Key Questions: Value Creation in Cosmos

This document is intended as a dump of many “big picture” unanswered questions known to be triggered by content elsewhere in the Key Docs. It was created as a general “shelf” for big, potentially critical questions to grapple with as a community. As the process of delving into proposals in the Key Docs proceeds, contents from here may become merged into specific conversations.

Value Creation in Cosmos

● Big question: What does ownership/equity mean in Cosmos, and how is it structured? What kinds of equity do we aim to provide (e.g. common, preferred)?

● Preferred shares as means to raise capital, and of compensating past employees—i.e. past employees can procure preferred shares with their LC?

● How is Litcoin monetized? If LC is such a flexible currency, how does it meaningfully get tied to cash money that’s within Cosmos, esp. when it comes time to cash it out?

● From profits, some ratio goes to Cosmos’ own LC pool. A dollar “backing” of LC (like a reserve). LitCoin could only ever be transacted out of that specific account

● Tiny research projects—inviting people in small ways. This & Key Docs engagement is potentially a first step to setting in motion thought-action flows that we ultimately want to see embodied throughout the platform. How do we structure? How & what do we track/measure?

● Regarding the goal that a user “not continuously have to exchange time for money,” is equity that tool? Is Cointribute? As Cosmos creates a profit, you are entitled to some portion of that and it’s a meaningful amount? Sponsorship as (relatively) passive income source. How many sponsors could we actually recruit? How much of the market share could we gain, and how would we address imbalances in who is coming to our platform (e.g. if there’s way more creator members, how to recruit sponsor members).

● Producer’s co-op: as our producers independently are selling goods and expanding their impacts, Cosmos itself becomes more profitable. The ratio between Cosmos operating at cost vs. taking cuts and charging members more for services so that it can then redistribute profits—needs to be defined.

● Optimizing for small groups and individuals to generate as much value out of it as possible; OR optimizing for central entity to expand. Should we be orienting our actions towards gaining sponsorships for ourselves, etc. in profitable ways… or should we optimize for making Cosmos itself as valuable as possible so that by virtue of equity in it we derive an income?

● How do we recognize and value exchanges of other forms of capital in the system just as much as financial? If these forms of capital are intermingled in LC, that’s fine—but then what about cashing out LC, if that means conversion of the other forms of capital to financial capital only, that is leaving the system?

● Clearly articulating this part of the model: investors --> operating capital --> staff OR LC --> funds tasks, hires people —> people can cash out LC (income). Cosmos is “creating opportunities,” kind of a “we have jobs!” pitch. “A selling point is that in Cosmos you can develop various initiatives/skills/interests (of your own)—and get rewarded for it.”

Re: earning LC “naturally” through social network: What about in circumstances of plagiarism? In which a person deliberately, unthinkingly or truly-unwittingly repeats something someone else has historically said—but then that person gets the credit (the LC) for it, whereas at the time of the original comment, no one paid much attention/reward to it? The effect is demeaning/“using” of the original speaker, unless the second-speaker chooses to share in the reward. Esp. Likely to happen if the second-speaker has far more social collateral than the original speaker. Can be very hard to prove whether second-speaker knew and deliberately stole/redistributed-without-attribution the original one. Also implicit bias becomes a factor. Also hard to know whether the timing was “just not right” previously, and now the zeitgeist has significantly shifted. Contemplate how to identify and mitigate behavior like this incompatible to Cosmos’ ethics & main game (of mutual self-actualization).