (such as the one below each CEO or the one belonging to the fewer possessing the most of the market), must, for not to fail, be limited to its well defined tasks and timeframe/timelines and that is just because of its own handling of its focus, hence centralization can never be successful (even with having the strongest force) while being permanent and global (with no task and timeframe specification) and decentralization can never only be an utopia (in fact in the nature and naturally decentralization is the default). In other words, you can never earn for long period of time only by well positioning yourself in one system being centralized merely, see here why.

Conclusion: In relation to the same product, letting the power producers also be the power owners, when facing the current (unbalanced and centralized) globalization, resolves the problem of increasing economic centralization! The concept of Common Companies is designed for achieving precisely such resolving, so now we, the power producers, must by ourselves, and can for making our own profit, resolve that problem and then when already crystallized invite also external investors. You can see here if the approach of opening the knowledge merely decentralize the profit including that of the producers.

@bring back@

ComCom - How it goes for me being a power producer (node/12)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom - How it goes for me being a power producer (node/12)

When you produce content, upon which you could claim your Intellectual Properties Rights, you can become a common shareholder in cooperation with others like you, or become a private shareholder inviting -others- to cooperate with you. In each way, you could do so, in the same type of Companies - the Common Companies type.

Yes, Ok, Hold on, here is what I know I have:

My contribution in form of idea , content, a code, research, a piece of art etc….
A free legal shell in form of Creative Common, from copy-left to copy-right, although without Patents, Trademarks or Trade secrets, or in return for $1 only having exclusive rights lasting for 14 or 28 years.
A free technical shell of facilities to cooperate with others, but under my control due to the permissions, which I am able to set over my Intellectual Properties, within some networking provided as service for development of Organic Groups, such as provided by OG Drupal.

But now, please do not send me to obey and beg investors, consider me as one producing valuable "things", but not (yet) for the end-users, and tell me where is my benefit with any marketing of my contribution, so then I, with others like me, could invite such investors for enabling the development we believe we need?

Instead of going first to such investors, you with other like you could first cooperate in the level of the free service for development of Organic Groups in the designing of your common company, such that

the common company would act as an agent promoting and/or selling your contributions as mature/immature products and/or services to the clients of the agent being also its common shareholders, while you, the contributors, are private shareholders in the company.

Now you could make the agent charging commission on the deals (or other fees on specific service or products delivered) between the contributors and clients,

where the fees are distributed between the shareholders (including the clients) after cleaning the expenses of the company
where the deals may be between individuals (contributors/clients) and/or between the agent as a whole and the clients and/or contributors,
and where somewhere along the way you could offer part of the private portion to investors, for increasing the value of your shares etc.(Generally: The later you get in, the more expensive the shares.)

Yet another way is by having investors as private shareholders and contributors as common shareholders in one company (A) , of which clients are common shareholders in another common company (B), of which one of the private shareholders is the first company (A); in this case c in company (A) may be limited and the company also would have a staff.

Finally: The development of Common Companies, when it is dynamically integrated in the networking of Organic Groups, enables reaching a very complex and well adjusted structure of organization of which components are Common Companies bound together by held shares, each of the other, such that the match of contributors, which is to be measured equally (as common shareholders) in each component (being a common company), is or can be diversified in the organization as a whole. In such organizations, due to the decentralization of the Common Companies, the distinction between each of the three: the shareholders, the employs and the clients, can be diversified and be maintained fully, partly or completely avoided.

You can change the world, if you ask yourself what you want and what the other want, learn the other, so that you could find your way to welcome the other to your way to change the world. This do not mean to compromise; but to Imagine-Think-Learn-and-Do intensively.

@bring back@

ComCom in the evolution of the Web: Web1.0, Web2.0 and Web3.0 - How to make money from even small social networking (node/40),

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom in the evolution of the Web: Web1.0, Web2.0 and Web3.0 - How to make money from even small social networking (node/40),

So How to make money from even small social networking and regardless ads?

1) Make the owner /provider/host of the networking be a ComCom and its common shareholders be the members in the networking!
- Also note that:
- In ComCom you do not necessarily have to assume the number of common shareholders (the c), except for calculating the value (the t) of the company (where t=(c*v)/d and v is the value held by each common shareholder), but instead you must set the d of the ComCom.
- This in return let you have
  - your networking be increased (with the increment of c as the membership in the networking is only-once-paid for the v in the ComCom, where v may still be constant)
  - with already stable structure (of ownership) of the company (less tremor of changing hands and more hands),
  - while having the (value of the) company together with the networking itself be fluently growing.
- Being fluent is the exact feature causing/matching the important smoothness in the organic growth of your networking, or the one facilitating a rapid growth in the membership, while already being a self-sustaining-and-functioning-company even in the Long Tail of the social networking).

2) Then increase the facilities of the networking with the investment coming form the common shareholders while focusing on their interest being The common interest in the networking.

