Valve’s management model; one in which there are no bosses, no delegation, no commands, no attempt by anyone to tell someone what to do
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or urlEntreprise Archives | Novae - 1 views
Who we are (en) - KRYPTOSPHERE® - 0 views
1More
Stay foundation Stuttgart - Stay Stiftung - 1 views
-
What does the Stay Foundation do once the social enterprises have found each other? In the truest sense of the word development-aid.These local social enterprises lack the financial support to exploit their development potential. The team of the Stay Foundation in Stuttgart is sure that if funds are provided by industrial nations, which are then used for the expansion of existing social enterprises, it is development-aid on an equal footing. The challenge in Germany is therefore to attract companies and private individuals to invest in social enterprises in developing countries. In order to raise awareness of Africa and the local social enterprises which are active there, the team organises events for entrepreneurs, is present at events on the subject of Africa, informs private individuals about the foundation and its objectives, examines possibilities for funding and cooperation with the aim of supporting the remaining development in Africa.
1More
DOEN Foundation - 1 views
-
The DOEN Foundation supports pioneers who work hard to establish a greener, more socially-inclusive, and more creative society, in which: > the capacity of the planet is the starting point (green); > everybody can participate, where people work together and help each other with respect for individual needs and possibilities (socially inclusive); > art and culture are at the heart in the belief that society can not do without (creative). The DOEN Foundation supports initiatives that focus on one of these three themes. Within these themes, we work with programs which specify the type of initiatives we support.
1More
Binance Charity - 0 views
-
Perhaps, this is a possibility to either fundraise Crypto for direct implementations of a device at a community in need OR raise follow-up funding for the current design phase. Binance Charity "Fight-Hunger-Worldwide" campaign*: https://www.binance.charity/fight-hunger-worldwide Perhaps, "Greens for Good" can connect with this campaign by Binance Charity.
Introduce a new way to retain knowledge from Kindle books | Diigo - 0 views
Geographies of change - 2 views
Global Innovation Commons | Discover... Connect... Contribute... - 3 views
www.globalinnovationcommons.org/integral-accounting
integral accounting value accounting VAS theory system method possible collaborator
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 02 Jun 13
- No Cached
Le Jeu | ze.game - 0 views
Bug Labs - 0 views
buglabs.net
possible collaborator electronics modular open hardware open source hardware openhardware architecture IoPA
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 09 Oct 13
- Cached
Open Source Hardware Association - 0 views
21More
What do we need corporations for and how does Valve's management structure fit into tod... - 0 views
-
Every social order, including that of ants and bees, must allocate its scarce resources between different productive activities and processes, as well as establish patterns of distribution among individuals and groups of output collectively produced.
-
the allocation of resources, as well as the distribution of the produce, is based on a decentralised mechanism functioning by means of price signals:
- ...18 more annotations...
-
Interestingly, however, there is one last bastion of economic activity that proved remarkably resistant to the triumph of the market: firms, companies and, later, corporations. Think about it: market-societies, or capitalism, are synonymous with firms, companies, corporations. And yet, quite paradoxically, firms can be thought of as market-free zones. Within their realm, firms (like societies) allocate scarce resources (between different productive activities and processes). Nevertheless they do so by means of some non-price, more often than not hierarchical, mechanism!
-
The miracle of the market, according to Hayek, was that it managed to signal to each what activity is best for herself and for society as a whole without first aggregating all the disparate and local pieces of knowledge that lived in the minds and subconscious of each consumer, each designer, each producer. How does this signalling happen? Hayek’s answer (borrowed from Smith) was devastatingly simple: through the movement of prices
-
The idea of spontaneous order comes from the Scottish Enlightenment, and in particular David Hume who, famously, argued against Thomas Hobbes’ assumption that, without some Leviathan ruling over us (keeping us “all in awe”), we would end up in a hideous State of Nature in which life would be “nasty, brutish and short”
-
Hume’s counter-argument was that, in the absence of a system of centralised command, conventions emerge that minimise conflict and organise social activities (including production) in a manner that is most conducive to the Good Life
-
Hayek’s argument was predicated upon the premise that knowledge is always ‘local’ and all attempts to aggregate it are bound to fail. The world, in his eyes, is too complex for its essence to be distilled in some central node; e.g. the state.
-
The idea here is that, through this ever-evolving process, people’s capacities, talents and ideas are given the best chance possible to develop and produce synergies that promote the Common Good. It is as if an invisible hand guides Valve’s individual members to decisions that both unleash each person’s potential and serve the company’s collective interest (which does not necessarily coincide with profit maximisation).
