You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
@Dominic

e-land

This is a better description of the e-land idea for @serapath

So, back in the time of the dotcom boom, before bitcoin, there was a thing called e-gold. It was a digital currency, but it was backed by gold. You could transfer fractions of a gram, but the e-gold company actually had that gold sitting in a vault somewhere.

After thinking lots about real estate markets, and looking at price graphs of land I had a thought: what if we made land more liquid? what if we did what e-gold did, purchased a large amount of land then essentially created a derivative layer on top of that that was easy to transfer.

Of course, actually transferring a title to real estate is expensive! you need lawyers involved, if you want to subdivide you need surveyors, and to pay fees to local government etc. This raises the bar for access to land significantly.

But, then I looked at the price of some land in NZ - okay the one i linked is sold now, but it was 40 hectares for ~1 million NZD. That works out just $2.5 per square meter! Imagine if you could buy, say, a coffee by trading the access right to a square meter of land???

Or, say, take the price you might pay for a summer music festival - maybe $250 that would be 100 square meters. Enough room for a tent and a small vege garden. $2500 would be enough to actually grow your own food and not be too close to your neighbours either - about the size of a suburban "quarter acre dream" - but for the price of a second hand van.

How I'm thinking it would work - create a legal entity that can own the land - a cooperative who's purpose is to hold the farm (given that land banking is a legitimate business, apparently). Now, in NZ law, a cooperative can have both transactional shares (which are sold for a fixed, aka, nominal value - say $1) and ordinary shares (which are sold at market rates).
The distinction is essential to the definition of "cooperative" - to have a transactional share you have to be doing the thing that the cooperative exists to do. At least 75% of voting rights have to be allocated to transactional shareholders.

In the case of this e-land idea, probably 100%.
The cooperative would have constitution which says access to the land is given by the tradable shares (1sqm each) and voting right are allocated to the transactional shares. To get a transactional share you just have to own at least 1 tradable share.

The company/cooperative is responsible for maintaining legal title of the shareholders, and just needs to keep a sufficiently reliable register of who owns how many shares. So, we build this on ssb etc!

So the purpose of the cooperative is just to make money from capital gains. Land prices always go up, right? One day we'll sell the farm or something maybe when the cooperative votes to do so. But in the mean time, it's fine if you come hang out there, grow some veges whatever. When the farm is liquidated, it is paid out to the tradeable shareholders, and the cooperative is closed.

Yes, this idea is very ancap - but that is mainly because ancap is better at interfacing with regular capitalism, if people actually occupied the land, I'm sure we'd build many ansyn structures on top of that.

Another aspect of this idea is that it should be relatively easy to join or leave. One thing with communes that I've seen is that you can kind of get stuck there - it's very easy to stay, and you might not have any skills etc, valuable in the outside world.

So, this is all a response to the general absurdities of modern late stage capitalism. It's maybe not the ideal way to administer land, but it's a way that I think might work out, or would at least be a wild ride, and also an elaborate prank.

@mikey
Voted this
@cel
Voted this
@alex
Voted this
@Nina
Voted this
@alex

I get the idea.
I don't understand what is the motivation for this. It sounds quite random to me.

Personally - in my current perception of "capitalism" - I am not satisfied with the de facto "minting process" and the rest of the mechanisms that provide the necessary money that is needed to enable a market economy.
I see how the above is better than what we currently have, but I still don't like it.

For me - a major problem is, that people can sit on the currency (which in case of the above even includes the land) and just wait and abuse that power to be able to generate - in my opinion - unreasonable profit.

There is this game, where ppl walk around a group of chairs until the music stops and then grab a chair.
There is one chair less than people. ...but if there is only one chair left and while the music is playing, you have to go around that chair - on average, every person is once behind and once in front of the chair.
But at any given moment, it's only one specific person right in front of the chair.

What if that person just stops there making the person behind the chair stuck.
That's a temporary unfair situation turned into a permanent one - and if it wasn't a game, but a reality - that person could now leverage this unfair advantage.