3) Once the common interest is established and it matches the (growing) facilities of the networking, locate in the common interest some legitimate additional products/services for sell to the clients of the ComCom:
- Such products/services shall be resulted from the activities in the networking, such as: various contents authorized in various licenses, code production, participation/activities in games, contacts or any other social/sexual/political/personal benefits, including pure social activities of your common interest, when are demanding dynamic and organic organization with their commercial sustainability;
- and Such clients may be either the common shareholders (being the members in the networking) having additionally also their benefit in the buying ( that maybe useful even just for increasing the c of your ComCom), or simply costumers of the products/service resulted from the activity in the networking.

4) And so you are done when the common interest is attractive enough for producing by the activity in the networking some products/service valuable for some buyers.

The rest is just a matter of some adjustments, but also note that t /v is proportional to c/d, which could make your exit strategy just fine and/or the possibility to invite investors to be private shareholders planning their exit to be just-fine-too.

Shortly, your network or any interconnected group or system you are involved with can now, as a ComCom, be fluently growing, self-sustaining and functioning just like a company. This we believe would give power to your networking and to you in that network, or to the people in the commercial world.

For more about making such networking please follow our company notes.

Web1.0 Web2.0 Web3.0 and ComCom:

The Web2.0 vs the Web1.0 reflects more of our social development than of our technological one and so is the development toward the forms of ComCom, but not of the one which nowadays is called the Web3.0.

The technological development of increasing computing power (of integration/syndication) is of challenging & creating & matching
the personal demand for information in Web1.0; the social demand for openness & bidirectionality of information in Web2.0; and the commercial demand for adding 3rd direction from/to any centralized maintains of information in Web3.0.

But the integration/syndication of our social together with our commercial demands are establishable in forms of ComCom for any farther technological development…

@bring back@

ComCom - In 6 points fully defined (node/13)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom - In 6 points fully defined (node/13)

Here is what defines a ComCom or a Common Company

(Defined by the formula $t*d=v*c$ , see point 5):
(The translation of this page to French and German are now in process.)

Point 1: It is a commercial company having 2 divisions of shares, namely: the Common and the Private;

Point 2: The proration of shares in its Common division is its Decentralizing property (the $d$ ), which is defined such that the value of all the Common division equals ,
- where $t$ is the total market value of all the company,
- where $d$ is nonzero smaller or equal one ( $0 < d <= 1$ ),
- and where may be set only once in the lifetime of the common company, either in its formation or when it becomes common one from being private one i.e. when is reset from zero.
  - That is to say: $d$ is static, it can't be changed if the company is a common one (but if the company is a private one as its d already equals zero, then this company may become a common one by only once changing its d to a nonzero).
- When $d$ is zero or d is reset more than once, then the company is a Private and not a Common one.
- Hence the d alone defines any company as either Private or Common one and is static in all the lifetime of a common company;

Point 3: Each of its shareholders is either a Common shareholder or a Private shareholder, respectively to the division of shares the one holds.
- Hence a shareholder can never be a Private and a Common shareholder.
- Both: the Private and the Common shareholders have their rights respectively to their shares and in both considerations:
  - the one of liquidation and the one of any voting,
- so that the distinction between Common or private shareholders is not to be confused with that of the preferred or the common shareholders appearing in classification of Stocks, such that the Common shareholders in such classification are both: the Private and the Common shareholders in ComCom and regardless of any of the "preferred ones";

Point 4: Each of its common shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a Common Company.
- Hence a private company can never be a common shareholder in a Common company, but the other way around is possible. This establishes the asymmetric property of the Common companies versus the Private ones in general, for protecting the motion of the notion of decentralizing in the market as a whole;

Point 5: Its total projected value (the t), being the value of all the shares in the company, is always calculated such that $t * d = v * c$ , where
- $$ t * d$ is the value of the common division of the company, which is equal to the value of all the Common Shareholders in the company;
- Only when this equation is evaluated true, then the distribution of shares in the company may be considered as such which reflects the t as the projected value of the company, hence all the 4 following equations must also evaluate true:
  - $t * d = v * c$
  - $v = n * s$
  - $s = t / i$
  - $n = ( i * d ) / c$
- and where
  - $i$ is the number of ALL issued shares of the company;
  - $t$ is the Total projected value of the company, which is the value of ALL its shares;
  - $s$ is the price of one Share in the company, it is an offer for sell, which affects directly the projected t and hence all other reflected values in the company;
  - $d$ , as $0 > d >= 1$ , is the proration of shares in the Common division of the company, which defines the factor of the Decentralizing property of the company, where this factor is static when the company is a Common one;
  - $c$ is the number of ALL Common shareholders in the company;
  - $v$ is the projected value held by EACH Common shareholder;
  - $n$ is the number of shares held by EACH Common shareholder;

and Point 6: It is established by an agreement, prior to any other agreement between any of its shareholders, including any other potential such shareholders, where each of the shareholders agree
- that the number of shares owned by EACH Common Shareholder always equals n,
  - where $n=(i*d)/c$ ;
- that with each entry of a new common shareholder:
  - n is reset to $n*(c/(c+1))$ and s is reset to $s*((c+1)/c))$ ,
  - then c is reset $c+1$ and t is set to $s*i$ ;
- and that with each departing of an current common shareholder:
  - n is reset to $n* (c/(c-1))$ and s is reset to $s*((c-1)/c))$ ,
  - then c is reset $c-1$ and t is set to $s*i$ .
- Hence always the price of one share is $s=(v*c)/(d*i)$ and the number of shares owned by one Common Shareholder is $n=(i*d)/c$ , where $t*d=v*c$ and $t=s*i$ , such that