-
Valve differs in that it insists that its employees allocate 100% of their time on projects of their choosing
-
In contrast, Smith and Hayek concentrate their analysis on a single passion: the passion for profit-making
-
Hume also believed in a variety of signals, as opposed to Hayek’s exclusive reliance on price signalling
-
One which, instead of price signals, is based on the signals Valve employees emit to one another by selecting how to allocate their labour time, a decision that is bound up with where to wheel their tables to (i.e. whom to work with and on what)
-
He pointed out simply and convincingly that the cost of subcontracting a good or service, through some market, may be much larger than the cost of producing that good or service internally. He attributed this difference to transactions costs and explained that they were due to the costs of bargaining (with contractors), of enforcing incomplete contracts (whose incompleteness is due to the fact that some activities and qualities cannot be fully described in a written contract), of imperfect monitoring and asymmetrically distributed information, of keeping trade secrets… secret, etc. In short, contractual obligations can never be perfectly stipulated or enforced, especially when information is scarce and unequally distributed, and this gives rise to transaction costs which can become debilitating unless joint production takes place within the hierarchically structured firm. Optimal corporation size corresponds, in Coase’s scheme of things, to a ‘point’ where the net marginal cost of contracting out a service or good (including transaction costs) tends to zero
-
As Coase et al explained in the previous section, the whole point about a corporation is that its internal organisation cannot turn on price signals (for if it could, it would not exist as a corporation but would, instead, contract out all the goods and services internally produced)
-
Each employee chooses (a) her partners (or team with which she wants to work) and (b) how much time she wants to devote to various competing projects. In making this decision, each Valve employee takes into account not only the attractiveness of projects and teams competing for their time but, also, the decisions of others.
-
Hume thought that humans are prone to all sorts of incommensurable passions (e.g. the passion for a video game, the passion for chocolate, the passion for social justice) the pursuit of which leads to many different types of conventions that, eventually, make up our jointly produced spontaneous order
-
Valve is, at least in one way, more radical than a traditional co-operative firm. Co-ops are companies whose ownership is shared equally among its members. Nonetheless, co-ops are usually hierarchical organisations. Democratic perhaps, but hierarchical nonetheless. Managers may be selected through some democratic or consultative process involving members but, once selected, they delegate and command their ‘underlings’ in a manner not at all dissimilar to a standard corporation. At Valve, by contrast, each person manages herself while teams operate on the basis of voluntarism, with collective activities regulated and coordinated spontaneously via the operations of the time allocation-based spontaneous order mechanism described above.
-
In contrast, co-ops and Valve feature peer-based systems for determining the distribution of a firm’s surplus among employees.
-
There is one important aspect of Valve that I did not focus on: the link between its horizontal management structure and its ‘vertical’ ownership structure. Valve is a private company owned mostly by few individuals. In that sense, it is an enlightened oligarchy: an oligarchy in that it is owned by a few and enlightened in that those few are not using their property rights to boss people around. The question arises: what happens to the alternative spontaneous order within Valve if some or all of the owners decide to sell up?
54More
Evolving Towards a Partner State in an Ethical Economy - 0 views
www.realitysandwich.com/_partner_state_ethical_economy
ethical economy new economy paper theory value networks Bauwens Michel
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 02 Apr 12
- No Cached
- ...46 more annotations...
-
Is there perhaps a new model of power and democracy co-evolving out of these new social practices, that may be an answer to the contemporary crisis of democracy
-
Such communities are truly poly-archies and the type of power that is held in them is meritocratic, distributed, and ad hoc.
-
Everyone can contribute without permission, but such a priori permissionlessness is matched with mechanisms for 'a posteriori' communal validation, where those with recognized expertise and that are accepted by the community, the so-called 'maintainers' and the 'editors', decide
-
allowing for maximum human freedom compatible with the object of cooperation. Indeed, peer production is always a 'object-oriented' cooperation, and it is the particular object that will drive the particular form chosen for its 'peer governance' mechanisms
-
The main allocation mechanism in such project, which replaces the market, the hierarchy and democracy, is a 'distribution of tasks'
-
no longer a division of labor between 'jobs', and the mutual coordination works through what scientist call 'stigmergic signalling'
-
every participating individual can see what is needed, or not and decide accordingly whether to undertake his/her particular contribution
-
has achieved capacities both for global coordination, and for the small group dynamics that are characteristic of human tribal forms and that it does this without 'command and control'! In fact, we can say that peer production has enabled the global scaling of small-group dynamics.