I'd like to see a currency that protects against that.

I see money as a service by all the people who accept it and offer goods and services for it.
It's a service to everyone who currently has money.
Those people can go around and take anything anywhere at anytime. It gives them so many option and so much freedom. If nobody would accept their coins, they would all of a sudden become totally poor.

I want that this service of being willing to accept money in return for giving away services and goods as such is perceived as a service ...and all the people should be able to set a price for that, which everyone who has money has to pay while they have it ...to everyone who offers.

This is kind of my main "Problem" that I see and that i want to see solved.
The above doesnt solve it.

@nanomonkey

In the US, and this may be different by state/country, there are zoning laws that limit the amount of infrastructure and minimum parcel size that can be built or sold. This is usually to limit the amount of subdivision in rural areas and the impact on the land in natural environments. I'm curious how this would work in the scenario that you presented. Some of the land that I've looked at would allow one family plus out-buildings per 40 acres. I know that there are fun ways to get around this...like keeping your buildings under 120 square feet and no plumbing...but in some counties they won't even let you camp on your land without permits for RV pads and a septic system.

Access to the land might have to be limited, specially in places where your access goes through other people's properties (a common problem with "cheap" land). You don't want your neighbors freaking out and calling in the county code compliance none stop because you have 100+ people traveling in and out on their dirt road.

Also, how would decision be made? Say someone buys up a majority and then decides to do something that devalues the land for life, like dump waste or commits the land to the tax exemption of a wildlife land trust/sanctuary (thus keeping anyone from ever being able to build on the land).

@dangerousbeans
Voted this
@dangerousbeans

I like it, I'm in.

NZ zoning is based entirely around kitchens so if we just have one giant huge communal überkitchen than we're basically one huge family in the eyes of the law

Also things get funny around permanent dwellings and if unfixed things like housetrucks are those things.

Maybe everyone has to swap spots once a year?

@nanomonkey

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea...otherwise I wouldn't be thinking about all the corner cases. I think you'd also have to look at how much usable space is on the land. I would think that 25 sq meters of flat land would be more expensive then 25 square meters of nearly vertical sections of land.

On a side note, you all are making me want to move to NZ.

@Dominic

@nanomonkey there are many details to work out!

We arn't actually subdividing the land, legally, it's just one unit. We'd just have internal agreements about what parts you have access to / are responsible for.

@serapath motivation:

  • stop paying rent
  • get to grow vegetables
  • otherwise do whatever you like
  • hang out with other people who like those things
@Nina

@Dominic For this probably you could go with cooperative where members co-own land and where it's super easy to buy/sell your piece of land, or?

@Nina

I see, you would run in on blockchain, but why currency? Wouldn't blockchain/contract be enough?

@Dominic

@nanomonkey oh, yeah, whether the land is flat or not is gonna be a problem.

One thing regarding this - I bet many people will want to be like, throw something in for a slice, but might never, or only rarely actually visit. This is okay. Actually it's good. Anyway, you don't really need a specific slice unless you are actually visiting the place. So, maybe the bits that arn't specifically allocated are just put in a common field, and used to graze animals or other things that do not change things. If you turn up at the location you get allocated a specific section, according to some algorithm or something, next to your friends or whatever, but you have to at least visit once a year to maintain that specific location. If you don't that goes back into the commons, but you still own your share of the total farm, so when it's sold you get a share in proportion to that on a square meter basis.

Also, note because of the transacting shares it can be one person one vote even if one person owns more trading shares (square meters).

If you are camping in tents or your van etc, you might legally have to not occupy it permanently. But, if we have software to administer it all, there can be more than one of these things, and they can be separate legal entities with different founders and directors so fully independent.

@ninabreznik yes, a coop! oh curreny was just the train of thought that led me here... shares are not really currency.

@Dominic

@dangerousbeans who needs plumbing? catch some rain water, poop in a bucket If you have enough water to shower, water the garden with it afterwards.