in the event of:	the value of the common portion	the value held by one common shareholder	the price of one share	the number of shares per one common shareholder
Always:	$td=vc$	$v=s*n$	$s=t/i$	$n=(i*d)/c$
One new common shareholder enters and exactly before $c+=1$ :	$td=v(c+1)$	v is unchanged	$s*=(c+1)/c$ or $t+=v/d$	$n=c/(c+1)$ or $n-=(id)/(c*(c+1))$
One common shareholder exits and exactly before $c-=1$ :	$td=v(c-1)$	v is unchanged	$s*=c/(c-1)$ or $t-=v/d$	$n=(c-1)/c$ or $n+=(id)/(c*(c-1))$

Here you can see how such Common Companies (ComCom) may be integrated, considering the functions of the common shareholders in those companies,

this way can be constructed in many layers for producing a complex bottom-top net of ComComs:

@bring back@

ComCom - Its Condition, one Example and some notes

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom - Its Condition, one Example and some notes

the condition holding for Common Company (ComCom):

If:
- $i$ indicates the number of Issued shares for ALL the company;
- $c$ indicates the number of ALL Common shareholders, being the shareholders owning shares in all its Common portion; and
- indicates the Decentralizing property of the company,
  - where and equals the proration of its Common portion, in which
    - EACH shareholder, being a common shareholder, owns equal number of shares and the number $=( i * d ) / c$ ,
  - where may be set, or reset form zero, only once in the lifetime of the company,
    - of which each shareholder shall be either a Common, or a Private, shareholder, never both,
  - where $i * d$ indicates the number of ALL issued shares for the Common Portion and
  - where the proration of the Private portion $= 1 - d$ ,
  - such that
    - if $d = 0$ , then the company is Private and shall not be a Common Shareholder of any other Common Company,
    - otherwise the company is a Common Company and the bigger is $d$ the more Decentralized is the Common company,
Then
- Common companies may be formed by an agreement between its shareholders, where this agreement is prior to any other agreement with other potential such shareholders and where the agreement sets
  - to be the number of shares of EACH Common Shareholder, which shall be
    - either decreased with each entry of a new Common Shareholder, as $x = 1$ ,
    - or increased with each departing of a current Common Shareholder, as $x = -1$ .
Hence:
- When considering the market forces upon the Share price of each Common Company,
- If indicates the price of all Shares in the company, which is the estimated Total value of the company, then
  - $t / i$ indicates one Share price being an estimated value of EACH share in the company;
  - $t * d$ indicates ALL the estimated value of its Common portion;
  - $t * ( 1 - d )$ indicates ALL the estimated value of its Private portion; and
  - , indicating the value owned by EACH Common shareholder, reflects the value of
    - the number $=( i * d ) / c$ of shares owned by that Common Shareholder,
  - such that, as ,
    - $t * d = v * c$ (or $v / d = v + ( 1 - d ) * ( t / c )$ ) and each Share price $=t/i=(v*c)/(d*i)$ ,
- where cent and where ,
  - so that each share price is at least one cent and each Common Shareholder owns at least one share,
    - hence for satisfying this requirement, more or less shares may be issued .

Here is a an example demonstrating what happened to the v being the value held by EACH common shareholder, where

c increases from zero;
$d=0.8$ ;
$i=500$ ;
and v is stable, despite (or exactly when) the n (number of shares of EACH Common shareholder) is reduced

$(+=1)$	$(+=0)$	$(+=12.5=v/d)$	$$(+=0.025=v/(d*i))$	$(+=10=v)$	$(-=(id)/(cc(c+1))$	$(+=2.5)$
$c=$ number of Common Shareholders	$v=(t*d)/c=$ the value owned by EACH Common shareholder	$t=(v*c)/d=$ the value the company	$t/i=$ the value of one share	$td=vc=$ the value of the common portion	$(i*d)/c=$ the number of shares owned by EACH common shareholder	$t*(1-d)=$ the value of the private portion
$0$	-	$12.5=v/d$	$0.025=12.5/500$	$0$	-	$12.5$
$1$	$10$	$12.5$	$0.025=12.5/500$	$10$	$400= 0.8i=(4/5)i$	$2.5$
$2$	$10$	$25$	$0.05=25/500$	$20$	$200=0.4i =(4/10)i$	$5$
$3$	$10$	$37.5$	$0.075=37.5/500$	$30$	$133.333=0.266'i=(4/15)i$	$7.5$
$4$	$10$	$50$	$0.10=50/500$	$40$	$100=0.2i =(4/20)i$	$10$
$5$	$10$	$62.5$	$0.125=62.5/500$	$50$	$80=0.16i=(4/25)i$	$12.5$
$6$	$10$	$75$	$0.15=75/500$	$60$	$66.667=0.133'i =(4/30)i$	$15$
$7$	$10$	$87.5$	$0.175=87.5/500$	$70$	$57.1428= 0.1142857i =(4/35)i$	$17.5$
$8$	$10$	$100$	$0.20=100/500$	$80$	$50=0.1i =(4/40)i$	$20$
Now, one private shareholder buy $10$ percents of the company, or half of its private portion, for value of $20$ (double price), hence $v$ now is doubled: $v=20$
$8$	$20$	$200$	$0.40=200/500$	$160$	$50=0.1i =(4/40)i$	$40$
$(+=1)$	$(+=0)$	$(+=25)$	$(+=0.05)$	$(+=20)$	$(-=(id)/(cc(c+1))$	$(+=5)$
$9$	$20$	$225$	$0.45=225/500$	$180$	$44.44'=0.088'i =(4/45)i$	$45$
$10$	$20$	$250$	$0.50=250/500$	$200$	$40=0.08i =(4/50)i$	$50$

