WikiDeal - User contributions [en]

Gov/en/Portal:Transparency/Legal-Studies

2026-09-29T09:10:24Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Fix stray parenthesis

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is building a fair online marketplace. Some people give money as a pure gift to help build it. Other people would put in money hoping to get something back later, through special tokens. This page gathers the studies that check how this plan could follow Switzerland's laws about money, taxes and gifts. Lawyers still need to say yes before anything starts.}}
{{ExpertIntro|These legal and fiscal studies cover the relation between the Ynternet.org Foundation, which supervises the WikiDeal applied R&D program, a planned operating entity (Netizen3 (working name, temporary — legal form to be defined, likely a foundation or a cooperative, not a joint-stock company), and the people who fund the project. Following the September 2026 pivot, the framework under study distinguishes two flows: contributions with an expected return would be investments, received by Netizen3 (to be created), which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Foundation; contributions without any return would remain pure donations (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). The former "Rewards" are intended to become WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, inactive at issuance and progressively activated by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year). The regulatory positioning under study relies on the FINMA token classification (payment token as working hypothesis, asset token as examined alternative) and on the FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) prospectus exemptions (fewer than 500 investors or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months, alternative conditions). This inverts the previous "donation, not investment, outside FINMA jurisdiction" argument. The whole framework is proposed as a basis for discussion and must be validated by licensed attorneys before any implementation. The studies are currently consolidated in a single document and could later be split into distinct studies reviewed by distinct attorneys.}}

'''Legal Studies for incubation: Executive Summary''' (framework pivoted 2026-09, pending attorney validation) · Published full study PDF, documenting the previous donation-based framework (fiscal study v3.6.8, 2026-07-19, English, 39 p.): [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf] · An updated study reflecting the pivot is being prepared and must be reviewed by licensed attorneys before publication.

''For reference: [https://wikideal.net/wiki/Gov/fr/Portal:Transparence/%C3%89tudes_L%C3%A9gales French version (Études Légales)] (translation; English version prevails).'''

💡 '''In Simple Words:'''
WikiDeal wants to build a fair online marketplace. Some kind people give money as a pure gift to help build it. Other people would put in money hoping to get something back later, through special tokens. This page is a big homework check: it looks at the rules of Switzerland about money, taxes and gifts, to see how the plan could follow them. A new Swiss company, Netizen3, would receive the money from the people who hope for something back, and it would use that money to do what the Ynternet.org Foundation decides. Real lawyers still need to read and confirm these studies before anything starts.

🎯 '''In 20 Seconds (Scientific Summary):'''
Preliminary internal legal and fiscal studies of the Swiss framework for the pivoted WikiDeal funding model (September 2026). Two flows are distinguished: contributions with an expected return would be investments, received by a planned Swiss company, Netizen3, which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Ynternet.org Foundation (Geneva, tax-exempt); contributions without any return would remain pure donations to the Foundation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss, a correction of the earlier "Civil Code Art. 239" reference). Investors would receive WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, inactive at issuance and activated progressively by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year), with an envisaged allocation of 25% to investors and 25% to early supporters (remainder to be confirmed). The regulatory hypothesis under study combines the FINMA token classification (payment token as working hypothesis, asset token as examined alternative) with the FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) prospectus exemptions (fewer than 500 investors or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months, alternative conditions), inverting the previous "outside FINMA jurisdiction" argument. Over time, Netizen3 is envisaged to become a non-profit company, with a progressive decentralization of its mandate towards User Groups. This framework is proposed as a basis for discussion and must be validated by licensed attorneys before any implementation. The studies are currently consolidated in a single document and could later be split into distinct studies reviewed by distinct attorneys.

'''On this page:'''
* [[#Recommendation|1. Recommendation]]
* [[#Deprivatization|2. Platform Deprivatization Mechanism]]
* [[#Purpose_and_Scope|3. Purpose and Scope]]
* [[#Organizational_Structure|4. Organizational Structure]]
* [[#Donation_Model|5. Investments and Donations: Two Distinct Flows]]
* [[#Tax_Treatment|6. Swiss Tax Treatment of Tokens and Donations]]
* [[#VAT_Positioning|7. VAT Positioning]]
* [[#Regulatory_Positioning|8. Regulatory Positioning: FINMA Token Framework and FinSA Exemptions]]
* [[#Annual_Report_Indicators|9. Annual Report Indicators and Fiscal Reporting]]
* [[#Combined_Scenario|10. Combined Scenario: Investment + Activation + Donation]]
* [[#Related_Pages|11. Related Pages]]
__NOTOC__


== 1. Recommendation ==
; Intention
: Confirm under which conditions WikiDeal could legally raise funds under the pivoted model: investments received by a planned Swiss company, Netizen3, which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Ynternet.org Foundation, with WikiDeal Subscription Tokens issued to investors.

; Result
: The previous conclusion (fundraising can start immediately under the donation qualification) applied to the former donation-based model. Under the pivoted model, the working hypothesis goes in the direction of a FINMA payment token qualification combined with the FinSA Art. 36 prospectus exemptions, but this framework must first be validated by licensed attorneys before any public offer; a FINMA ruling prepared with a specialized attorney is under consideration. Formal legal opinions (avis de droit) remain recommended at every stage.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=2 Previous framework: see pages 2-3 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 2. Platform Deprivatization Mechanism ==
; Intention
: Describe a generic mechanism for platform deprivatization and user reappropriation, structured as an applied R&D program divided into two phases: incubation (Ynternet.org Foundation) and operations (Netizen3, to be created, replacing the previously envisaged WikiDeal Association).

; Result
: The mechanism is intended to remain replicable for any marketplace (transportation, housing, volunteering, local planning). Netizen3 would receive the investment flows and finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Foundation, under a neutral management mandate; the founder would later step back, and the company is envisaged to become a non-profit company over time, with a progressive decentralization of the mandate towards User Groups. The mechanism draws on precedents such as cooperative insurance companies (La Mobilière) and digital commons that have set standards based on free licenses (W3C, Wikimedia Foundation, IETF). All operate at cost without speculation.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=5 Previous framework: see pages 5-7 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 3. Purpose and Scope ==
; Intention
: Define the Swiss fiscal and regulatory framework for the pivoted WikiDeal funding model, covering the Ynternet.org Foundation (Geneva, tax-exempt), the planned Netizen3, investors and donors.

; Result
: The studies would cover the qualification of the WikiDeal Subscription Token (FINMA classification), prospectus exemptions (FinSA Art. 36), anti-money-laundering duties (AMLA), the public deposit question (Banking Act and Banking Ordinance), the tax treatment of tokens and donations, and VAT. The scope remains limited to Swiss law and does not constitute tax or legal advice. The previous version of the study (v3.6.8) covered the former donation-based model and remains available for reference.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=4 Previous framework: see page 4 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 4. Organizational Structure ==
; Intention
: Clarify the roles envisaged after the pivot: the Ynternet.org Foundation (tax-exempt, supervised by ESA/ASF Bern) would define strategy, vision and objectives; Netizen3 (to be created) would receive the investments and finance the realization of those objectives under a neutral management mandate.

; Result
: Pure donations would remain addressed to the Foundation. Two special cases are envisaged: Targeted Donations and para-public "provision fund" contributions would remain pure donations, but they would be cashed by Netizen3, which would attribute them to the Foundation. The mandate is intended to be progressively decentralized towards User Groups, with the Foundation diversifying its mandate holders over time. Initial remunerations of providers are envisaged in WikiDeal Subscription Tokens; karma credits remain a future intention, not an active feature. The exact legal instruments (statutes, mandate agreement, conflict-of-interest safeguards) are [to be confirmed] with the attorneys and the Foundation board.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=8 Previous framework: see pages 8-12 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 5. Investments and Donations: Two Distinct Flows ==
; Intention
: Establish the legal nature of the two funding flows: contributions with an expected return would be investments (investment agreement with Netizen3, issuance of WikiDeal Subscription Tokens), while contributions without any return would remain pure donations to the Foundation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). This inverts the previous "Donation (Not Investment) Clarification".

; Result
: WikiDeal Subscription Tokens would be inactive at issuance and activated progressively by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year), only on money effectively received; the envisaged allocation is 25% to investors and 25% to early supporters, the remainder being still open [to be confirmed]. The personal and community portion concept survives in the token model: a holder could voluntarily lower the expected return, and when the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Need-Driven-Funding|funding need]] decreases, the remaining balance of the allocated envelope would go to the Foundation. The fate of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Bonding Curve|bonding curve]] (multiplier from ×100 to ×30 in the previous model) under the token model is still open [to be confirmed]. All these parameters are proposed as a basis for discussion and require attorney validation before any implementation.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=7 Previous framework: see pages 7-9 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 6. Swiss Tax Treatment of Tokens and Donations ==
; Intention
: Determine the tax classification of WikiDeal Subscription Tokens and of donations under Swiss federal and cantonal law, following the Federal Tax Administration practice on cryptocurrencies and ICO/ITO.

; Result
: The tax treatment would depend on the token qualification: a pure payment token would tend not to trigger withholding tax (Withholding Tax Act Art. 4) or issuance stamp duty, while a token granting a share of profits would risk being treated like a participation right, with 35% withholding tax on distributions. Stamp duty exemptions are being examined for Netizen3 (franchise of CHF 1 million at incorporation; specific exemption for companies without commercial purpose). The donation flow to the Foundation would keep following cantonal gift-tax rules. Every tax point on this page remains to be validated by an attorney or tax specialist [to be confirmed].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=14 Previous framework: see pages 14-15 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 7. VAT Positioning ==
; Intention
: Determine VAT obligations for the operating entity (previously the WikiDeal Association, now the planned Netizen3), keeping the brokerage-commission model under which WikiDeal would never possess transaction funds.

; Result
: In the previous study, VAT applied only to commissions (MWSTG Art. 24), with the non-profit turnover threshold of CHF 150,000/year (MWSTG Art. 10(2)) minimizing exposure, and the brokerage model reducing AMLA obligations. The intention is to carry this positioning over to Netizen3. Whether that turnover threshold would still apply to a non-profit company, and how token issuance and activation would be treated for VAT, are open points [to be confirmed by the attorney or tax specialist].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=16 Previous framework: see pages 16-17 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 8. Regulatory Positioning: FINMA Token Framework and FinSA Exemptions ==
; Intention
: Map the regulatory positioning of the pivoted model with FINMA: token classification (FINMA ICO guidelines, 2018), prospectus exemptions (FinSA Art. 36), anti-money-laundering duties (AMLA) and the public deposit question (Banking Act). This replaces the previous positioning, which argued that pure donations fall outside FINMA jurisdiction.

; Result
: The working hypothesis goes in the direction of a payment token. The main tension identified is that a token conferring a right against the issuer (such as a guaranteed conversion into CHF) could be requalified as an asset token (a security), or even trigger the public deposit rules. Envisaged safeguards include conversion through an independent third-party financial intermediary, activation by subscriptions, and a discretionary buyback only; assuming the asset token qualification openly is also examined as an alternative strategy. The FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) exemptions (fewer than 500 investors, or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months; alternative conditions, one of them suffices) would keep each raise outside the prospectus obligation, and the FINMA Sandbox (Banking Ordinance Art. 6, up to CHF 1 million) is considered for a first phase. A FINMA ruling prepared with a specialized attorney is the envisaged path to secure the qualification; nothing on this page is a settled legal position.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=18 Previous framework: see pages 18-22 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 9. Annual Report Indicators and Fiscal Reporting ==
; Intention
: Define key performance indicators (KPIs) for annual reporting to supervisory authorities (ESA/ASF, FINMA) and to investors and donors.

; Result
: The indicators envisaged for the pivoted model include the investor count per raise (fewer than 500), the amount raised per 12-month period (at most CHF 8 million), token issuance and activation volumes, subscription revenue, donation flows to the Foundation, operational costs and compliance status. The exact list would be consolidated with the updated study [to be confirmed].

Previous published versions of the full study remain available for reference: [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/wikideal_fiscal_study_v3.6.4.pdf WikiDeal Fiscal Study v3.6.4 (PDF, English)] · [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/wikideal_fiscal_study_v3.6.4_fr.pdf Étude fiscale WikiDeal v3.6.4 (PDF, French)].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=22 Previous framework: see page 22 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 10. Combined Scenario: Investment + Activation + Donation ==
; Intention
: Test the pivoted model end-to-end by walking one participant through investing, receiving WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, seeing them activated by subscriptions, and making a separate pure donation.

; Result
: The intended qualifications are: the investment would be governed by an investment agreement with Netizen3, with issuance of tokens; the activation would depend on subscription revenue actually received; the taxation of an activated token remains to be determined with the attorneys [to be confirmed]; and the separate pure donation to the Foundation would remain a donation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). Whether the combination of these steps could trigger any requalification is one of the questions submitted for legal review.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=23 Previous framework: see page 23 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 11. Related Pages ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards Explained (FAQ), pivot update pending]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Cashout-Mechanism|Cashout Mechanism, pivot update pending]]
* [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/funding-donation-agreement.html Donor contract (draft mockup, previous donation model, revision pending)]
* Full PDF (previous framework): [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf] (English, 39 p.)

----
''Summary updated 2026-09-10 to reflect the pivot towards the investment and token model (proposed framework, pending validation by licensed attorneys). Previous summary generated 2026-07-20 from study v3.6.8 (full text available in the monolingual English PDF, 39 p.). Not tax or legal advice.''
[[Category:Deliverables]]

Gov/en/Portal:Transparency/Legal-Studies

2026-09-29T09:09:56Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Replace "WikiDeal SA" with working name Netizen3; remove joint-stock (SA) form (legal form TBD: foundation/cooperative)

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is building a fair online marketplace. Some people give money as a pure gift to help build it. Other people would put in money hoping to get something back later, through special tokens. This page gathers the studies that check how this plan could follow Switzerland's laws about money, taxes and gifts. Lawyers still need to say yes before anything starts.}}
{{ExpertIntro|These legal and fiscal studies cover the relation between the Ynternet.org Foundation, which supervises the WikiDeal applied R&D program, a planned operating entity (Netizen3 (working name, temporary — legal form to be defined, likely a foundation or a cooperative, not a joint-stock company)), and the people who fund the project. Following the September 2026 pivot, the framework under study distinguishes two flows: contributions with an expected return would be investments, received by Netizen3 (to be created), which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Foundation; contributions without any return would remain pure donations (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). The former "Rewards" are intended to become WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, inactive at issuance and progressively activated by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year). The regulatory positioning under study relies on the FINMA token classification (payment token as working hypothesis, asset token as examined alternative) and on the FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) prospectus exemptions (fewer than 500 investors or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months, alternative conditions). This inverts the previous "donation, not investment, outside FINMA jurisdiction" argument. The whole framework is proposed as a basis for discussion and must be validated by licensed attorneys before any implementation. The studies are currently consolidated in a single document and could later be split into distinct studies reviewed by distinct attorneys.}}

'''Legal Studies for incubation: Executive Summary''' (framework pivoted 2026-09, pending attorney validation) · Published full study PDF, documenting the previous donation-based framework (fiscal study v3.6.8, 2026-07-19, English, 39 p.): [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf] · An updated study reflecting the pivot is being prepared and must be reviewed by licensed attorneys before publication.

''For reference: [https://wikideal.net/wiki/Gov/fr/Portal:Transparence/%C3%89tudes_L%C3%A9gales French version (Études Légales)] (translation; English version prevails).'''

💡 '''In Simple Words:'''
WikiDeal wants to build a fair online marketplace. Some kind people give money as a pure gift to help build it. Other people would put in money hoping to get something back later, through special tokens. This page is a big homework check: it looks at the rules of Switzerland about money, taxes and gifts, to see how the plan could follow them. A new Swiss company, Netizen3, would receive the money from the people who hope for something back, and it would use that money to do what the Ynternet.org Foundation decides. Real lawyers still need to read and confirm these studies before anything starts.

🎯 '''In 20 Seconds (Scientific Summary):'''
Preliminary internal legal and fiscal studies of the Swiss framework for the pivoted WikiDeal funding model (September 2026). Two flows are distinguished: contributions with an expected return would be investments, received by a planned Swiss company, Netizen3, which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Ynternet.org Foundation (Geneva, tax-exempt); contributions without any return would remain pure donations to the Foundation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss, a correction of the earlier "Civil Code Art. 239" reference). Investors would receive WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, inactive at issuance and activated progressively by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year), with an envisaged allocation of 25% to investors and 25% to early supporters (remainder to be confirmed). The regulatory hypothesis under study combines the FINMA token classification (payment token as working hypothesis, asset token as examined alternative) with the FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) prospectus exemptions (fewer than 500 investors or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months, alternative conditions), inverting the previous "outside FINMA jurisdiction" argument. Over time, Netizen3 is envisaged to become a non-profit company, with a progressive decentralization of its mandate towards User Groups. This framework is proposed as a basis for discussion and must be validated by licensed attorneys before any implementation. The studies are currently consolidated in a single document and could later be split into distinct studies reviewed by distinct attorneys.

'''On this page:'''
* [[#Recommendation|1. Recommendation]]
* [[#Deprivatization|2. Platform Deprivatization Mechanism]]
* [[#Purpose_and_Scope|3. Purpose and Scope]]
* [[#Organizational_Structure|4. Organizational Structure]]
* [[#Donation_Model|5. Investments and Donations: Two Distinct Flows]]
* [[#Tax_Treatment|6. Swiss Tax Treatment of Tokens and Donations]]
* [[#VAT_Positioning|7. VAT Positioning]]
* [[#Regulatory_Positioning|8. Regulatory Positioning: FINMA Token Framework and FinSA Exemptions]]
* [[#Annual_Report_Indicators|9. Annual Report Indicators and Fiscal Reporting]]
* [[#Combined_Scenario|10. Combined Scenario: Investment + Activation + Donation]]
* [[#Related_Pages|11. Related Pages]]
__NOTOC__


== 1. Recommendation ==
; Intention
: Confirm under which conditions WikiDeal could legally raise funds under the pivoted model: investments received by a planned Swiss company, Netizen3, which would finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Ynternet.org Foundation, with WikiDeal Subscription Tokens issued to investors.

