Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main: Difference between revisions

{{ExpertIntro|The innovations listed here are tested and refined step by step, and they interact with one another: what matters is the whole, not any single part. The intent is not to reinvent the wheel, but to assemble existing ideas into a globally functional ensemble.}}

''Innovations index, WikiDeal R&D''

== Neither total innovation nor zero innovation ==

None of the ideas gathered here is a total innovation, and none is zero innovation. Each one is inspired by others: this work belongs to the mix culture, and what becomes interesting is the assembly of the whole. Sometimes an idea is simply better calibrated, better highlighted or better deployed here, or the context is favourable to test it. One example: the [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Orsec Orsec plan] (the French framework organizing emergency response) already exists and works, but nothing comparable exists in the world of commerce and commercial policies; adapting such an existing mechanism to a new field is the kind of innovation this page describes.

<span id="foundational-concept"></span>

== Foundational concept ==

Two innovations come first and carry all the others.

'''Innovation number one: a double platform.''' On one side, contract models '''endorsed by lawyers'''; on the other side, smartphone applications built on those models. The contracts are intended to be '''fair, balanced and consumer approved''' (reviewed and approved by user and consumer groups), and to serve the interests of users and providers, not the interests of third-party structures.

'''Innovation number two: the same governance as Wikipedia''', applied to deals and marketplaces instead of encyclopedic knowledge.

'''[[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|Collaborative contract editing]]''' belongs to these foundations. The initial observation: searching online for a contract model with guarantees is difficult today. Lawyers keep the important clauses and articulations (they have models, but do not easily share them: NDAs can be found, for example, but not much more), and the explanations around the clauses are missing: usual risks, bad practices linked to certain clauses, frequent misinterpretations, protective measures. This is what is missing, and this is what WikiDeal intends to provide. The starting hypothesis: like knowledge, agreements and deals can be drafted participatively, as citizens, and then '''endorsed''' by lawyers who take responsibility for them and provide services around them; it stops there.

The work is organized around '''contract bases''': one common contract base per subject, with its clauses, then adaptations validated as much as possible by lawyers, for online applications run by user groups. This content architecture differs from Wikipedia, which is made of many individual articles. A contract base is expected to mature like an encyclopedic article that has covered its subject: at some point, important modifications stop, and the remaining adaptations mostly reduce the diversity of options (for example, termination only at term instead of "at term, or anticipated against compensation"; or four early-termination conditions instead of seven). Around a mature base, the surroundings are widely documented: compensatory measures, options, alerts, specific advice, common cases. Contract bases also open creative possibilities: less usual early-termination options against compensation, unusual and reliable guarantees that create trust, and linked contracts, where several contracts become a [[Market:Programs|program]]. A fundamental principle holds through all of this: part of the platform is a wiki where anyone can participate.

{| class="wikitable"

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|Collaborative Contract Editing]] || Starting || Contracts are wiki-edited, versioned, and community-validated like Wikipedia articles, then endorsed by lawyers; organized around common contract bases.

The first block gathers the innovations that concern the whole WikiDeal ecosystem.

Marketplace quality is intended to rest on governance mechanisms rather than on a central authority: coopetition between user groups, peer endorsement by lawyers, and rating mechanisms that proactively stimulate balance.

 

