Arguments Specific and Practical Arguments
<-- Next-->


  1. Any project based on volunteering could be very well benefited from becoming a ComCom, when instead of asking donating for the project in interest, asking for ownership (as c-holder) over the project. Such projects are in the scope of what you want in this world and in your life versus what you actually do or must do. They include your way for bettering this world and they may be political environmental, of your community at any scale and/or of your interest as artist,developer and/or researcher. And they can help in your fight against big brother such as google etc :e.g. for those are:
    • wikipedia
    • drupal
    • mozila
    • facebook
    • php/phyton./java developers
    • any open-source/free-software, when letting or not the license be (also) comcom-open, meaning open but only for comcom holders
    • etc, or see also or please try this.
  2. The green-sky-argument: If now i am to tell you that
    • next year we are going to have green sky all over glob
      • and so we better do all what we can, starting now, for be better prepared for that phenomenon.
    • Well,
      • would you then ask
        • in what position am i, for to say so ?
    • and if my position, as yours, is not granted by at-least one of those very powerful entities, would you then ask me
      • hey boy, (helpfully with a smile), did you took something lately? are you ill? or so?
    • but if i am one of those powerful,
      • would you then ,well qualify the green sky argument by the position of the talker, and do all what you can, starting now, for be better prepared for that phenomenon?
    • Now, this case of first identifying the position of the talker for only then qualifying her/his argument, is exactly the one which leaded us to the current crisis, because the powerful garmented for us that
      • the value of our properties would always be climbing up.
        • Do you remember that happening?
        • Do you remember why then you did believe to such arguments? And
    • now would you agree with this:
      • Between c-holders, in the event of disagreement,
        • the argumentation is better just because the position of the talker does not qualify her/his arguments,
        • unlike the case between p-holder or between them and their stuff etc?
  3. Practical calculation: In the event of entry of other such c-holder/s, Why and For how much should a c-holder dilute her/his shares or want to join?
    • $x=a/c*100$ is the percentage of diluting, if $c$ is the number of current c-holders and $a$ is the number of additional such c-holders and accordantly $n*(c/(c+a))$ is the new number of shares held by each c-holder after the entry of all $a$ additional c-holders as $n$ is the current number of shares.
    • This diluting of number shares, which quickly decreases as $c$ increases, is expected to be offset with increase of the share price, so that $s*((c+a)/c)$ as $s$ is the current price.
    • This offset should, or is expected to, be resulted from accumulating new c-holder into the ComCom, while the offset can be checked at any step and as such be combined in the policy allowing or disallowing farther diluting of shares, or entry of new c-holders.
    • As for c-holders in each ComCom, implementing such policy is depended on the quality of being (well) organised and for solving this is here established.
    • As for the ComCom:
      • Think of c-holders in your company as a way of rewarding group with which you share your activities, but remember that any c-holder is stronger then a p-holder if both has exactly the same amount of shares, since majority between the all the c-holders is required for any farther diluting the share between the c-holders.
      • It is important to define $d$, $$c$ and $min_c$ being the $c$ before becoming ComCom, so that $n*s$ and $a/c$ would be sound.
    • This way of check-and-re-balance, the development of the company when is ComComized and its c-holders are related to some of its functionalities, is not only by defining the filed for occupying the market by the company, but also is going in the opposite direction, i.e. from the need of the market to the company, hence more organic development and less tending to be stated with values such as infinity.
  4. So let's have an example of $a=1000$ where $c=4000$, as $s=1$ before the entry of the additional $1000$ c-folders and then $s=1.25$ after that addition and as $s*n$ remains unchangeable
    • and then ask:
      • where from did the total value of the company ($i*s$) increased beyond the investment ($a*s*n$) of the additional $1000$ c-holders?
  • It comes form the additional 1000 checks of all c-holders as for the value $i*s$ of the ComCom, because
    • with $1000$ new c-holder in the ComCom, its value is higher, since additional more $1000$ checks where preformed upon that value by all the parties involved in those $1000$ transactions, which includes utist majotiry of all current c-holders allowing diluting their shares. Even when the $1000$ additional c-holders, as was the target made in the policy, was NOT reached, both ways, it is part of the choices for calculation for each party.
      • And so if we say that the policy was realised and the ComCom gut new $1000$ c-holders as the price of each share was not reduced, we also said that the there were $1000$ checks of that transaction, meaning either we have fraud or we have correct raise of value of the ComCom.
        • the fraud thing is only if the parties did not understood what we now specified
        • but if they understood , then as it was agreed and checked 1000 times by 1000 different entities, it can be considered reliable as any other value determined by the forces of the market alone,
          • but also in this scope we should see what is the d, (so we then ask what is the change in $((c+a)*(1-d))/d$) in the portion held all the p-holders, which would see higher increase in the value of their shares, because the p-holders get more benefit, but if d or c is bigger than they have less of that, all together this put comcom to be developed more naturally (i.e. gradually until some stable c, and not infinitely), which is part of the arguments for comcom.
            • because the increase of c is not only because of product to which market is created alone but also is part of the interaction of the new/old c-holders with comcom,
            • but then again those who are to be c-holder in comcom are those who never could be holders in a non-comcom company, such as clients etc,
    • so, back to the argument: Hey, way do i have here an increase beyond (or more than) the value invested in the company by the 1000 new c-holders?
      • well, you have this increase because you actually increase or stabilised your market ( or some of your activities, in which c-holding take part) and had 1000 more market forces checks for that value, but this is also to say that p-holder could earn by the increase of share's price from corresponding to the increase of establishing more the stabilisation of the ComCom,
    • but all in all on any transaction the value of each share of the comcom can be changed and is depended on the new approval of all c-holders this give to them a lot of power vs the p-holders (as they can influence the price of the share just by not approving the policy which must be them right all the way) and you now gut 1000 more of them. So yes the value of your comcom is now higher than just the sum of the investment of all the new c-holders.


<-- Next-->

By iswithiswith, on 09 Jul 2012 00:39 history Tags:


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

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