@Dominic

The farm in the waikato was convienient to auckland airport, and was 1 million for 40 hectares - but looking at grazing farms on the west coast of the south island, it's one million gets you 200 hectares that's only 0.6$/m^2 (quite a bit colder down there though)

(grazing means they don't own cows, instead, other farmers who own the cows pay rent to keep their cows there, for example, while they are growing big enough to make milk)

@Nina

@Dominic I read this and thought it's about currency

So, back in the time of the dotcom boom, before bitcoin, there was a thing called e-gold. It was a digital currency, but it was backed by gold. You could transfer fractions of a gram, but the e-gold company actually had that gold sitting in a vault somewhere.

After thinking lots about real estate markets, and looking at price graphs of land I had a thought: what if we made land more liquid? what if we did what e-gold did, purchased a large amount of land then essentially created a derivative layer on top of that that was easy to transfer.ip

But co-ownership could probably work. Probably as an investment. Someone has savings, can keep them in the bank, buy apt, buy bitcoin or buy land, or - buy land together with other folks.

I heared that in some countries (Germany for example) you can form a cooperative, buy the land and then get subvention from the government for building a village there. So, people are just buying a random piece of land and create a living area of like-minded.

@Nina

I just don't know how big coops would work, specially if people come and go (sell/buy shares) all the time and maybe don't know each other well. Who sets the rules, do people co-decide... Sounds romantic, but also like a lot of bureaucracy... Only if it could be fully automated...

@neftaly
Voted this
@Dominic

@ninabreznik so by default, to fit into the existant legal framework you have a board of directors elected by the transacting shareholders, but it's fairly flexible. I'm totally thinking that you'd have decentralized software for streamlining this stuff. I plan to do this, but probably in a couple of years or something once ssb is quite solid.

@Trigger Warning

@Dominic - Unlike e-gold, e-land is not fungible. It is more like theatre tickets. Those 1000 square meters need to be continuous, and not have a ridiculously large perimeter (imagine trying to build a house on a 1 x 1000 meter strip, or even a 2 x 500 meter strip).

@Dominic

to avoid having 400 people having one argument, you could kinda divide the space into sections (villages) that can have their own organizational principles, culture, or rules. the villages just need to agree on some basic stuff, but we don't have to get everyone to agree on everything. So, you can have the vegan camp, and have it further away have the meat camp.

@customdesigned I agree! you'd need a allocation algorithm that gave chunks in reasonable shapes. If you don't have permanent structures then moving about isn't too bad, so it's still kinda a bit fungible.

@Nina

+1 for decentralized software, but -1 for elected board. I don't like representatives. Want to find better solution for it. That's also the reason, why I am a bit hesitant with cooperatives idea. I like it, of course, sharing and building stuff together part, but rules and representatives and votings and this doesn't feel like something I would really really want. I am wondering how this co-existing, co-creating, sharing and all of this could be structured more freely. More modular...

@nichoth
Voted this
@Trigger Warning

@dangerousbeans - kitchen zoning sounds eminently sensible! They must have read "A Pattern Language".

@nichoth

This reminds me of a half joke about software development – take anything that people use a spreadsheet for currently, and make an app specifically for that thing. Another one might be to find anything that people need lawyers for, and make an app for that.

@Nina

Yes yes, but the question is then what do we 'co-own'. The whole land or just my vegan camp?

If it's the whole thing - how do we decide, which camps/new members etc. can join?
But if it's only my vegan camp, how do we interact with other camps (legally/structurally)?

@Nina

It's horrible. It's always all these questions around administration and rules etc. That's why I would like to see something where I can just be and have my rules and do my stuff alone or in smaller or bigger groups and somehow everything is fair. No one feels abused and everyone gives and gets back. But this would work if everyone would evaluate things and services the same as me and see the way I see. But if there's other people, they value things differently. So, I guess there has to be some rules or something to take care that everyone is ok in this 'system'.