-
And they have to be, because an undemocratic institution would also discourage contributions by the community of participants.
-
Hence, an increased exodus of productive capacities, in the form of direct use value production, outside the existing system of monetization, which only operates at its margins.
-
Where there is no tension between supply and demand, their can be no market, and no capital accumulation
-
Facebook and Google users create commercial value for their platforms, but only very indirectly and they are not at all rewarded for their own value creation.
-
Since what they are creating is not what is commodified on the market for scarce goods, there is no return of income for these value creators
-
If you did not contribute, you had no say, so engagement was and is necessary.
-
⁃ At the core of value creation are various commons, where the innovations are deposited for all humanity to share and to build on ⁃ These commons are enabled and protected through nonprofit civic associations, with as national equivalent the Partner State, which empowers and enables that social production ⁃ Around the commons emerges a vibrant commons-oriented economy undertaken by different kinds of ethical companies, whose legal structures ties them to the values and goals of the commons communities, and not absentee and private shareholders intent of maximising profit at any cost
-
the citizens deciding on the optimal shape of their provisioning systems.
-
Is there any possibility to create a really autonmous model of peer production, that could create its own cycle of reproduction?
-
contribute
-
In this way, the social reproduction of commoners would no longer depend on the accumulation cycle of capital, but on its own cycle of value creation and realization
-
Phyles are mission-oriented, purpose-driven, community-supportive entities that operate in the market, on a global scale, but work for the commons.
-
Thijs Markus writes so eloquently about Nike in the Rick Falkvinge blog, if you want to sell $5 shoes for $150 in the West, you better have one heck of a repressive IP regime in place.
-
An economy of scope exists between the production of two goods when two goods which share a CommonCost are produced together such that the CommonCost is reduced.
-
2) The current system beliefs that innovations should be privatized and only available by permission or for a hefty price (the IP regime), making sharing of knowledge and culture a crime; let's call this feature, enforced 'artificial scarcity'.
-
1) Our current system is based on the belief of infinite growth and the endless availability of resources, despite the fact that we live on a finite planet; let's call this feature, runaway 'pseudo-abundance'.
-
So what are the economies of scope of the new p2p age? They come in two flavours: 1) the mutualizing of knowledge and immaterial resources 2) the mutualizing of material productive resources
72More
Crowding Out - P2P Foundation - 1 views
-
The curve indicates that while workers will initially chose to work more when paid more per hour, there is a point after which rational workers will choose to work less
-
At that point, the leaders are no longer leaders of a community, and they turn out to be suckers after all, working for pittance, comparatively speaking
- ...36 more annotations...
-
under certain structural conditions non-price-based production is extraordinarily robust
-
There is, in fact, a massive amount of research that supports the idea that when you pay people to do something for you, they stop enjoying it, and distrust their own motivations. The mysterious something that goes away, and that “Factor X” even has a name: intrinsic motivation.
-
It just is not so easy to assume that because people behave productively in one framework (the social process of peer production that is Wikipedia, free and open source software, or Digg), that you can take the same exact behavior, with the same exact set of people, and harness them to your goals by attaching a price to what previously they were doing in a social process.
-
Extrinsic rewards suggest that there is actually an instrumental relationship at work, that you do the activity in order to get something else
-
If you pay me for it, it must be work
-
It’s what we would call a robust effect. It shows up in many contexts. And there’s been considerable testing to try to find out exactly why it works. A major school of thought is that there is an “Overjustification Effect.” (http://kozinets.net/archives/133)
-
Offering financial rewards for contributions to online communities basically means mixing external and intrinsic motivation.
-
A good example is children who are paid by their parents for mowing the family lawn. Once they expect to receive money for that task, they are only willing to do it again if they indeed receive monetary compensation. The induced unwillingness to do anything for free may also extend to other household chores.
-
Once ‘gold-stars’ were introduced as a symbolic reward for a certain amount of time spent practicing the instrument, the girl lost all interest in trying new, difficult pieces. Instead of aiming at improving her skills, her goal shifted towards spending time playing well-learned, easy pieces in order to receive the award (Deci with Flaste 1995)
-
this is a more troubling example, as playing the harder pieces is also practicing - I would take this as a more complex mechanism at work - perhaps the reinterpretation by the girl that all playing was considered equal, due to the pricing mechanism, in which case the proximal solution would be to pay more for more complex pieces, or for levels of achievement - the question remains of why the extrinsic reward was introduced in the first place (unwillingness to practice as much as her parents wanted?) - which would indicate intrinsic motivation was insufficient in this case
-
-
Suddenly, she managed to follow the prescription, as her own (intrinsic) motivation was recognized and thereby reinforced.
