Introduction To Iswith

Introduction to IsWith

IsWith in 3 statements:

  1. ComCom are ….see here
  2. Therefor ComCom and social networking are the perfect match, since you get investing members being shareholders in the developed networking, for more see this.
  3. 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 Why Centralized and Decentralized Strategies Are Both Essential).

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="" >piletech</a> and the <a href="">constitution of its citizens</a> (and all the three together with his main source being the <a href="">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@

By namzezamnamzezam, on 16 Nov 2007 08:40 history Tags:


~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License