@Nina

The question is also, what do we even do together. Do we just grow veggies and knit jumpers or do we also produce something more serious together (like medicine and machines and everything else we need for complete self sustainable life). Or are we just there like a commune and share potatoes for cucumbers, but go out to the real world to get pills for sore throat :)?

@Dominic

@ninabreznik I agree on not really wanting a board. It doesn't have to mean that they have arbitary power, though, because they are still bound by the constitution. On the other hand, representatives are really good so that everyone doesn't have to waste time going to the stupid meetings.

That's why I would like to see something where I can just be and have my rules and do my stuff alone or in smaller or bigger groups and somehow everything is fair.

you may also want to consider living in a swamp.

Or are we just there like a commune and share potatoes for cucumbers, but go out to the real world to get pills for sore throat :)?

Thats a start! not saying this is the final answer, just saying it might be fun!

I think growing vegetables is a cool lifestyle, but not a very good business. I'd still be doing software etc. This is transitional solarpunk. emphasis on transitional.

@Nina

@Dominic

On the other hand, representatives are really good so that everyone doesn't have to waste time going to the stupid meetings.

Lol, I would then rather not have meetings and come up with something different or just not co-own, but buy a piece of land in the neighborhood of like-minded or something in this sense.

you may also want to consider living in a swamp

I am therefore on the go, changing places all the time. For 1 year now, but planning to continue nomading around.

But it's true, I miss organic vegetables and nice neighbors, so maybe a network of little villages around the world, where you come and stay for a while and then move on. Or you buy your piece of land in that village, build a cottage, and rent it out when you are on the go or swap it with others. That would maybe work for me regarding living.

But work stuff is also important. I am currently a remote wage slave. Was without income for 2 years or so, living on like 300eur/month, so I had to sell part of my time to get some dineros. But I would like to change that and be part of a supply network of like minded. Where we exchange within the network. For smiles or some internal currency or for reputation points? I don't know, but it would be fun. Maybe it would fit into the transitional phase too ;)

@bobhaugen

This is not advice about what anybody else should do, just a related story.

We (Lynn and I) live in a very small housing cooperative. 40 acres = about 16 hectares with some living quarters and guest quarters. 2 families (4 people) own it.

We created a legal cooperative because we are old people (I'm 76) and in the US, when you are old, you can easily run up horrible unpayable medical bills and the creditors can come after your property. The cooperative form protects the land from individual's personal debts. (A corporation would do the same.)

We do have a document that spells out that each of us is entitled to each of our living quarters and the rest of the land and a bunch of equipment is held in common, but we have also all known each other for 40 years and trust each other with our lives, so nobody has had to refer to the written rules about anything.

Each of us does something different for outside work and income. We sometimes do gardening projects together, but more often either individually or as couples. We sometimes do regional political-economic organizing, sometimes together, sometimes jointly. Lynn and I are talking about doing more, related to some of the other projects we have worked on around the world, but haven't gotten it together yet.

We have done 5 somewhat local economic network software projects. 2 died, 1 seems to be dormant, 2 seem to be thriving. We're involved in another that is moving slowly.

We do have enuf solar power for all of our of our electrical consumption, but are not off-grid. We are deliberately not hip and cool. But it's a lovely way to live.

@Nina

Thank you for sharing this. You are super awesome, have to inspire my parents to be more active. You are a big inspiration, so you are definitely very cool and hip in this sense :)

I see now how your cooperative works. It sounds super lovely, but as you said, it's basically based on old friendship so if it wasn't for other reasons, you wouldn't need any legal structure. It's more like super close friends, neighbors that don't want a fence between but rather share more open and interconnected life.

This sounds amazing. I would love to live like this, but would also like to move a lot, so network of this kind of mini or a bit bigger co-housing or co-land owning cooperatives where people circulate and meet each other on different locations would be awesome to me. It doesn't mean you have to move every 3 months, but I can't imagine myself being always with same people on one spot. Like the dynamics of meeting new, learning new, having spontaneous experiences with new inputs.