; Result
: The previous conclusion (fundraising can start immediately under the donation qualification) applied to the former donation-based model. Under the pivoted model, the working hypothesis goes in the direction of a FINMA payment token qualification combined with the FinSA Art. 36 prospectus exemptions, but this framework must first be validated by licensed attorneys before any public offer; a FINMA ruling prepared with a specialized attorney is under consideration. Formal legal opinions (avis de droit) remain recommended at every stage.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=2 Previous framework: see pages 2-3 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 2. Platform Deprivatization Mechanism ==
; Intention
: Describe a generic mechanism for platform deprivatization and user reappropriation, structured as an applied R&D program divided into two phases: incubation (Ynternet.org Foundation) and operations (Netizen3, to be created, replacing the previously envisaged WikiDeal Association).

; Result
: The mechanism is intended to remain replicable for any marketplace (transportation, housing, volunteering, local planning). Netizen3 would receive the investment flows and finance the realization of the objectives defined by the Foundation, under a neutral management mandate; the founder would later step back, and the company is envisaged to become a non-profit company over time, with a progressive decentralization of the mandate towards User Groups. The mechanism draws on precedents such as cooperative insurance companies (La Mobilière) and digital commons that have set standards based on free licenses (W3C, Wikimedia Foundation, IETF). All operate at cost without speculation.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=5 Previous framework: see pages 5-7 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 3. Purpose and Scope ==
; Intention
: Define the Swiss fiscal and regulatory framework for the pivoted WikiDeal funding model, covering the Ynternet.org Foundation (Geneva, tax-exempt), the planned Netizen3, investors and donors.

; Result
: The studies would cover the qualification of the WikiDeal Subscription Token (FINMA classification), prospectus exemptions (FinSA Art. 36), anti-money-laundering duties (AMLA), the public deposit question (Banking Act and Banking Ordinance), the tax treatment of tokens and donations, and VAT. The scope remains limited to Swiss law and does not constitute tax or legal advice. The previous version of the study (v3.6.8) covered the former donation-based model and remains available for reference.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=4 Previous framework: see page 4 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 4. Organizational Structure ==
; Intention
: Clarify the roles envisaged after the pivot: the Ynternet.org Foundation (tax-exempt, supervised by ESA/ASF Bern) would define strategy, vision and objectives; Netizen3 (to be created) would receive the investments and finance the realization of those objectives under a neutral management mandate.

; Result
: Pure donations would remain addressed to the Foundation. Two special cases are envisaged: Targeted Donations and para-public "provision fund" contributions would remain pure donations, but they would be cashed by Netizen3, which would attribute them to the Foundation. The mandate is intended to be progressively decentralized towards User Groups, with the Foundation diversifying its mandate holders over time. Initial remunerations of providers are envisaged in WikiDeal Subscription Tokens; karma credits remain a future intention, not an active feature. The exact legal instruments (statutes, mandate agreement, conflict-of-interest safeguards) are [to be confirmed] with the attorneys and the Foundation board.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=8 Previous framework: see pages 8-12 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 5. Investments and Donations: Two Distinct Flows ==
; Intention
: Establish the legal nature of the two funding flows: contributions with an expected return would be investments (investment agreement with Netizen3, issuance of WikiDeal Subscription Tokens), while contributions without any return would remain pure donations to the Foundation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). This inverts the previous "Donation (Not Investment) Clarification".

; Result
: WikiDeal Subscription Tokens would be inactive at issuance and activated progressively by subscription revenue (CHF 1/month or CHF 10/year), only on money effectively received; the envisaged allocation is 25% to investors and 25% to early supporters, the remainder being still open [to be confirmed]. The personal and community portion concept survives in the token model: a holder could voluntarily lower the expected return, and when the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Need-Driven-Funding|funding need]] decreases, the remaining balance of the allocated envelope would go to the Foundation. The fate of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Bonding Curve|bonding curve]] (multiplier from ×100 to ×30 in the previous model) under the token model is still open [to be confirmed]. All these parameters are proposed as a basis for discussion and require attorney validation before any implementation.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=7 Previous framework: see pages 7-9 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 6. Swiss Tax Treatment of Tokens and Donations ==
; Intention
: Determine the tax classification of WikiDeal Subscription Tokens and of donations under Swiss federal and cantonal law, following the Federal Tax Administration practice on cryptocurrencies and ICO/ITO.

; Result
: The tax treatment would depend on the token qualification: a pure payment token would tend not to trigger withholding tax (Withholding Tax Act Art. 4) or issuance stamp duty, while a token granting a share of profits would risk being treated like a participation right, with 35% withholding tax on distributions. Stamp duty exemptions are being examined for Netizen3 (franchise of CHF 1 million at incorporation; specific exemption for companies without commercial purpose). The donation flow to the Foundation would keep following cantonal gift-tax rules. Every tax point on this page remains to be validated by an attorney or tax specialist [to be confirmed].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=14 Previous framework: see pages 14-15 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 7. VAT Positioning ==
; Intention
: Determine VAT obligations for the operating entity (previously the WikiDeal Association, now the planned Netizen3), keeping the brokerage-commission model under which WikiDeal would never possess transaction funds.

; Result
: In the previous study, VAT applied only to commissions (MWSTG Art. 24), with the non-profit turnover threshold of CHF 150,000/year (MWSTG Art. 10(2)) minimizing exposure, and the brokerage model reducing AMLA obligations. The intention is to carry this positioning over to Netizen3. Whether that turnover threshold would still apply to a non-profit company, and how token issuance and activation would be treated for VAT, are open points [to be confirmed by the attorney or tax specialist].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=16 Previous framework: see pages 16-17 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 8. Regulatory Positioning: FINMA Token Framework and FinSA Exemptions ==
; Intention
: Map the regulatory positioning of the pivoted model with FINMA: token classification (FINMA ICO guidelines, 2018), prospectus exemptions (FinSA Art. 36), anti-money-laundering duties (AMLA) and the public deposit question (Banking Act). This replaces the previous positioning, which argued that pure donations fall outside FINMA jurisdiction.

; Result
: The working hypothesis goes in the direction of a payment token. The main tension identified is that a token conferring a right against the issuer (such as a guaranteed conversion into CHF) could be requalified as an asset token (a security), or even trigger the public deposit rules. Envisaged safeguards include conversion through an independent third-party financial intermediary, activation by subscriptions, and a discretionary buyback only; assuming the asset token qualification openly is also examined as an alternative strategy. The FinSA Art. 36(1)(b) and (e) exemptions (fewer than 500 investors, or at most CHF 8 million over 12 months; alternative conditions, one of them suffices) would keep each raise outside the prospectus obligation, and the FINMA Sandbox (Banking Ordinance Art. 6, up to CHF 1 million) is considered for a first phase. A FINMA ruling prepared with a specialized attorney is the envisaged path to secure the qualification; nothing on this page is a settled legal position.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=18 Previous framework: see pages 18-22 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 9. Annual Report Indicators and Fiscal Reporting ==
; Intention
: Define key performance indicators (KPIs) for annual reporting to supervisory authorities (ESA/ASF, FINMA) and to investors and donors.

; Result
: The indicators envisaged for the pivoted model include the investor count per raise (fewer than 500), the amount raised per 12-month period (at most CHF 8 million), token issuance and activation volumes, subscription revenue, donation flows to the Foundation, operational costs and compliance status. The exact list would be consolidated with the updated study [to be confirmed].

Previous published versions of the full study remain available for reference: [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/wikideal_fiscal_study_v3.6.4.pdf WikiDeal Fiscal Study v3.6.4 (PDF, English)] · [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/wikideal_fiscal_study_v3.6.4_fr.pdf Étude fiscale WikiDeal v3.6.4 (PDF, French)].

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=22 Previous framework: see page 22 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 10. Combined Scenario: Investment + Activation + Donation ==
; Intention
: Test the pivoted model end-to-end by walking one participant through investing, receiving WikiDeal Subscription Tokens, seeing them activated by subscriptions, and making a separate pure donation.

; Result
: The intended qualifications are: the investment would be governed by an investment agreement with Netizen3, with issuance of tokens; the activation would depend on subscription revenue actually received; the taxation of an activated token remains to be determined with the attorneys [to be confirmed]; and the separate pure donation to the Foundation would remain a donation (Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 239 ss). Whether the combination of these steps could trigger any requalification is one of the questions submitted for legal review.

'''[https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf#page=23 Previous framework: see page 23 in study v3.6.8]'''


== 11. Related Pages ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards Explained (FAQ), pivot update pending]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Cashout-Mechanism|Cashout Mechanism, pivot update pending]]
* [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/funding-donation-agreement.html Donor contract (draft mockup, previous donation model, revision pending)]
* Full PDF (previous framework): [https://aidev.wikideal.net/mockups/latest/wiki/Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf Fiscal-Study_v3.6.8_EN_2026-07-19.pdf] (English, 39 p.)

----
''Summary updated 2026-09-10 to reflect the pivot towards the investment and token model (proposed framework, pending validation by licensed attorneys). Previous summary generated 2026-07-20 from study v3.6.8 (full text available in the monolingual English PDF, 39 p.). Not tax or legal advice.''
[[Category:Deliverables]]

Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Main

2026-09-28T07:42:54Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Link Compensatory Measures + Closure/Arbitration Agreement

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards decentralized childcare marketplaces where democratic governance displaces extractive commission models. This pilot tests the hypothesis that user-governed platforms operating at marginal cost (1-2%) while distributing decision-making across community rings can achieve comparable matching efficiency and superior stakeholder trust relative to traditional 20-30% commission intermediaries. Emerging evidence suggests symmetric evaluation mechanisms and transparent contract frameworks reduce information asymmetries and dispute rates in care service transactions.}}

{{KidsIntro|A safe way for families to find trusted babysitters and pay fairly, with rules everyone agrees on.}}

__TOC__

= Babysitting Portal — First Pilot =

The Babysitting portal is WikiDeal's first operational pilot. It serves as the proof-of-concept for our legal and economic framework, testing the 7-step user journey, the dispute resolution system, and the non-extractive Commission model.

Instead of extracting 20–30% like traditional platforms, this portal operates at-cost (1-2%). All rules and contracts are governed democratically by the users themselves — parents and babysitters.

Read the Base Contract

=== 📋 Use Case Overview ===

TypeChildcare service agreement

Maturity⭐⭐⭐☆☆ (pilot use case)

User Group(s)Babysitting User Group

Ring(s)Care Services Ring

Active funders42 (illustrative)

Contracts signed156 (illustrative)

Cash/Karma-token ratio30% / 70% (Need-Driven Funding dependent)

Avg. satisfaction★★★★☆ (illustrative)

DeploymentLocal (Geneva pilot)

ProgrammeVolunteering Programme

All figures are illustrative unless otherwise stated.

Maturity⭐⭐⭐☆☆ (pilot use case)

User Group(s)Babysitting User Group

Ring(s)Care Services Ring

Active funders42 (illustrative)

Contracts signed156 (illustrative)

Cash/Karma-token ratio30% / 70% (Need-Driven Funding dependent)

Avg. satisfaction★★★★☆ (illustrative)

DeploymentLocal (Geneva pilot)

ProgrammeVolunteering Programme

All figures are illustrative unless otherwise stated.

Average RateCHF 22/hr

Platform Commission1.5% at-cost

Insurance CoverageIncluded via AXA

Disputes (Last 30d)0

Governance GroupBabysitting Geneva UG

Maturity⭐⭐☆☆☆

== The 7-Step Journey ==

How a parent (Alice) and a babysitter (Bob) connect, agree on terms, execute the service, and close the contract transparently.

1

=== Matching ===

Alice searches for a babysitter in her area. She reviews profiles, ratings, and hourly rates, completely free of algorithms that prioritize "sponsored" results.

B

Bob M.

★ 4.9 (24 jobs) · Geneva · First Aid Certified

CHF 22.00 / hour

2

=== Base Contract Generation ===

Alice requests Bob for Friday 6PM–10PM. WikiDeal automatically drafts a legally binding, AGPL v3-derived base contract defining the terms.

[BASE] WIKIDEAL-BABY-2026-04

Client: AliceProvider: Bob

Duration: 4hEst. Total: CHF 88.00

Comm: 1.5%CHF 1.32

3

=== Agreement ===

Bob receives the notification. He reviews the proposed hours and location, and accepts the base contract with a single click.

'''Bob:''' Thanks Alice, the contract looks good. See you Friday at 6PM!

4

=== Execution ===

The job occurs. Bob arrives on time. No digital interaction is strictly required during this phase, but they can use the chat if needed.

🏠 🕰️ 👶

5

=== Modification (Amendment) ===

Alice is late. Bob stays until 11PM. Bob triggers an ''Amendment'' extending the hours. Alternatively, if Bob canceled last minute, Alice could trigger an ''Addendum'' (Compensatory Measure).

'''[AMENDMENT] +1 Hour'''

New Duration: 5hTotal: CHF 110.00

6

=== Payment & Closing Contract ===

Alice confirms the amendment. The final amount (CHF 110) is settled. The ''Closing Contract'' is generated, finalizing the Transaction and splitting the 1.5% Commission.

'''[CLOSING] SETTLED'''

Bob receives:CHF 108.35

Community Pool:CHF 1.65

7

=== Mutual Evaluation ===

Both parties review each other (co-evaluation). This ensures symmetric accountability, unlike traditional platforms where the provider bears all the risk.

★★★★★ ↔ ★★★★★

=== 📊 Success Indicators ===

Key performance indicators for the Babysitting marketplace use case. These targets are indicative and community-modifiable as the programme matures.

Successful Sessions / Month

≥ 50

Number of completed babysitting sessions per calendar month

Dispute Rate

< 3%

Percentage of sessions resulting in a formal dispute

Average Rating (Provider)

≥ 4.3 / 5

Mean rating given to babysitters by parents after session

Contract Completion Rate

≥ 98%

Percentage of sessions where contract is fully executed

Subscriber Retention (12m)

≥ 70%

Proportion of active users still using the platform after 12 months

Photo Evidence Compliance

100%

All sessions must have photo check-in and check-out

Average Commission Charged

≤ 2%

Effective Commission rate on session value

→ See also: WikiDeal Socio-Economic Success Criteria

=== ✅ Quality Criteria ===

ISO-inspired quality standards for the Babysitting use case. Standards are reviewed annually by the community.

{| class="wikitable quality-table"
|-
! Standard
! Dimension
! Criteria
! Target
|-
| QS-BAB-001
| Process Quality
| Contract drafted and signed before session start. Any session without a signed contract is flagged automatically.
| '''100% compliance'''
|-
| QS-BAB-002
| Service Quality
| Both parties complete mutual evaluation within 48h. Ratings below 3.0 trigger mandatory review.
| '''≥ 95% evaluation completion'''
|-
| QS-BAB-003
| Safety
| First-aid certification verified for all providers handling children under 3 years. Certification updated every 2 years.
| '''100% verified for under-3 care'''
|-
| QS-BAB-004
| User Satisfaction
| Net Promoter Score (NPS) measured quarterly among parents and babysitters. Target: NPS ≥ 40.
| '''NPS ≥ 40'''
|-
| QS-BAB-005
| Dispute Resolution
| All disputes acknowledged within 24h, resolved within 14 days or escalated to arbitration.
| '''Resolution within 14 days'''
|}

→ See also: WikiDeal Socio-Economic Success Criteria

== Portal structure (model) ==
This portal follows the standard WikiDeal market-portal structure. Each market portal offers the same set of content types (the base contract, models, amendments, addenda, lawyer-validated contracts, legal references, compensation, etc.), even when some are still empty:

{{MarketPortal|Babysitting}}



== Dispute resolution & compensation ==

This pilot marketplace includes ready-to-use closure and arbitration tools, directly linked to [[En/Simplified_Arbitration|Simplified Arbitration]]:

* [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Compensatory-Measures|Compensatory Measures]] — typical remedies for this domain (late babysitter, late parents / taxi fare, etc.).
* [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Closure-Agreement|Closure / Arbitration Agreement template]] — one document usable either as an amicable agreement or as an arbitration decision.

Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Closure-Agreement

2026-09-28T07:42:34Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Closure/Arbitration Agreement template (babysitting) — draft

== Closure / Arbitration Agreement — Babysitting (template) ==

''This single document serves either as an '''amicable agreement''' between the parties, or as an '''arbitration decision''' issued by an arbiter. Tick the applicable option below. This is a first, deliberately summary model for the babysitting pilot portal.''

=== Nature of this document ===
* ☐ '''Amicable agreement''' — concluded directly between the parties (no arbiter).
* ☐ '''Arbitration decision''' — issued by an arbiter under [[En/Simplified_Arbitration|Simplified Arbitration]].
** Arbiter: [full name] __________

=== Parties ===
* '''Client (parent / adult in charge):''' [name]
* '''Service provider (babysitter):''' [name]
* '''Operation reference:''' [date and reference of the babysitting session]

=== Whereas (considerations) ===
* '''Whereas''' the aggrieved party has provided evidence of harm caused by the other party's late arrival — ''tick one option'':
** ☐ Option 1: late arrival of the '''babysitter''' (service provider), causing the client to lose a work activity ([describe: e.g. half-day of work missed]);
** ☐ Option 2: late arrival of the '''parents / adults in charge''' (the client), later than the agreed end of the session, causing the babysitter to incur a '''taxi fare''' (no night public transport left);
* '''Whereas''' the agreed time was considered '''fixed and not flexible''';
* '''Whereas''' the parties (or the arbiter) find the compensatory measure below proportionate to the harm — see [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Compensatory-Measures|Compensatory Measures]].

=== Costs to be covered ===
* Nature of the cost: [taxi fare / lost-activity compensation / other]
* Amount: CHF [amount]
* Supporting evidence: [receipt, employer attestation, messages, etc.]

=== Proposed decision ===
'''The taxi fare / the lost-activity compensation of CHF [amount] is due and shall be covered by the party at fault''', namely [name of the party at fault], payable by [payment method] no later than [date].

=== Full and final settlement ===
Upon execution of the above measure, the parties declare themselves settled '''in full and final settlement of this operation'''; no further claim relating to this operation may be raised.