-
The introduction of a monetary fine transforms the relationship between parents and teachers from a non-monetary into a monetary one
-
"The effects of external interventions on intrinsic motivation have been attributed to two psychological processes: (a) Impaired self-determination. When individuals perceive an external intervention to reduce their self-determination, they substitute intrinsic motivation by extrinsic control. Following Rotter (1966), the locus of control shifts from the inside to the outside of the person affected. Individuals who are forced to behave in a specific way by outside intervention, feel overjustified if they maintained their intrinsic motivation. (b) Impaired self-esteem. When an intervention from outside carries the notion that the actor's motivation is not acknowledged, his or her intrinsic motivation is effectively rejected. The person affected feels that his or her involvement and competence is not appreciated which debases its value. An intrinsically motivated person is taken away the chance to display his or her own interest and involvement in an activity when someone else offers a reward, or commands, to undertake it. As a result of impaired self-esteem, individuals reduce effort.
-
these are finally very useful - so from (a) as long as self determination is maintained (actively) extrinsic reward should not shut down intrinsic motivation AND (b) so long as motivations are recognized and reward dimensions OTHER THAN financial continue to operate, extrinsic reward should not affect intrinsic motivation
-
-
External interventions crowd-out intrinsic motivation if the individuals affected perceive them to be controlling
-
External interventions crowd-in intrinsic motivation if the individuals concerned perceive it as supportive
-
In that case, self-esteem is fostered, and individuals feel that they are given more freedom to act, thus enlarging self-determination
-
so effectively a system needs to ensure it is acting on all dimensions of reward, or at least those most important to the particular participant, ego (pride, recognition, guilt reduction, feeling needed, being helpful, etc), money (sustenance, beyond which it is less potent), meaning/purpose etc. If one ran experiments controlling for financial self sufficiency, then providing appreciation and recognition as well as the introduced financial reward, they might yield different results
-
-
cultural categories that oppose marketplace modes of behavior (or “market logics”) with the more family-like modes of behavior of caring and sharing that we observe in close-knit communities (”community logics”)
-
this is labor, this is work, just do it.
-
When communal logics are in effect, all sorts of norms of reciprocity, sacrifice, and gift-giving come into play: this is cool, this is right, this is fun
-
So think about paying a kid to clean up their room, paying parishioners to go to church, paying people in a neighborhood to attend a town hall meeting, paying people to come out and vote. All these examples seem a little strange or forced. Why? Because they mix and match the communal with the market-oriented.
-
Payment as disincentive. In his interesting book Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt describes some counterintuitive facts about payment. One of the most interesting is that charging people who do the wrong thing often causes them to do it more, and paying people to do the right thing causes them to do it less.
-
You direct people _away_ from any noble purpose you have, and instead towards grubbing for dollars
-
When people work for a noble purpose, they are told that their work is highly valued. When people work for $0.75/hour, they are told that their work is very low-valued
-
you're going to have to fight your way through labour laws and tax issues all the way to bankruptcy
-
Market economics. If you have open content, I can copy your content to another wiki, not pay people, and still make money. So by paying contributors, you're pricing yourself out of the market.
-
You don't have to pay people to do what they want to do anyways. The labour cost for leisure activities is $0. And nobody is going to work on a wiki doing things they don't want to do.
-
wow, exploitative in the extreme - no one can afford to do work for free, it cuts into paid work, family time etc. if they are passionate about something they will do it for free if they cannot get permission to do it for sustenance, but they still need to sustain themselves, and they are making opportunity cost sacrifices, and if you are in turn making money off of this you are an asshole.. go ahead look in the mirror and say "I am an asshole"
-
-
No fair system. There's simply no fair, automated and auditable way to divvy up the money
-
too complicated to do automatically. But if you have a subjective system -- have a human being evaluate contributions to an article and portion out payments -- it will be subject to constant challenges, endless debates, and a lot of community frustration.
-
Gaming the system. People are really smart. If there's money to be made, they'll figure out how to game your payment system to get more money than they actually deserve
-
They'll be trying to get as much money out of you as possible, and you'll be trying to give as little as you can to them
-
If you can't convince people that working on your project is worth their unpaid time, then there's probably something wrong with your project.
