Protocol

Introduction

You have learned about our manifesto for the first time in our story. In this narrative, a new intelligence appeared for the first time. We then described and experienced our Manifesto, what unites us and what guides us, in our Handbook. Following that, we unfolded our Big Vision, the shared experience of the manifesto. We transformed this vision into ideas for all areas of life, and we created a new perspective for evaluating ideas. What follows now is our key that will unlock many of the big and still closed doors for us.

The attentive reader could already glean from our dawn letter that the one who contributes the most to achieving our vision in our alliance should also have the greatest entitlement to remuneration and the greatest entitlement to co-determination. Of course, this presupposes that we must precisely evaluate what contribution is, which was briefly outlined in the dawn letter. We therefore need to find a mechanism to measure merit to regulate this contribution in a reward and co-determination system that still needs to be created. It might seem obvious to not want to reinvent the wheel and to rely on proven vehicles that have seemingly already solved these challenges. Think of companies, political parties, or non-profit organizations. In all three vehicles, merit is evaluated, rewarded, and co-determination is organized.

However, in our view, this would merely be a workaround. A term introduced in our dawn letter and often used in the language of programmers. We believe that the organizational forms, companies, political parties and non-profit organizations individually and the market as a whole are burdened with a major problem. So we believe that these organizational forms are part of the cause of the great stagnation. This can be recalled briefly: Since the early 1970s, our entire species has entered a global process characterized by the absence of real key innovations. Thus, to create a real solution, it is necessary to tackle the problem on all levels and at the root. It is said that a good problem description is half the solution. In any case, we want to proceed with as much caution as possible and now in the next chapter, first examine what the problem is.

Problem

We have already briefly and directly pointed to the problem and hinted at it through colorful allegories. So it's time to state it again, clearly and unequivocally. Our existing organizations and the underlying organizational forms are not able, due to psychological, economic, social, and technological reasons, to adequately reward an individual for their contribution to these organizations and provide an appropriate level of participation based on these contributions.

While these organizations may be functional from the perspective of a modern, and perhaps even a postmodern human being, the outcome is subpar. We, those who see beyond and aspire beyond culture, can clearly see that these organizations are essentially, a source of troubles.

This assertion of a problem once again questions the status quo and all common doctrines. This fact is often reproachfully held against us and results in pride in our alliance. Not only is the earth not the center of the universe, other things too are different than we think. We now want to elaborate on the problem in brief, so as not to lose any scientifically faithful and skeptical readers.

Let us therefore first consider in very broad and critical terms the organizational forms existing today: companies, political parties, non-profit organizations, and a newer form - protocol, as we first encountered it with the internet, open operating systems, and digital currencies - in terms of contributions, wages, and participation.

Companies. This organization generally has a binary view of contributions, wages, and participation. The owner receives the profit as wages and determines the direction. The employee receives a salary for their contribution, which is measured in time.

Political parties. This organization cultivates a singular view of the dimensions. The loudest determines the direction. Period.

Non-profit organizations. Here we find another binary view. The one who invests the most money determines the direction, and the loudest may then go in that direction.

Protocol. By this, we mean, as briefly mentioned, algorithmic protocols. Surprisingly, we only find a singular view here too: The person who performs the most challenging work earns the most money. Participation is omitted since a very limited range of actions is determined from the start, and exceeding this range results in draconian penalties.

We now want to focus on one of the prevalent organizational forms that seems most suitable for our project at first glance - the company.

Since the 90s, when Sir Tim Berners-Lee's key innovation - the World Wide Web - reached a critical mass, companies started developing new business models. These models were opened up, as the new communication protocol made many things possible in the digital world that were not possible in the traditional world. Customers, for example, could now become employees, think of social media.

Technology has thus led to many innovations. The causes of the problem, however, remained the same. They were still companies, and the owner still determined the direction. If an employee has a brilliant idea, the machine might pay out a small bonus at the end of the year, but essentially, nothing changes. If the owner succumbs to cognitive bias and points in the wrong direction, everything goes astray. We are aware we may lose some skeptical readers here, but that is the nature of expeditions. Not everyone can fit on the summit.

Of course, we are not the only ones who have identified this problem, and there are several ideas on how to address it. It would be even more surprising if others hadn't sniffed out this stinking mess. So, ideas have been developed to lower the fever and treat the symptoms. These ideas have been adorned with euphonic names like stakeholder value. But the essence, dear friends, remains the same, and the real problem is not solved with this hocus-pocus. Who are we telling this to and how could it be otherwise, since the same causes that led to the problem still exist.