=== Ratification by the party at fault ===
* Party at fault: [name]
* ☐ I accept and ratify this agreement / decision.
* Signature / electronic acceptance: __________
* Date: [date]

''If this document is an arbitration decision, the arbiter also signs:''
* Arbiter signature: __________ Date: [date]

=== See also ===
* [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Compensatory-Measures|Compensatory Measures]]
* [[En/Simplified_Arbitration|Simplified Arbitration]]

[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:Babysitting]]

Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Compensatory-Measures

2026-09-28T07:42:33Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Compensatory Measures (babysitting) — draft

== Compensatory Measures — Babysitting ==

'''Compensatory measures''' are remedies co-constructed by the parties (or set by an arbiter) to repair a concrete harm arising from a babysitting operation. They are:
* '''proportionate''' to the harm actually suffered;
* '''documented''' (evidence of the harm and of its cause);
* '''directly linked''' to an arbitral decision or a closure agreement — see the [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Closure-Agreement|Closure / Arbitration Agreement template]].

''This page is a first, deliberately summary model for the babysitting pilot portal. Each marketplace on WikiDeal maintains its own list of typical compensatory measures.''

== Typical situations and measures ==

{| class="wikitable"
! Situation !! Aggrieved party !! Typical compensatory measure
|-
| '''Late arrival of the babysitter''' — the babysitter arrives late; the client (parent) loses an activity or a half-day of work because they had to stay with the child. || Client (parent) || Compensation of the loss: refund or lump sum corresponding to the time lost (e.g. the missed half-day of work).
|-
| '''Late return of the parents''' — the parents come back after the last night public transport; the babysitter must take a taxi home. || Babysitter (service provider) || Full coverage of the taxi fare by the parents.
|}

== How a measure becomes binding ==
# The parties describe the situation and the harm (with evidence).
# They agree amicably, or an arbiter decides, using the single [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Closure-Agreement|Closure / Arbitration Agreement template]].
# The party at fault ratifies the agreement or decision, which closes the operation ''in full and final settlement''.

== See also ==
* [[Markets/en/Portal:Babysitting/Closure-Agreement|Closure / Arbitration Agreement template]]
* [[En/Simplified_Arbitration|Simplified Arbitration]]

[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:Babysitting]]

En/Simplified Arbitration

2026-09-28T07:41:20Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Supreme Court mandate: admissibility gate + opportunity judgment + procedure choice + wording (founder decision)

{{KidsIntro|If people have a disagreement, we want a simple and fair way to help them figure it out. This page shares our idea for how to solve problems peacefully and quickly together.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page introduces our working concept for a Simplified Arbitration process. It outlines the intended mechanisms for dispute resolution, offering a flexible hypothesis rather than rigid legal dictates, to ensure fair and accessible outcomes for all participants.}}
{| class="infobox" style="float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1.5em; padding:0.5em; background:#f8f9fa; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; font-size:90%; width:22em;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#3366cc; color:white; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size:110%;" | Simplified Arbitration
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; padding:4px;" | ''WikiDeal's Conflict Resolution Framework''
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Type
| Socio-technical innovation
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Legal basis
| Swiss PILA (Ch. 12), [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Swiss CPC (Part 3)], New York Convention (1958)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Scope
| Peer-to-peer transactions on WikiDeal
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Binding
| Yes (with consent at contract signature)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Status
| Framework — Draft
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Category
| Legal Framework · Socio-Technical Innovations
|}

Resolving a dispute between strangers should not require a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting. '''WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine''' — a fast, binding, evidence-based process that lifts the burden of enforcement from individuals.

''The result: a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.''

Grounded in Swiss law and internationally enforceable under the New York Convention.

__TOC__

== At a glance ==

* '''What it is''' — Simplified Arbitration is WikiDeal's fast, binding, evidence-based dispute-resolution framework: a '''trust-rebuilding machine''' grounded in Swiss law (Ch. 12 PILA, Part 3 CPC) and enforceable internationally under the 1958 New York Convention. Consent is given explicitly at contract signature.
* '''The process in 4 steps''' — Expression of non-compliance → Documentation into an evidence-based file → Compensation Request Activation → Default Activation if the other party does not respond in time.
* '''Right of appeal in 2 stages''' — '''Stage 1 (procedural)''': verifies the arbitration process itself was sound (overlooked evidence, unavailable arbitrator, formal defects). '''Stage 2 (substantive/political)''': reserved for cases of social utility, aiming to set a precedent and update policies or compensatory measures for everyone.
* '''Who decides''' — The '''people''' (a jury drawn by lot, a popular vote, or a combination of both) take the final decision on policy evolution; the '''Supreme Court''' judges contribute procedural analysis, a technical pre-opinion, an impact description, and the exact wording of any policy update. Rights evolve through this combination of popular support and judicial expertise — a right is not bought, it is supported.

== Legal Foundation — Swiss Law & International Framework ==

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks and reinforced by an international treaty — providing a robust, internationally recognized foundation for binding peer-to-peer dispute resolution.

=== 1. Chapter 12 PILA — International Arbitration ===

Chapter 12 of the '''Private International Law Act''' (PILA / LDIP — ''Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé'') governs international arbitration in Switzerland. In force since 1989 and updated in 2021, it provides a highly liberal framework with minimal court interference. Challenges go directly to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — and only ~7% of awards are overturned, and only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

: Source: [https://www.swissarbitration.org/swiss-arbitration/swiss-arbitration-laws/ Swiss Arbitration Association]

=== 2. Part 3 CPC — Domestic Arbitration ===

[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Part 3 of the '''Civil Procedure Code'''] (CPC / ''Code de procédure civile'') governs domestic arbitration in Switzerland, in force since 2011. It provides procedural guidance and includes explicit protections for weaker parties (employees, tenants) — which is precisely why certain domains cannot use simplified arbitration (see the [[#Arbitration_Eligibility|Eligibility section]] below).

=== The Waiver Principle ===

Under both frameworks, arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation (''Convention d'arbitrage / Arbitration Clause''). This agreement must be in writing.

WikiDeal implements this through a clear clause in every contract where arbitration is enabled: members explicitly consent to the Simplified Arbitration process as their sole dispute resolution mechanism for matters covered by that contract. Consent is given at contract signature — not buried in general terms.

=== International Framework — The New York Convention ===

The '''1958 New York Convention''' on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — ratified by 170+ countries including Switzerland — provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between member states. This ensures that a WikiDeal arbitration award is not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders.

: Source: [https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards UNCITRAL — New York Convention]

It is important to distinguish two related but fundamentally different mechanisms:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:80%"
|-
! Mechanism !! Binding? !! Nature
|-
| '''Mediation''' || ❌ Non-binding || Facilitator helps parties reach agreement; either party may walk away at any time.
|-
| '''Arbitration''' || ✅ Binding || Arbiter's decision is enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. Requires prior explicit consent.
|}

WikiDeal's approach is unambiguously '''arbitration''': consent is given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled.

== The 4-Step Simplified Arbitration Process ==

When a dispute arises, WikiDeal's resolution process follows a structured four-step flow designed to be fast, evidence-based, and fair:

# '''Expression''' — A party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance. This can be done independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge is required at this stage.
# '''Documentation''' — The complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. AI tools help structure and verify the evidence, ensuring the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
# '''Compensation Request Activation''' — The documented complaint automatically triggers a formal compensation request. The opposing party is notified and given a fixed response time to acknowledge, contest, or resolve the claim.
# '''Default Activation''' — If the opposing party does not respond within the deadline, compensation is automatically activated. Appeals remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), ensuring the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

== Abuse Prevention Mechanisms ==

Simplified Arbitration is designed to be used in good faith. To prevent gaming or misuse of the system, several safeguards are built in:

* '''Abuse scoring''' — Users who repeatedly file excessive or unfounded claims are flagged. Their scoring is tracked over time and factored into platform trust ratings.
* '''Profile transparency''' — Alerts are displayed on a flagged user's public profile showing their claims history, giving other users visibility before entering a contract.
* '''Guarantor requirement''' — Insolvent parties must find a guarantor before any contract becomes active — even for low-stakes exchanges such as a bicycle loan. This ensures that compensation commitments are always backed by real capacity to fulfill them.

== The Cultural Impact — Trust Through Compensation ==

Beyond its legal function, Simplified Arbitration changes how people behave — and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect is cultural.

* '''Concrete example:''' ''"I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop will fix it within 3 days — I don't have to chase the borrower myself."'' The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
* '''Removes "I must be perfect" anxiety''' — People can offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors will be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
* '''Enables high-trust, high-risk offerings''' — Even for complex or higher-risk situations (e.g., pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework provides clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result is a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

=== Participatory Compensation Framework ===

The specific list of compensatory measures — what is owed, in what form, and within what timeframe — will not be imposed top-down. Instead, it will be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

* '''Provider groups''' (''prestataires'') — those offering services, who need measures that are proportionate, achievable, and do not expose them to unlimited liability.
* '''Consumer groups''' — those using services, who need measures that are genuine, timely, and meaningful in the context of real harm or inconvenience.

This participatory process ensures the measures are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations — not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice on WikiDeal may adapt the framework to their domain, subject to platform-wide minimums.

<blockquote>WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a '''trust-rebuilding machine'''.</blockquote>

== Arbitration Eligibility ==

Not all domains or contract types can activate Simplified Arbitration. Swiss law mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived — including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract will explicitly display a clear indicator:

: <code>[Arbitration: '''Enabled''' / '''Disabled''' / '''Mediation Only''']</code>

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CAN be used ===

* Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, etc.)
* Street fundraising
* Cooperative goods exchange
* Consulting and freelance services (non-employment contracts)
* Real estate restoration mandates (cooperative model)
* Any WikiDeal marketplace domain not covered by mandatory protective law

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CANNOT be used (Swiss law) ===

* '''Employment contracts''' → covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / ''Convention Collective de Travail'') and the ''Prud'hommes'' (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by arbitration clause.
* '''Residential lease contracts''' → covered by Swiss ''droit du bail'' (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253–274g). Special tenant protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
* '''Consumer contracts with mandatory protective provisions''' → certain protections cannot be contractually waived under Swiss law (Art. 192 LDIP, Art. 354 CPC).

=== Two types of arbitration clauses in WikiDeal ===

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
|-
! Type !! Description
|-
| '''Permanent / Final Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage définitif'') || Full binding resolution, enforceable as a court judgment. A right of appeal on form and substance nonetheless remains, opened by popular support — see [[#Right of Appeal — Two Stages and the Supreme Court|Right of Appeal]] below.
|-
| '''Temporary / Interim Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage provisoire'') || Fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel (e.g., during an ongoing mediation).
|}

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the Simplified process, may escalate to higher arbitration chambers. WikiDeal intends to operates a '''2-level or ideally 3-level arbitration system'''.

== Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism ==

In simplified arbitration, a decision is '''final''' in the sense that it takes effect immediately and settles the dispute at hand. But "final" does not mean "beyond all recourse." The proposed framework envisions a genuine '''right of appeal''', organized in '''two distinct stages''' — one procedural, one substantive — complemented by a Supreme Court that performs the classic role of a court of last instance: it filters admissibility, sets the procedure, and validates the exact wording and societal impact of any policy change.

This two-stage architecture keeps everyday arbitration fast and lightweight, while ensuring that no participant is ever locked out of justice, and that important cases can shape the rules for everyone.

=== Stage 1 — Procedural appeal (form) ===

The first stage is an '''appeal tribunal for procedural error''' — the right to appeal on '''procedural grounds'''. It does not re-judge the merits of the case; it verifies that the arbitration process itself was sound.

Typical technical grounds include:
* A piece of '''evidence was not taken into account''' (a document, message, or exhibit was overlooked or never reached the arbitrator).
* The '''arbitrator disappeared or was unavailable''' during the proceedings.
* A '''formal defect''' (vice of form): deadlines, notifications, or required steps were not respected.

If the procedural appeal succeeds, the case is reheard under correct conditions. This is the first — and in most cases the only — level of appeal a party will ever need.

=== Stage 2 — Substantive / political appeal (substance) ===

The second stage is an appeal '''on the merits''', reserved for '''fundamental or political grounds'''. Its purpose is not merely to reverse an individual outcome, but to make the case '''set a precedent''' (faire école): to obtain a '''policy update''' and/or a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to that class of situations, creating jurisprudence useful to the whole community.

The guiding principle: an appeal at this stage must serve a '''social utility''', not only a private interest. A right is not bought — it is '''supported'''.

Two decision paths are envisioned, which may be used separately or in combination:

'''(a) Popular vote''' — a political stance taken by the users themselves. Possible modalities include:
* a '''random sample''' of users drawn by lot,
* '''weighted voting''',
* the '''Condorcet method''',
* or other deliberative voting schemes defined by policy.

'''(b) Supreme Court''' — a court of last instance performing the classic supreme-court functions. It acts as a '''gate of admissibility''' (deciding whether an appeal is receivable and serves a genuine social utility — a judgment of opportunity), it '''defines the procedure''' to be applied (a jury drawn by lot or a popular vote), it '''validates the exact wording''' of the proposed policy update, and it assesses the change's '''societal meaning and impact'''. Within the procedure the Court sets, the community then takes the final political decision.

'''Mobilizing community support.''' Support for a substantive appeal is gathered through '''federations of User Groups''' — an unlimited number of groups organized by region, domain of activity, or portal. The '''threshold of votes''' required to open a substantive appeal is '''proportional to the damages at stake''': from roughly '''5 votes''' for small matters, to tens of thousands, up to '''1 million''' for major systemic issues. Thresholds are computed by distribution codes and analysis policies. Casting a vote is designed to take '''one click, one second'''.

=== Worked examples ===

'''1. The taxi and the forgotten handbag.''' A couple steps out of a taxi, forgetting a handbag on the back seat. They call the driver back immediately — no answer. The next passenger takes (steals) the bag. The arbitral decision clears the driver: he did not see the call, it was not his fault, and it was the following customer who took the bag. On the individual level, the ruling may well be correct. But a '''substantive (political) appeal''' can change the '''rule''' itself: drivers should remain '''reachable and available for a few minutes after the end of a ride''', for the benefit of the previous customer. The case sets a precedent → a new policy is adopted for everyone.

'''2. The broken bicycle.''' A user who rides their bicycle every day gets it back broken. A repair "within 15 days" is deemed insufficient compensation: the user requests, '''included in the compensation''', a '''replacement bicycle lent by a professional company''' for the duration of the repair. A substantive appeal leads to a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to this type of case — daily-use equipment now comes with a loaner guarantee during repairs.

=== Roles: who decides what ===

The evolution of rights through substantive appeals rests on a deliberate '''combination of two complementary roles''': the people, who choose; and the judges, who analyze.

'''The people choose.''' The final decision on whether a policy or a set of compensatory measures should evolve belongs to the users themselves. This popular decision can take the form of:
* a '''jury''' — a random sample of users drawn by lot ('''sortition'''),
* a '''popular vote''' among users,
* or — most often — a '''combination''' of both.

'''The Supreme Court judges frame and filter.''' Beyond the political direction (which stays with the people), the judges of the Supreme Court exercise the classic supreme-court functions — deciding admissibility, choosing the procedure, and validating the text:
* they verify that the request is '''technically well formulated''';
* they assess that the '''intention serves the interests of users and of the majority''', and contributes to a more positive climate for '''"fair deals with nice people"''' — WikiDeal's motto;
* they issue a '''technical pre-opinion''' (''préavis technique'') and a '''description of the impact''' of the proposed change;
* they guarantee the '''exact wording''' of the resulting policy update or jurisprudence.

'''How the two combine.''' The popular jury or vote takes the '''final decision''' — but in practice it is most often a jury '''assisted''' by the judges: the Supreme Court's pre-opinion and impact description inform the deliberation, while the political choice itself remains with the people. Judicial expertise clarifies; popular support decides.

<blockquote>'''The evolution of rights cannot be bought through appeals: a right is not bought, it is supported.''' The right to see interpretation policies and rules evolve — through jurisprudence born of collective decision — rests on a combination of '''popular support''' and the '''expertise of a Supreme Court''' regarding the societal meaning of these changes, their procedural interpretation, and their exact wording.</blockquote>

== Examples of Arbitration Agreements ==

Generic arbitration closure agreements and contract templates that implement Simplified Arbitration are documented here:

* [[WikiDeal:Contracts/Freelance_Hybrid|Freelance Service Contract (Hybrid Cash/Rewards)]] — Example template for WikiDeal deployment work.

[[Category:Socio-technical innovation]]
[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:WikiDeal core concept]]

En/Simplified Arbitration

2026-09-28T07:37:15Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add At-a-glance summary; add Roles (jury + Supreme Court); reword guiding-principle quote

{{KidsIntro|If people have a disagreement, we want a simple and fair way to help them figure it out. This page shares our idea for how to solve problems peacefully and quickly together.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page introduces our working concept for a Simplified Arbitration process. It outlines the intended mechanisms for dispute resolution, offering a flexible hypothesis rather than rigid legal dictates, to ensure fair and accessible outcomes for all participants.}}
{| class="infobox" style="float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1.5em; padding:0.5em; background:#f8f9fa; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; font-size:90%; width:22em;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#3366cc; color:white; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size:110%;" | Simplified Arbitration
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; padding:4px;" | ''WikiDeal's Conflict Resolution Framework''
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Type
| Socio-technical innovation
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Legal basis
| Swiss PILA (Ch. 12), [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Swiss CPC (Part 3)], New York Convention (1958)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Scope
| Peer-to-peer transactions on WikiDeal
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Binding
| Yes (with consent at contract signature)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Status
| Framework — Draft
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Category
| Legal Framework · Socio-Technical Innovations
|}

Resolving a dispute between strangers should not require a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting. '''WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine''' — a fast, binding, evidence-based process that lifts the burden of enforcement from individuals.

''The result: a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.''

Grounded in Swiss law and internationally enforceable under the New York Convention.

__TOC__

== At a glance ==

* '''What it is''' — Simplified Arbitration is WikiDeal's fast, binding, evidence-based dispute-resolution framework: a '''trust-rebuilding machine''' grounded in Swiss law (Ch. 12 PILA, Part 3 CPC) and enforceable internationally under the 1958 New York Convention. Consent is given explicitly at contract signature.
* '''The process in 4 steps''' — Expression of non-compliance → Documentation into an evidence-based file → Compensation Request Activation → Default Activation if the other party does not respond in time.
* '''Right of appeal in 2 stages''' — '''Stage 1 (procedural)''': verifies the arbitration process itself was sound (overlooked evidence, unavailable arbitrator, formal defects). '''Stage 2 (substantive/political)''': reserved for cases of social utility, aiming to set a precedent and update policies or compensatory measures for everyone.
* '''Who decides''' — The '''people''' (a jury drawn by lot, a popular vote, or a combination of both) take the final decision on policy evolution; the '''Supreme Court''' judges contribute procedural analysis, a technical pre-opinion, an impact description, and the exact wording of any policy update. Rights evolve through this combination of popular support and judicial expertise — a right is not bought, it is supported.