Conclusion:

As $d$ is a nonzero and constant and the projected value of all the company is $$t=i*s$ ,where $i$ is the number of all shared issued and $s$ is the price of each such share,

the equivalent for calculating number of shares multiplied share price,
- per each Common shareholder is ,
  - which is reflected ONLY from $t$ and $$c$ being the number of all Common shareholders
- and per each Private Shareholder is $(t*(1-d))* x$ , where $x$ is the share/portion of the private shareholder in the Private portion of the company.

Note that:

The equality of the value held by EACH common shareholder can be (and is normally) kept not only between the exiting ones, but also between the entering and departing ones, until private shareholders change the share price. This equality enables stabilizing the business plan of the company and it kept by having the price of shares increased by $v/(d*i)$ for matching $(v*c)/(d*i)$ , or by increasing $t$ by $v/d$ , with each entry of new common shareholder. This increase of the share price offsets the decrement by $(-=(i*d)/(c*c(c+1))$ of the number of shares held by each Common shareholder and is generally explained by involvement of more them, when the common shareholders are to be the clients/contributers supporting the growth of the company (which as shareholder are expected to be more loyal and having benefit in bringing more like them etc).

common and private companies for open and close source or knowledge!!

Faq:

Q) Fitting to close AND open source, including Web2.0, strategies, how?

A) This is New approaches for interfacing Companies and individual

Common companies: For building communities like of artists and/or developers in form of commercial companies. Common companies are commercial ones, but each of which consists of 2 portions, in 1 of which, each of the shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a common company.

Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hands, also in the commercial world.

Q) Common companies just made a little noise- Whoosh!

A) no !
since d(as in Decentralization of the company), indicating the private or common feature of the company, is vertical (i.e. d is an additional dimension) to how much of its source is open or close to the public domain, hence company can be either private or common delivering products of which source is either open or close!!!

i.e. d is vertical to the proportional amount of the company's source/knowledge being open in regard to its profit and out of all such source/knowledge - the open and the close.

Q) equal number of shares sounds fishy

A) equal number of shares sounds fishy, Yes it sounds!!! but equalization is used for specific (yours in this case) preferences as it always does:

Yes it sounds!!! But try this: you have your open-source project, of which core developers are private shareholders. Now you allow other to benefit from your project, including developers and/or users, which might become common shareholders.

Now this equalization of the common shareholders, if you build it right, serves your preferences as a private shareholder.

Remember, not all the company is held either by common or by private shareholders, so considering the d, a balance of powers must be made!!!

The equalization in common companies is just a tool which with keeping attribution (with the preferences, form and formation) still make fluent your sharing of your knowledge.

Now there is here another aspect. I came to it because of my fear of use of some agents of government, which would be using my intellectual property.

You might say, as rms said, hey, well, they would take it anyhow, butthat is what blocked me since then.

The problem with open-source for me is with another kind of equalization, the kind which do not let me have preferences as for what is the use of what i developed. i mean yes, in the end , every one would benefit, from the moment it is out, but what is out, a peace of code a concept , how long is the way in which i still have some control (i mean in the early days in that project i do have, for that is the project), for me it- the way until the project, with some phases etc, is completed - is my responsibility.

With common company i can share that responsibility and be at least in frame of law for not serving who i strongly oppose.

Q) it needs something, i can't put my finger on it

A) I wish i could, and i do want to do my best for, to put any finger on it. If you mean that common companies need something, yes of course, it needs. What it need is people ready to explore the potentiality of it, that is all what i am trying now to do: Gathering core of freaks to Common Companies, building a nice working e.g., which would grow slowly and be scalable but surly be different one beginning with initial law costs. For this what is required is not so much of private investors, but as i said there, 100 common shareholders maintaining the growth itself (by paying for their membership and by adding their activities), with leaving (due to defined d) a portion ready for private investors to come afterward into it.

Q) "Define membership."

A) Membership - it allows service of the company to its clients being members, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Shareholding - it allows control over, and benefit (in from of dividend) from, the company, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Membership and Shareholding are calculated independently as for such payments. e.g. membership cost 24$ per 3 months, and common shareholding 10 $ only once, so that in the first cycle of 3 months the one pays 34$, whereas in the other such cycles only 24$.

Now, the total = C*10$, where C is the number of Common shareholders, whereas the the assets of the company is from the membership payment minus dividends and the expenses of the company, upon which the common shareholders may have control (that is depended on the d, which also affect the the value of the common or private shareholding).