-
People are going to be able to sense that -- it's going to look like a cover-up, something sleazy
-
Donate.
-
Thank-you gifts
-
Pay bounties
43More
Partner State - P2P Foundation - 0 views
-
-
So here we have it, the new triarchy: - The state, with its public property and representative mechanisms of governance (in the best scenario) - The private sector, with the corporation and private property - The commons, with the Trust (or the for-benefit association), and which is the ‘property’ of all its members (not the right word in the context of the commons, since it has a different philosophy of ownership)
-
- ...39 more annotations...
-
At its core would be a collection of commons, represented by trusts and for-benefit associations, which protect their common assets for the benefit of present and future generations
-
The commons ‘rents out’ the use of its resources to entrepreneurs. In other words, business still exists, though infinite growth-based capitalism does not.
-
More likely is that the corporate forms will be influenced by the commons and that profit will be subsumed to other goals, that are congruent with the maintenance of the commons.
-
Much of its functions will have been taken over by commons institutions, but since these institutions care primarily about their commons, and not the general common good, we will still need public authorities that are the guarantor of the system as a whole, and can regulate the various commons, and protect the commoners against possible abuses. So in our scenario, the state does not disappear, but is transformed, though it may greatly diminish in scope, and with its remaining functions thoroughly democratized and based on citizen participation.
-
In our vision, it is civil-society based peer production, through the Commons, which is the guarantor of value creation by the private sector, and the role of the state, as Partner State, is to enable and empower the creation of common value. The new peer to peer state then, though some may see that as a contradictio in terminis, is a state which is subsumed under the Commons, just as it is now under the private sector. Such a peer to peer state, if we are correct, will have a much more modest role than the state under a classic state society, with many of its functions taken over by civil society associations, interlinked in processes of global governance. The above then, this triarchy, is the institutional core which replaces the dual private-public binary system that is characteristic of the capitalist system that is presently the dominant format.
-
fundamental mission is to empower direct social-value creation, and to focus on the protection of the Commons sphere as well as on the promotion of sustainable models of entrepreneurship and participatory politics
-
the state does exist, and I believe that we can’t just imagine that we live in a future state-less society
-
retreating from the binary state/privatization dilemma to the triarchical choice of an optimal mix amongst government regulation, private-market freedom and autonomous civil-society projects
-
trigger the production/construction of new commons by - (co-) management of complexe resource systems which are not limited to local boundaries or specific communities (as manager and partner) - survey of rules (chartas) to care for the commons (mediator or judge) - kicking of or providing incentives for commoners governing their commons - here the point is to design intelligent rules which automatically protect the commons, like the GPL does (facilitator)"
-
the emergence of the digital commons. It is the experience of creating knowledge, culture, software and design commons, by a combination of voluntary contributions, entrepreneurial coalitions and infrastructure-protecting for-benefit associations, that has most tangibly re-introduced the idea of commons, for all to use without discrimination, and where all can contribute. It has drastically reduced the production, distribution, transaction and coordination costs for the immaterial value that is at the core also of all what we produce physically, since that needs to be made, needs to be designed. It has re-introduced communing as a mainstream experience for at least one billion internet users, and has come with proven benefits and robustness that has outcompeted and outcooperated its private rivals. It also of course offers new ways to re-imagine, create and protect physical commons.
-
communal shareholding, i.e. the non-reciprocal exchange of an individual with a totality. It is totality that we call the commons.
-
It is customary to divide society into three sectors, and what we want to show is how the new peer to peer dynamic unleashed by networked infrastructures, changes the inter-relationship between these three sectors.
-
In the current ‘cognitive capitalist’ system, it is the private sector consisting of enterprises and businesses which is the primary factor, and it is engaged in competitive capital accumulation. The state is entrusted with the protection of this process. Though civil society, through the citizen, is in theory ‘sovereign’, and chooses the state; in practice, both civil society and the state are under the domination of the private sector.
-
Under fascism, the state achieves great independence from the private sector , which may become subservient to the state. Under the welfare state, the state becomes a protector of the social balance of power and manages the achievements of the social movement; and finally, under the neoliberal corporate welfare state, or ‘market state’, it serves most directly the interests of the financial sector.
-
The private sector , under a regime of private ownership, is geared to profit, discounts social and natural externalities, both positive and negative, and uses its dominance in society to use and dominate the state.