== Legal Foundation — Swiss Law & International Framework ==

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks and reinforced by an international treaty — providing a robust, internationally recognized foundation for binding peer-to-peer dispute resolution.

=== 1. Chapter 12 PILA — International Arbitration ===

Chapter 12 of the '''Private International Law Act''' (PILA / LDIP — ''Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé'') governs international arbitration in Switzerland. In force since 1989 and updated in 2021, it provides a highly liberal framework with minimal court interference. Challenges go directly to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — and only ~7% of awards are overturned, and only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

: Source: [https://www.swissarbitration.org/swiss-arbitration/swiss-arbitration-laws/ Swiss Arbitration Association]

=== 2. Part 3 CPC — Domestic Arbitration ===

[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Part 3 of the '''Civil Procedure Code'''] (CPC / ''Code de procédure civile'') governs domestic arbitration in Switzerland, in force since 2011. It provides procedural guidance and includes explicit protections for weaker parties (employees, tenants) — which is precisely why certain domains cannot use simplified arbitration (see the [[#Arbitration_Eligibility|Eligibility section]] below).

=== The Waiver Principle ===

Under both frameworks, arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation (''Convention d'arbitrage / Arbitration Clause''). This agreement must be in writing.

WikiDeal implements this through a clear clause in every contract where arbitration is enabled: members explicitly consent to the Simplified Arbitration process as their sole dispute resolution mechanism for matters covered by that contract. Consent is given at contract signature — not buried in general terms.

=== International Framework — The New York Convention ===

The '''1958 New York Convention''' on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — ratified by 170+ countries including Switzerland — provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between member states. This ensures that a WikiDeal arbitration award is not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders.

: Source: [https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards UNCITRAL — New York Convention]

It is important to distinguish two related but fundamentally different mechanisms:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:80%"
|-
! Mechanism !! Binding? !! Nature
|-
| '''Mediation''' || ❌ Non-binding || Facilitator helps parties reach agreement; either party may walk away at any time.
|-
| '''Arbitration''' || ✅ Binding || Arbiter's decision is enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. Requires prior explicit consent.
|}

WikiDeal's approach is unambiguously '''arbitration''': consent is given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled.

== The 4-Step Simplified Arbitration Process ==

When a dispute arises, WikiDeal's resolution process follows a structured four-step flow designed to be fast, evidence-based, and fair:

# '''Expression''' — A party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance. This can be done independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge is required at this stage.
# '''Documentation''' — The complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. AI tools help structure and verify the evidence, ensuring the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
# '''Compensation Request Activation''' — The documented complaint automatically triggers a formal compensation request. The opposing party is notified and given a fixed response time to acknowledge, contest, or resolve the claim.
# '''Default Activation''' — If the opposing party does not respond within the deadline, compensation is automatically activated. Appeals remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), ensuring the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

== Abuse Prevention Mechanisms ==

Simplified Arbitration is designed to be used in good faith. To prevent gaming or misuse of the system, several safeguards are built in:

* '''Abuse scoring''' — Users who repeatedly file excessive or unfounded claims are flagged. Their scoring is tracked over time and factored into platform trust ratings.
* '''Profile transparency''' — Alerts are displayed on a flagged user's public profile showing their claims history, giving other users visibility before entering a contract.
* '''Guarantor requirement''' — Insolvent parties must find a guarantor before any contract becomes active — even for low-stakes exchanges such as a bicycle loan. This ensures that compensation commitments are always backed by real capacity to fulfill them.

== The Cultural Impact — Trust Through Compensation ==

Beyond its legal function, Simplified Arbitration changes how people behave — and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect is cultural.

* '''Concrete example:''' ''"I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop will fix it within 3 days — I don't have to chase the borrower myself."'' The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
* '''Removes "I must be perfect" anxiety''' — People can offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors will be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
* '''Enables high-trust, high-risk offerings''' — Even for complex or higher-risk situations (e.g., pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework provides clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result is a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

=== Participatory Compensation Framework ===

The specific list of compensatory measures — what is owed, in what form, and within what timeframe — will not be imposed top-down. Instead, it will be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

* '''Provider groups''' (''prestataires'') — those offering services, who need measures that are proportionate, achievable, and do not expose them to unlimited liability.
* '''Consumer groups''' — those using services, who need measures that are genuine, timely, and meaningful in the context of real harm or inconvenience.

This participatory process ensures the measures are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations — not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice on WikiDeal may adapt the framework to their domain, subject to platform-wide minimums.

<blockquote>WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a '''trust-rebuilding machine'''.</blockquote>

== Arbitration Eligibility ==

Not all domains or contract types can activate Simplified Arbitration. Swiss law mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived — including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract will explicitly display a clear indicator:

: <code>[Arbitration: '''Enabled''' / '''Disabled''' / '''Mediation Only''']</code>

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CAN be used ===

* Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, etc.)
* Street fundraising
* Cooperative goods exchange
* Consulting and freelance services (non-employment contracts)
* Real estate restoration mandates (cooperative model)
* Any WikiDeal marketplace domain not covered by mandatory protective law

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CANNOT be used (Swiss law) ===

* '''Employment contracts''' → covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / ''Convention Collective de Travail'') and the ''Prud'hommes'' (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by arbitration clause.
* '''Residential lease contracts''' → covered by Swiss ''droit du bail'' (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253–274g). Special tenant protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
* '''Consumer contracts with mandatory protective provisions''' → certain protections cannot be contractually waived under Swiss law (Art. 192 LDIP, Art. 354 CPC).

=== Two types of arbitration clauses in WikiDeal ===

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
|-
! Type !! Description
|-
| '''Permanent / Final Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage définitif'') || Full binding resolution, enforceable as a court judgment. A right of appeal on form and substance nonetheless remains, opened by popular support — see [[#Right of Appeal — Two Stages and the Supreme Court|Right of Appeal]] below.
|-
| '''Temporary / Interim Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage provisoire'') || Fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel (e.g., during an ongoing mediation).
|}

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the Simplified process, may escalate to higher arbitration chambers. WikiDeal intends to operates a '''2-level or ideally 3-level arbitration system'''.

== Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism ==

In simplified arbitration, a decision is '''final''' in the sense that it takes effect immediately and settles the dispute at hand. But "final" does not mean "beyond all recourse." The proposed framework envisions a genuine '''right of appeal''', organized in '''two distinct stages''' — one procedural, one substantive — complemented by a Supreme Court–type instance with a deliberately narrow mandate.

This two-stage architecture keeps everyday arbitration fast and lightweight, while ensuring that no participant is ever locked out of justice, and that important cases can shape the rules for everyone.

=== Stage 1 — Procedural appeal (form) ===

The first stage is an '''appeal tribunal for procedural error''' — the right to appeal on '''procedural grounds'''. It does not re-judge the merits of the case; it verifies that the arbitration process itself was sound.

Typical technical grounds include:
* A piece of '''evidence was not taken into account''' (a document, message, or exhibit was overlooked or never reached the arbitrator).
* The '''arbitrator disappeared or was unavailable''' during the proceedings.
* A '''formal defect''' (vice of form): deadlines, notifications, or required steps were not respected.

If the procedural appeal succeeds, the case is reheard under correct conditions. This is the first — and in most cases the only — level of appeal a party will ever need.

=== Stage 2 — Substantive / political appeal (substance) ===

The second stage is an appeal '''on the merits''', reserved for '''fundamental or political grounds'''. Its purpose is not merely to reverse an individual outcome, but to make the case '''set a precedent''' (faire école): to obtain a '''policy update''' and/or a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to that class of situations, creating jurisprudence useful to the whole community.

The guiding principle: an appeal at this stage must serve a '''social utility''', not only a private interest. A right is not bought — it is '''supported'''.

Two decision paths are envisioned, which may be used separately or in combination:

'''(a) Popular vote''' — a political stance taken by the users themselves. Possible modalities include:
* a '''random sample''' of users drawn by lot,
* '''weighted voting''',
* the '''Condorcet method''',
* or other deliberative voting schemes defined by policy.

'''(b) Supreme Court''' — a court of last instance with a strictly limited mandate: it may rule '''only on the exact wording of the proposed policy update''', never on the political desirability of the change itself. The community decides the direction; the court guarantees the precision of the text.

'''Mobilizing community support.''' Support for a substantive appeal is gathered through '''federations of User Groups''' — an unlimited number of groups organized by region, domain of activity, or portal. The '''threshold of votes''' required to open a substantive appeal is '''proportional to the damages at stake''': from roughly '''5 votes''' for small matters, to tens of thousands, up to '''1 million''' for major systemic issues. Thresholds are computed by distribution codes and analysis policies. Casting a vote is designed to take '''one click, one second'''.

=== Worked examples ===

'''1. The taxi and the forgotten handbag.''' A couple steps out of a taxi, forgetting a handbag on the back seat. They call the driver back immediately — no answer. The next passenger takes (steals) the bag. The arbitral decision clears the driver: he did not see the call, it was not his fault, and it was the following customer who took the bag. On the individual level, the ruling may well be correct. But a '''substantive (political) appeal''' can change the '''rule''' itself: drivers should remain '''reachable and available for a few minutes after the end of a ride''', for the benefit of the previous customer. The case sets a precedent → a new policy is adopted for everyone.

'''2. The broken bicycle.''' A user who rides their bicycle every day gets it back broken. A repair "within 15 days" is deemed insufficient compensation: the user requests, '''included in the compensation''', a '''replacement bicycle lent by a professional company''' for the duration of the repair. A substantive appeal leads to a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to this type of case — daily-use equipment now comes with a loaner guarantee during repairs.

=== Roles: who decides what ===

The evolution of rights through substantive appeals rests on a deliberate '''combination of two complementary roles''': the people, who choose; and the judges, who analyze.

'''The people choose.''' The final decision on whether a policy or a set of compensatory measures should evolve belongs to the users themselves. This popular decision can take the form of:
* a '''jury''' — a random sample of users drawn by lot ('''sortition'''),
* a '''popular vote''' among users,
* or — most often — a '''combination''' of both.

'''The Supreme Court judges analyze.''' The judges of the Supreme Court do not decide the political direction. Their contribution is '''procedural and technical''':
* they verify that the request is '''technically well formulated''';
* they assess that the '''intention serves the interests of users and of the majority''', and contributes to a more positive climate for '''"fair deals with nice people"''' — WikiDeal's motto;
* they issue a '''technical pre-opinion''' (''préavis technique'') and a '''description of the impact''' of the proposed change;
* they guarantee the '''exact wording''' of the resulting policy update or jurisprudence.

'''How the two combine.''' The popular jury or vote takes the '''final decision''' — but in practice it is most often a jury '''assisted''' by the judges: the Supreme Court's pre-opinion and impact description inform the deliberation, while the political choice itself remains with the people. Judicial expertise clarifies; popular support decides.

<blockquote>'''The evolution of rights cannot be bought through appeals: a right is not bought, it is supported.''' The right to see interpretation policies and rules evolve — through jurisprudence born of collective decision — rests on a combination of '''popular support''' and the '''expertise of a Supreme Court''' regarding the societal meaning of these changes, their procedural interpretation, and their exact wording.</blockquote>

== Examples of Arbitration Agreements ==

Generic arbitration closure agreements and contract templates that implement Simplified Arbitration are documented here:

* [[WikiDeal:Contracts/Freelance_Hybrid|Freelance Service Contract (Hybrid Cash/Rewards)]] — Example template for WikiDeal deployment work.

[[Category:Socio-technical innovation]]
[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:WikiDeal core concept]]

En/Simplified Arbitration

2026-09-28T07:13:36Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Rework Right of Appeal: two stages (procedural + substantive) + Supreme Court + worked examples

{{KidsIntro|If people have a disagreement, we want a simple and fair way to help them figure it out. This page shares our idea for how to solve problems peacefully and quickly together.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page introduces our working concept for a Simplified Arbitration process. It outlines the intended mechanisms for dispute resolution, offering a flexible hypothesis rather than rigid legal dictates, to ensure fair and accessible outcomes for all participants.}}
{| class="infobox" style="float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1.5em; padding:0.5em; background:#f8f9fa; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; font-size:90%; width:22em;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#3366cc; color:white; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size:110%;" | Simplified Arbitration
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; padding:4px;" | ''WikiDeal's Conflict Resolution Framework''
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Type
| Socio-technical innovation
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Legal basis
| Swiss PILA (Ch. 12), [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Swiss CPC (Part 3)], New York Convention (1958)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Scope
| Peer-to-peer transactions on WikiDeal
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Binding
| Yes (with consent at contract signature)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Status
| Framework — Draft
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Category
| Legal Framework · Socio-Technical Innovations
|}

Resolving a dispute between strangers should not require a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting. '''WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine''' — a fast, binding, evidence-based process that lifts the burden of enforcement from individuals.

''The result: a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.''

Grounded in Swiss law and internationally enforceable under the New York Convention.

__TOC__

== Legal Foundation — Swiss Law & International Framework ==

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks and reinforced by an international treaty — providing a robust, internationally recognized foundation for binding peer-to-peer dispute resolution.

=== 1. Chapter 12 PILA — International Arbitration ===

Chapter 12 of the '''Private International Law Act''' (PILA / LDIP — ''Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé'') governs international arbitration in Switzerland. In force since 1989 and updated in 2021, it provides a highly liberal framework with minimal court interference. Challenges go directly to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — and only ~7% of awards are overturned, and only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

: Source: [https://www.swissarbitration.org/swiss-arbitration/swiss-arbitration-laws/ Swiss Arbitration Association]

=== 2. Part 3 CPC — Domestic Arbitration ===

[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Part 3 of the '''Civil Procedure Code'''] (CPC / ''Code de procédure civile'') governs domestic arbitration in Switzerland, in force since 2011. It provides procedural guidance and includes explicit protections for weaker parties (employees, tenants) — which is precisely why certain domains cannot use simplified arbitration (see the [[#Arbitration_Eligibility|Eligibility section]] below).

=== The Waiver Principle ===

Under both frameworks, arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation (''Convention d'arbitrage / Arbitration Clause''). This agreement must be in writing.

WikiDeal implements this through a clear clause in every contract where arbitration is enabled: members explicitly consent to the Simplified Arbitration process as their sole dispute resolution mechanism for matters covered by that contract. Consent is given at contract signature — not buried in general terms.

=== International Framework — The New York Convention ===

The '''1958 New York Convention''' on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — ratified by 170+ countries including Switzerland — provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between member states. This ensures that a WikiDeal arbitration award is not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders.

: Source: [https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards UNCITRAL — New York Convention]

It is important to distinguish two related but fundamentally different mechanisms:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:80%"
|-
! Mechanism !! Binding? !! Nature
|-
| '''Mediation''' || ❌ Non-binding || Facilitator helps parties reach agreement; either party may walk away at any time.
|-
| '''Arbitration''' || ✅ Binding || Arbiter's decision is enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. Requires prior explicit consent.
|}

WikiDeal's approach is unambiguously '''arbitration''': consent is given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled.

== The 4-Step Simplified Arbitration Process ==

When a dispute arises, WikiDeal's resolution process follows a structured four-step flow designed to be fast, evidence-based, and fair:

# '''Expression''' — A party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance. This can be done independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge is required at this stage.
# '''Documentation''' — The complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. AI tools help structure and verify the evidence, ensuring the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
# '''Compensation Request Activation''' — The documented complaint automatically triggers a formal compensation request. The opposing party is notified and given a fixed response time to acknowledge, contest, or resolve the claim.
# '''Default Activation''' — If the opposing party does not respond within the deadline, compensation is automatically activated. Appeals remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), ensuring the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

== Abuse Prevention Mechanisms ==

Simplified Arbitration is designed to be used in good faith. To prevent gaming or misuse of the system, several safeguards are built in:

* '''Abuse scoring''' — Users who repeatedly file excessive or unfounded claims are flagged. Their scoring is tracked over time and factored into platform trust ratings.
* '''Profile transparency''' — Alerts are displayed on a flagged user's public profile showing their claims history, giving other users visibility before entering a contract.
* '''Guarantor requirement''' — Insolvent parties must find a guarantor before any contract becomes active — even for low-stakes exchanges such as a bicycle loan. This ensures that compensation commitments are always backed by real capacity to fulfill them.

== The Cultural Impact — Trust Through Compensation ==

Beyond its legal function, Simplified Arbitration changes how people behave — and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect is cultural.

* '''Concrete example:''' ''"I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop will fix it within 3 days — I don't have to chase the borrower myself."'' The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
* '''Removes "I must be perfect" anxiety''' — People can offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors will be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
* '''Enables high-trust, high-risk offerings''' — Even for complex or higher-risk situations (e.g., pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework provides clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result is a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

=== Participatory Compensation Framework ===

The specific list of compensatory measures — what is owed, in what form, and within what timeframe — will not be imposed top-down. Instead, it will be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

* '''Provider groups''' (''prestataires'') — those offering services, who need measures that are proportionate, achievable, and do not expose them to unlimited liability.
* '''Consumer groups''' — those using services, who need measures that are genuine, timely, and meaningful in the context of real harm or inconvenience.

This participatory process ensures the measures are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations — not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice on WikiDeal may adapt the framework to their domain, subject to platform-wide minimums.