Q) "Having stock is not membership. It has to be more.

We have to be careful not to replace one dependency with another."

A) The dependency in this structure, as in the constitution of its citizens and as in my invention (-see piletech), is or might be cyclic but with distinction allowing to maintain the order. in other words it is mutual dependency. This is the point!!! in normal math cyclic get stuck (with stack)!

@bring back@

For whom is the knowledge making profit ? in 1 table (node/18)

When the Approach is	As the knowledge is	Where the use (of the knowledge) by others is made	The profit is made
of closing knowledge	exclusive property	centralized, as the use is restricted by the owners and/or separated from the products of the knowledge	centralized
of opening knowledge	contributed property	decentralized, as the use of the knowledge is allowed under standards such as gpl, open-source and common-creative, within the umbrella named Web2.0	centralized and/or decentralized
of common companies	exclusive and/or contributed property	centralized and/or decentralized	decentralized, as more as the factor d is bigger

Distribution of powers:the power producers,owners and holders (node/31)

Status	in Private companies	and by its market	in Common companies	and by its market
Power owners	shareholders	investors	shareholders	considering its d, in its Private portion: investors and/or producers; in its Common portion: producers and/or clients
Power (executive) holder	CEO	a provider for return	CEO	a provider for return
Power producers	producers	clients	producers	clients

The focus, the dream and the problem of centralized systems in which we are living (node/19)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] The focus, the dream and the problem of centralized systems in which we are living (node/19)

The Focus The Dream And The Problem

of us and of centralization in general and nowadays

The problem in (the momentum of) the focus: The advantage in centralized organizations, as in hierarchies, is always limited in the ability of such organization to fix for long term (statically and/or dynamically) the focus of the organization as a whole, but that exactly marks the disadvantage of any centralization as such, which sooner or later must reach the disadvantage of its unawareness to that which is ignored as being out of the focus of all the organization, therefore, centralization, when is useful, it is only for fulfilling well defined tasks in well defined context, time frame and timeline, hence always temporary, never as a total system or as a standing alone system, when the knowledge of all is yet not given. (e.g. of long term ignoring in the market system is when analysts of the market define the market as healthy regardless its bad distribution factor.)

Nowadays, the globalization is centralized and the centralization acts globally. As a result, when looking around and backward, what we see in the last ten years (or more) of overwhelming privatization, is

An increase of over centralization of the market as a whole mostly owned by less and less few;
An increase of dissatisfaction from local political systems, every where in the globe (for more about the dissatisfaction, please look under the labels: suppression, corruption and wars); and
An increase of both powers, namely: the hierarchies of technocrats from the inner side of; and lobbies sent by owners of the market from the outer side of the politicians, the media and/or judicial authorities, being pushed in their positions to be situated constantly in such a rush, which is proven to make them be increasingly unqualified for their decision making for our sake, (as we are learning more about the few critical mistakes being taken, but also as we know that, yet, only few of all the critical mistakes being taken are known to us).

If this is not your dream, if you believe some thing is very wrong with this trend, if you fear collapsing of this system is sooner or later to come and if you feel the need to change it, then decentralization in form of binding together the benefit with the responsibility of the decision makers in the most bottom or the most atomic elements of making decision, can be considered by you as a new dream or a trend to go into or be joining in.

In all the levels: a responsibility-for must come with some benefit-from, where the benefit and the responsibility shall fit each other, and in all the levels, regardless any benefit, even when it is demanded, responsibility would never emerge, if you can see that human as beings are mainly attempting to gain befite, where such benefit in their view is either located well or, when they are confused, deceived and/or uninformed, is dislocated.

Shareholders having equal share are exactly in the postion of being able to gain befite, but only with their responsibility, at least toward the others they are equal with, but then the few owning currently the most of the market determining our living, would lose their possessing over the market, as more of the market would be of common companies, of which d is bigger, since then, the only part they could ever possess would just be the private portion of Common Companies, hence then, the less of the market would be able to be centralized.

Now, If you are an artist, a developer and/or a researcher, then You are the one which creates or produces what the power players in the industry must have! Please hold this in your mind: You produce power.

Do not distance yourself, since it is all around you anyhow. It is your power and your responsibility, so please use it for what you believe is the best!

So, you can have a say as for the use of, and can have your justified profit from, your contributions to the commercial world, by becoming a Common or a Private shareholder in Common Companies holding some of your Intellectual Properties Rights, and you can begin doing that in (this) free networking of Organic Groups, since the mature state, in financial terms, of the Organic Groups appears naturally in the form of Common Companies, in which some of the contributions are measured equally and some are not.

But, how to be well organized in environment known only partly for achieving specific and/or general tasks?

It is precisely the feature of equality in organization, which provides its decentralization, which in return makes the organization be suitable better than due its centralization, if and when not all the necessary knowledge is given to the organization. This is the basic for natural systems, interneting and of the concepts of democracies, common knowledge and macroeconomic. And this is the reason for each of such Common Companies to have such measure of decentralization (the d) be defined (but only once) between 0 and 1, such that the equality in the structure of such common company provides its fluent interface and the unchangeability of the decentralization provides its stability and visibility.

