open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM Candidate] Yusra
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 10:59:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:03:44
Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:00:15
Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 10:59:31
Link to manifesto

I am Yusra, CEO of the political organization Per Capita. Or at least, what may become a political organization if all goes according to plan.

Given it's unorthodox nature, I feel I should to explain the specifics of what makes my candidacy different from the others here.

The aim of Per Capita is to combine the benefits of direct democracy with free market capitalism. In other words: to enable citizens to vote directly on issues, whilst also making money.

Per Capita is an Eve corporation: if I am nominated to the Council of Stellar Management then shares in this corporation will be made publically available.

As a shareholder, your shareholders vote will dictate my vote on the council. In other words, as a council member I will vote on each issue according to the majority will of Per Capita's shareholders. The standard Eve corporate voting mechanism will be used, meaning that the more shares you own, the more power your vote carries. 

Being a shareholder has another benefit: income made by the corporation will be paid back in the form of dividends. The suggested starting amount will be 80%, although this can of course be reviewed and changed by a majority shareholder decision. Once the corporation has sufficient operating capital then this amount can be increased to 100%.

This income will come from two places:

The first is sale of shares. The initial initial public offering will pay back 80% to shareholders. Then, after the IPO, the intention is to issue new shares as per market demand. The sale of these will result in further dividends.

Of course this has never been tried before, so it's impossible to say what that demand will be. Maybe, once the IPO is complete, shares will only need to be traded on the secondary market. But, given that in this case money is enabling the direct purchase of power, I am... optimistic.

However, this is only the secondary means of generating income for shareholders. The primary means is Per Capita's core purpose: any individual will be able to pay to have an issue considered by the shareholders. This person can be a Per Capita shareholder, or any other citizen of Eve. And this can be any issue they choose. 

They write their issue, and, alongside a payment, submit it to Per Capita for consideration.

The shareholders then vote on whether the issue is raised within the council. If the issue is accepted then the money is kept and dividended, if it is rejected then the money is returned, except for a small handling fee.

Shareholders will have to consider each issues' merits, although they will also consider how much money is being offered. Given that they earn money from raising issues to the council, they have a clear incentive to accept them, especially if the plaintiff is offering a lot.

Having said that, if too many issues are accepted, then their value declines and new customers will be hard to find. After all, the Council of Stellar management will not take seriously a long list of insignificant complaints, and our shareholders will have to bear this in mind.

We are selling something of value, but if too much of it is sold, then that value will decline. That is the responsibility of shareholders to decide, and also my role as CEO: to ensure that business value is retained.

In terms of trust and transparency, I'm sure many might have concerns. I am working closely with Serenity Steele to ensure that Per Capita is set up and managed correctly. Serenity will be acting as a guarantor for the corporation and will be closely involved in its operation. Additionally we are looking for independent auditors. The intention is to run Per Capita's finances in a way that is 100% transparent to shareholders, plus have major decisions dictated by shareholder vote.

... continued in next post ..

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:00:00 - [2]
 

I feel that Per Capita has the potential bring several unique benefits to the council and to Eve.

To those that feel this is undemocratic, a corruption of politics, I would certainly not claim that it alone represents true democracy, but as one voice in the council i think it will add value.

Using the existing mechanism of shareholder voting, issues will be able to be quickly and easily decided within the corporation. This provides a way for the opinions of a large number of citizens to be counted in a direct way. Given that the aim of the council is to represent the community, this has obvious merits. Merits that go beyond our trust in representative democracy alone.

I also see the market-driven nature of the vote as a benefit. It will enable the representation of money, of wealth, within eve. Wealth comes with power, and power comes with interest in Eve. Those with wealth have frequently much to say about Eve, and much to gain or lose. Their interest is, if you like, highly interested. 

Given that individuals will have to pay to have issues raised, it follows that they will focus on issues that matter. After all, if an issue is trivial, why pay for it? The barrier to entry becomes a filter for quality. A filter that is doubly-applied, first by the plaintif, and then by the shareholders.

