IsWith - ComCom: Own With Us

We, the shareholders of the business, make a line cutting all the shares of the business into two portions and then agree upon this rule (determining the business as a ComCom):
- Each shareholder holding shares in one of the portions holds equal number of shares (aka ), unlike the shareholders holding shares in the other portion, where
  - A) any shareholder in the business can not hold shares in both portions and the ratio (aka $0<d<=1$ ) between the portions is fixed for all the lifetime of the business once it became a ComCom;
  - B) each of the shareholders having equal number of shares is a c-holder being either a person or other ComCom and of the shareholders holding shares in the other portion is a p-holder being either a person or any other business, where the number of all c-holders is $c>=1$ and of all issued shares is $i>=1$ , such that always $i*d=c*n$ and
  - C) any shareholder holding shares in the ComCom is disallowed to sell such shares to any one which does not agree with this rule.

notes: B) when it is desired that the $d$ would be changeable (and in the price of reduction of transparency), one ComCom of which d=1 can hold some portion of other non-comcom company of which d=0.
C) we must assume 2 authorities for diluting shares, namely the on for all the ComCom and the one for only common portion for the ComCom.

ComCom (a Common Company) is a practical-solution-for and not only an utopia-about any kind of business! (Please check here if you agree with the arguments for this claim) After being ComComized the business add a new layer of relationship/s to interact with, the layer of equal ownership. This in itself opens a new horizon for making businesses: The one upon being equal added to, and not substituted for, the one we already know, which is upon being different. We also assume that In such interaction, a new type of power would take effect, namely the power of those who are equal when is well organised , or the power in being equal - one with another, the one power in which the quality of an argument given by a talker is always prior to her/his position and the one power which is mostly neglected by the few when governing the most by dividing the most for having the most in the control assumed by the few. Try to imagine the ComCom-community as part of the open-source/free-software ones. ComComizing is an inclusive solution, integrating both powers, in being equal and in being different, into one unit.

Business transformed to ComCom (being ComComized) can allow its privileged clients be its c-holders for gaining investment and/or for having its close ring clients be more likely loyal bringing friends and active, at least in providing information about their needs/desires. So then, after being transformed ,the original business, in its new form/structure, is to become a p-holder as its privileged clients are to be also its c-holders. Such privileged are to be offered to buy c-holder`s shares. (Think for a moment what could be the engineering of the identity of a customer of x if the customer is also c-holder of x, when x is coca-cola , facebook, gm, aig, citigroup etc)

It is important here to understand that all the c-holder, or at least the majority of them, must agree with each entry of another such c-holder and that with such entry the number of shares per each c-holder is reduced to $n*(c/(c+1))$ , where $n$ is the original number of shares and $c$ is the original number of c-holders.

Hence, if $v=s*n$ , where $s$ is price of one share and $v$ is the value held by each c-holder, then the price of a share must be increased to $s* (c+m)/c$ for reaching the condition of $v(c)<=v(c+m)$ , whenever $m$ is the maximum of new c-holder which is agreed in the policy adapted by the current c-holders and where this policy may be readjusted per each transaction of entry/exit of c-holders until reaching the $m$ in the condition desired by the c-holders. By using such method and in each transaction the ComCom can inspect and learn or quantify the quality of who and how-many are to be/become its privileged clients.

This way lets the growth of ComCom be organic and specific to its clients and not only to its product or service and specific to its competitors (meaning designed as infinite without competitors ) and is to be consider for privileged clients which in them activity with the business add value to the business. What shell be the $m$ is depended on the current $c$ .

In the event of becoming ComCom, $c$ is depended on the $d=(n*c)/i$ , where $i$ is the number of all initiated shares of the business and $d$ is the portion of the portion held by all c-holders and initial value of the business before becoming ComCom.

One way of doing it is distribution by selling $n$ shares to $c$ new shareholders, still as non comcom business, and then if each such shareholder has only $n$ shares and all shareholders agree with the 6 points, then being transformed to ComCom and defining the $m$ with the specific methods for re-adjustment ( for more about these methods see more about representation of c-holder by razing issues attaching representative and possible contra representative for the issue as part of the iswith platform for any ComCom. This is for the power of being equal be realised if and when is well orgenzied).

If the market is still bigger than that which $m$ allows, the solution for this ComCom is to join other such ComCom as a c-holder or a p-holder in new bigger business being private or ComCom (of which d might be equal to 1), or in short to from cooperation .

Do Not miss our latest-comments!!!

How to do ComCom:

for more see these 6 points
Is ComCom structuring of a business a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme?
Elevator pitch: It is a tool for raising capital, but also activity, loyalty and the friend bring friend as in networking. It is also a very nice brand nowadays linking trust with ownership, correlating with the raise of obama and the mistrust in the capitalism doctrine. Finally it is specially good for start-ups and for the huge temporal intervention of the government for those in need, when the government is p-holder in GovComCom, of which c-holders are those who are in need, hence when finally the intervention withdraw, still those who are in need would hold it as its c-holder.

Formula: $i*d=n*c$ , where
$i$ is the number of shares of the company, $d$ between $0$ and $1$ is the ratio of the portion of share belonging only to c-holders, of which number is $c$ , and of which each holds exactly $n$ number of shares, where $d$ is unchanged in the lifetime of the ComCom, of which $d>0$ .

There are 2 type of shareholders in any ComCom: the c-holders and the p-holders. Each p-holder may hold any number of shares but only from the portion which is not defined for all the c-holders. Any of the shareholders is either a p-holder or a c-holder, never both. Each p-holder is one person or company and each c-holder is one person or ComCom.

Virtual Facebook Example:
Here we are as facebook users getting all which we get, but not owning facebook. Also, facebook has its businesses dealing with adds and also taking some of our privacy. So, what if the users of face book are c-holder in facebook? Let's say that the $d$ in this case is $d=0.5$ , it means that all the users together have $50%$ of facebook and that we could make profit from and take decision about facebook as shareholder in facebook. In this case would we make more of and more for facebook? Also in this case, no one could takeover facebook from us, so we could really invest more in it.

Now imagine that facebook also has its competitor, say google my space etc, wouldn't facebook be better home for its user, attracting more users (also since we the c-holder users) , while we are calling the others (just because we are owner of facebook) ?

What to do with ComCom:

The interaction around the GovComCom This is urgent, it is politcal in its nature, but it is global issue - the issue of the intervention of governments for the rescue of the needy, as an strategy of which the exit is to privatised the failure businesses after eating the tax payer money. The question is this: Why the needy would not be the c-holder in the exit strategy of the gov? It is unguent NOW for you to find the ways to let your leader to know about GovComCom!!! obama would like to know it, would you be the one, the first one, to tell it to obama or your leader out of usa (we are all in this are we not)?

Helping People To Have Their Saving In Order, How?

In House Out Sourced
Get Organized For A Cause
Open source developers can own the ComCom business having the openness they desire in their development

web123-and-the-comcom

IsWith - ComCom

The Next in Social Networking Market !

In 3 pictures, all what you need for finding yourself in ComCom: (see also what-to-do-with-ComCom and here see why).

Do Not miss our latest-comments!!!

How to do ComCom:

What to do with ComCom: