This bank is not a bank in the traditional sense. It is a transparent open business, where each transaction can be viewed and enjoyed by the public.

Benefits edit

• It extends the successful WikiWay to the real economy
• It dramatically reduces costs
• It accelerates business processes
• It builds trust and goodwill for all members
• It reduces costs, because there is no need for protecting the pennies.
• It builds trust and goodwill, because all interactions / transactions are an OpenProcess, which is a permanent, nearly zero cost Public Relations activity.
• It is a platform for collaboration from the poorest people to the richest (philantropists)

 (a "blissful reunion of the opposites" Ken Wilber)                    

Claims edit

• It is a bank, where every customer is employer and employee.
• It is the bank, which embraces all people, whether poor or rich.
• It is the bank, where people help each other to Create and Share Wealth.

To build such a bank, it needs a growing team of peers, who work together.

List of founding members edit

• Fridemar started the idea, inspired by Mohamad Yunus, who initiated the Grameen Bank
• Brandon was the first joiner, who influenced the rewriting of this Intro, to emphasize transparency.
• MarkDilley - not sure what this is, sounds interesting. Welcome Mark fridemar 17:37, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
• John Cross - this reminds me a bit of the first building societies they were set up so as wind up when all their members had a house. Welcome John fridemar 17:37, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
• TedErnst | talk - doesn't understand this at all, but wants to know more, and possibly support Welcome Ted fridemar 17:48, 27 July 2007 (PDT)
• MartinPfahler - have interest in new modes of gaining income via ones labor, also new modes of financial risk sharing - yet still lots of questions about how these new modes could work and gain large participation. Welcome Martin fridemar 17:48, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

How do I pay for a share? edit

Paying with collaboration and Money edit

Thank you John for this question.

The answer is currently very intuitive and not yet operationalized: A share for the PennyBank.Biz is payed by an estimated weighted combination of a payment and collaboration work.

As you have done very engaged Wikiwork, you qualify the same as the other peers in the list and MartinPfahler (, who has not yet put his name into the list), I guess, that you will be a great collaborator.

Taking into account, that meanwhile some work is put into the development of the PennyBank.Biz concept, its market value should have increased.

If this wouldn't be reflected in a higher ask-price, this could make the idea less attractive, so I offer you a 10% share for say a symbolic 10 US$. This means I reduce my share to 70%, leaving a 70:10:10 partition on our way to an equal parts-partition.

By the way, you (like Brandon) could then "sell" parts of your (his) share for a probably much higher price (under the current domains-market conditions). But in this hopefully unprobable case, I would ask you, to adhere to the CreativeCommons principles:

• give credit to your precursor
• and share/sell it alike
  • making your decision-process, your negotiation and your transaction in public
  • use the same scrutiny for selecting an appropriate successor as I did

fridemar 18:02, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

Lossless Paying by transfer of Domain Shares edit

Imagine the following scenario:

DomainPortfolio for each Participant edit

Each participant owns at least one domain, i.e. a DomainPortfolio of at least one domain.

DomainPortfolio listed in AboutUs edit

This DomainPortfolio is publically listed in AboutUs.org under the RealName of each of its owners. The RealName is a DomainBasedRealName, i.e. it can be looked up in WhoIs. This way AboutUs can act as an OpenBusinessWiki, where each transaction and its consolidation is documented.

DomainPortfolio is shared between Participants edit

Each DomainPortfolioOwner offers shares of their Domains.

Very simple Example:

Now let there be two portfolio owners, Dick and Duck.

Dick owns a DomainPortfolio:

DickFolio = {DickDomain1, ..., DickDomainM}

Duck owns a DomainPortfolio:

DuckFolio = {DuckDomain1, ..., DuckDomainN}

After negotiating in public about the shares to be exchanged, Dick and Duck make an agreement-statement in AboutUs.com to exchange some DickShare against some DuckShare, mirrored on both Blogs for sealing the business act.

E.g. Dick offers to transfer:

DickShare1 = 1/10 * DickDomain1

Duck in return offers to transfer:

DuckShare1 = 1/10 * DuckDomain1

Now they have a mutual interest to develop the domains of the partners by synergetic collaboration.

The percentages of their shares reflect to a certain degree the energies, they are willing to input into the DomainShareRelated collaboration.

When Dick sells DickDomain1, then Duck gets 10% of the gain.

When Duck sells DuckDomain1, then Dick gets 10% of the gain.

These acts again are publicized on AboutUs and lead to new interesting conversations and collaborations.

Now after the sales of the shared Domains, there is real money in the entrepreneureal game. This money need not necessarily be transferred by a classical service provider (although at this level it would be a minor nuisance). It can be used for balancing each other's credits and debits and even for buying and sharing new domains as new OpenBusiness acts (and of course developing them as shared synergistic labor).