It also might make you, as  shareholders, rather rich. If any powerful individuals attempt to buy up very many shares, or if they pay handsomely to promote their agenda, then the profits might be more than insignificant. Compared to the limited payouts available via more traditional IPOs and banking, there is at least the potential to make considerably more. Alongside, of course, the risk of not.

In the longer term, I see the potential for Per Capita to become a political party within Eve in a real sense. The council has a limit of two terms for any individual to serve on it. Hence I could at most serve two terms as CEO. However, I could be replaced as CEO having served these two terms and the corporation could continue: with the new CEO running as candidate for the CSM. In this way, Per Capita might outlast the two term limit imposed on individuals.

But, overall, and perhaps most significantly, I see this as an experiment in politics. An example of what politics can be like if we drop the barrier between capitalism and democracy and stand back and let the market decide. To me that is something I'm curious to see the results of. It is also something I think is very, very Eve.

Thank you for reading. If you have any questions please ask them here.

Daveydweeb
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:06:00 - [3]
 

Quote:
The first is sale of shares. The initial initial public offering will pay back 80% to shareholders. Then, after the IPO, the intention is to issue new shares as per market demand. The sale of these will result in further dividends.


This is the definition of a pyramid scheme, champ.

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:12:00 - [4]
 

One additional issue that needs clarification. I was asked if this is just a plan to scam large amounts of ISK. The answer is no, although the plan is certainly to attempt to make good money for shareholders. Some details:

- As part of the IPO I will retain some shares in Per Capita. These will be my source of income from the corporation. This creates the incentive for me to raise money for shareholders, since this is the only way to make money for myself. Our interests are aligned, in other words. The specifics of this will be published prior to the election, once all the specific details of the IPO are finalized. These are currently being worked on by myself and Serenity Steele.

- The corporation will publish a list of its major shareholders on a monthly basis, as well as dividends paid out.

- The current intention is to pay our independent auditors directly from company funds, rather than via shares. This is to ensure a degree of separation. The need for this, plus some minor incidental costs (eg office space) is the reason for the initial dividend payout amount to be set at 80%.

I welcome all feedback on this. The intention is to design a financial setup that is fair, reasonable, and transparent.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:16:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Yusra


- As part of the IPO I will retain some shares in Per Capita. These will be my source of income from the corporation. This creates the incentive for me to raise money for shareholders, since this is the only way to make money for myself. .


So you have an interest in making money off this?

That's not a nice attitude! ugh

Daveydweeb
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:18:00 - [6]
 

It doesn't have to be a nice attitude, what with it being a pyramid scheme and all.

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:19:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:28:41
Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:26:11
Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:23:40
Originally by: Daveydweeb
This is the definition of a pyramid scheme, champ.


If the intention was purely to make money by selling more and more shares then it would be a pyramid scheme.

However, that part is incidental: the aim is only to sell more shares if there is demand. If there is no demand, then no problem. The long term aim is not simply to sell more and more shares, but rather to provide enough shares to meet market demand.

What drives this demand? The desire to be able to vote on CSM issues...

The primary mechanisms are:

- What is being 'sold' is the ability to vote on issues raised at the CSM. The in-game share system is being used because it enables a simple voting system that already exists. In addition, since existing shareholders have to vote to approve the creation of new shares, the corporation may collectively decide to stop issuing.

- The primary source of income (if there is any) is private individuals bringing issues to the corporation. Perhaps no one will want to do this. But if they do, shareholders make money.

This has nothing to do with a pyramid scheme. Thank you for asking however.

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:22:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:24:35
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Yusra


- As part of the IPO I will retain some shares in Per Capita. These will be my source of income from the corporation. This creates the incentive for me to raise money for shareholders, since this is the only way to make money for myself. .


So you have an interest in making money off this?

That's not a nice attitude! ugh


Of course I have an interest in making money! This will take a large amount of my time to administer, for which it is reasonable to be paid. Plus, as I pointed out, since my income will come only as a shareholder, this creates an incentive to make money for all shareholders. It's the standard setup used by most RL corporations. Bear in mind that if the corporation makes no money, then I make none.