What is maybe really different with us here is making money. You are lucky to enjoy your retirement and although you maybe make a project here and there, you are kind of safe in this sense. You have your basic unconditional income :) But I am trying to figure out how to make my living. How to earn.

So for now I had 2 choices: job or self employment. I never worked anywhere, started self employment when I was 20 and since that this is what I do. Currently is the closest to employment, because I am a contractor, but otherwise I was having little 'busynesses' and surviving this way. First was creating artsy/promotional gifts made of sillicon. Was selling it in the local gift shops, to advertising agencies and during summer break road tripping around Spain and selling stuff on the street. Later, when I was around 25 I fell into the startup story. Started a computer repaid service on site with my friend. We were like a copy of Geek Squad. Got some little angel investment, figured out we are now investors' little employees and the whole thing didn't really work out. I moved to Berlin after that, learned to code and started building apps, learned to code and then slowly my mindset also started to change. I just didn't feel like doing marketing, pushing sales, networking and all the BS that comes with being an 'entrepreneur' so I started working on refugee projects and organizing community events and teaching coding. I was super broke in this period but didn't want to work for anyone nor have my business again. Now I took this remote contract for 20h/week so I can have some income. It's for Ethereum foundation, so I can learn more also about this crypto world, but it's not what I really want. I would like to work on stuff that matters, build my ideas, but to be able to earn with that and to collaborate with people who share the mindset. Ideally I would be part of many projects and have tiny shares in each, but I would like to see all the community to be self employed so we can form a supply network and be self sufficient. And all our companies would have to wage slaves, so no employees, just us working together and exchanging. But having really superior processes and transparency so that we can create way more than just some little software solutions. I wish we could build robots, create medicine, produce organic food and all that's needed, but in a 'non crapy way', so no exploitation, no employees, lots of small co-owned projects and vibrant exchange... How? Would love to brainstorm about details if anyone else is dreaming about something similar...

@bobhaugen

Dear @Nina, I was you 57 years ago.

I feel really lucky now to be out of the rat race, but wonder how to end the rat race for those who are in it now (including my own children and grandchildren, the horror...)

Can we collectively develop something that is strong enough to provide for us all? By "us all", I mean at least those who are developing that "something".

Would love to brainstorm about details if anyone else is dreaming about something similar...

I keep referring to the P2P Foundation as one source for people who are dreaming about something similar. I don't think they are perfect, but they are at least dreaming in that direction.

@substack

I think there is no perfect, one-size fits all solution to forming in-person groups and mutual aid networks. How these systems interface with the broader legal system is important to figure out, but it's also playing by their rules and it's important to realize that the structures presented to us by states were created to achieve particular objectives about how we live and relate to one another. Deciding It's important to figure out how you personally want to relate to other people: how to divide labor and resources, how to get resources from the outside world, deciding collectively and individually what everyone needs and how to get it. A big part of that is not only relating to the people in your immediate community but also the people who live nearby which in some ways is even more important.

@Nina

@bobhaugen I guess I really need to look a bit closer into P2P foundation. Will do so and then we continue <3

@bobhaugen

@substack

not only relating to the people in your immediate community but also the people who live nearby which in some ways is even more important.

Yeah, some of our neighbors are fundamentalist christians and probably voted for Trump, but they are also friendly and cooperative and have helped us a lot. We visit and trade tidbits (we grow a lot of raspberries and bring some to the neighbors, they plowed the snow off our driveway when we first got here, and our African American friends have been invited to their parties). But we also all know that we disagree on a lot. It's an interesting set of interactions. I'm somewhat used to it because a lot of my relatives are like my neighbors.

@bobhaugen

Nina, as I said, they are not perfect. But I think they are fairly close to a set of worldviews that I see around here.

@Dominic

How these systems interface with the broader legal system is important to figure out, but it's also playing by their rules and it's important to realize that the structures presented to us by states were created to achieve particular objectives about how we live and relate to one another.

I agree this is very important to remember! And we should also think about what particular objectives we have when we are designing new rules.

