Labor Structure

Labor structure: general

See: Worker Members in Types of Members.

As discussed elsewhere, as much as possible, Cosmos would seek to source its human capital needs from its membership base. This is in keeping with Cosmos’ holistic ethic of capturing and recirculating as much wealth as possible from within itself. Fostering learning opportunities (ala a university) that increase a member’s value to Cosmos (or beyond) “nests” nicely with Cosmos’ overall objectives, which is to have a robust, resilient membership, capable of good choices and skillfully handling distributed power, through ongoing education, training and information means. Engaging and employing worker-members (thus, providing reflexive value to individual members on the basis of the need to meet demands defined by other members) is functionally just a deeper productive extension of a capacity that is already embedded in Cosmos’ need for ongoing (all-types) member engagement and education.

To meet its goal of resourcing as much of its human resources as possible from within and among its membership, Cosmos strives to provide:

  1. comprehensive in-house training, education and service systems including gamified pathways tied to earning badges, mentoring partnerships & learning communities,
  2. promotion, through users’ dashboards, of appropriate skill-building and work opportunities to members,
  3. assessments, through user inquiry and engagement occuring at the dashboard between user and mindfulAI or Cosmos staff person, of user skills, interests and capacities, thus ascertaining “fit” between needs in the Cosmos system & a member’s capacity,
  4. incentives/perks (such as access to a desirable suite or product, bonus Litcoin, a raise in general pay rate or factor, etc.) offered when a member upskills, especially in a highly desirable field,
  5. robust performance assessments and mitigation methods in place for quality assurance and worker success.

(If a barrier is encountered to resourcing workers from within Cosmos, such as lack of a specialty skill among the existing membership, then Cosmos may recruit for a qualified worker outside its framework—however, the terms of employment would be that every worker must also become a member of Cosmos and participate, at a bare minimum at least, as a member.)

A member raising his/her/their overall skill level may or may not be tied to that member’s “leveling up” process (i.e. tied to that member’s defined goals), but it certainly ties to Cosmos’ “leveling up,” as Cosmos then has greater capacity (in theory) that it can draw upon. Besides members’ capacity in the abstract to perform a role or task, the member must be willing to perform said role or task—e.g. have a need or reliance on the income generated from working in that role or on that task. Members would indicate their availability to functioning as worker-members in Cosmos through their dashboard interfaces (or “dials”), where they’d let the system AI know whether to show them any work openings/opportunities or whether to mute/turn off those kinds of opportunities in their feed.

In the event of an overall (systemic) lack of demand for paid work (i.e., across all members, there appears to be low need on their parts [or, low correlation to their self-actualization objectives] for increased financial capital), which would require Cosmos to go out and recruit for members with that kind of need, specifically (i.e. members that need income). This is also true if Cosmos at the systemic level assesses overall low amounts of financial capital circulating—then it may reach out with a campaign targeted to recruiting specifically more sponsor aka patron members to the platform, to attempt to bring this inequity into balance. While this describes a kind of “systemic calibration” effort if Cosmos detects imbalances in overall member needs & yields, we expect that, at least at first, many of the members joining Cosmos will have a need for income, and so there may likely be internal competition for desirable roles, which would be managed by throttling mechanisms like performance assessments, badges and degrees to badges, and differentiated incentives.

Potential distribution of worker levels in Cosmos

How job opportunities are available within C* to members:

[see Illustration here]

  1. LC paygrade: X*1
  • Personal services (best suited for a human in our model), but menial/task-based work
    Jobs might include:
  • Customer onboarding and platform navigation assistance (cmty guide)
  • Moderation/mediation/conflict resolution processes
  • Tech support
  1. LC paygrade: X*1.1
  • 2nd lowest trust level
  • Some amount of Level 1 work qualifies to advance to Level 2
  • People may be retained to do work within a Level 1 department but are paid at the L2 paygrade because their work is more trusted/respected/appreciated than just anyone’s. Literally “leveling up” but staying in your same niche.
  • E.g. Community Guide Lev. 2
  1. LC paygrade: X*1.2
  2. LC paygrade: X*1.3
  3. Etc.
  4. Upper limit on ratio of pay rates within Cosmos may be set at something like 1 : 3 (lowest to highest paid, ala Mondragon’s wage regulations!)

See: Badges. Relevant badges serve as doorways to access to certain domains of work. Earning badges can function as “multiplier” on your pay-rate (esp. In high-demand combinations).

There is the opportunity to stay in one “track” or specialization and just move up to more and more responsibilities and more pay/more work in the system. E.g. specializing in: the forum, the Key Docs, member relations, tech support, etc. Upleveling one’s skill level in these areas either guarantees, or allows the chance for, an “upleveling” in pay rate (rewards) as well as responsibilities.

The more a member diversifies her skill set, the more valuable she becomes. This is because each “department” has an upper limit of skills it needs: for instance, even the most expert community guide might top out at “value provided to the system” at say Level 5 (corresponding to the complexity of the system wrt that role). So, level 5 in that department is as far as one can progress, for the foreseeable future. However, people with some training in multiple disciplines are more qualified for executive team level opportunities of the highest pay echelon and the most responsibility/accountability over the system. E.g. if Member A has at least level 1 training in every discipline/track/department within Cosmos, and in some has level 2, 3 or 4 training, they’d be eligible for an oversight, training, manager, or quality control position in their department, which often involves coordinating cross-disciplinary, innovative, higher-risk actions that could impact more users (e.g. product development, systemic health monitoring and interventions, etc.).

In general, Cosmos members authorize one another’s contributions as valuable autonomously, through Litcoin. However, when higher echelons of training are reached, only those at equal or higher levels of training may be in a position to assess a person’s contributions as quality. Voluntary contributions, as well as those made in the process of paid work, can be upvoted (can have their profile “raised” to the upper levels of “authority” on a given department/domain), thus good feedback (in theory) can still filter up regardless of its origin.

When a member is looking to begin work, “level up” in their worker capacities, or break into new disciplines, the member would ramp open their dials controlling for promotion of information about work opportunities. Not only could users autonomously search for opportunities of interest to them, the dashboard—knowing their interests, skills and capacities already—could offer prompts such as: “Did you, or would you, like to actually read the terms of service? Est. time investment: 5 hours. Opportunity: Tech support consultant - Terms of Service - Level 1.”

Likely, worker cohorts in the various departments and at (or across) various skill levels would self-organize into “circles” (that further self-organize into holonic or holocratic structures) with a particular emphasis or higher focus on their domains of interest, therefore representing a “concentrated hub” of activity incl. development, research and innovation, generating proposals to improve or better integrate with other domains. Ala self-directed worker councils (see also Mondragon).

Cosmos would maintain awareness of systems-wide ratios of the ideal distribution of sets of necessary support skills and attempt to maintain balance between existing, future, and retiring needs, and the overall skill levels of its population of users. This means potentially triggering more or less prompting promotions or advertisements (of opportunities to train in a discipline/field) to users’ dashboards on the basis of gaps and how urgent or critical those gaps are in the system.

Those being hired from outside the system and being integrated in (due to high desirable skills, for instance) will be encouraged to develop their understanding of Cosmos. Perhaps a light degree of generalized training and education in an ongoing way would be encouraged for any/every member in Cosmos, but especially so as “preliminaries” for worker-members.