The amount of shares has to be reasonable. If it's too much then of course no one will want to get involved. The exact amount isn't set yet, I'm working on it currently with Serenity, and the details will be provided as part of the IPO. Market pressure will ensure the amount is reasonable.

Daveydweeb
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:29:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Daveydweeb on 29/04/2008 11:29:22
Originally by: Yusra
The in-game share system is being used because it enables a simple voting system that already exists.


No, that's entirely untrue. You've already established that you're going to be using the shares to make a personal profit, something that no other CSM candidate has been crass enough to suggest. This is purely for your personal interests and, because the degree of profit to be made diminishes with each successive wave of shares and each dividend is drawn heavily from the sale of those same shares, it satisfies the definition of a pyramid scheme.

Quote:
The primary source of income (if there is any) is private individuals bringing issues to the corporation. Perhaps no one will want to do this. But if they do, shareholders make money.


Your justification for the scheme -- other than making money off the idiots who give it to you -- is to facilitate "direct democracy", but when you charge individuals to raise issues and give the greatest voting ability to the largest shareholders, you're violating the democratic ideal in favour of an oligarchy of fools.

Let me also point out that your corporation is a very poor facsimile of the existing system: your corp allows people to raise issues which, if they receive sufficient support, are taken to a higher level of decision-making. This is precisely the same damn system as the existing implementation of the CSM, with the exception that it's broken: CSM Council members cannot raise issues themselves, so you're making a promise you cannot possibly keep.

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:43:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:49:00
Edited by: Yusra on 29/04/2008 11:47:30
I understand your concerns, Daveydweeb, but you have misunderstood. I suggest you read the above again carefully, plus what I have to say below....

As I have stated clearly, the aim of Per Capita is to combine the benefits of direct democracy with free market capitalism.

This is not an exercise in pure democracy. I am not claiming this, so to accuse me of 'violating a democratic ideal' is accurate. That is the whole point.

It is an exercise in combining two things:

- Direct democracy: namely the ability of an individual (in this case a shareholder) to vote directly on an issue, rather than leaving the decision up to a representative. Unlike other CSM members, you do not have to trust me to vote on my instincts. Instead, you can vote to tell me how to vote. Directly.

- Free market capitalism: namely to let market forces determine the value of this direct democracy. To allow market forces to determine how much people are willing to pay to both raise issues, and have the right to vote on them. Let the market decide.

The market will dictate how much people want to pay to both raise issues and vote: if it's 1000 isk, then that's what its worth. If it's 1 million, then that's what it's worth. Just like the price of any module or ship on the eve market. This is no different.

All profit will be returned to shareholders. In other words; the corporation only exists to enable the trade of votes and political issues.

The corporation is in no way dependent on the sale of additional shares (as per a pyramid scheme). Additionally, since share issues must be voted on, if the shareholders decide to issue no more shares, then none will be issued.

I welcome your feedback. It is my utmost concern that these financial and procedural specifics are well understood. I'm sure others would react as you do, my aim is to clarify.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:38:00 - [11]
 

So, your only platform as a candidate is to advocate a system of bribery?

First off, that's just wrong. Limiting what issues are addressed by the CSM according to in-game wealth is in direct conflict with the purpose of the CSM in facilitating communication between all players and CCP.

Secondly, I doubt that this will end up being something which CCP will endorse or even allow, as it would undermine their efforts of improving relations with the customers.

The position of CSM representative is one of a volunteer. You should not be expecting any kind of compensation for your time and efforts, it should be done because you feel it is important and worthy of your time in and of itself. Publicly selling your vote just shows everyone that you will not be a fair representative. You will not judge issues according to what is best for the game, as you will be beholden to those who have paid you off to push their issues and agendas.

One positive thing from your post? Thanks for telling us of Serenity Steele's involvement. That's two candidates off my list.