Feedback is '''incentivized, not paid'''. Users would receive stimulations, never money: Miles Credits, user rights, admin rights, rights to be a candidate for certain functions, or direct credits from providers (an authorized late check-in, an extra night, a bottle of wine, a local cultural experience, an unplanned baby bed, more pets than announced, the loan of a vehicle), advantages placed in the common package. The mechanism is meant to incentivize quality evaluation loops. Feedback is meant to be detailed rather than paid: it would cover soft skills in both directions, communication, understanding of instructions, handling of misunderstandings, quick solutions, fluidity, adaptation to needs. Feedback is also linked to compensatory measures. This is one of the missing links of trust creation in decentralized environments: without a central entity acting as guarantor, more documentation effort is asked from participants, but in exchange there are fewer intermediaries taking commissions along the way, because strengths and weaknesses are better documented. These motivation tools are close to the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|civic incentive]] approach.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Coopetition|Co-opetition]] || Under study || User Groups compete and cooperate at once, quality without destructive rivalry.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Peer Endorsement|Peer Endorsement]] || Under study || Lawyers endorse contracts: a named accountable responsibility, with additional paid service providing in case of adaptation or dispute. Their expected clientele: mostly federations and coordinations of user groups, plus people or groups needing tailor-made contracts.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Judgment Balance|Rating Balancing Policy]] || Under study || Proactive balancing of marketplace ratings (previously presented as "Judgment Balance Indicator"): not only an indicator, it aims at stimulating balance, keeping feedback honest, calibrated and diversified (feedback coming from many different people, not always the same ones), with motivation and incentive tools.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Paid Feedback|Incentivized Feedback]] || Under study || Users earn incentives, not money, for useful and detailed feedback: Miles Credits, user rights, admin rights, candidacy rights, direct credits from providers.

'''[[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Need-Driven Funding|Need-driven funding]]''' acts as a '''reward ratio regulation''': a second algorithm, the "decider" of the reward. When needs are low, the corresponding share would feed a provision fund intended to be managed by the Ynternet.org Foundation for the future of WikiDeal; when needs are high, the reward would be higher. A key point: the funding starts at zero or in negative territory, because investments by the founders take place before the call for funding; this is what makes the beginning very attractive. The key variable is the '''funding cost ratio''': how much has already been spent when the first call is launched. Donors and potential donors would receive notices (suggesting a complementary donation, or informing their network) and would see a reward that theoretically decreases over time, though not necessarily continuously: the private reward for donors decreases while the share for R&D and provisioning grows with revenue.

 

An illustrative example, where the variables matter more than the figures (all figures are placeholders, and contributions remain non-speculative donations): about CHF 100,000 invested before the call for funding, plus about CHF 12,000 per month of operating costs (salaries, servers, steering committee meetings). After 6 months, CHF 100,000 + 6 x 12,000 = CHF 172,000 raised would bring the need percentage below 100 percent. After 12 months, CHF 244,000 raised would mean the initial CHF 100,000 reimbursed and 12 months of costs covered. The variables are the monthly amount (here 12,000) and the number of months of security wanted (typically 3): CHF 100,000 + 15 x 12,000 = CHF 280,000. On a funding curve going from x100 down to x30: a first round of CHF 200,000 (out of a CHF 1,000,000 target) at x100, then a decrease; at CHF 280,000 raised, the CHF 80,000 above 200,000 would average about x85, and the difference between x85 and x30 would benefit the provision fund of the Ynternet.org Foundation.

 

 

'''Annual value increase''' belongs to funding: the multiplier is more relevant than an added percentage on the reward only. The interest would be to create a stable commitment, in some ways comparable to a stable state bond, but issued by the worldwide community of online commerce users, creating a new interest group at the international level: the actors of online commerce. As everywhere in this model, this remains a donation-based, non-speculative mechanism, with no guarantee.

 

'''The Time and Resource Bank and the Miles Credits are the same thing.''' "Miles" is a temporary working name, chosen to be immediately understandable; it may change. Miles Credits are '''not a currency''': they are facilities, comparable to discounts (the working hypothesis, under legal study, is that like discounts they would not be taxed). They target unexploited resources: unoccupied housing, food still perfectly edible but no longer sellable, under-used vehicles, and similar. Examples: a late check-in at 4 pm instead of noon; transport at fuel cost on a trip already planned; the loan of a holiday house in low season against a paint job. People are generally open to this, but the risk today is that it is complicated, insufficiently documented and insufficiently regulated. WikiDeal intends to bring everything needed, in a very simple form: compensatory measures, tutorials, alerts, advice, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency time bank] tradition. When someone accepts an advantage, its limits are well documented, which prevents abuse and creates more motivation. Legal studies aim at creating [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rings Of Trust|rings of trust]] without disguised-salary problems or other legal risks, so that people dare to be generous, humanist and solidary again, without fear of being punished for it.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Need-Driven Funding|Need-Driven Funding]] || Under study || Reward ratio regulation: a second algorithm adjusting maximum Rewards to real needs (funding vs. incompressible costs); low needs feed a provision fund of the Ynternet.org Foundation; the funding curve starts at zero or negative (funding cost ratio).