<blockquote>WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a '''trust-rebuilding machine'''.</blockquote>

== Arbitration Eligibility ==

Not all domains or contract types can activate Simplified Arbitration. Swiss law mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived — including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract will explicitly display a clear indicator:

: <code>[Arbitration: '''Enabled''' / '''Disabled''' / '''Mediation Only''']</code>

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CAN be used ===

* Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, etc.)
* Street fundraising
* Cooperative goods exchange
* Consulting and freelance services (non-employment contracts)
* Real estate restoration mandates (cooperative model)
* Any WikiDeal marketplace domain not covered by mandatory protective law

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CANNOT be used (Swiss law) ===

* '''Employment contracts''' → covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / ''Convention Collective de Travail'') and the ''Prud'hommes'' (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by arbitration clause.
* '''Residential lease contracts''' → covered by Swiss ''droit du bail'' (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253–274g). Special tenant protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
* '''Consumer contracts with mandatory protective provisions''' → certain protections cannot be contractually waived under Swiss law (Art. 192 LDIP, Art. 354 CPC).

=== Two types of arbitration clauses in WikiDeal ===

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
|-
! Type !! Description
|-
| '''Permanent / Final Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage définitif'') || Full binding resolution, enforceable as a court judgment. A right of appeal on form and substance nonetheless remains, opened by popular support — see [[#Right of Appeal — Two Stages and the Supreme Court|Right of Appeal]] below.
|-
| '''Temporary / Interim Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage provisoire'') || Fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel (e.g., during an ongoing mediation).
|}

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the Simplified process, may escalate to higher arbitration chambers. WikiDeal intends to operates a '''2-level or ideally 3-level arbitration system'''.

== Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism ==

In simplified arbitration, a decision is '''final''' in the sense that it takes effect immediately and settles the dispute at hand. But "final" does not mean "beyond all recourse." The proposed framework envisions a genuine '''right of appeal''', organized in '''two distinct stages''' — one procedural, one substantive — complemented by a Supreme Court–type instance with a deliberately narrow mandate.

This two-stage architecture keeps everyday arbitration fast and lightweight, while ensuring that no participant is ever locked out of justice, and that important cases can shape the rules for everyone.

=== Stage 1 — Procedural appeal (form) ===

The first stage is an '''appeal tribunal for procedural error''' — the right to appeal on '''procedural grounds'''. It does not re-judge the merits of the case; it verifies that the arbitration process itself was sound.

Typical technical grounds include:
* A piece of '''evidence was not taken into account''' (a document, message, or exhibit was overlooked or never reached the arbitrator).
* The '''arbitrator disappeared or was unavailable''' during the proceedings.
* A '''formal defect''' (vice of form): deadlines, notifications, or required steps were not respected.

If the procedural appeal succeeds, the case is reheard under correct conditions. This is the first — and in most cases the only — level of appeal a party will ever need.

=== Stage 2 — Substantive / political appeal (substance) ===

The second stage is an appeal '''on the merits''', reserved for '''fundamental or political grounds'''. Its purpose is not merely to reverse an individual outcome, but to make the case '''set a precedent''' (faire école): to obtain a '''policy update''' and/or a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to that class of situations, creating jurisprudence useful to the whole community.

The guiding principle: an appeal at this stage must serve a '''social utility''', not only a private interest. A right is not bought — it is '''supported'''.

Two decision paths are envisioned, which may be used separately or in combination:

'''(a) Popular vote''' — a political stance taken by the users themselves. Possible modalities include:
* a '''random sample''' of users drawn by lot,
* '''weighted voting''',
* the '''Condorcet method''',
* or other deliberative voting schemes defined by policy.

'''(b) Supreme Court''' — a court of last instance with a strictly limited mandate: it may rule '''only on the exact wording of the proposed policy update''', never on the political desirability of the change itself. The community decides the direction; the court guarantees the precision of the text.

'''Mobilizing community support.''' Support for a substantive appeal is gathered through '''federations of User Groups''' — an unlimited number of groups organized by region, domain of activity, or portal. The '''threshold of votes''' required to open a substantive appeal is '''proportional to the damages at stake''': from roughly '''5 votes''' for small matters, to tens of thousands, up to '''1 million''' for major systemic issues. Thresholds are computed by distribution codes and analysis policies. Casting a vote is designed to take '''one click, one second'''.

=== Worked examples ===

'''1. The taxi and the forgotten handbag.''' A couple steps out of a taxi, forgetting a handbag on the back seat. They call the driver back immediately — no answer. The next passenger takes (steals) the bag. The arbitral decision clears the driver: he did not see the call, it was not his fault, and it was the following customer who took the bag. On the individual level, the ruling may well be correct. But a '''substantive (political) appeal''' can change the '''rule''' itself: drivers should remain '''reachable and available for a few minutes after the end of a ride''', for the benefit of the previous customer. The case sets a precedent → a new policy is adopted for everyone.

'''2. The broken bicycle.''' A user who rides their bicycle every day gets it back broken. A repair "within 15 days" is deemed insufficient compensation: the user requests, '''included in the compensation''', a '''replacement bicycle lent by a professional company''' for the duration of the repair. A substantive appeal leads to a revision of the '''compensatory measures''' applicable to this type of case — daily-use equipment now comes with a loaner guarantee during repairs.

<blockquote>'''A right is not bought, it is supported.'''</blockquote>

== Examples of Arbitration Agreements ==

Generic arbitration closure agreements and contract templates that implement Simplified Arbitration are documented here:

* [[WikiDeal:Contracts/Freelance_Hybrid|Freelance Service Contract (Hybrid Cash/Rewards)]] — Example template for WikiDeal deployment work.

[[Category:Socio-technical innovation]]
[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:WikiDeal core concept]]

En/Simplified Arbitration

2026-09-27T20:19:27Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add Right of Appeal — Popular Support Mechanism; nuance Final Arbitration

{{KidsIntro|If people have a disagreement, we want a simple and fair way to help them figure it out. This page shares our idea for how to solve problems peacefully and quickly together.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page introduces our working concept for a Simplified Arbitration process. It outlines the intended mechanisms for dispute resolution, offering a flexible hypothesis rather than rigid legal dictates, to ensure fair and accessible outcomes for all participants.}}
{| class="infobox" style="float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1.5em; padding:0.5em; background:#f8f9fa; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; font-size:90%; width:22em;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#3366cc; color:white; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size:110%;" | Simplified Arbitration
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; padding:4px;" | ''WikiDeal's Conflict Resolution Framework''
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Type
| Socio-technical innovation
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Legal basis
| Swiss PILA (Ch. 12), [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Swiss CPC (Part 3)], New York Convention (1958)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Scope
| Peer-to-peer transactions on WikiDeal
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Binding
| Yes (with consent at contract signature)
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Status
| Framework — Draft
|-
! style="background:#eaecf0; padding:4px;" | Category
| Legal Framework · Socio-Technical Innovations
|}

Resolving a dispute between strangers should not require a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting. '''WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine''' — a fast, binding, evidence-based process that lifts the burden of enforcement from individuals.

''The result: a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.''

Grounded in Swiss law and internationally enforceable under the New York Convention.

__TOC__

== Legal Foundation — Swiss Law & International Framework ==

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks and reinforced by an international treaty — providing a robust, internationally recognized foundation for binding peer-to-peer dispute resolution.

=== 1. Chapter 12 PILA — International Arbitration ===

Chapter 12 of the '''Private International Law Act''' (PILA / LDIP — ''Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé'') governs international arbitration in Switzerland. In force since 1989 and updated in 2021, it provides a highly liberal framework with minimal court interference. Challenges go directly to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — and only ~7% of awards are overturned, and only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

: Source: [https://www.swissarbitration.org/swiss-arbitration/swiss-arbitration-laws/ Swiss Arbitration Association]

=== 2. Part 3 CPC — Domestic Arbitration ===

[https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2010/262/en#part_3 Part 3 of the '''Civil Procedure Code'''] (CPC / ''Code de procédure civile'') governs domestic arbitration in Switzerland, in force since 2011. It provides procedural guidance and includes explicit protections for weaker parties (employees, tenants) — which is precisely why certain domains cannot use simplified arbitration (see the [[#Arbitration_Eligibility|Eligibility section]] below).

=== The Waiver Principle ===

Under both frameworks, arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation (''Convention d'arbitrage / Arbitration Clause''). This agreement must be in writing.

WikiDeal implements this through a clear clause in every contract where arbitration is enabled: members explicitly consent to the Simplified Arbitration process as their sole dispute resolution mechanism for matters covered by that contract. Consent is given at contract signature — not buried in general terms.

=== International Framework — The New York Convention ===

The '''1958 New York Convention''' on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — ratified by 170+ countries including Switzerland — provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between member states. This ensures that a WikiDeal arbitration award is not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders.

: Source: [https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards UNCITRAL — New York Convention]

It is important to distinguish two related but fundamentally different mechanisms:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:80%"
|-
! Mechanism !! Binding? !! Nature
|-
| '''Mediation''' || ❌ Non-binding || Facilitator helps parties reach agreement; either party may walk away at any time.
|-
| '''Arbitration''' || ✅ Binding || Arbiter's decision is enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. Requires prior explicit consent.
|}

WikiDeal's approach is unambiguously '''arbitration''': consent is given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled.

== The 4-Step Simplified Arbitration Process ==

When a dispute arises, WikiDeal's resolution process follows a structured four-step flow designed to be fast, evidence-based, and fair:

# '''Expression''' — A party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance. This can be done independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge is required at this stage.
# '''Documentation''' — The complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. AI tools help structure and verify the evidence, ensuring the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
# '''Compensation Request Activation''' — The documented complaint automatically triggers a formal compensation request. The opposing party is notified and given a fixed response time to acknowledge, contest, or resolve the claim.
# '''Default Activation''' — If the opposing party does not respond within the deadline, compensation is automatically activated. Appeals remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), ensuring the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

== Abuse Prevention Mechanisms ==

Simplified Arbitration is designed to be used in good faith. To prevent gaming or misuse of the system, several safeguards are built in:

* '''Abuse scoring''' — Users who repeatedly file excessive or unfounded claims are flagged. Their scoring is tracked over time and factored into platform trust ratings.
* '''Profile transparency''' — Alerts are displayed on a flagged user's public profile showing their claims history, giving other users visibility before entering a contract.
* '''Guarantor requirement''' — Insolvent parties must find a guarantor before any contract becomes active — even for low-stakes exchanges such as a bicycle loan. This ensures that compensation commitments are always backed by real capacity to fulfill them.

== The Cultural Impact — Trust Through Compensation ==

Beyond its legal function, Simplified Arbitration changes how people behave — and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect is cultural.

* '''Concrete example:''' ''"I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop will fix it within 3 days — I don't have to chase the borrower myself."'' The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
* '''Removes "I must be perfect" anxiety''' — People can offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors will be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
* '''Enables high-trust, high-risk offerings''' — Even for complex or higher-risk situations (e.g., pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework provides clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result is a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

=== Participatory Compensation Framework ===

The specific list of compensatory measures — what is owed, in what form, and within what timeframe — will not be imposed top-down. Instead, it will be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

* '''Provider groups''' (''prestataires'') — those offering services, who need measures that are proportionate, achievable, and do not expose them to unlimited liability.
* '''Consumer groups''' — those using services, who need measures that are genuine, timely, and meaningful in the context of real harm or inconvenience.

This participatory process ensures the measures are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations — not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice on WikiDeal may adapt the framework to their domain, subject to platform-wide minimums.

<blockquote>WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a '''trust-rebuilding machine'''.</blockquote>

== Arbitration Eligibility ==

Not all domains or contract types can activate Simplified Arbitration. Swiss law mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived — including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract will explicitly display a clear indicator:

: <code>[Arbitration: '''Enabled''' / '''Disabled''' / '''Mediation Only''']</code>

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CAN be used ===

* Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, etc.)
* Street fundraising
* Cooperative goods exchange
* Consulting and freelance services (non-employment contracts)
* Real estate restoration mandates (cooperative model)
* Any WikiDeal marketplace domain not covered by mandatory protective law

=== Domains where Simplified Arbitration CANNOT be used (Swiss law) ===

* '''Employment contracts''' → covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / ''Convention Collective de Travail'') and the ''Prud'hommes'' (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by arbitration clause.
* '''Residential lease contracts''' → covered by Swiss ''droit du bail'' (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253–274g). Special tenant protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
* '''Consumer contracts with mandatory protective provisions''' → certain protections cannot be contractually waived under Swiss law (Art. 192 LDIP, Art. 354 CPC).

=== Two types of arbitration clauses in WikiDeal ===

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
|-
! Type !! Description
|-
| '''Permanent / Final Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage définitif'') || Full binding resolution, enforceable as a court judgment. A right of appeal on form and substance nonetheless remains, opened by popular support — see [[#Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism|Right of Appeal]] below.
|-
| '''Temporary / Interim Arbitration''' (''Arbitrage provisoire'') || Fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel (e.g., during an ongoing mediation).
|}

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the Simplified process, may escalate to higher arbitration chambers. WikiDeal intends to operates a '''2-level or ideally 3-level arbitration system'''.

== Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism ==

A decision issued through '''Final Arbitration''' may appear irrevocable — but "final" does not mean "beyond all recourse". Under the proposed WikiDeal framework, an appeal remains possible '''both on form and on substance'''. What makes this mechanism distinctive is how the right of appeal is opened: not by money, but by '''popular support'''. A wealthy party cannot buy their way into an appeal. Instead, like a petition, an appeal must gather collective backing from the community before it can proceed. This design keeps the appeal process aligned with WikiDeal's cooperative culture: justice as a shared good, not a purchasable service.

=== How the appeal works ===

The envisioned process unfolds in five steps:

# '''Filing the appeal.''' Any party may file an appeal against a Final Arbitration decision, challenging it on procedural grounds (form) or on the merits (substance).
# '''Demonstrating social utility.''' The appeal must show genuine value for the community — typically its potential to create useful '''jurisprudence''' that benefits future cases, not merely the private interest of the appellant.
# '''Submitting to federations of user groups.''' An unlimited number of '''User Groups''' may form — tied to a region, a domain of activity, or a portal — and federate to support an appeal they consider worthwhile.
# '''Mobilizing a popular vote.''' Supporting federations call on users to vote in favour of opening the appeal. Voting is a deliberately lightweight act: '''one click, one second'''. It is a popular choice, never a monetary one.
# '''Reaching the support threshold.''' Once the calculated number of supporting votes is reached, the right of appeal is opened and the case may be re-examined.

=== The support threshold ===

The number of votes required to open an appeal is not fixed. It is computed by '''allocation codes and analysis policies''' — calculation tools designed to keep the threshold '''proportional to the damages at stake''':

* around '''5 supporters''' for small-scale disputes;
* '''tens of thousands''' for significant cases;
* up to '''1 million voters''' for major cases with broad community impact.

This proportionality ensures that minor disputes remain accessible to appeal, while appeals with far-reaching consequences require correspondingly broad social legitimacy.

<blockquote>'''A right is not bought, it is supported.'''</blockquote>

This mechanism is a proposed framework, still being refined by the community. Its guiding intent, however, is settled: within WikiDeal, the strength of a legal claim on appeal is measured by the community's willingness to stand behind it.

== Examples of Arbitration Agreements ==

Generic arbitration closure agreements and contract templates that implement Simplified Arbitration are documented here:

* [[WikiDeal:Contracts/Freelance_Hybrid|Freelance Service Contract (Hybrid Cash/Rewards)]] — Example template for WikiDeal deployment work.

[[Category:Socio-technical innovation]]
[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:WikiDeal core concept]]

Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Arbitration-Hub

2026-09-27T19:55:51Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Arbitration Hub landing page (draft)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Arbitration Hub}}
{{KidsIntro|When two people disagree about a deal, a fair helper listens to both sides and decides — quickly, kindly, and without a big scary courtroom.}}
{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards a world where most agreements are made between people who have never met, across borders, at a speed courts cannot match. This hypothesis proposes that simplified, contract-based arbitration — grounded in Swiss law and the 1958 New York Convention — can resolve everyday disputes in weeks instead of years, at a fraction of the cost, while producing awards enforceable in 170+ countries.}}

[[File:Arbitration-hub-header.png|center|frameless|900px|Simplified Arbitration at WikiDeal]]

== Justice, redesigned for real life ==

'''Resolve disputes without a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting.'''

Most disputes are not legal mysteries. They are broken expectations between two people who once agreed. WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration turns dispute resolution into something '''fast, affordable, and human''' — while remaining fully binding under law.

== Why it matters ==

Arbitration at WikiDeal is a '''trust-rebuilding machine'''. When everyone knows that a fair, fast and enforceable process exists, strangers can transact with confidence:

* '''No fear of getting stuck''' — disputes get resolved, not buried.
* '''No power games''' — the process is the same for a freelancer and a corporation.
* '''No borders''' — one award, recognized in 170+ countries.

== How it works ==

Four steps, one clear path:

# '''Expression''' — each party states its view of the dispute, in plain language, alone or with a human advisor or AI assistant.
# '''Documentation''' — the complaint is turned into an evidence-based file; AI tools help structure and verify the facts against the contract.
# '''Arbitration''' — an impartial arbiter reviews the evidence and issues a binding decision, fast and grounded in the contract terms.
# '''Enforcement''' — the award is legally enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling, and recognized across borders.

== Grounded in law ==

Simplified Arbitration is not a private shortcut — it rests on solid legal foundations:

* '''Chapter 12 PILA''' — Swiss framework for international arbitration (liberal, minimal court interference).
* '''Part 3 CPC''' — Swiss framework for domestic arbitration, with explicit protections for weaker parties.
* '''New York Convention (1958)''' — international recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 170+ countries.

Arbitration is only valid where all parties have explicitly and voluntarily waived civil litigation in writing — consent given at contract signature, never buried in fine print.

== Learn more ==

* [[En/Simplified_Arbitration|Full framework]] — the complete legal and procedural explanation.
* [[Market:Arbitration|The arbitration device]] — concrete steps, costs, timelines and the draft model agreement.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Arbitration|Justice portal: Arbitration]] — how arbitration fits WikiDeal's justice system.

