Comment on page
A Force as a new Form of Social Organization
Throughout history, to achieve collective goals, people have organized themselves according to different types of social structures, such as: slavery, cults, organized religions, guilds, orders, feuds, kingdoms, city states, nation states, associations, clubs, partnerships, companies, unions, not-for-profit organizations, foundations, task forces, cooperatives, collectives, alliances, non-governmental organizations, research institutes, networks, network states, DAOs...
At any point in history, some types of social structure tend to predominate and it is easy for us to believe that the predominant types are the "right" types. But even a superficial historical perspective reveals that such types are transient and a product of their times.
In our current time, the dominant types are facing multiple crises. It is quite plausible that new types of social structures, aiming to address the shortcomings of today's predominant structures for certain kinds of activities, will emerge.
Our organization does not fit precisely into any pre-existing type of social structure, and hence we have no choice but to innovate. We call our social structure a Force. Since this is a new concept, it is not trivial to define. It is easier to explain what it is by comparing it with pre-existing types of social structures, exploring similarities and differences.
- Companies: like companies, our activities may be profitable, but we are primarily mission-driven and not profit-driven. Most companies attempt to create and defend moats against competitors, which they then exploit. We see this as a form of rent-seeking, which is beneficial to the company but detrimental to society as a whole. Instead, we are collaborative. We are open to absorbing potential "competitors". In fact, anyone whose actions are aligned with our mission is, in principle, already a collaborator and not properly a "competitor". Furthermore, companies are incorporated in nation states and are thus their subordinates. However, we are not geographically bound and may be globally distributed. Our mission is not geographically bounded as well. Therefore, choosing a single nation state to incorporate would be conceptually odd.
- Nation States: whereas the relationship between individuals and a company is based on contracts (employment contracts, SAFEs, ...), the relationship between individuals and a nation state is an implicit and automatic relationship of "belonging" and "citizenship". Likewise, we have a similar relationship of belonging to our force. But the criteria for belonging are different. Whereas in a nation state the criteria are usually based on one's place of birth or on the citizenship of one's parents, belonging to our force is a matter of contributing to its mission.
- Network States: like network states, we have a single commandment (to bring stability in the cryptocurrency industry, in our case) and we are not geographically bound. But, unlike network states, we do not have any territorial ambitions and we are not antagonistic to nation states. We seek to co-exist and collaborate with nation states, within the scope of our mission.
- Network: a network is a set of entities (nodes) and connections between them (edges). While many who belong to our force form a network, it is perfectly possible to belong to our force without being directly or indirectly connected to some other contributors. Furthermore, a network is defined by its connectedness, whereas we are defined by our mission.
- Orders: our non-territoriality and independence from nation states coupled with our collaborative and positive nature towards nation states make us similar to organizations such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (as a real-world example) or the Jedi Order (as a fictional example). These orders have positive missions that are recognized and welcomed by the nation states or planets with which they interact. Unlike orders, though, we do not have religious beliefs or hierarchies.
- Cults: contemporary social media encourages cult-like social structures, in a competition for followers. The charismatic celebrity/influencer CEO is a modern kind of cult leader. Cult-like social structures are fully incompatible with our mission, because they tend to be very unstable, not surviving the death or "cancelation" of the leader.
- Religions: in contrast to cults, religions are among the most stable and long-lasting institutions in the world. They last thousands of years, whereas most companies fail after just a few. Numerous factors contribute to this stability, including positive ones such as a greater focus on universally appealing ideas than on leaders (even when a leader may have been an initial compiller and propagator of these ideas), inclusivity (even pardoning and welcoming repented "sinners"), flexibility of demands (one can devote an entire life in a monastery or just go to the mass every once in a while and in both cases belong to the religion) and non-territoriality (geographical powers come and go, but the religions that exist within those territories remain). Like religions, our universally appealing mission, our openness to contributions by everyone, and our political neutrality make us very stable. It is essential for us to be stable ourselves, if our mission is to bring stability. However, in contrast to religions, we shun dogmas and supersticious beliefs.
- Academic Research Institute: science, both empirical and theoretical, is a key activity for us. We seek solutions to problems related to stability and we seek to prove and show that these solutions work, instead of relying on faith or fallacious arguments. However, we do not sit in the proverbial "ivory tower" just producing papers, but instead work actively to bring the benefits of our solutions to the world. And this requires many other types of work beyond research.
- Worker Cooperative: like a worker cooperative, everyone who works for our mission can benefit from the outcomes of our work. However, we do not have the anti-capitalist sentiment that motivated many worker cooperatives in the past. We welcome capital. We just reject unequal treatment of capital and labour that gives capital rent-seeking advantages.
- DAO: We are indeed decentralized and autonomous, but the concept of "DAO" has been over-used and abused and we are quite different from many of the senses into which this concept has degenerated. For instance, nowadays a DAO is often just a governance-heavy cooperative/collective that uses a token in some way. We are quite different from that, because we favor algorithmic decentralization through governance minimization.
- Taskforce: like a taskforce, we have a goal to accomplish. However, whereas a taskforce's goal is a task that can be completed in a finite and usually short amount of time, our goal is a mission that requires persistent effort.
If you would like to belong to our force, reach out to us and start contributing to our mission.