@Nate
Voted this
@Nate

I have been thinking about this a lot. My current thought is kinda like if a coop owned all the houses on airbnb with its own cryptocurrency or access tokens.

You can invest in properties you like, even support design and build the spaces for increased efficiency and a better understanding of all things involved.

Key points:

Investing in the REIT returns access tokens (cannot be traded on exchanges)
Investment could be money, resource or effort
New tokens "built" to match resource "value"
Tokens are not spent, they distribute access and benefits of access
Tokens sold externally on project per project basis (eg: Must be sold back to coop, capped price etc.)

Access to the land, or the resources created on it are distributed through a time share model.
In this way, an investor (or cooperative member?) can buy, say 1 week per year in the campsite with access to common infrastructure, maybe at a cost of $500.

The other end of the scale would be someone who invests, lets say $500k, who wants a house, cool neighbors and organic veggies for her restaurant. She is happy for a few hippies to come, build a house on the land manage the garden in return for some access tokens.

In the middle may be someone who puts $10k a year into a project as "savings" and either receives a benefit of access (Event, product, rent), trades access (within the bounds of the investment agreement or constitution for each project) for external revenue (airbnbish) or donates her access to a worthy person or cause. At a time she is ready to settle, or access another project, she can trade her access tokens in any of her projects, and move on. This could be through external sale (via contract rules ) or transferring her shareholding to her own project, inviting others to invest by her ideals and rules.

The more tokens you hold, the higher weight your vote has. Changing the primary activity on the land has a lot more effect on the person who lives and runs a business there, compared to the people who come to camp at a festival/workshop/ceremony once a year

If there are restrictions to the access of the land or resource, these are noted at time of investment and stored in a distributed ledger (hoping SSB is the solution)

If you agree with the "rules" of the investment, buy at the level suitable for you. If you don't agree with the rules but agree with the business model (or lack of) or the product (eg; Food, machinery, dev time, festival ticket).

I think there should be a way for people to invest in a property for some (capped) capital gains. Its about access to land for yourself, so if you avail access for someone else while you search for your ideal situation, why not benefit from the upside of property development.

Anyway, I have to bounce but I really want to get into this conversation. I have a space to do this in Mexico as a test run that requires no land purchase, and works alongside a family that have generously opened their very large, very beautiful piece of land.

I'd like to bring a few people here to hang out for a week or two and see what comes out of some face to face time with pens, paper etc...

Here's a link to an intro I started putting together: Timey House Intro

@Zach
Voted this
@bobhaugen

Timey House is interesting. I would not personally want to live there, because I like where I live now and hate to leave home, don't want to travel, be a nomad. But I wonder what the nomads in the scuttleverse think about it?

@Nate

Hey @bobhaugen , I was happy to read what you shared about how you and your friends live together, I wouldn't be in a hurry to move either

In my example, one would not necessarily live full time on a property, they may just choose to enjoy a % of the time available to the whole group of token holders:

  • a couple days camping
  • few days at a festival
  • a week at a workshop
  • 3 months remote working
  • 9 months a year living
  • 365 days a year inhabitation
  • etc

This can increase with further investment, in either money or effort. I think its safer and less complicated to start with something that is not to dissimilar to a regular time share, just with better principals and technology. It's a lot less painful to get stuck in a place you don't like for a week, than it is for a year or more.

The main concept is storing value in something that holds real value, and is even accessible in extreme events. While the value is stored, it avails other forms of value (interest).

Investors may receive interest in the form of:

  • love
  • food and water
  • shared knowledge and technology
  • event access
  • housing
  • products
  • services

If you trust the group proposing purchase and development of a property, and agree with the investment terms, invested money is put to use developing a tangible asset, and all those with some connection to it benefit from its improvement.

This also opens up the possibility of support in many forms:

  • Technology
  • Design
  • Sourcing materials
  • Building
  • etc, etc

The value of the cooperative grows as the land is improved, and with the chance to visit for a day / week / month, there's a greater chance that an individual will experience a situation that is right for them, at least have the ability "move" their access tokens relatively easily.