[[Category:Legal framework]]
[[Category:WikiDeal core concept]]

File:Arbitration-hub-header.png

2026-09-27T19:55:50Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Arbitration Hub header illustration (AI-generated)

Header illustration for the Arbitration Hub landing page. AI-generated (Gemini). [[Category:Migration June 2026]]

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikinomics

2026-09-27T13:58:41Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Layout: side thumbnails; fix front cover orientation

{{KidsIntro|Wikinomics is the idea that lots of people can build great things together, like on Wikipedia — and WikiDeal was born from it.}}

{{ExpertIntro|'''Wikinomics''' — a term coined by Tapscott & Williams (2006) to describe mass collaboration, peer production and prosumers — became in 2013–2014 a pedagogical innovation research project co-signed by members of the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] (Geneva), which today governs WikiDeal. The project set out to spread the '''wiki behaviours''' observed on Wikipedia and beyond: anyone can edit, participative governance, every contribution is traceable, and decision-making that is not pyramidal but scales with complexity — consensual and '''sociocratic''' when complexity is high (see [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]]). In its original form, documented in resources such as the [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills] handbook, all of these behaviours were focused on '''competence development''' (VET, Open Badges, ECVET). WikiDeal keeps the behaviours but changes the object: the pedagogical dimension becomes a '''contractual dimension''' — fair, wiki-governed contracts with just redistribution of value, operationalised through [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|collaborative contract editing]].}}

The article reproduced below, unchanged from 2013–2014, is the '''fertile ground''' — the seedbed — from which WikiDeal grew. Read it knowing what it does not yet contain: the leap '''from competences to contracts'''. Everything the project taught people to do with skills — edit openly, govern together, trace every contribution — WikiDeal now applies to agreements and the sharing of value. Same wiki behaviours, new stakes.

[[File:LNCS8699-front-cover.jpg|thumb|right|220px|''New Horizons in Web Based Learning'', LNCS 8699 (Springer, 2014). The chapter ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept'' appears at pp. 153–161.]]

{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#origin|Origin of the term]]
* [[#limits|The limits Wikinomics exposed]]
* [[#project|The 2013–2014 Wikinomics project]]
* [[#seedbed|A fertile ground for WikiDeal]]
* [[#wikibooks|Source material on Wikibooks]]
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]
}}
__NOTOC__


== Origin of the term ==

The term '''Wikinomics''' was introduced and framed internationally by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams in ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything'' (2006). It describes how open, wiki-style collaboration restructures the socio-economic organisation of post-industrial societies. Its central concepts — '''mass creativity''', '''peer production''' and '''co-creation''' — blur the traditional distinction between producers and consumers, giving rise to the figure of the "'''prosumer'''", who both consumes and produces value.


== The limits Wikinomics exposed ==

The Wikinomics vision has often been criticised as a subtle form of labour outsourcing: unpaid or under-recognised "prosumer" work can become a way of extracting free labour from consumers and collaborators, while the majority of the value is captured elsewhere. Drawing on authors such as Fred Turner (''From Counterculture to Cyberculture'', 2006) and José van Dijck (''The Culture of Connectivity'', 2013), the critique warns that a "culture of sharing" can mask a real asymmetry between the value created by a community and the reward it actually receives.

This is precisely the tension WikiDeal was designed to address: not to abandon mass collaboration, but to build the economic and governance mechanisms that let collaborative value be recognised, tracked and fairly redistributed.


== The 2013–2014 Wikinomics project ==

Following the '''[https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills]''' European network, the '''Wikinomics project''' set out to turn the Wikinomics idea into a positive, workable pedagogy rather than leaving it as a critique. It used free-culture and wiki methodologies as the basis for an innovative approach to Vocational Education and Training (VET), and connected the work to a transnational European network of practitioners and to TEDx events.

Its main lines of work were:

* '''Key competences''': developing a framework of key competences, transversal to all VET sectors, required for employability in a rapidly changing labour market — aligned with the European Key Competences for Lifelong Learning.
* '''ECVET transfer''': applying the European Credit system for VET (ECVET) so that learning outcomes could be assessed, recognised, made transparent, transferable and portable across European countries.
* '''Open Badges''': using Mozilla Open Badges to materialise learning outcomes, with qualification profiles described as units of learning outcomes, assessed through both self-assessment and peer assessment, in academic and professional contexts alike.

The project's conclusions proposed to '''enrich the Wikinomics approach''' through pilot VET projects, collaborative writing and evaluation, and a continually maintained transnational network of open-badge issuers, involving VET teachers, trainers and students as well as businesses and associations.


== A fertile ground for WikiDeal ==
[[File:LNCS8699-authors.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Author Index of LNCS 8699: Priftis, Bondolfi and Boisselier are listed at page 153.]]

The Wikinomics project (2013–2014) is best understood as '''one of the fertile grounds (seedbeds)''' on which WikiDeal was later developed. Three threads carry directly into WikiDeal:

# '''Fair recognition of collaborative value.''' The project's core worry — that collaborative labour can be extracted without fair reward — is the problem WikiDeal's economic innovations (subscription tokens, need-driven funding, real-cost commission, revenue spreading) are built to solve.
# '''Wiki governance applied to the economy.''' The reliance on transparent wiki processes and communities of practice prefigures WikiDeal's [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia-style governance]] and [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|collaborative contract editing]].
# '''Recognition infrastructure.''' The Open Badges / ECVET emphasis on portable, peer-validated recognition anticipates WikiDeal's attention to trust, endorsement and verifiable track records.

The academic formalisation of this work was published as:

: Priftis, A., Bondolfi, T., Boisselier, Y. (2014). ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept: Towards New Methodological Approaches.'' In: Cao, Y. et al. (Eds.), ICWL 2014 Workshops, LNCS 8699, pp. 153–161. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17]

Two of the three co-authors were affiliated with the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] (Geneva), which today stewards WikiDeal's governance — making Wikinomics a direct lineage rather than a distant inspiration.


== Source material on Wikibooks ==

The practical materials of the Wikinomics and WikiSkills projects live as an open book on '''Wikibooks''' (the free-content textbook project of the Wikimedia ecosystem):

* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills Handbook] (main book)
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wikinomics_Training_practices Wikinomics Training practices]
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wiki_Key_Competencies Wiki Key Competencies]
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Badges Badges]


== State of the art ==
[[File:LNCS8699-back-cover.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Back cover — Lecture Notes in Computer Science series, ISBN 978-3-319-13295-2, ISSN 0302-9743.]]

* Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D. (2006). ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything.'' Portfolio, New York.
* Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D. (2010). ''Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World.'' Portfolio/Penguin.
* Turner, F. (2006). ''From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism.'' University of Chicago Press.
* Van Dijck, J. (2013). ''The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media.'' Oxford University Press.
* Priftis, A., Bondolfi, T., Boisselier, Y. (2014). ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept: Towards New Methodological Approaches.'' ICWL 2014 Workshops, LNCS 8699, pp. 153–161. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17]

File:LNCS8699-front-cover.jpg

2026-09-27T13:58:38Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: AI-Admin-Assistant uploaded a new version of File:LNCS8699-front-cover.jpg

Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main

2026-09-27T13:22:34Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add Wikinomics (historical seedbed) to Foundations index

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal has lots of clever, fair ideas built into it, about money, trust, sharing, and solving arguments. This page is the big list where you can find every one of them and read what each does.}}
{{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. This page is an index: each innovation is one table row with a very short description; the full explanation lives on its dedicated page.}}
{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#mix-culture|Principles]]
* [[#innovation-criteria|Innovation criteria]]
* [[#how-to-read|How to read this page]]
* [[#foundations|Foundations]]
* [[#ecosystem-at-large|WikiDeal ecosystem at large]]
* [[#specific-marketplaces|Specific marketplaces]]
}}
__NOTOC__

= WikiDeal socio-economic innovations =
''Innovations index, WikiDeal R&D. Each innovation is one table row; the full explanation lives on its dedicated page.''


== Principles ==

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.

The process is an '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_design iterative process]''': each innovation moves forward in short cycles (design, test, collect feedback through qualitative and quantitative analyses, adjust, test again), so that every cycle produces a version slightly better than the previous one. This is the logic of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research action research] and of successive refinement, and it is at the heart of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wiki culture] that produced Wikipedia: publish early, improve continuously, keep every version, learn while doing, keeping a balance between overall coherence and going to the essentials. Some innovations are planned for testing and not yet deployed.

The innovations form '''two parts''', both listed on this page to give a global vision: the '''core''', meaning the innovations that concern the WikiDeal ecosystem at large, and the innovations '''specific to the marketplaces'''. The majority of the innovations are expected to appear progressively in the different marketplaces.

The list is '''open and unlimited''': the count does not matter, only the innovations do. These are intended as '''citizen-initiated innovations''': ideas stemming from citizen initiative, proposed and refined in the open. The methodology envisaged to move them from idea to prototype and deployment (five work profiles combined with open calls) is described on the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Supported Deployment|AI Supported Deployment]] page.

''For the broader philosophical context of this research, see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision|Intention and Vision of the research program]].''

Two foundational principles carry all the others:

* '''Innovation number one: participative agreement design.''' Agreements designed participatively, together with the whole contributive ecosystem built around them (compensatory measures, amendments, use cases, legal references, common errors, alerts, expected-results models, quality criteria), '''endorsed by lawyers'''; the contracts are intended to be '''fair, balanced and consumer approved''', serving the interests of users and providers, not the interests of third-party structures. The double platform (contract models endorsed by lawyers, plus smartphone applications built on those models) is the technical element supporting this innovation.
* '''Innovation number two: the same governance as Wikipedia''', applied to deals and marketplaces instead of encyclopedic knowledge.

Both appear as rows in the Foundations table below, with their dedicated pages.


== Innovation criteria ==

What qualifies an idea as an innovation worth listing here? The criteria below guide the selection. The first five reflect the current working basis; the last three are additional proposals, offered as a basis for discussion. These criteria are intended to be revisited in connection with the [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Main|Vision portal]].

# '''It answers a real need.''' An innovation is retained because it addresses a concrete problem, not for the pleasure of studying it.
# '''The devil is in the details.''' Sometimes a single detail, better calibrated, makes a large difference in practice.
# '''A new field of application.''' Applying an existing mechanism to a field where it is not common counts as innovation: for example, applying the free licences of the software and knowledge world, such as CC BY-SA, to contracts is not common practice.
# '''Anonymous, privacy-respecting data collection.''' The innovation allows qualitative and quantitative analyses without exposing personal data.
# '''Societal good.''' In synthesis: fairness and preservation. The innovation contributes to societal fairness (equity of chances) and to the preservation of common non-renewable resources, material as well as immaterial, reducing the weakening of life on Earth, in a context where the United Nations and scientific bodies document the beginning of a mass extinction: see the [https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment IPBES 2019 Global Assessment], the [https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ IPCC Sixth Assessment Report] and the [https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/biodiversity United Nations overview on biodiversity and climate].
# '''Reversibility (proposed, basis for discussion).''' An innovation should be testable and measurable, and it should be possible to roll it back without harming the people who tried it.
# '''Transferability (proposed, basis for discussion).''' An innovation should work across countries and legal systems, or at least clearly document the adaptations it needs.
# '''Simplicity of access (proposed, basis for discussion).''' An innovation should be understandable and usable without expert knowledge, so that it does not create a new elite of specialists.


== How to read this page ==

Every innovation appears as one table row, with a link to its dedicated page and a very short description. The origin of each innovation is documented on its own page and in the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Licensing-and-Credits|credits]].

Each table also proposes an '''integration status''' indicating the maturity of the innovation within the WikiDeal research program. The scale uses the following 5-level taxonomy:
* '''Conceptualization & Invention''': We are actively inventing or shaping the solution (e.g., the Needs-driven stabilizer).
* '''First Hypothesis Formalized''': The initial concept is documented and ready for community feedback.
* '''Ready for Experimentation''': The mechanism (often adapted from existing models) is configured and ready to be tested.
* '''Pilot Experience Mode''': The innovation is currently undergoing live testing and pilot deployment (e.g., Open Calls).
* '''Documented and Adopted''': Fully integrated and active as a core rule of the platform (e.g., Libre Licensing).


== Foundations ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikinomics|Wikinomics]] || Historical seedbed (2013–2014) || (Concept: [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) One of the fertile grounds on which WikiDeal grew: the 2006 Tapscott–Williams concept of mass collaboration, transferred in 2013–2014 into a VET/ECVET pedagogy with Open Badges, and revisited by WikiDeal to turn the pedagogical dimension into a contractual one. Formalised in Priftis, Bondolfi, Boisselier (Springer, 2014).
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Participative Agreement Design|Participative Agreement Design]] || First hypothesis formalized || Participative design of agreements and of the contributive ecosystem around them (compensatory measures, amendments, use cases, legal references, common errors, alerts, expected-results models, quality criteria), endorsed by lawyers; the double platform is the supporting technical element.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]] || First hypothesis formalized || 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]] || Ready for experimentation || (Concept: [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) Contracts drafted participatively on a wiki, organized around common contract bases, then endorsed by lawyers.
|}


== WikiDeal ecosystem at large ==

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


=== Governance ===

Marketplace quality is intended to rest on governance mechanisms rather than on a central authority.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Hybrid Governance Model]] || Under study || A hybrid of three sources: the open rule-making of Wikipedia and the free software movement, the at-cost management and user ownership of cooperatives, and Swiss-style collegial executives elected by an assembly of delegates. Detailed on the Governance page.
|-
| [[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 services in case of adaptation or dispute.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rating Balance|Rating Balancing Policy]] || Under study || Proactive balancing of marketplace ratings, keeping feedback honest, calibrated and diversified.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Bonding Curve|Bonding Curve]] || First Hypothesis Formalized || (Concept: [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) Transparent algorithm converting funding contributions into Rewards (the association of the bonding curve and rewards is a core Ynternet.org concept); early funders get more per CHF.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Need-Driven Funding|Need-Driven Funding]] || Conceptualization & Invention || (Concept: [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) Reward ratio regulation: a second algorithm adjusting rewards to the real needs of the platform.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Annual Value Increase|Annual Value Increase (draft Open Call)]] || Under study || Possible annual increase on rewards, under study through a draft Open Call; the multiplier is considered more relevant than an added percentage.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Double Commission|Double Commission]] || Under study || Two small, transparent fees per transaction: a platform fee and a User Group fee.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Deprivatization|Deprivatization]] || Under study || Reclaiming extractive markets as user-governed commons; forms one whole with Exit to Community and [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards]].
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Exit To Community|Exit to Community]] || First hypothesis formalized || Progressive transfer of governance, ownership and value to the user community; donation-based, legally non-speculative.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Time Resource Bank|Time and Resource Bank (Karma tokens)]] || Under study || Exchange of unexploited resources via Karma tokens: not a currency, facilities comparable to discounts. By sharing unused resources and/or contributing as a volunteer, you can earn Karma tokens, usable within your Rings of Trust to get access to services and goods such as housing, transportation or food (initial hypothesis; not a currency in the legal sense). "Karma token" is a working name and may change.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Subscription|CHF 1/Month Subscription]] || Under study || Solidarity-priced membership; one month of usage = CHF 1 nominal.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Subscription-or-Membership|Subscription or Membership]] || Under study || Naming reflection: subscribers would also be members with voting rights; "subscription" chosen as the more inclusive term.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive (Civic Flex Pricing)]] || Under study || Better prices and other advantages rewarding civic participation (voting, volunteering, workshops), applied through flexible pricing; the average discount is the subject of a draft [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Civic-Flex-Pricing|Open Call]].
|}


=== Trust and security ===

Trust and security combine dispute resolution, reconciliation processes and interoperability agreements between user groups.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Arbitration Chambers|Arbitration Chambers]] || First Hypothesis Formalized || (Concept: [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) Three-level dispute resolution (Simplified Arbitration) with Condorcet voting, inspired by Wikimedia's ArbCom.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Truth Reconciliation|Commercial Truth & Reconciliation]] || Under study || Formal process to repair distrust and prevent forks caused by personal conflict.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rings Of Trust|Rings of Trust]] || Under study || Inter-User-Group agreements enabling Karma token interoperability.
|}


=== Direct democracy and free licensing global governance ===

This family 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 what is at stake; for the more complex decisions, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet voting] can be used.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Calls]] || Pilot Experience Mode || (Concept adapted by [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation], see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|credits]]) Open invitations for community proposals; they make the governance porous and flexible. Waves, awards and status: see the Open Calls portal.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Participatory Observatory|Participatory Observatories]] || Under study || Unlimited citizen-run observatories, created by theme by user groups, with Slashdot-style karma moderation.
|}


=== Technology ===

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Libre Licensing|Systematic Libre Licensing]] || Documented and adopted || 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:Structured Data|Structured Data (Linked Data)]] || Under study || RDF, JSON-LD, and Wikidata integration for semantic interoperability.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikimedia Marker|Wikimedia Marker (WM-XX)]] || First hypothesis formalized || Nomenclature marking elements inspired by Wikimedia Foundation practices, being reframed around contract variables.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Disclaimer|AI Disclaimer]] || First hypothesis formalized || Mandatory transparency marker on every AI-assisted page, requiring disclosure and human validation.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Supported Deployment|AI Supported Deployment]] || First hypothesis formalized || Five AI-era work profiles combined with Open Calls to move from idea to prototype to deployment.
|}


== Specific marketplaces ==

The second block gathers the innovations that concern specific marketplaces. It is expected to become very large over time, as many contributors bring many innovations; entries state, where relevant, which marketplace they concern.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Innovation !! Integration status !! Summary
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]] || First hypothesis formalized || The coopetitive core of the Market: autonomous communities organizing freely, with their own governance and commissions. Concerns every marketplace.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Maturity Score|Use Case Maturity Score]] || Under study || Incubation and development indicator, showing how far a use case has developed. Concerns every marketplace portal.
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Revenue Spreading|Revenue Spreading]] || Under study || Payout choice for dialoguers, revenue better distributed, serving the interests of NGOs. Concerns the street fundraising marketplace (fundraising through dialogue).
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Reverse Abuse|Reverse Abuse]] || Under study || Reusing multinationals' legal financial structures to repatriate value to small producers and user-governed supply chains.
|}

''Reference language: English. Each innovation has its own page under [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D]].''