By the way, in education a "Learner's PortFolio" is an already established concept, whose insights can be transferred to LiteratePortfolioTrading.

Notes:

• A less percentaged, but higher evaluated DomainShare, could be traded against a sum of higher percentaged less evaluated DomainShares.

• The public evaluation process (appraisal) facilitates a fairer exchange

• As Dick and Duck negotiate in public, chances are improved to come to a satisfying result. (e.g. third parties could offer a ring exchange)

• The public negotiation process can be seen as LiterateTrading, even LiterateMarketing (a business innovation, that reconciliates Wiki culture with business).

Result: The whole OpenProcess with a BlogSealedAgreement is a lossless virtual transfer of funds. Moreover, it is a value creating act of LiterateTrading, even LiterateMarketing.

Meta-Note:

• In this contribution, we use CamelCasedWikiTags, intended to show up in Google search results, inviting IncidentalCollaboration between several Wiki communities.
• This contribution soon needs to be outsourced to a new WikiPage.
• This contribution is mirrored on the SocialCommonWealth Blog with added TentativeLinks.

fridemar 16:01, 28 July 2007 (PDT), mirrored on SocialCommonWealth Blog.

Specifying the Money Transfer Mechanism edit

Fridemar, I have not put my name on the list because I am not sure how to transfer my money for a share into this bank. What is the exact procedure? And is there really currently a mechanism in place to received this money and move it around? MartinPfahler

Martin, as long as we have not found a better option, what about a PaypalPaybutton a g d on the SocialCommonWealth a g d blog? In the same way, I suggest: each collaborator should have a similar blog for their CreativeCommons shared messages and for installing PaypalPaybuttons for receiving money.

The reason for suggesting PaypalButtons instead of emails is:

• it is a very simple, universally usable and widely practised process
• it avoids public email-addresses, which invite masses of Spam into the mailbox.

The reason for suggesting blogs instead of traditional websites:

• they are easy to install, yet capable of Java-Script plugins for Paybuttons, Stats, etc.
• they provide equal chances for as many as possible newcomers, because blogs are free.
• they are community friendly,similar to wikis with strong trend to interconnect
• they are income friendly, due to an established mindset and tools like: Adsense, Referrals, Affiliate Marketing practises, etc.
• they provide static documentary snaphots of wiki collaboration, e.g. as documents for (experimental) OpenBusiness financial pledges and transactions.

We must check, if the BloggerTermsOfService a g d allows PayButtons on their Adsense powered pages. Can somebody here advise us?

And again, I ask the same old question, does somebody know a free SocialMoneyTrackingService a g d , i.e. a free service, where IOUs can be tracked. I suppose, there are services for "personal use". We need however a tracking service for "interpersonal use", or "social use".

Question: Has Paypal the option of an OpenAccount a g d, PublicAccount a g d, TransparentAccount a g d, SharedAccount a g d? As long as Paypal and similar services don't offer such an option, mirroring these transactions on such a tracking service is a practical necessity, because a wiki without a (more or less trivial) transaction-module doesn't scale.

As each of our actions must be applicable to the general public, this deserves our special consideration. For the convenience of the collaborators, I inserted improviso links to help exploring the Web.

PS.: Last minute idea: What about a GoogleSpreadSheet a g d for public tracking tbe transactions of OpenBusiness. A GoogleSpreadSheet on a GooglePage a g d for each peer, who participates in OpenBusiness? I don't know yet, if GooglePages allow Script.

fridemar 15:07, 27 July 2007 (PDT) , mirroring this post on the SocialCommonWealth a g d blog.

Brainstorming edit

on fridemar's user talk page.

Currently Confused:

Anytime I read about people trying to figure out new ways to fund “stuff”, outside of grants or loans or via high growth business models or stock market, or typical modes of sucking up to deep pockets - I have interest. That said my current understanding of this particular effort is very fuzzy.

A sampling of questions I have in an attempt to better understand include:

How is this effort different than current micro finance systems?

How is this effort different than existing money generating web sites having an “I will if you will” dynamic?

How is this effort different than many existing web sites that have a “feel free to make a contribution if you like our efforts dynamic”?

How is this effort different than a non profit credit union dynamic?

What is the major objective of this effort? If this effort deals with small denominations like pennies, how does it plan to collect enough of those to pay for “stuff” that is much more expensive? In other words how do you plan to gain lots of participation and public awareness?