@bring back@

ComCom - in its wider context: (still) Own what You share, as bigger is the d and in addition to the have, the want and the can

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] ComCom - in its wider context: (still) Own what You share, as bigger is the d and in addition to the have, the want and the can

This work around Common companies (ComCom) is provided here for helping you in both:

How to decentralize human systems , in general, and
How to gain from the real commercial world by founding/joining/interacting-with ComCom, in practice.

ComCom of which $d=1$ are structured exactly like States in the constitution of its citizens.

The bigger is the $d$ of a ComCom the more its approach is of (still) own what You share in it, so then

when you share what you (still) own your benefit is (still) bind with your responsibly (to share),
which in return let the others similarly sharing with to trust you more for the Common Dependencies they have with you.

Moreover

since the Private and the Common shareholders of ComCom are instantly affected from the same share price of any ComCom
and since the of the private shareholders in ComCom is to be calculated in regard to the value of its target market and its advantage over its competitors in that market
- the Individual Dependencies being so natural to the compressional world are embedded into the ComCom also for the benefit of its Common shareholders
- hence the balance between both type of Dependencies (the Individual and the Common) correlates to the desired $d$ of a ComCom.

In other words, if a ComCom accumulates its worth by attracting its Common shareholders for arising the value of its Private shares, then its Common shareholders are instantly benefiting from the value being raised and then when the investors join a ComCom as Private shareholders, then the ones have a place in it (of which maximum is $1-d$ ) but never can swallow it all, since any investors serve only as middleman between the company and its power producers and between the company and its clients.

Keeping ComCom as are defined by the 6 points is valuable as a standard for comparison and transparency between all the ComCom together with all the Private companies,

due to their 3 dimensional factor of $d$ , $t$ and $c$ (together forming their 1 dimensional factor of $v=(d*t )/c$ , which is valid only in the case of ComCom) and in addition to (and sometimes even more significant than) the traditional factors of any company, being
its resources (the have),
the volume of its target market (the want)
and its advantage over its competitors in that market (the can).

We live in an Era of shared contents (i.e. the Web 2.0/social-networking and in general the notion of sharing) and in this context the structure of ComCom is useful for

attracting clients tending to become more loyal, more bringing other clients, better informing about their wishes, if are also its (Common) shareholders; and/or
attracting developers, researchers and/or artists which even by contributing to such company can become owner of the company.

This in general leads to the required initial/continuing investment be dramatically reduced and/or to the target market be dramatically gained, for companies based upon contents produced by individuals being developers, researchers and/or artists, where each such company completely or partly open or close its source being their works.

The choice to form/join/interact-with ComCom over the Private ones is also a political, social and environmental one, since

The more $d$ and $c$ are bigger the more the Common Dependencies in the company are effective and its structure tend to be more stable ;
The more of the market is of ComCom of which $d$ is bigger the less the ownership over the market CAN EVEN BE centralized.
The centralization of ownership over the market enable only few to achieve any benefit from
- increasing corruption scales everywhere in the globe
- the measure for health of economy being the increase of consumption fueling the claimant changes by human.
- War and Foreign affairs benefiting land owning

In other world if you position yourself only against over centralization of the market you have very few enemies (some strong families - but no more) to fight against and your position then is with all the others, in any place with any color etc. (that is what Common Dependencies are all about.)

@bring back@

IsWith

IsWith - its mission (-)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] IsWith - its mission (-)

Click me, if you did not yet see how to become a common shareholder in IsWith and now, could you imagine the Social-networkings themselves in a financial form of companies structured for allowing their members to be also their shareholders? It is now made possible by simply distinguishing between 2 type of shareholders: The one (the Common) is for the members and the other (the Private) is for the investors in Common Companies - the ComCom. ComCom is the next step in the social networking market !

Welcome to IsWith networking for ComCom and individuals!

Here is Your Starting, Login or Signing.

Here, in 4 steps you can understand how by yourself you can make money even from small social networking (in its long tail) and regardless ads. In this respect here are 2 practical examples for use, provided this ability to download or buy social networking: The one is of letting the developers and marketing to use the platform in the platform of the networking as in facebook (worth $15b) pushing to that also the myspace's platform (worth 1 to 2 times more) and the other is of (the vision of) the Elgg space, but in which "the students" are in the g1 and "the teachers" are in the g2, and both are when considering this description of IsWith networking and company (see also here).

And so, since all ComCom descriptions are licensed and authorized only with (commercial/non-commercial) attribution to here, you now may find that sooner or latter it would be a good thing for YOU to become a Common Shareholder in IsWith LTD (especially as the worth of such holding is increasing with any entry of additional such 55 shareholders, so that after you gut into IsWith you could benefit from bringing your friends with you. Well, that is what we consider to happen sooner or latter).

Here you have 2 Notes from our provider:
- The company providing this networking IsWith LTD, may change licensing from non-commercial to commercial ones and/or provide consulting around building ComCom in return to payment (for more please use this contact )
- and the company also now seeks for (common) shareholders!.

