P2PVenture may have to move to another setting in the near future. Here is a list of elements I think could be important for the migration plan:
The other day I went to the Salon des Entrepreneurs (an exhibition here in France to help entrepreneurs meet with different actors: regional structure to promote employment, banks, lawyers,...). I discussed then with someone promoting the creation of small-businesses through a "creator club" in one of the region and realized that there are usually a lot in place in terms of administrative and government help, but that the computer platforms to promote cooperation throughout the life of the projects are often very limited. Maybe starting the P2PVenture by cooperating with some of these entities could be a way to get quickly enough traffic to validate the model. If anyone is connected with one of these regional structure, do not hesitate to test the idea and come back here to see if we can think of something. -- FredericBaud
We had a very good meeting on P2PVenture during BarCamp:BarCampBank3. More than 15 people gathered to actively discuss the prospects and the content of their own projects in the domain. Minutes can be found here. I think we can consider this session as the official founding session of the P2PVenture project. I'm eager to see the next steps materializing. -- FredericBaud
this is copied here from http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/SocialSynergy/2007-02-02_Talk And is a discussion between SamRose and ChristopheDucamp about ongoing BarCampBank strucutre and approaches.
Hi Sam. Not a lot of time, currently overbooked with my professional job and a first attempt to have a MicroFormats localization in french.
I just heard this morning some concerns about p2pventure discussion with Fred.
Still interested as an OccasionalContributor to help BarCampBank. I just asked Frédéric and other french BarCampBankers to leave FractalWiki and have a decision about migration. Could be discussed tomorrow during BarCampBank3. My opinion as an occasional contributor is that BarCampBank should have its technical autonomy in the WikiNet.
Could you just give us here more information about your divergence ?
Kind regards and still very interested to follow-up future translations to develop our WikiNet
Opened to have a Skype tonite if you want ?
Cheers Sam. -- ChristopheDucamp
PS : I'd enjoy to know more what's going on RecentChangesCamp
Chirstophe, I am going to copy this to http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/P2PVenture/Forum
I think that it is good that FredericBaud and others interested in the ideas materializing at http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/P2PVenture have some kind of central space to develop and promote ideas. And, I think it's good to allow them to explore and develop P2PVenture following a more controlled and centralized process.
The reason why I think it is good for them to do this, goes back to what I talk about in LiteracyOfHumanNature. The idea that different people solve the same problems in different ways.
I think that some people would prefer to create and elect a decision making body, and pursue projects in a more controlled way, under the BarCampBank banner. This is the way that they work best in solving problems, and I think they should be allowed to do this.
Yet, I think others do not work best this way in solving certain types of problems, so you had people advocating for making BarCampBank technically automous, and also creating decision making systems that are more decentralized.
I keep trying to advocate that we should give space to allow for people to solve problems in ways that align with their view of the world, and their local conditions of existence. So, I am advocating that, under the umbrella of BarCampBank, that we figure out a way to allow for the more centralized processes that you see at http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/BarCampBank and the people that prefer them to be able to pursue them, and for the more decentralized processes that we'ev tried across WikiNet(s), and for the people who prefer those to be free to pursue them. And then, we also think about a way to allow the multiple ways of solving problems to interface, multiply value, and benefit one another.
You cannot force people to change into something they are not ready to change into. So, it would be an impasse to say that we should either develop BarCampBank using these processes, or those processes. We should look instead at figuring out ways to connect different ways of solvign problems that at first seem un-connectable. And, we should afford people the space to experiment with different ways of solving problems.
Again, from LiteracyOfHumanNature thinking, you see that people with different world views will work best by employing different ways of organizing people:
It's nearly impossible to force-fit people who prefer one way of organizing into other ways.
This is where traditional business often fails, it forces people into different ways of organizing and solving problems that don't work for them. It doesn't allow affordances for different ways of solving problems in either it's development or it's interaction with potential customers/users. Traditional business often doesn't have the flexibility to deal with local conditions, or with the fact that different people solve the same problems in different ways, and that you can't successfully force them to solve problems your way.
I think we should not make this mistake with BarCampBank. I think we should look at local conditions. For instance, as we see in the notes here:
...that because of regulations in France, an investment-to-lending lending system might be better for French local conditions. While, in the US, regulations allow for equity investment in small businesses in different ways, and lending is less desireable, because so many people in the US are already up to their ears in debt, and receive multiple offers in the mail every day for even more high interest debt!
I think we should also allow for people to solve problems and organize people in ways that work best for them, which means that I think FredericBaud and others interested should continue the development of the P2PVenture project, and should create a centralized site that is in line with their goals, including using tools that they beleive will best help them reach their goals and target user-base/audience. So, if that means they want to use proprietary tools, or non-wiki sites, then so be it, IMO.
Meanwhile, I think that others (like us) should be allowed to pursue decentralized development via WikiNet or whatever other reasonable means we see fit, to attract and the community that we are interested in attracting.