How will this effort reduce transaction costs when moving around pennies? I have yet to see an online method of collecting money that simulates the simple brick and mortar (world) phenomenon of “passing the hat”. When you pass around a hat to people, for their tiny cash contributions, there is no overhead transaction cost. Also if a collection benchmark amount is not collected, one can have all the people in the room reach back into the hat, to get their money back – again no transaction costs. In contrast “the catch” today is that one must first have enough money in their pockets or a formal banking account to “charge up” their internal account – and this process incurs transaction costs. In other words if all that you have is 5 cents to contribute to a cause, you can’t efficiently get your cash into the virtual communal pot - that 5 cent value is lost. Vending machine companies dealing with micro transactions are trying to crack this nut by creating local kiosks where one can buy special micro currencies, without having a prior bank account or credit card (for example a 14 year old person can do micro transactions - even on the Internet - after using the local kiosk).

If everybody in the world having a few cents of change could drop it into a virtual pot without these typical “charge up internal account” or transaction cost problems there is potential to make some very big things happen. Smart minds at places like MIT dealing with micro currencies and automated currency systems (and other university researchers specializing in this subject matter that I have previously interviewed) have not yet cracked this nut – so I am curious to discover if this effort has a better idea?

Fridemar, Upon reading your talk page I discovered your statement, "contribute digital goods and services, based on ideas, concepts, art, music, software".

I think you have a noble quest, but my personal interest is in dealing with “stuff” that costs money that cannot be moved through a digital pipe – such as lots of brick and mortar stuff. Can you clarify if your bank intent is solely for digital “stuff”? In general dealing with the former is a more complex problem – digital stuff is easier to store, move, and manipulate. MartinPfahler

Minimizing Transaction Costs edit

(1) Transactions within PennyBank can be free, they could even be for fractions of pence. All records can be kept electronically and the trasfers would be binding because of terms and conditions.

(2) Transaction Costs arise when moving money out of PennyBank. This is not a major issue as you can wait for a reasonably large amount of capital to build up before drawing out or you could use small amounts to buy services from other MoneyBiz account holders [internal transaction - see (1)].

(3) Transaction Costs arise when moving money into MoneyBiz. This is the last case to consider. At least some of the founder members will have to put money in suffering transaction costs. The aim from then on is to minimize transaction costs for new accoun holders. One way to do this is to allow people to open accounts with nil balances and give people a share/ cash in exchange for services e.g. linking to PennyBank. Private companies could invest say $1,000 and then give out 5 cents (say) to people completing their surveys (only the initial transaction would have transaction costs).

Shares edit

Would this be like shares in a company?

John, in my view the difference is, that Shareholder in a traditional company only share capital but not the work. fridemar 18:00, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

Or like a building society in the UK where you have to owe over £100 or have invested over £100 to be a voting member?

John, it would be great to share some insights with these activities. I think, only invested peers should make decisions. As collaboration however is an investment too, this topic needs elucidation. fridemar 18:00, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

In the UK you can have companies with no share capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_limited_by_guarantee).

John, thank you for this valuable hint. What about preparing and registrating PennyBank.biz as such a non-profit organization. This would be compatible with a structure without highly paid "owners" of the institution, who ripp off the other users. Instead of this, as a client-owner of the institution, there could be a compensation for one's work, e.g. by delegating more and more of the growing work and capital shares with the increasing value of the domain to new peers, and perhaps even by temporarily lending and reclaiming shares fridemar 18:00, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

Our hope is based on the prognosed 200 Million children of the OneLapTopPerChild (OLPC) project of the MIT. edit

This intro page is blogged, accessible via the following signature.

-- fridemar

Call for Collaboration edit

Current owner status edit

This bank idea is based on the name PennyBank.Biz, which is currently 90% "owned" by Fridemar and 10% by Brandon.

Eight more active Founding Members invited edit

We look for at least 8 more active founding members for collaboration, such that we share the domain and work in equal parts. In good tradition of the CreativeCommons each share can be shared alike, giving "credit" to the precursor actors.

Note: this is not a pyramid scheme: If the main-shareholder would currently sell his domain on the free domain market, e.g. selling in on Ebay, he would take 90% of the gain and giving 10% to Brandon. So if he shares his domain with more peers, he trades capital against collaboration. Collaboration develops the domain, i.e. increases its expected value.

Collaboration Modes edit

There are different possible collaboration modes, all based on public conversation, actions, contributions of ideas, concepts, articles, software, artwork, etc.

Collaboration of shareholders edit

This is straightforward. Every shareholder is interested to increase the value of the domain and collaborates accordingly. The main financial risk for the main shareholder and later for all active co-shareholders is the problem of the FreeRiders. See WikiPedia:FreeRide.

Collaboration of Shareholders and Non-Shareholders edit

Why should a Non-Shareholder help to collaborate, developing the domain?

• Idealistic altruism: a very rare, often exploited personal characteristic
• Practical altruism: Building trust, goodwill, sympathy
• Reciprocity: Trading collaboration on the not shared domain against collaboration on their own focussed similar goals
• Circularity: A cooperates with B, B cooperates with C,... ,Y cooperates with Z. Z is a shareholder.
• Anticipated benefit: Supporting the idea, expecting later to use it.