Let's make some ComCom (together), that is all the purpose of IsWith! It might be also your purpose since ComCom is the Business module for WEB 2.0 together with making money out of it ( in its growing and regardless ads and/or big players + EXIT )! In other words ComCom is a structural solution for businesses targeting the web2.0, specifically the long tail in the social networking and generally the market consisting of artists developers and researchers!

This ComCom networking is now build for allowing not only the technological infrastructure for content based deals in the networking, but also for the commercial one, since the ComCom is the natural mature state of OG (Organic Groups) developed around such content!

You can Take your hold in the companies producing their benefit in the market out of your knowledges, talents, activities and/or consuming, if you cooperate with those accepting the one formula (the decentralization formula: $t*d=v*c$ ), establishing the ComCom!

Web 3.0 is no more than a new toll for centralizing the Web2.0 and Web2.0 is all about decentralization, but still the question remains: How much of the web2.0 is Real in your living and how could you earn more out of the web2.0, if the centralization of information is Decreased, but the <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Wealthy_grabbing_larger_share_of_US_1012.html">one of the market is Increased</a> in the last decade of globalization?

Here are some very short descriptions about it , if you did not yet, please take a look on these and here are some points to start with:

How about ComCom as a new concept of companies challenging the sickness of the nowadays capitalism, or do you want to change the world and also make from that money, are you about making your community/ies AND making your own money with it ?

Everywhere - the artists, developers and/or researchers are the real producers of the power (of/upon the people). As one of those power producers you may find here a very valuable information.

We hope you want to Make A Difference in this world together with making your profit from that, because here you can, since always shareholders (power owners) are above the highest-ranking corporate officer being CEO (power holder)! We also hope you would become a common shareholder in IsWith LTD providing this service (for more see g2).

Make the companies you are interfacing with be yours, also make IsWith be yours and make it yours only where responsibility is bound with benefit. After all, where centralization can never be sated, there it becomes the mother of all corruptions and decentralization is the most urgent thing to do.Welcome again!

@bring back@

introduction-to-iswith (node/10)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] introduction-to-iswith (node/10)

Introduction to IsWith

IsWith in 3 statements:

ComCom are ….see here
Therefor ComCom and social networking are the perfect match, since you get investing members being shareholders in the developed networking, for more see this.
Now, when you go to you have also the strategy of the IsWith LTD company, that is to say that in the current hot sate of networking market, the IsWith company sooner or latter would increase its value just because of using its licensing for its work about the ComCom, where that is with attribution, therefor the company does not compete against but with other networking.

IsWith is (this) networking for Common Companies and individuals. Here are the 6 points defining such Company, of which a (statically) defined portion is shared (dynamically and) equally between its shareholders (aka its Common shareholders), which are either persons or Common Companies, but shall never be its Private shareholders owning shares in the other portion of such company. The factor of decentralization of such company (aka its d) defines the proportion of its common portion and since it is static, it can easily be transparent.

As in any other private company (of which d is zero), the shareholders in common companies (of which d is nonzero) are above its CEO being its highest-ranking corporate officer (power holder), where the shareholders are the power owners having their benefit-from and/or their production-process-until, realizing the products made by the power producers.

What is significance about common companies is their defined moderation of how much of it could be capitalized by only one entity. And so, when its d=1, then it is fully democratic (but still never communistic, since communism abolishes private ownership and common shareholder owns shares), otherwise only a portion (maximum its 1-d) could ever be fully capitalized.

The effect of the moderation embodied in common companies (as it is defined by their d) can be illustrate, by distinguishing between power producers versus the power owners. In Common companies, the Investors (as the owners) can cut their expenses and more easily earn, but with loosing/losing part of their control and the power producers can cut the middleman being the investors situated between their work and its use/users, and can earn and influence more due to their work, but with caring for more than just their work.

In short such Common Company allows a larger scale of sharing (its) power, even with its contributing clients (when the ones are also its common shareholders), which in return allow the company to have its clients being loyal and benefiting from bringing more such clients. As such Common Companies are useful, especially in the web2.0 environment, for building communities of artists, developers and/or researchers, which are usually being stressed between the will to publish/contribute and the complexity of protecting their intellectual rights. Such communities may be in a form of commercial companies, but still adjusted to the desired decentralizing in each of such companies, so then the scale and complexity of such cooperations can be made greater.

Common companies are suggested here as a fine integration of top-bottom (down to the CEO) with bottom-top (as the common shareholder are above the CEO) in one texture providing solution suitable for making any business development easier (learn more <a href="http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/fullan2.html">Why Centralized and Decentralized Strategies Are Both Essential</a>).

In other words, when d is nonzero, Common companies, respectively in their both portions, integrate both type of motivations:

the socialistic being of the common, as it is driven from unity and held by the common shareholders and
the capitalistic being of the discrimination, as it is driven form individuality and held by the private shareholders.

If we want to make the world a better place to live in, then we must learn How to use for our purposes, not only in the technology aspects of this world, but also in its commercial systems, but nowadays both aspects, mostly and so badly, meets in one side (the conservative one) of this world (e.g. mind-engineering and wars-making). Common companies let the lonely rich still have a place to be (even rich), but not to control.