Eg: spewing you paid $500 to camp next to a psytrance raver? Sell, or exchange your campsite to his mate, or go during the yoga festival on the land rather than Psycoville.

Lets say a person who earns $70K per year spends $5K on a holiday, $2K a year on festivals and $1K a year on personal development. If these desires could be filled through Timeyhouse, this person could essentially invest in rather than buy access to $8K per year that would otherwise be 1's and 0's on a computer and over 10 years would have $80K + improvements and capital gains... just for enjoying themselves... Start calculating reduced food and energy bills, include some dedicated investment and enterprise and it starts to look even better.

There's potential to save a lot as a group:

  • Access
  • Water
  • Waste treatment
  • Energy
  • Materials
  • Machinery
  • Transport
  • Skills and effort

If you realize your ideals are less aligned than originally thought, sell/trade your shares in a project (set by constitution / contract and not guaranteed) at least the value of your investment should be the same, if not more, and you've learned... even if it's just that cranking Psytrance at 7am on Tuesday morning is not a neighborly action.

In the longer term, I'd love to see something like this create more of a community, where people may by their own piece of land in a specific geographic area, develop common areas and facilities, and do what ever the hell they want when their behind the closed door of their own home.

@Nonlinear
Voted this
@Jay

I've totally fantasized about something like this. The link to Timey House Intro above doesn't work, can you re-post? Existing Timeshares suck, and seem like a way to rip off retirees who don't know about Airbnb. But I'd love to be able to tap into a network of houses/spaces around the world that I could live and work out of for a short period of time, and have it be within an orbit of like-minded people who contribute in the various ways they are able.

@mttmyr

@Nate I've thought a cooperative airbnb alternative with some kinda blockchainy token would be an interesting experiment too. I even made a landing page for outlining what the project could look like: https://habitatico.herokuapp.com ... I haven't put forth much additional effort on my own though as it definitely seems like an initiative more likely to succeed as a community based thing

@Nate

Hi @arcalinea the link to the drive file is:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PV_6z7ralQIcMjj5DWrtcEFGjRV6hHTW2zHRyA1Pt1g/edit?usp=sharing

Hopefully that works

@Nate

Cool @mttmyr , where are you at with this? Would you like to collaborate?

We have a few interested parties between $20 and $100k, as well as some larger players who are interested in supporting the larger vision of the project, which would run well into the millions.

I'm trying to run a bit of a test while in Mexico. Basically inviting people to come and hang out and work on developing and improving plans. Any improvements to the land would be funded by the owner, any improvements to the protocol would be open source.

We would like to cover flights accommodation etc. for people who would join us on the ground here for a week at the least. I'm just trying to get enough money together to free up time for people to work together in a productive environment, and see what happens from there.

@jiangplus
Voted this
@mttmyr

@Nate Sure I can provide dev work but I still think the actual idea needs to be perfected. Are the interested parties investors?

@Jay

Thanks!

@Nate

@mttmyr Yes of course the idea needs to be perfected, this is the reason I am in Mexico after a few years traveling looking for time and space to stop.

I was looking in NZ but the cost of land, and the travel distance to most people is prohibitive. Most of our interested investors are from Europe or America. They don't really spend much time in or close to NZ so is hard to sell them on a land purchase down there. They already go to America, even Mexico often, and would be looking more for unique experiences, than a place to live.

Smaller investors are generally friends from NZ and OZ who want to buy decent land, but can't on their own. They want to build up their ability to own their own land, privately or as part of a group.

I'd like to keep everything open sourced, allowing anyone to contribute to the development of code (writing, funding, testing)

For each individual project plans can be made public or private.

Starting now, at least in refining the plan. Hoping to share some time and space here to develop a plan and a budget to take to investors.