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Annual Value Increase|Annual Value Increase (draft Open Call)]] || Under study || A possible annual increase on rewards, under study through a draft Open Call (not yet launched); the multiplier is considered more relevant than an added percentage on the reward only; no figure is decided.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Deprivatization|Deprivatization]] || Under study || Reclaiming extractive markets as user-governed commons, as Wikipedia did for knowledge; forms one whole with Exit to Community and Dual Rewards.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Exit To Community|Exit to Community]] || Deployed (written into the contracts) || Progressive transfer of governance, ownership, and value to the user community; attractive for donations with rewards, legally non-speculative, not an investment.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Dual Credits|Dual Rewards]] || Under study || Two Credit types: Rewards (CHF-convertible, no guarantee) and Miles Credits (functional: unexploited resources such as housing, food, vehicles).

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Time Resource Bank|Time and Resource Bank (Miles Credits)]] || Under study || Exchange of unexploited resources (housing, transport, food, services) via Miles Credits, in the time-bank tradition; "Miles" is a working name; not a currency, but facilities comparable to discounts.

This family of innovations combines the Swiss political model ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_initiative_in_Switzerland popular initiatives], referendums, collegial decisions at every level) with the culture of free licences: the citizen as legislator, rather than the elected representative. Decision methods are diversified according to the importance of what is at stake and the interest of users; for the more complex decisions, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet voting] can be used.

 

 

'''Open calls''' make this governance porous and flexible: open invitations for community proposals, with waves, awards and status documented on the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Open Call portal]].

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Open Calls]] || Being deployed || Open invitations for community proposals to improve the WikiDeal model; they make the governance porous and flexible. Waves, awards and status: see the Open Call portal.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Participatory Observatory|Participatory Observatories]] || Under study || Unlimited citizen-run observatories, created by theme by user groups (online community moderation, whistleblowing, obsolescence risks, fundraising awareness and competition, and more), with Slashdot-style karma moderation.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Libre Licensing|Systematic Libre Licensing]] || Deployed (100 percent since the beginning) || AGPL v3 for software, CC BY-SA 4.0 for content, everywhere, by default; exactly the Free Software Foundation licences, libre in the pure sense.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikimedia Marker|Wikimedia Marker (WM-XX)]] || Starting || Nomenclature marking elements inspired by Wikimedia Foundation practices; being reframed around contract variables (modifiable dates, optional clauses) as technological additions beyond encyclopedic content.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Supported Deployment|AI Supported Deployment]] || Starting || Working hypothesis for the R&D methodology: five AI-era work archetypes (Prototyper, Builder, Sweeper, Grower, Maintainer) combined with Open Calls to move from idea to prototype to deployment.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]] || Starting || Autonomous local or thematic communities with their own governance and commissions: the coopetitive core of the Market, from night-bus transport between two cities to holiday babysitting. Concerns every marketplace.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Maturity Score|Use Case Maturity Score]] || Under study || Incubation and development indicator: a composite per-portal score from seven indicators of marketplace health, showing how far a use case has developed. Concerns every marketplace portal.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Revenue Spreading|Revenue Spreading]] || Under study || Concerns the street fundraising marketplace (fundraising through dialogue): dialoguers choose 100 percent payout in year 1 or 20 percent spread over ten years; revenue better distributed, serving the interests of NGOs.

| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Reverse Abuse|Reverse Abuse]] || Under study || Programme-type mechanism reusing multinationals' legal financial structures to repatriate value to small producers and user-governed supply chains.