----
'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D Portal]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call portal]]

[[Category:Innovation]]

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikinomics

2026-09-27T13:22:07Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Wikinomics article (historical seedbed 2013-2014 of WikiDeal)

{{KidsIntro|Wikinomics is the idea that lots of people can build great things together, like on Wikipedia — and WikiDeal was born from it.}}

{{ExpertIntro|'''Wikinomics''' — a term coined by Tapscott & Williams (2006) to describe mass collaboration, peer production and prosumers — became in 2013–2014 a pedagogical innovation research project co-signed by members of the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] (Geneva), which today governs WikiDeal. The project set out to spread the '''wiki behaviours''' observed on Wikipedia and beyond: anyone can edit, participative governance, every contribution is traceable, and decision-making that is not pyramidal but scales with complexity — consensual and '''sociocratic''' when complexity is high (see [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]]). In its original form, documented in resources such as the [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills] handbook, all of these behaviours were focused on '''competence development''' (VET, Open Badges, ECVET). WikiDeal keeps the behaviours but changes the object: the pedagogical dimension becomes a '''contractual dimension''' — fair, wiki-governed contracts with just redistribution of value, operationalised through [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|collaborative contract editing]].}}

The article reproduced below, unchanged from 2013–2014, is the '''fertile ground''' — the seedbed — from which WikiDeal grew. Read it knowing what it does not yet contain: the leap '''from competences to contracts'''. Everything the project taught people to do with skills — edit openly, govern together, trace every contribution — WikiDeal now applies to agreements and the sharing of value. Same wiki behaviours, new stakes.

<gallery mode="packed" heights="260px">
File:LNCS8699-front-cover.jpg|Front cover — ''New Horizons in Web Based Learning'', LNCS 8699 (Springer, 2014). The chapter ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept'' appears at pp. 153–161.
File:LNCS8699-authors.jpg|Author Index — Priftis, Bondolfi and Boisselier are listed at page 153.
File:LNCS8699-back-cover.jpg|Back cover — Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISBN 978-3-319-13295-2, ISSN 0302-9743.
</gallery>

{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#origin|Origin of the term]]
* [[#limits|The limits Wikinomics exposed]]
* [[#project|The 2013–2014 Wikinomics project]]
* [[#seedbed|A fertile ground for WikiDeal]]
* [[#wikibooks|Source material on Wikibooks]]
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]
}}
__NOTOC__


== Origin of the term ==

The term '''Wikinomics''' was introduced and framed internationally by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams in ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything'' (2006). It describes how open, wiki-style collaboration restructures the socio-economic organisation of post-industrial societies. Its central concepts — '''mass creativity''', '''peer production''' and '''co-creation''' — blur the traditional distinction between producers and consumers, giving rise to the figure of the "'''prosumer'''", who both consumes and produces value.


== The limits Wikinomics exposed ==

The Wikinomics vision has often been criticised as a subtle form of labour outsourcing: unpaid or under-recognised "prosumer" work can become a way of extracting free labour from consumers and collaborators, while the majority of the value is captured elsewhere. Drawing on authors such as Fred Turner (''From Counterculture to Cyberculture'', 2006) and José van Dijck (''The Culture of Connectivity'', 2013), the critique warns that a "culture of sharing" can mask a real asymmetry between the value created by a community and the reward it actually receives.

This is precisely the tension WikiDeal was designed to address: not to abandon mass collaboration, but to build the economic and governance mechanisms that let collaborative value be recognised, tracked and fairly redistributed.


== The 2013–2014 Wikinomics project ==

Following the '''[https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills]''' European network, the '''Wikinomics project''' set out to turn the Wikinomics idea into a positive, workable pedagogy rather than leaving it as a critique. It used free-culture and wiki methodologies as the basis for an innovative approach to Vocational Education and Training (VET), and connected the work to a transnational European network of practitioners and to TEDx events.

Its main lines of work were:

* '''Key competences''': developing a framework of key competences, transversal to all VET sectors, required for employability in a rapidly changing labour market — aligned with the European Key Competences for Lifelong Learning.
* '''ECVET transfer''': applying the European Credit system for VET (ECVET) so that learning outcomes could be assessed, recognised, made transparent, transferable and portable across European countries.
* '''Open Badges''': using Mozilla Open Badges to materialise learning outcomes, with qualification profiles described as units of learning outcomes, assessed through both self-assessment and peer assessment, in academic and professional contexts alike.

The project's conclusions proposed to '''enrich the Wikinomics approach''' through pilot VET projects, collaborative writing and evaluation, and a continually maintained transnational network of open-badge issuers, involving VET teachers, trainers and students as well as businesses and associations.


== A fertile ground for WikiDeal ==

The Wikinomics project (2013–2014) is best understood as '''one of the fertile grounds (seedbeds)''' on which WikiDeal was later developed. Three threads carry directly into WikiDeal:

# '''Fair recognition of collaborative value.''' The project's core worry — that collaborative labour can be extracted without fair reward — is the problem WikiDeal's economic innovations (subscription tokens, need-driven funding, real-cost commission, revenue spreading) are built to solve.
# '''Wiki governance applied to the economy.''' The reliance on transparent wiki processes and communities of practice prefigures WikiDeal's [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia-style governance]] and [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Collaborative Contract Editing|collaborative contract editing]].
# '''Recognition infrastructure.''' The Open Badges / ECVET emphasis on portable, peer-validated recognition anticipates WikiDeal's attention to trust, endorsement and verifiable track records.

The academic formalisation of this work was published as:

: Priftis, A., Bondolfi, T., Boisselier, Y. (2014). ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept: Towards New Methodological Approaches.'' In: Cao, Y. et al. (Eds.), ICWL 2014 Workshops, LNCS 8699, pp. 153–161. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17]

Two of the three co-authors were affiliated with the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] (Geneva), which today stewards WikiDeal's governance — making Wikinomics a direct lineage rather than a distant inspiration.


== Source material on Wikibooks ==

The practical materials of the Wikinomics and WikiSkills projects live as an open book on '''Wikibooks''' (the free-content textbook project of the Wikimedia ecosystem):

* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills Handbook] (main book)
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wikinomics_Training_practices Wikinomics Training practices]
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wiki_Key_Competencies Wiki Key Competencies]
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Badges Badges]


== State of the art ==

* Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D. (2006). ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything.'' Portfolio, New York.
* Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D. (2010). ''Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World.'' Portfolio/Penguin.
* Turner, F. (2006). ''From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism.'' University of Chicago Press.
* Van Dijck, J. (2013). ''The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media.'' Oxford University Press.
* Priftis, A., Bondolfi, T., Boisselier, Y. (2014). ''Revisiting the Wikinomics Concept: Towards New Methodological Approaches.'' ICWL 2014 Workshops, LNCS 8699, pp. 153–161. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_17]

File:LNCS8699-back-cover.jpg

2026-09-27T13:22:03Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

File:LNCS8699-authors.jpg

2026-09-27T13:21:59Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

File:LNCS8699-front-cover.jpg

2026-09-27T13:21:55Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

Wikinomics article: LNCS 8699 (Springer 2014) cover / authors

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Double Commission

2026-09-24T10:47:24Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Redirect to renamed page Real Cost Commission

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Real Cost Commission]]

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Real Cost Commission

2026-09-24T10:47:20Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Real Cost Commission (renamed & enriched from Double Commission): 4-5 components, transparency policies, Airbnb/Uber comparison

{{KidsIntro|When people exchange things on WikiDeal, they only pay the "real cost" to keep the platform running safely. There are no secret fees to make rich owners richer. It's like a cooperative where everyone works together to keep prices fair and low.}}
{{ExpertIntro|The Real Cost Commission is a proposed fee structure designed to operate strictly at "real cost." It splits into four to five transparent components (five when a credit card is used, four with a wallet). Cost levels are not fixed unilaterally: they are set within a framework of policies discussed periodically between users and providers. Unlike speculative platforms that extract profit for shareholders, this cooperative model eliminates profit margins, aiming for commissions roughly 20% lower than commercial equivalents (Airbnb typically 15-20%, Uber up to 30%). The model combines professional services with volunteer contributions to maintain affordability, supporting socio-economic rebalancing and the "long tail" of independent actors.}}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Origin || 🔵 Wikimedia Foundation / Cooperative models
|-
| Status || Prototype 1 - In testing
|-
| Key term || '''Real Cost Commission'''
|}

Most people who sell a service through a commercial platform discover, sometimes with surprise, how much of the price never reaches them. The problem is structural: closed platforms have shareholders to satisfy, so fees tend to grow opaquely to generate profit. The '''Real Cost Commission''' aims to take the opposite path: a cooperative approach operating strictly at '''real cost''', with commissions defined transparently within a framework of policies discussed periodically between users and providers.

{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#real-cost|The core principle: At real cost, without profit]]
* [[#transparency|Transparency: policies discussed periodically]]
* [[#volunteering-and-professionalization|Combining professionalization and volunteering]]
* [[#how-it-works|How the Real Cost Commission works: four to five components]]
* [[#socio-economic-impact|Socio-economic rebalancing (The Long Tail)]]
* [[#philosophical-vision|Philosophical vision: Taking back the economy]]
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]
}}
__NOTOC__


== The core principle: At real cost, without profit ==
The fundamental concept behind the Real Cost Commission is the "real cost" economy, inspired by housing cooperatives (like those under the Swiss Federal Office for Housing) and mutual insurance cooperatives.

Because WikiDeal has no investors seeking dividends—only users acting as partners—there is no need to generate a profit margin. The commissions are defined transparently based on what is strictly necessary to run the service: accounting audits, daily management, and infrastructure.

This model aims to be '''approximately 20% cheaper''' than speculative commercial platforms. For example, where commercial transport platforms such as Uber can charge up to 30%, a cooperative approach could lower this to around 10%; where accommodation platforms such as Airbnb typically charge 15-20%, the real-cost approach keeps only what running the service actually requires. In the housing sector, cooperative rents are typically 20% below speculative market rates.


== Transparency: policies discussed periodically ==
The Real Cost Commission is not a percentage decided behind closed doors. The cost levels and the packages attached to them are set within a '''framework of policies discussed periodically between users and providers'''. Because the platform takes no hidden margin, every component is shown openly and can be challenged, compared and revised through this participatory process. Transparency is therefore not only a display of numbers, but a governance commitment: the people who pay the commission and the people who receive it shape together what "real cost" means.


== Combining professionalization and volunteering ==
To maintain these low real costs, the ecosystem relies on a hybrid model. During the startup phase, and permanently thereafter, the system mixes professional paid work (salaries or mandates) with volunteer contributions.

This is similar to the evolution of the Wikimedia Foundation and its User Groups over 25 years: moving from a single structure to dozens of professionalized entities, but always retaining a strong base of volunteering. Some people might provide paid services, while others volunteer time to support the cooperative itself. The cursor between volunteerism and professionalization adjusts dynamically, but the primary indicator remains constant: keeping real costs low and affordable.


== How the Real Cost Commission works: four to five components ==
Every transaction on WikiDeal carries a transparent breakdown of '''four to five components''' — five when the payment is made by credit card, four when it is made with a wallet. The first line is the final beneficiary; the others are transparent, at-cost commissions:

# '''The final beneficiary (the provider)''': by far the largest share (roughly 80-90%), paid to the person or organization actually delivering the service (e.g. babysitting, transport).
# '''The User Group fee''': a small share (roughly 1-10%, illustrative) for the local or thematic community that runs the specific service (organization, welcoming newcomers, support).
# '''The WikiDeal operator fee (WI-SUP, Wikideal Support)''': a small share sustaining the common technical and governance infrastructure, charged strictly at real cost.
# '''The subscription top-up''': a micro-amount covering the cost of the subscription since the last transaction, for those who have not paid the automatic subscription. It can range from a few cents to a few francs.
# '''The payment-processing fee (credit card only)''': the fee charged by the card network (e.g. Visa) or other payment intermediaries. This fifth component exists only when the user pays by credit card; with a wallet, there are only four components.

All components are charged strictly at cost and shown openly.


=== Flexible packages and internal competition ===
Commissions are not fixed, universal percentages. They are flexibilized based on user choices and the specific policies of different [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]].

For instance, a User Group might offer a commission package that includes mandatory cancellation insurance or high-level support, while another might offer a lower commission with no insurance and less support. For recurring transactions (like a long-term rental extension or regular transport), the effort required from the platform drops, and the commission could drop proportionally.

This creates healthy internal competition: User Groups will propose different definitions of "real cost" and different service packages, allowing users to make conscious choices.


== Socio-economic rebalancing (The Long Tail) ==
By operating at real cost, the Real Cost Commission does more than just lower prices. It is a tool for socio-economic rebalancing.

In today's speculative economy, transaction after transaction, a fraction of the value is siphoned off to a tiny minority—the 1% who own the majority of global wealth (as highlighted by UN inequality reports). By eliminating this extractive profit, value stays within the "long tail" of independent actors and local communities. The goal is not to aggressively crush competitors like multinational tech monopolies do, but to inclusively gather all the actors of the long tail into a fair-trade framework.

Keeping costs low also acts as a powerful support mechanism for families in socio-economic fragility. Much like institutional social programs (such as the ''Bolsa Família'' in Brazil, where [https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/785831468234882195/pdf/879610NWP0Bols00Box385214B00PUBLIC0.pdf reports show] most beneficiaries use the aid for an average of 3 years before exiting poverty), the WikiDeal cooperative model aims to provide temporary, community-driven economic relief that helps people get back on their feet.


== Philosophical vision: Taking back the economy ==
Ultimately, the Real Cost Commission is tied to WikiDeal's [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Main|Founding Question]]. It represents a philosophical shift: users taking the economy back into their own hands to manage it better.

It proves that a global marketplace can be owned, run, and sustained by its users, at real cost, turning an extractive economy into a mutualist one.

----


== State of the art ==
Small transparent fees on each transaction relate to the economics of two-sided markets and to research on cooperative platform ownership. These references provide context, not validation.

* Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole (2006), ''Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report'', RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3): [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x].
* Marc Rysman (2009), ''The Economics of Two-Sided Markets'', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3): [https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.3.125 doi:10.1257/jep.23.3.125] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market two-sided market on Wikipedia].
* Andrei Hagiu and Julian Wright (2015), ''Marketplace or Reseller?'', Management Science, 61(1): [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2042 doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2042].
* Trebor Scholz (2016), ''Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy'', Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative platform cooperative on Wikipedia].
* Trebor Scholz and Nathan Schneider, editors (2016), ''Ours to Hack and to Own: The Rise of Platform Cooperativism'', OR Books: [https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/ours-to-hack-and-to-own/ publisher page].

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D Portal]]

[[Category:Innovation]]

Markets/en/Portal:Coop Housing/Main

2026-09-20T18:34:06Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards a paradigm where cooperative housing communities leverage digital governance infrastructure to codify implicit social contracts and distribute administrative burden. This hypothesis proposes that modular, libre contract toolkits—combining community charters, cohabitation agreements, and shared resource protocols—can reduce member burnout and conflict escalation while maintaining democratic autonomy without corporate-style bureaucracy.}}

{{KidsIntro|A way for people to share and run housing together fairly as a community.}}

__TOC__

= Use Case: Cooperative Housing — Shared Living & Community Land Trusts =

=== 📋 Use Case Overview ===

TypeCooperative housing agreement

Maturity⭐☆☆☆☆ (concept phase)

User Group(s)Housing User Group

Ring(s)Eco-Living Ring

Active funders6 (illustrative)

Contracts signed0 (pre-launch)

Cash/Karma-token ratio20% / 80% (Need-Driven Funding dependent)

Avg. satisfaction— (pre-launch)

DeploymentLocal

ProgrammeReal Estate Programme

All figures are illustrative unless otherwise stated.

Table of Contents

*
*
*
*
*
*

== 1. Context & Problem ==

Cooperative housing is one of the oldest responses to urban housing crises. Housing cooperatives, community land trusts (CLTs), and coliving communities offer an alternative to speculative real estate — land and housing held in common, governed democratically, with affordability protected for the long term.

But managing a cooperative housing community is administratively complex:

* '''Cohabitation agreements:''' Who is responsible for what? How are shared spaces managed? What happens when a member leaves?
* '''Shared resource allocation:''' The car, the tools, the vegetable garden, the laundry machines — how are shared resources scheduled, maintained, and accounted for?
* '''New member onboarding:''' What do new members commit to? How is their integration managed? What rights do they have from day one vs. after probation?
* '''Conflict resolution:''' Noise, cleanliness, guests, lifestyle differences — conflicts are inevitable in shared living. Without clear agreements and processes, they escalate.
* '''Governance participation:''' Meetings, votes, decisions — how are they documented and how do absent members participate?

Most coops handle this with a mix of informal agreements, word-of-mouth rules, and occasional community meetings that become emotionally charged. The result: burnout among the most engaged members, unequal application of rules, and departures that feel unfair to everyone.

The WikiDeal opportunity: '''bring contract clarity and governance tools to cooperative housing communities without imposing corporate-style bureaucracy'''.

== 2. The WikiDeal Concept ==

WikiDeal offers cooperative housing communities a '''modular governance and contract toolkit''':

* '''Community Charter:''' A living document — the community's constitution. Covers values, decision-making rules, conflict resolution process, and the rights and responsibilities of members. Published on WikiDeal's open wiki, adaptable under CC BY-SA.
* '''Cohabitation Agreement:''' Signed by each member upon joining. Covers private space vs. shared space rules, noise, guests, pets, cleanliness standards, and financial contributions.
* '''Shared Resource Protocols:''' Individual mini-contracts for each shared resource — the car, the workshop, the garden plot. Who has access, how is usage tracked, who pays for maintenance?
* '''Member Onboarding & Exit:''' A structured process for new member integration and graceful exits — including a transition period, knowledge transfer, and deposit return.
* '''Governance Log:''' All decisions made by the community are recorded on WikiDeal — time-stamped, searchable, and accessible to all members. No more "we decided that at the meeting in March" without a record.

WikiDeal's role is '''contract Infrastructure and governance memory'''. The community retains full autonomy over its own rules — WikiDeal provides the tools to write them down, agree on them, and remember them.

== 3. User Journey (7 steps) ==

Community Registration

The housing community registers as a WikiDeal user group. An administrator (rotating role) is designated. The community's founding documents (statutes, charter) are uploaded and linked to the WikiDeal profile.

Charter Creation

The community uses WikiDeal's Charter Builder to create or import their community charter. The builder provides standard clauses (conflict resolution, meeting rules, financial contributions) which the community can modify. Once finalized, the charter is voted on by all members and published on the community's WikiDeal page.

Member Onboarding

New members go through a structured onboarding: they receive the charter, the cohabitation agreement, and a community welcome document. They sign the cohabitation agreement digitally. A 3-month integration period begins, during which a mentor member is assigned.

