Historic:Finances/Archive

Note: this is only a proposal! This has never been done before, and I have no idea at this time whether it's feasible, or even legal.

You can leave comments in the space below

Synopsis:

The financial intent of the business will be to make people independent. To that end, the company will fund $52,000 annuities to be given to people who help build and maintain the system.

Overall description:

The purpose of the fund is to take people out of the workforce without leaving them in poverty. A fund participant receives a weekly income large enough to live on, by which they may (if they choose) leave the workforce.

Income is paid in perpetuity: payout continues after death of original recipient, can be willed, inherited, sold or given away. Income is strictly one per person.

The proposed fund account returns $52,000/year ($1000/week). Fund amount needed to attain that level is hypothetically $1 million per participant:

• 10% Overall return (Indexed fund returns over 40 years == 12%. source)

• -3.5% Inflation adjustment

• -0.5% Management fees (Similar to Fidelity Portfolio Advisory Service. source)

• -5.2% Annual payout

With these numbers, fund will gain 0.8% annual value over time, which can be used as hedge against poor market performance.

Participation

AltSlashdot will employ N people for site management. Site will accrue profits until N times $1 million is attained, and then award each employee with one annuity.

This is the weak point 'site will accrue profits' but how? Advertising? advertorials? Donations? In general, I'd suggest that we use a standard template that deals with cash flow, income etc.

Comments

This is very good for 'employees' but it does nothing to prevent the same thing as happened to Slashdot 1.0. How is this new endeavor going to protect its users and be accountable to them? What prevents this from being a pump and dump? ~ElectricTurtle

• Agree with Electric... Primary purpose of any fund should be to cover operating costs, then worry about paying the people who run the place. To get a true quourum of /. here, I think it needs to be more open source than that, with assurances that the community won't lose out again... -- CoolHnd30

• I suppose it means that those involved in running this venture will bust their asses to make sure the fund hits that magic number. It would mean keeping visitors happy for how ever long that takes, spreading the word, and making that $$ come in. If the community isn't happy, people wont see ads / buy merch, and retirement never comes. I'm just assuming that's the thought process. - Cactus

• • And once the goal is reached, the oligarchs can just turn on the community again, cash out, and say "Deuces!" while they get paid in perpetuity. ~ElectricTurtle

• • • True enough. Any suggestions on what would allay community fears while letting Okian Warrior do something at least similar to what he wants to try? I really think this idea could be a very strong motivator to those involved... but I don't know what would keep it from possibly going down in flames once the goal is reached. - Cactus
      • I had made a suggestion [1] about establishing some guarantees in a charter that can only be changed with buy-in from the userbase. (Unlike the sundry TOS where terms can be changed at any time without notice bullshit.)--ElectricTurtle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2014 (MST)
        • I'm all for a "Bill of Rights" thing. If people are to switch over wholesale from Slashdot, the general community will need to come up with a list of demands, or a charter or something. We can't completely ruin any desire to run this site, but I think there are things a userbase can reasonably expect from a community driven site.

• Well, if you want to do this and not succumb to the "sold out" aspect, then the 'annuities' need to be in the form of shares - then the people who contributed to make the site get a say in how and what happens to it, and if the majority think selling out is a bad thing, then it will not get sold off. Sure, you need income to pay hosting and other things, but I think that can come with a subtle bit of advertising stuck off the bottom. Or you can sell the userbase's details to the marketeers .. like "not evil" Google does. Anyway, I think it should be more concerned with being more open source and idealistic from the start.
  • I second this motion of shares; the meme du jour is that The Users are Slashdot - let's make it literally true. If you buy a sub, you buy a share in the profits of any advertising after expenses, plus a vote on the future direction of the website. --Kell

• micropayments for highly rated posts? --CoolHnd30

• What about using a "premium" model, as arstechnica does? People paying like 1$ or 5$ a month don't get ads. Plus a pdf of the most insulting comments that month :)

• Have you thought of created a cooperative? You would be CEO but managed by a board of directors. Board of directors would be elected by members. Members would be anyone who wants to pay for *premium* membership (no ads) with a $5 annual membership share. Members have a right to vote for the board of directors who make decisions about how the organization is run. One member one vote. You're still profitable but DICE-type heavy handed decisions are impossible because in most cooperatives, major decisions require a referendum by the membership. Something to consider, NCBA in the USA or ICA internationally have tons of resources on setting them up.
  • I like this idea. There are piles of resources online that will direct you in setting up a co-op. - Cactus