-
civil society has a relative power as well, through its capability of creating social movements and associations
-
the endangerment of the biosphere through the workings of ‘selfish’ market players; the second is the role of the new digital commons.
-
Peer production gives us an advance picture of how a commons-oriented society would look like. At its core is a commons and a community contributing to it, either voluntarily, or as paid entrepreneurial employees. It does this through collaborative platforms using open standards. Around the commons emerges enterprises that create added value to operate on the marketplace, but also help the maintenance and the expansion of the commons they rely on. A third partner are the for-benefit associations that maintain the infrastructure of cooperation. Public authorities could play a role if they wanted to support existing commons or the creation of new commons, for the value they bring to society.
-
if a commons is not created as in the case of the digital commons, it is something that is inherited from nature or former generations, given in trust and usufruct, so that it can be transmitted to our descendents. The proper institution for such commons is therefore the trust, which is a corporate form that cannot touch its principal capital, but has to maintain it.
31More
The basic orientation of p2p theory towards societal reform: transforming civil society... - 1 views
-
in a capitalist system, ‘civil society’ is not directly productive of the goods and services that we need to survive, live and thrive
- ...22 more annotations...
-
everything that needs to be made, has to be designed through collaborative innovation in the first place
-
Both civil society and the notion of citizenship can be criticized for being insufficiently inclusionary, and therefore as ‘mechanisms of exclusion’.
-
consisting of shared depositories of knowledge, code and design; the communities of contributors and users of such commons
-
democratically governed by all participants and stakeholders in such commons
-
civil society is the locus of the shared abundance of value creation, and the place for the continual dialogue regarding the necessities of common life.
-
democratically decide
-
the ‘common good’ of society as a whole
-
The difference is that the commons where the immaterial value is created are positioned in a field of abundance characteristic for non-rival or anti-rival goods; while the for-benefit associations are responsible for the sometimes contentious allocation of rival infrastructures.
-
Whereas the commons themselves are plurarchies based on permissionless contribution, forking and other rights guaranteeing the diversity of contributions and contributors; the for-benefit associations are democratically governed.
-
true reform of the private sector and the corporate form.
-
Under conditions of the rule of capital, for-profit corporations are beholden to work for the interests of the shareholders. This format allows for the accumulation of capital, but also indirectly of political power, through the power of money to influence politics and politicians. For-profit corporations are part of a system of infinite growth and compound interest, must continuously compete with other corporations, and therefore, also minimize costs. For-profit corporations are designed to ignore negative environmental externalities by avoiding to pay the costs associated with them; and to ignore positive social externalities, also by avoiding to pay for them. In terms of sustainability, corporations practice planned obsolescence as a rule, because while the market is a scarcity allocation mechanism, capitalism itself is a scarcity maintenance and creation mechanism. Anti-sustainable practices are systemic and part of the DNA of the for-profit corporation.
-
Under conditions of peer production, design and innovation moves to commons-based communitiies, which lack the incentive for unsustainable design; products are inherently design for sustainability, and the production process itself is designed for openness and distribution.
-
designed to make the commoners and the commons themselves sustainable, by not ‘leaking’ surplus value to external shareholders
-
mission-oriented, community supportive, sustainability-oriented corporate forms, that operate in the marketplace but do not themselves reproduce capitalism.
-
surplus value stays within the commons, allows its autonomous social reproduction, and sustains the commoners
-
because commons and their communities are themselves specific, and do not automatically take into account the common good of society as a whole .
-
A Partner State functions center around enabling and empowering social production and abandons some of the paternalistic aspects of the welfare state by focusing on strengthening the possibilities of autonomy.
1More
Crypto4Good - 2 views
-
Crypto4Good is a French NGO organizing charity events supported by the French-speaking crypto community. Best Practice: During a 24 hours live event by Crypto4Good + Binance Charity on 19 June 2021, two professional trading teams - Kryll.io & Diabolo.io - leveraged an experimental fund that was collected throughout the French crypto community in the weeks before the event. The two trading teams competed to make the most out of this fund within 24 hours of trading. Finally, both the money fundraised as well as the money sucessfully traded by Kryll.io & Diabolo.io will be given to NGOs in France. In the next weeks the event teams will travel to 5 cities in France: Lille, Paris, Lyon, Nantes, Toulouse, and use all of the donations collected and the money traded to buy as much food and basic necessities as possible. All these products will be donated to social services: https://www.binance.charity/fight-hunger-worldwide