Such networking based on common companies provides the means for the power to be (also) for the benefit of its producers, when assuming that only responsibility bind with benefit can be trusted. The networking then, is where we make our way when focusing into the objectives appearing being common, while the way is always marked by the transparency of the factor of decentralizing power in each company (its d), which in return allows each of us to estimate the shared power derived from the shared responsibility bind with benefit (of the Common shareholders) .

This approach of common companies texture corresponds to both: The pile technology defined in <a href="http://piletech.org" >piletech</a> and the <a href="http://our-constitution.wikidot.com/">constitution of its citizens</a> (and all the three together with his main source being the <a href="http://our-constitution.wikidot.com/wholeness-versus-all">definition of whole, as it is differed from that of all</a>) are attributed to Erez Elul .

Have fun. Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hand, also in the commercial world.

@bring back@

IsWith - the Company and networking (node/35)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] IsWith - the Company and networking (node/35)

The company IsWith LTD, which is intended to become itself a common company, provides this networking, the IsWith networking for Common Companies and individuals.

This networking is based on licensed content developed in and between organic groups. The Common shareholders of IsWith LTD (aka Ics , where Ics is one shareholder intending to become a Common Shareholder, when the company becomes a common one) as the power owners in the company interface between both in the networking: the power producers owning and licensing their products and their visitors, where the clients of the company are either, in this networking, the sellers interfacing between the products of the power producers and any of their buyers or, out of this networking, those who are licensed differently.

So now you can join and/or create Your own content, organic-groups and/or Common Companies, of which decentralization is transparent, easily defined and moderated, by joining in:

(g0) As a visitor (and just by clicking) view (where links are marked in green, under the teasers you find "read more" and on the left you find the menu of an article, if it is made of some pages), chat, comment and/or vote; and/or
(g1) as a power producer being a member create your profile and post your content, license it, define its audiences and where it should be published after signing in for FREE ; and
(g2) then, as a power owner, if additionally you want, for once-$10-payment, also become a Common shareholder in IsWith LTD, where such one is able also to create and control groups/communities in this networking (and where such payment will be increased by $1 with each entry of additional 55 such ones, until the payment reaches $100);
(g3) and then, as a a seller, if additionally you want, become, under periodical payment, a client of IsWith LTD, where such one is able to sell products in this networking.

Have fun. Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hand, also in the commercial world

@bring back@

iswith-service-etc (node/25)

<--) CLOSE this for now <--] iswith-service-etc (node/25)

Hello and Welcome!

This is a Free networking based on licensed content interwoven into structured vocabularies (aka categories). Each such content belongs to all the vocabularies it is interwoven into (as the sorting order per each term in such vocabulary may also be manually made by specific assigned one/s), where the terms per each posted content are specified in its bottom left corner and the vocabularies (currently) are:

The Path structured as a tree defining where the content sits
The Publish in structured as free related tags of which each serves as a preview page for several such contents (If manually ordered, think of tag as a front page or as "home" of something, like the one of this site, otherwise as a simple portal).

The content and the structures are developed by, in and together with Organic Groups integrated with E-Commerce for sells. Each such Group is a collector for users subscribing to it, if the users are approved (automatically or not) by its administrator, where such Group, along with the Public, is also an optional target Audience of any content being posted by users, when the visibility of the Group is defined by its administrator. Hence such Group is a tool for manging the networking of the subscribed users, specifically in correlation to each of their posts and as the Organic Groups are integrated with E-Commerce for sells the networking provides a <i>network marketing</i> providing low cost service of products delivery (and even creation) of your products.

This network marketing can never be a pyramid scheme, as the organizations providing the products here can only be Common Companies or intended to become Common. Here are all the 6 points defining each Common Company. These 6 points, as they are implement in this networking per each such Company, guaranty full transparency of the centralization/decentralization factor of each of the providing organizations. For us in this networking, this factor, along with any benefit and/or responsibility, matters (since otherwise benefit and/or responsibility maybe concluded endlessly sucking)!

The organization providing this service is IsWith LTD in London, now building itself as a Common Company building Networking of Common Companies and individuals. You are now invited to become one of its owners, as a shareholder intended to become a Common shareholder (aka Ics shareholder). The price now is 5 pounds only, while, with each entry of additional 55 such Ics this price increases by half pound until reaching 50 pounds. Hence the earlier you get be Ics the less you invest and the more you earn! For more see the Add to cart in this.

Let us be introduced. Hello and Welcome to IsWith LTD - you are invited to be one of its owners, as a Common shareholder, now in a price of 5 pounds, only! And with each entry of additional 55 such Common shareholders this price increases by half pound until reaching 50 pounds, hence the earlier you get in the less you invest and the more yo

IsWith - ComCom

The Next in Social Networking Market !

It's the system, stupid, decentralize it!

The ComCom Social (or the Social Networking for ComCom)

Get Into IsWith - the HowTo

ComCom - Common Company and Common Companies

So How to make money from even small social networking and regardless ads?

Web1.0 Web2.0 Web3.0 and ComCom:

Here is what defines a ComCom or a Common Company

Here you can see how such Common Companies (ComCom) may be integrated, considering the functions of the common shareholders in those companies,

the condition holding for Common Company (ComCom):