This constitutes the primary boundary that constitutes the entity. It is purely an interaction of money. A good way to think about it is, money left on the outside, and value on the inside. For people inside, money is plastered up along the outside, so that internally, people are free to collaborate without concern about money. For people outside, they see the money that the entity is surrounded by, and are attracted to it.
How does this work? The basic mechanism is “double your money”. When you are invited to the entity, the person who invites guarantees the invitee will return with double what they bring. So, if I am invited to visit for £10, I bring £10, leave it at the door, do whatever is required for an hour, and when I leave, the person who invited me gives me £20. This money guaranteed. It is all black. In fact, they match the initial £10 at the beginning of the hour.
Imagine a glass plate. People on the inside plaster money to the inside. People on the outside see the money and plaster money to the outside. There is a matching of inner and outer money. Once a person enters, they leave this money there, and only when they return to they pick it up if they have been invited in. Otherwise, money floats around on the inside to match up with more money from outside.
The generalised transaction is simple:
(where x is the base value of the invitation, p is the time period)
“double your money”
Money is tagged to time. Since our time, each of us being human, is the same (at least in this first proposal, since it may be varied by intensity, wrt children and so on). The amounts and periods are given below.
Note: this has been subsequently described as MTTP, the Money-Time-Trust-Protocol, the two simple conditions of which can be found in the ‘Social Contract’ tab above.
The initial boundary of engagement is very important indeed. If someone is personally invited to attend, it is advised that they go through the following procedure. The objective is that they leave with a greater understanding of where they are in terms of business practice, build some network relationships, clarify what they offer and their aims, and perhaps have actually demonstrated their skills. For the entity, which consists of the other people who are currently there, it is about accessing the resources of that new individual as quickly as possible, their skills, awareness, assets, get them connected and useful, producing value.
It is essential to realise that the filter is a direct confrontation of internal value and external institutional thinking and practice. Money might be the primary motivation that attracts people to the economic entity, with the guarantee of “double your money” when invited. This motivation interfaces directly with the internal culture of the co-creation of value. It is not an understatement to restate: this engagement is very important indeed. Even for those who are approaching the entity without interest in money, they may find the boundary offensive, and such an attitude could prejudice their awareness and contribution, blinding them to the opportunity to manifest social value.
Depending on the context, the filter contains the following elements. Ideally, there will be a regular cycle of up to ten people. These are conducted by “experts”, people who have self-selected to lead the processes, invited to do so by other members of the entity. The role of the person conducting the filter is very important, because they have the ability to spot “talent” and provide personal recommendations to other members directly. I need to know if particular people turn up, those with a fine sensitivity of mind, and are willing to play, capable of improvising given challenging circumstances.
The filtering process is self-selecting. There is no judgement made by anyone, and it is not compulsory. It is about self-determination. But this is less to do with willfulness and individual efforts which give rise to ego and competition, and more to do with open-mindedness and collective effort which give rise to community and collaboration.
Although the diagram shows an arrow entering the entity, if the filtering works, the entity will grow into the social world of the individual. It is less about people joining, learning what the rules are etc within the “group”. If conducted well, people will feel listened to and valuable, and thus the entity will have grown into the social space of the individual. The community will have grown. And even the notion of “invitation” may be reversed, and it is the new person who is inviting everyone within the entity into their lives, to help them out with work issues and their local community.
(from original eco^2 document)
Invitational-protocol (ip) is a variation of mttp, used specifically to outreach to new participants. When Anna meets Barry at a conference, they conduct ip by Anna inviting Barry to come to the next in-person gathering, and offering £10 to be matched by Barry. The conditions are very similar to mttp:
- bring both £10 to the meeting
- optionally invite others to the meeting
If Barry turns up to the weekly meeting, he is welcomed warmly. He brings with him £10 and has invited Chuck, who himself turns up with £20.
In this way, trust becomes transitive, and new participants are genuinely welcomed for turning up for the first time having been attracted to the person who engaged them, the value that was seen in them, or the financial protocol that beckons a completely new economic social contract.
Money can be traced through the trust relationships formed through ip before the meeting has even occurred. Mathematically, the money that is brought to the meeting is at the fringes of the network of trust that has cascaded through ip relationships. There is no money at the centre: the “regulars” have given away their money, and in this process it doubles as ip propagates through a population. (For those interested in the detail, mttp can create equity cycles where a chain of invitations create a closed loop as the initiating inviter is finally invited; this is linear, whereas ip takes this into a two-dimensional radial pattern.)
This is not a straight linear relationship, variations evolve. For example, Dave, Charlie and Barney “nominate” Anna, a particularly effervescent and active member who has time to talent scout over the week. They invite her at £10 each to the next meeting, so Anna starts the week with £40 which she can use to invite four people using ip. If she fails to invite anyone, she can return with £40. Perhaps she invites four people and none turn up, perhaps eight do with £80 in total.
Seen in this way, invitational-protocol is a kind of test for the strength of the social fabric. Not only a social bond between regular participants who attend weekly, but a test of the environment “out there” as new people are approached with eco^2 protocols of trust.