I also think that we should then think about how to network these efforts together in ways that allow them to share value, but don't force-fit ways of organizing or solving problems onto each other.
This project has diverged quite far away from the scope and structure, function and intent of what I am envisioning.
I am not looking to create a traditional/typical VC firm that is simply re-badged as "P2P". Such a VC firm may very well succeed, but it is not what I am personally interested in.
One opinion I have about P2PVenture is that it really does not fit the definition of "P2P" in any way that I can see. So far, P2PVenture is an "open" business model of sorts, and I believe it would be more appropriate to name it "open" venture. I don't see where the "P2P" elements come into play.
I think it is interesting to develop it in the open, on a wiki, for sure. But, there are some specific problems that I am interested in tackling. An investment project that is structured like a typical VC firm will not be able to address these problems, as far as I can see.
So, in anticipation of my being able to apply some of my own ideas locally, that I've introduced to BarCampBank in the past, I have moved my work to http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/PeerInvest and the Open Business Models WikiHive, because the apparent direction of P2PVenture won't work with applications and opportunities that I have here in the US.
Hello Sam, why do think P2PVenture is heading for a typical VC firm? On my side, this is not what I intended to promote: I strongly support the P2P screening and investment process. Could you specify what are the points you think diverge from you own vision and present locally your own views? I'm not sure ideas will be that different. -- FredericBaud
I was originally very enthusiastic about presenting my views locally to the BarCampbank project spaces. But, I hesitate to continue to do this for certain ideas and projects, because the ideas then become BarCampBank-domain concepts, and I am not so sure about the direction and nature of the P2PVenture project in particular, or about the potential flexibilities and affordances of putting some of my ideas under it's umbrella.
I originally posted these ideas to my own site and CommunityWiki, before I was even aware of the existence of BarCampBank. ChristopheDucamp invited me to participate in the emerging BarCampBank project, and the pretexts and ideas that ChristopheDucamp presented and the ideas that I was meshing with him are markedly different than what we are talking about here.
I don't understand how P2PVenture will incorporate the participation of other people beyond our group. I also don't understand how decisions will be made about the development of, and the activities within P2PVenture. I don't understand what type of organization it will be, and I have a specific vision for what I want to do with the ideas that I've presented. That specific vision can be found at the two pages I've linked to. I don't think that my vision will work with the goals and affordances of P2PVenture, or BarCampBank.
So, I've decided to re-activate my original focus on my own online spaces, to develop the original ideas that I was working with. -- SamRose
Sam, I think these are valid questions and that it is in the interest of a good understanding of any community dynamics to have proper answers to your concerns.
Concerning licenses, I'm wondering what you think a proper license would be: Do you think CC2.5-by is the adequate license to create the right context? I think BarCampBank should offer a free (for ideas coming in and out) space of exchanges.
Concerning how decisions will be made, I don't know it either: My view is that we are experimenting an open process and I personally don't know what the full details would look like. But this is also what makes it interesting from my point of view.
I think that BarCampBank would definitely benefit from the exchange of everyone's vision and find a way to mesh all the visions. I still think that what I understand from what's going on in P2PVenture is very similar to what you expose in http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/PeerInvest, so what part of your vision is causing you concerns within the context of P2PVenture or BarCampBank? -- FredericBaud
One of the problems that I have is that somehow I have the perception that you, Frederic, are now the ultimate decision maker for this project. This is good for BarCampBank, because you are one hell of a smart person. But, it's bad for me, because it means that if I want to try something with my ideas, under the umbrella of BarCampBank, I must first debate it with you. As you wrote in the discussion here: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki?Discussion_on_PeerInvest you see this process as a "debate". And that is fine, but I don't want to collaborate on a project like this within the confines of a debate. I don't want to debate why I'd like to try something out related to my ideas on another site, or work on a project in another community, or on my own spaces, or using different technologies or mutliple online presences. I just want to do it. So, that is what I am doing.
This is why I wrote in previous discussions that I was not interested in creating a hierarchy, with myself at a "one-down" position from someone else. Because it constrains and confines my choices and options, at a point when I do not want necassarily to constrain and confine the choices and options around ideas that I create. --SamRose
Hi Sam, personally, I don't consider that things I write on this wiki are decisions in any form. They are certainly opinions and I'd like to feel free defending them. These could lead to personal decisions in another setting (like proposing something to my employer or starting a venture with an outside group), but within BarCampBank and P2PVenture I consider them as mere proposals that have to be debated. If the community does not agree with my opinions and I feel the final decision is too different from my original opinions to accomodate, then I feel that I will always be free to decide not to cooperate further on the concerned project and to start somewhere else.
In short, I'm definitely adverse to any form of hierarchy, but I cannot revoke the notion that debate is key to the life of a community. I think that cooperation between free individuals always imply debates to understand the position of everyone, that it often enhance the understanding each of them has of this own vision, that it may from time to time take some form of give and take, but that the final result is most of the time higher than with individual endeavor and that anyone is ultimately free to not participate in case it deems the result lower than what they can achieve on their own.