The housing model is only one way to use the resource development and management concept I have been sharing

User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
@Nina

@arcalinea Do you know about House-sitting platforms? My friend is traveling for a year now house sitting and enjoying remote villages around Scandinavia, Canada etc. I'm thinking about trying this next year when I am back in Europe. https://www.trustedhousesitters.com/gb/

Otherwise I also like this idea https://www.guesttoguest.com/en/

@Jay

I hadn't heard of either of these options, thanks!

@angelica
Voted this
@Rich
Voted this
@DC
Voted this
@Maldaris

There would be additional value in contiguous pieces of that land. Unless you're talking about an eminent domain grid laid atop the parcel of land you're dividing up for this purpose it'd be hard to access a plot once purchased.

That said if there were natural resources beneath the terrain and it represented some % of say, the barrels per day of an oil well, I could see the size being less of the metric than the steady income from that subdivision of the parcel.

If we were just talking about topsoil-deep deed represented by this currency that'd be one thing. But there's a slew of legal backdrop that has to be factored in too before it's as encompassing as it needs to be.

I like this, I really do. I just wonder if you'd be better off doing it on top of say, ETH smart contracts rather than a barebones currency backing.

@Diego

The fact that land can be bought with cash is somewhat of a big hole to be explored. An awesome experience would be to crowd-fund land, but not give any part of it to anyone. Similar to SSB, you would collaborate mainly for ideological purposes, not profit. Those who participated could have a vote on what would be the purpose of that land. An example of a purpose would be:

  1. Reforest 80% of it
  2. Regenerate the water supply
  3. Create and maintain an abundant habitats (buildings, crops, etc.)
  4. Let a community thrive

The first three steps could be better accomplished by a mass of energetic young people who are only looking for a cool experience, but who probably won't end up living in the land. The last step could be to slow down the work and leave families who have organically come to occupy the land to coordinate and maintain it.

This of course would be completely against any national laws, as we would essentially be done with property rights, leaving to the community (inhabitants and online contributors) to decide on what should be done, and who should occupy. With no state laws, what would be a way to enforce anything? How can land ownership work with #non-violence ?

User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
@tom
Voted this
@[rdctd]
Voted this
@domango
Voted this
@pod
Voted this
@Dominic
Re: %sW74DNIYI

side note: I think a thing were you plugged in a printer to ssb (paper output, for legacy government compatibility) and then could run all the processes (electing directors, meeting minutes, etc for various kinds of legal entity) would be very useful and a highly viable business. I also want this to implement e-land

@moid interesting.
It looks like the NZ system is significantly less complicated than the US system!

why is mozilla a non-profit?
mozilla foundation's page of public documents such as their Article of Incorporation and Bylaws. Reading this now... Bylaws is more interesting.

  • mozilla foundation has no members.
  • directors: there are 5-15 directors, and each year they elect the next year's directors.
  • officers: these are distinct from directors, and are appointed by the directors. An officer may be a director, but does not need to be. Example officers are secretary (_secret_ary, keeper of secrets) treasurer (keeper of treasure), CEO etc. The directors can make up new offices if necessary.

Interesting, so the directors have really a lot of power. I guess if they starting doing weird things, you'd just have to convince the IRS (or some such) that they weren't following their own bylaws, which would cause a bunch of trouble etc. maybe you could sue the foundation directors if they weren't making decisions towards enhancing the purpose of mozilla.


in other open tabs: it seems in most places you cannot claim a tax deduction to a foriegn country. I don't know about within the EU, it's hard for me to search that because stuff like that might not be in english. @elavoie can you help me here?

However, I think there may still be benefits to being a registered charity, apart from tax benefits: enhanced credibility. There are additional restrictions on what a charity is allowed to do, so this can be a Ulysses' Pact.

@jsphpl
Voted this
@yi
Voted this
@Dominic
Re: %yBTzhXhBH

@John Colagioia I don't think land is really as scarce as they make out. see: e-land (tldr; rural land is < $3/sq meter, but only available in bulk)

@alanz I like the victorian science metaphore! (I would like to recommend "heyday of natural history", would link but am offline)

@Solarpunk Station
Voted this
@heybucky
Voted this
Join Scuttlebutt now