Slickdrac
Minmatar
M Takumi Research and Production
East Empire Trade Federation
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:51:00 - [12]
 

The CSM is about making the game better, not about making money, your campaign is supposed to be about what you know about this game, how you play it, and why you would be right to understand and represent the communities issues. This is not a political thing.....if it was, you'd fit right in however Laughing

Yusra
Per.Capita
Posted - 2008.05.02 12:36:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
So, your only platform as a candidate is to advocate a system of bribery?

First off, that's just wrong. Limiting what issues are addressed by the CSM according to in-game wealth is in direct conflict with the purpose of the CSM in facilitating communication between all players and CCP.


I this was the only way the CSM was run then I'd agree with you. But the aim is to be one candidate amongst nine. The other eight will acting as 'ordinary' CSM representatives: lending their personal voices to the Council. My aim is to represent a hopefully large group of individuals, rather than just putting forward my personal opinion. This has, I feel, the potential to add an extra dimension to the CSM.

The IPO details are still being worked on, but there will certainly be a limit on the quantity of shares one individual can buy. The aim is to make small amounts of shares available to a large number of people, rather than a large number of shares sold to a small number of people. The shares will not be expensive: they will be affordable by almost all players. And then, almost all the ISK will be refunded directly to shareholders once the IPO is complete, leaving enough only to cover any operating costs for the corporation. I will be a shareholder like other shareholders, and receive no other income from Per Capita.

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
Secondly, I doubt that this will end up being something which CCP will endorse or even allow, as it would undermine their efforts of improving relations with the customers.


My position was clear in my submission to CCP who accepted it, so I'm assuming they're fine with it. I not only see this as a good way to 'improve relations with customers', but also as something that can add richness to the Eve universe by possibly in the long run creating a political party that has a particularly 'Eve' flavour to it.

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
The position of CSM representative is one of a volunteer. You should not be expecting any kind of compensation for your time and efforts, it should be done because you feel it is important and worthy of your time in and of itself.


Unlike other CSMs I will have to spend a large amount of in-game time administering the corporation. They only need to play, and talk to people (the latter can be very time consuming). I will have to do this, but also set up and run votes on issues, take in suggested issues and administer payments, and produce accounts and have them audited to the satisfaction of shareholders. For this I will receive only income as any other shareholder would: shares that will be publicly available, at a low cost. In other words, I will be getting a small percentage of what will likely be a small amount of money, in exchange for spending a large amount of time running this. This is not an elaborate 'scam' to make a big pile of ISK on my part.

Once the details of the IPO and corporate processes are published, this should hopefully be much clearer. In the mean time, questions like yours are helpful for ensuring concerns are covered.

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
Publicly selling your vote just shows everyone that you will not be a fair representative. You will not judge issues according to what is best for the game, as you will be beholden to those who have paid you off to push their issues and agendas.


That very much depends on what you mean by 'fair'. I hope to be representing the interest of a large group of individuals in a very direct way. I believe this will add a useful voice to the CSM that will benefit the whole community.

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
One positive thing from your post? Thanks for telling us of Serenity Steele's involvement. That's two candidates off my list.


Serenity is involved as an advisor, since I strongly trust her input and knowledge of IPOs and Eve's share system. Serenity is a great candidate and your dislike of Per Capita should not effect your opinions of her.

Vox Pop
Posted - 2008.05.02 13:07:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
So, your only platform as a candidate is to advocate a system of bribery?

Isn't ISK doing all the talking in EVE already, in a covert way? I cannot escape the notion that at least a few of the (other ;) candidates are in it solely for the money as well. In this setup, at least it's open and transparent up front!

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:29:00 - [15]
 

I have several questions, and taking a page out of Talkuth Rel’s book, I decided to ask each candidate in their own thread…

1) Invention – A good idea that still needs work…
a. Have you ever tried invention?
b. What ideas do you have to improve invention?

2) Pilot Security Level – Should it be more important?
a. (In High Sec) – Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating?
b. Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes?
c. Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker?

3) Industry – The Creators of Eve
a. Do you regularly build anything?
b. Do you regularly mine?
c. What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve?
d. You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideas…


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only