So, I would be happy if you reconsider your participation, but I would completely respect your choice if you think you're better off pursuing your goals in another context. -- FredericBaud
To follow up what I mentioned at Flashmeeting5:
>>Rest of the text move to PredictionMarkets
Sam, I moved your text so that we treat it as a long term subject. I have read your text and I have now to spend time thinking it over. Because of the organisation of BarCampBank3, it may take a bit of time. But I think this is a long term subject and we should spend enough time in the coming weeks/months discussing the ideas. -- FredericBaud
I'm thinking more and more that main mechanism of P2PVenture for small businesses should be based on debts rather than private equity. Beside the fact that private equity are very illiquid for small businesses, there may be legal issues for certain types of corporations with the trading of shares. What have been thinking is that standard banks use some mix of debts and mortgage. In fact, I'm wondering if a P2PVenture should not implement a mix of debt and titrisation of some assets: If debt can not be repayed, securities would be transformed in rights over the subordinated assets. The difference with a mortgage is that the securities may be possibly exchanged and liquified without the block sale that happens with mortgages. -- FredericBaud
Perhaps this would be the best route for you to go in France. If P2PVenture goes in this direction, I won't really be interested in it. This is quite different from ideas that I've introduced in the past.
There is also a specific vision that I have have, that is tied to certain regions and conditions within the US, that might not translate elsewhere due to legal systems and local regulations. I have talked about this vision at http://communitywiki.org/odd/SocialSynergy/PeerInvest
Anyway, I definitely believe that lending can be a part of the vision that I describe, but due to outrageous almost out-of-control personal and small business debt conditions in the US, I look at lending as being desireable only under certain conditions, and I look at some form of Micro investment as being more desireable than debt. This is something that I will likely work on outside of BarCampBank, though. Because, I can see that the goals, and assumptions are diverging here away from what I am interested in putting work into. -- SamRose
I am all for figuring out how to incorporate microformats in ProWiki, and in OddMuse, and anywhere else possible. Firefox 3.0 will have autodetection of microformats, and they will become as commons and useful as RSS feeds are now. There may be a small pilot project P2PVenture model here, that we can create under the umbrella of BarCampBank, to help make this happen. Perhaps if we brainstorm around the idea of a bounty, but thinking about how we can improve on the bounty idea? Or, perhaps the "bounty" can be paid by a distributed fund that is similar to CommunityWikiBank in structure. Or, perhaps this development for ProWiki and OddMuse can be rolled into a larger package of developments that will attract a broader range of funding and developers? I am willing to submit a model, that ties together many small funders, developers, and funding and market facilitators in an actual value network. The idea is that the group of people who fund the development of the software also help co-design the software to different degrees, and so do the people who find the markets, and so do the potential customers themselves. People are allowed to have mutliple roles in the ProjectScreening process. This gives people incentive to get involved. Certain contributors will see a monetary reward, others will see a reward of access to tools that they need, and the knowledge they need to use the tools. --SamRose
Sam, I'm wondering if financing can happen outside of the creation of a legal entity like a standard company. I'm a bit spectical about the model of people paying for something they think they might use (it's already damn difficult to make people pay for something they already use). I think to have people ready to put money up front, you'll have to trade something like shares of a company they think will eventually bring money back. What do you think? -- FredericBaud
Well, I can argue that it is possible, and show real world examples. But, now that I understand better the scope and direction that you want to take P2PVenture in, I think it is not so relevant. The idea that I am proposing above is not dependent upon funding, it is more of a revenue sharing network idea. It's something that I'll be working on at http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/HomePage -- SamRose
In the process of defining the segment of enterprises P2PVenture wants to serve, we have to define some dimensions that could characterize the population of all the enterprises and give the area along these dimensions where we think P2PVenture should be operating. In this regard, as a first dimension, I'm wondering if we should be looking at the distribution of companies based on some capital valuation (book value, assets, or any other measures) or revenues. We could be saying that we think that P2PVenture should be operating on companies with a capital valuation between €2M and €10M or with companies with revenue between $2M and $5M. Of course, if we deal with startups will have to use some measures like Venture Capital Method. Of course, the adequate dimension is tightly tied to the decision of operating on debts or private equities. -- FredericBaud
Sam, thanks for http://p2pventure.barcampbank.com. I have started to post the link in different places (in French). I'll have to spread the word in Pinko mode in English as well. Thanks to everyone who can contribute to this Pinko campaign. -- FredericBaud
Sam, please feel free to start adding your own links and links to your work to the IndustryWatch page. Please can you let me know if you can make http://p2venture.barcampbank.com to http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/P2PVenture . I'd like to start promoting the link around and do some Pinko marketing for P2PVenture. Thx. -- FredericBaud
Foundation date of this new workgroup. Let's hope will follow the path of our prestigious predecessor the Tontine group.
A BarCampBank Workgroup