Shared Resource Management

Each shared resource is registered on WikiDeal with its own protocol: booking calendar, maintenance schedule, cost-sharing formula. Members can book shared resources via the WikiDeal interface. Usage is logged automatically.

Governance & Decisions

Community meetings are logged on WikiDeal. Decisions are recorded with vote counts and reasoning. Absent members can cast weighted asynchronous votes within a defined window. The governance log is accessible to all members, past and present.

Conflict Resolution

When a conflict arises, any member can initiate a WikiDeal mediation request. The conflict is first addressed through the community's own process (defined in the charter). If unresolved, a WikiDeal human intermediary steps in — with access to the governance log and cohabitation agreements for context.

Member Exit & Continuity

When a member leaves, the exit protocol activates: knowledge transfer checklist, shared resource handover, deposit calculation, and a farewell document acknowledging contributions. The departing member's governance log remains accessible for continuity.

== 4. Model Contract (simplified) ==

==== 📋 Cohabitation Agreement — Cooperative Housing (WikiDeal Template) ====

'''Article 1 — Parties'''
The Community: [Community Name], WikiDeal User Group ID [XXXX], located at [address].
The Member: [First Name Last Name], WikiDeal ID [XXXX], room/unit [X].

'''Article 2 — Private Space'''
The Member has exclusive use of [Room/Unit X], area [X m²], from [start date]. Monthly contribution to shared costs: [CHF/EUR X]. The contribution covers: [rent share / utilities / maintenance fund / as itemized in Annex A].

'''Article 3 — Shared Spaces'''
The Member has equal access to all shared spaces: [kitchen, living room, garden, workshop, etc.]. Shared space rules are defined in the Community Charter (Annex B). The Member acknowledges having read and agreed to the Charter.

'''Article 4 — Shared Resources'''
The Member may use shared resources (car, tools, etc.) according to the resource protocols published on the WikiDeal community page. Booking conflicts are resolved by the rotating resource manager. Damage to shared resources is repaired at cost by the responsible member.

'''Article 5 — Governance Participation'''
The Member commits to: (a) attending at least [X%] of community meetings per year, or voting asynchronously within [48 hours]; (b) taking on at least one shared responsibility role per year (rotating basis); (c) contributing to the governance log after decisions.

'''Article 6 — Guests'''
Short-term guests (1–3 nights) are welcome without prior notice. Guests staying [4–14 nights] require notification to the community. Guests staying more than [14 nights] require community approval by simple majority.

'''Article 7 — Conflict Resolution'''
Conflicts shall first be addressed through direct dialogue (with a witness if desired). If unresolved within [7 days], the community mediation process activates. If still unresolved, the WikiDeal Dispute Resolution Service is called in. The Member waives the right to legal action for disputes under CHF/EUR [amount] before exhausting these processes.

'''Article 8 — Exit Protocol'''
The Member gives [30 days] written notice of departure. During the notice period: knowledge transfer, resource handover, and deposit calculation. The deposit [CHF/EUR X] is returned within [15 days] of departure, less any documented damages or outstanding contributions.

== 5. Concrete Scenario ==

==== 🏠 Example: Ecopol Living Lab, Geneva ====

'''Situation:''' Ecopol is a cooperative living community in Geneva — 18 adults and 4 children sharing a converted farmhouse. The community has existed for 6 years. It has a charter, but it was written in 2019 and nobody remembers what it says. Three governance disputes in the last year were never formally resolved. Two members left over a conflict about the shared car. The community wants to formalize without losing its warmth.

'''The challenge:''' Update the governance Infrastructure without making the community feel like a corporation. Members are idealistic — they are allergic to bureaucracy. But they are exhausted by unresolved conflicts.

'''WikiDeal Migration:'''

# Ecopol registers as a WikiDeal user group. The Ecopol living lab becomes one of WikiDeal's official test sites — the community gets free access to all tools in exchange for publishing what they learn.
# Over two community evenings, members use the Charter Builder to update the 2019 charter. The new charter is voted on (17/18 in favor, one abstention). Published on WikiDeal.
# All 18 members sign updated cohabitation agreements. The shared car gets a proper resource protocol — booking calendar, maintenance fund, cost-sharing formula. Three immediate bookings happen the same day.
# Month 4: first conflict (noise dispute between two rooms). The mediation process activates for the first time. Resolved in 6 days — the fastest and least damaging resolution in the community's history.
# Ecopol presents its experience at the WikiDeal Community Migrations Observatory. Four other coliving communities in Switzerland and France begin the same process.

'''Governance log entries (year 1):''' 47 decisions recorded, 12 shared resource bookings per week average, 2 conflicts resolved through mediation. '''Zero legal disputes.'''

== 6. Frequently Asked Questions ==

'''Does WikiDeal work for formal housing cooperatives (with legal registration)?'''
Yes. WikiDeal's contract layer works alongside formal legal structures. For legally registered cooperatives, WikiDeal provides the internal governance and contract tools — it does not replace the official statutes but complements them with practical day-to-day tools.

'''What about community land trusts (CLTs)?'''
CLTs have specific legal structures that vary by country. WikiDeal can serve as the governance and contract layer for the community living on CLT land, while the CLT's legal structure remains handled by specialized legal counsel. WikiDeal's libre licensed contracts can be adapted for CLT-specific clauses.

'''How does WikiDeal handle communities without internet access?'''
WikiDeal is designed to work asynchronously. Decisions can be recorded by a designated member on behalf of the community. Paper versions of all contracts can be generated and stored physically — digital signatures are optional.

'''Can WikiDeal handle financial contributions and rent payments?'''
WikiDeal records financial agreements and tracks contributions, but does not process payments directly. Communities can use any payment method — bank transfer, cash, internal credit — and record Transactions on WikiDeal for transparency.

'''What happens if the community dissolves?'''
All governance records, contracts, and decisions are exportable in portable formats (PDF, JSON). The community can take everything with them. WikiDeal does not hold data hostage — this is a core principle of the platform.

=== 📊 Success Indicators ===

Key performance indicators for the Cooperative Housing marketplace use case. These targets are indicative and community-modifiable as the programme matures.

Properties in Network

≥ 10 / region

Target for cooperative housing network viability per regional cluster

Average Occupancy Rate

≥ 80%

Proportion of available housing units occupied at any time

Member Satisfaction

≥ 4.2 / 5

Annual survey of cooperative members on housing quality and governance

Commission Rate

≤ 1.5%

Platform Commission on cooperative housing Transactions

Governance Participation Rate

≥ 60%

Percentage of cooperative members voting in annual assembly

New Properties Onboarded / Year

≥ 5 / region

Annual growth of the regional housing cooperative network

Conflict Resolution Time

≤ 30 days

Average time from dispute filing to resolution

→ See also: WikiDeal Socio-Economic Success Criteria

=== ✅ Quality Criteria ===

ISO-inspired quality standards for the Cooperative Housing use case. Standards are reviewed annually by the community.

{| class="wikitable quality-table"
|-
! Standard
! Dimension
! Criteria
! Target
|-
| QS-CH-001
| Housing Standards
| All cooperative properties inspected before onboarding. Habitability certificate required. Annual condition review.
| '''100% certified habitable'''
|-
| QS-CH-002
| Democratic Governance
| All major decisions (pricing, new members, rule changes) put to member vote with ≥ 2 weeks notice. Results published.
| '''100% democratic decisions'''
|-
| QS-CH-003
| Financial Transparency
| Cooperative accounts audited annually by independent auditor. Full financial report shared with all members.
| '''Annual independent audit'''
|-
| QS-CH-004
| Member Protection
| Eviction procedures require unanimous officer approval + mediation attempt + 90-day notice minimum.
| '''Zero summary evictions'''
|-
| QS-CH-005
| User Satisfaction
| Annual member survey including safety, maintenance responsiveness, community relations, governance quality.
| '''≥ 4.0 / 5 on all dimensions'''
|}

→ See also: WikiDeal Socio-Economic Success Criteria

== Portal structure (model) ==
This portal follows the standard WikiDeal market-portal structure. Each market portal offers the same set of content types (the base contract, models, amendments, addenda, lawyer-validated contracts, legal references, compensation, etc.), even when some are still empty:

{{MarketPortal|Coop Housing}}

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Successful-Appeals

2026-09-20T18:33:59Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|Sometimes people receive a fine or a bill that is not fair. Some people write a letter to say "this is not right", and they win. While help for this already exists elsewhere, it is almost never under a free license. On WikiDeal, we collect these winning letters under a free license, the exact same as Wikipedia, so they can be freely shared by everyone. By clearly identifying scenarios of failure and success from the start, and keeping all names removed, many more people can learn how to defend themselves politely and legally. The best letters can win a reward.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This early bird open call, part of the First Wave of WikiDeal Open Calls, collects anonymised model letters of appeals and oppositions that successfully overturned unfair constraints. While support ecosystems already exist, their resources are rarely under a free license. On WikiDeal, all collected models are published under a free license (the same as Wikipedia). These templates constitute a digital commons—a shared heritage of good practices enabling citizens to assert their rights. A key focus from the start is identifying specific scenarios of failure and success, allowing users to understand exactly what works. The call starts in Switzerland, with the door open to France and possibly the United States at a later stage. Submitted models must be fully neutralised (no names, no dates, no places) yet accompanied by evidence that the appeal actually succeeded. A first tranche of CHF 1,000 in direct cash is proposed for Switzerland, within a global envelope envisaged up to CHF 100,000 for about 1,000 models as the call extends to other regions. The resulting model library is reserved to WikiDeal subscribers, including AI-assisted search over the collection. Proposals are posted on the discussion page of this call, with a mandatory AI transparency disclosure.}}

{| class="infobox" style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 300px; font-size: 90%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.2em;"
! colspan="2" style="background: #ccf; text-align: center;" | Open Call Status
|-
! Wave
| First Wave (Early Bird)
|-
! Status
| Launched
|-
! Members / Commission
| Undetermined (Under construction)
|-
! Chairperson
| TBD
|-
! Facilitator
| TBD
|}

{{RFC}}
__TOC__

= Open call: successful appeals and oppositions against unfair constraints =

{| class="wikitable"
! Item !! Detail
|-
| Status || Launched
|-
| Informal launch || 1 January 2027 (to be confirmed)
|-
| Deadline || To be confirmed (probably 6 months)
|-
| Reward || First tranche of CHF 1,000 in direct cash (Switzerland); global envelope envisaged up to CHF 100,000 for about 1,000 models (no guarantee*)
|-
| Access || The resulting model library is reserved to WikiDeal subscribers
|-
| How to propose || Post your proposal on the discussion page of this call
|-
| Disclosure || AI transparency disclosure is mandatory
|}

== What this call is about ==

This open call invites contributors to share model letters of appeals and oppositions that have actually succeeded in obtaining relief from unfair constraints. The goal is to build, step by step, a list of the conditions under which contestable decisions can be revised, illustrated by concrete, proven cases.

What is collected here is proposed as a base of discussion: creative but legally valid letters, based on sound legal interpretations and valid grounds, that can be reused as templates in a relatively wide range of similar situations. The final objective goes in the direction of producing hundreds of models that use concrete cases to justify the revision of contestable decisions.

== Scope and countries ==

All domains are welcome in principle, but the call deliberately starts with simple domains and with a limited set of countries:

* '''Switzerland first''': the initial tranche of rewards is dedicated to Swiss cases.
* '''France''': the door is open, and French cases are welcome as the call extends.
* '''United States''': possibly at a later stage.

This progressive opening is proposed so that quality, verification and partnerships can be built solidly before the call scales to other regions.

== Concrete use cases ==

Examples of the kinds of successful appeals and oppositions this call is looking for include:

* Cancellation of car and parking fines
* Cancellation or reduction of municipal fines
* Cancellation or reduction of cantonal fines
* Public transport fines successfully contested
* Postponement of invoice due dates successfully obtained
* Tenancy law: successful oppositions in landlord and tenant matters
* Family law: successful appeals in family-related administrative or judicial decisions

These are use cases based on mechanisms that can apply elsewhere: legal interpretations, valid grounds and procedural rights that a wide public can learn from.

== Anonymisation and proof ==

Two conditions apply to every submitted model, and both are equally important:

# '''Full neutralisation''': the letter must be anonymised, with no names, no dates and no places. The model must be reusable as a template, free of any personal or identifying information.
# '''Proof of the successful outcome''': each model must be accompanied by evidence that the appeal or opposition actually succeeded, for example a neutralised copy of the positive decision or confirmation received in response.

A letter without proof of success, or a letter that is not properly neutralised, does not meet the conditions of this call.

== Ranking criteria ==

Submitted models are ranked by usefulness and by exception, following two criteria:

* '''Usefulness for a wide public''': how many people, in how many situations, could realistically reuse this model?
* '''Added value and angle''': what does this model bring that is exceptional, an original argument, a creative legal interpretation, something more?

The spirit of this call can be summarised as "imagination in power": creative, valid models, applicable to a relatively wide use case, are what this collection is looking for.

== Subscriber access ==

Submitting a proposal is open to everyone. However, the resulting library of models, documents and cases will be accessible for WikiDeal subscribers only, as a specific access right.

This subscriber access also covers AI-assisted use: it is envisaged that an AI can search and explore these models, but only within WikiDeal subscriber access.

== Partnerships ==

This call is designed to be run in a context of needs analysis together with:

* Consumer support and consumer protection organisations
* Organisations providing free or very low-cost legal advice

Partnerships with these groups are envisaged in order to identify contributors whose model opposition letters, with proof of the result but fully neutralised, can enrich the collection. These partners are also well placed to help verify quality and relevance.

== Reward ==

The reward structure is proposed as follows:

* A first tranche of CHF 1,000 in direct cash, dedicated to Switzerland only.
* A global envelope envisaged up to CHF 100,000 in rewards for about 1,000 model letters, as the call progressively opens to other regions.

This call is intended to be very participative: everyone can propose their letter, earn some money, and collect meaningful cash [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards]] (no guarantee*). The general [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main#rules-of-the-game|rules of the game]] of the Open Calls apply, including the maturity criterion for reward distribution.

== Status and timeline ==

This is an early bird call, for pioneers. Its informal launch is planned for 1 January 2027 (to be confirmed). A specific deadline is to be confirmed, probably covering a six-month window. Submissions are reviewed as they arrive.

== How to propose ==

* Post your proposal on the discussion page of this call.
* Alternatively, or in addition, you can write to info@wikideal.net.
* An AI transparency disclosure is mandatory: state clearly whether and how AI tools were used in preparing your submission.

This call follows the micro-call spirit of the First Wave: many contributors, several winners, and a collection that grows over time.

== Closing condition ==

The call operates within a set timeframe (probably six months, to be confirmed). Models are accepted, reviewed and ranked continuously, and reward tranches are released progressively as the collection and its funding grow.


== Authors and transparency ==
A clear distinction is proposed between the templates themselves and the people who contribute them. The templates published in the library are anonymised: no names, no dates, no places. This protects everyone involved in the original case, including third parties mentioned in the correspondence.

The authors of the templates, on the other hand, are simply identified by their WikiDeal login, which is their email address. This is sufficient for the WikiDeal team to contact them. When a contribution is selected, the team reaches out to its author to inform them that their submission has won.

In addition, WikiDeal intends to publish a transparent list of the best contributions that have been selected. The overall balance goes in this direction: the published template remains anonymous, so that the people involved in the case are protected, while the merit of the contributor is recognised in a transparent way.


== Verification ==
Each template submitted to this call must be accompanied by proof of the favourable outcome. What is envisaged is that this proof will be reviewed by a validation committee that includes legal experts. Conducting this validation in partnership with a law faculty, or with equivalent structures, is being considered.

It should be noted that this open call is still under construction. There is no deadline for the moment. However, as soon as fundraising campaigns take place, priority will be given to this call, so that the validation process and the rewards can be put in place on a solid basis.


== State of the art ==
Helping people contest fines, invoices and administrative decisions is not new. A rich ecosystem of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_organization consumer organizations], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection] bodies and citizen initiatives already exists and does valuable work in this field. WikiDeal does not seek to compete with these actors: the intention is to reinforce and complement what they have built, ideally through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Successful-Appeals#partnerships|partnerships]] described below. In other words, this call does not reinvent the wheel: it builds on an existing base of material and know-how.

Across countries, the legal framework shares a common logic: an appeal or objection generally requires supporting evidence and must respect strict time limits. In Switzerland, the standard objection ("Einsprache") must usually be filed within about 30 days. In France, the contestation of fixed fines is governed in particular by articles 529-2 and 530 of the Code de procédure pénale.

=== Switzerland (French-speaking, our starting point) ===
* [https://www.frc.ch/association/ressources-disposition/lettres-modeles FRC, Fédération romande des consommateurs]: model letters reserved for members, covering insurance, air transport, debt collection, enforcement proceedings, tenancy, and more.
* [https://www.bonasavoir.ch Bon à Savoir] (also [https://www.conso.ch conso.ch]): the reference Swiss French consumer magazine, offering template letters ("lettres types") and the complaints platform [https://www.plaintes.ch plaintes.ch].
* Independent, non-affiliated citizen initiatives also exist, outside FRC and Bon à Savoir, for example [https://suisse-demarches.ch générateurs de recours administratif conforme au droit suisse] and AI-assisted tools such as [https://nofineai.ch NoFineAI] and [https://www.nextletter.ch NextLetter].

=== Beyond French-speaking Switzerland ===
The same kind of material exists well beyond French-speaking Switzerland. In German-speaking Switzerland, the consumer protection foundation [https://www.konsumentenschutz.ch Stiftung für Konsumentenschutz (SKS)] plays a comparable role. Germany and France also offer a broad range of consumer organizations, template collections and legal aid structures. What is envisaged is that WikiDeal will start with French-speaking Switzerland, then progressively broaden its scope to these neighbouring regions.

=== France ===
* [https://www.antai.gouv.fr ANTAI], the official national agency, provides the portal for designation and contestation of fines.
* Free template collections and citizen tools, some of them libre, for example the libre project [https://github.com/vidaluca77-cloud/outils-citoyens outils-citoyens] (free letter generation for fines, benefits, rent, energy, and more), and legal generators such as [https://www.wonder.legal/fr/modele/contestation-amende Wonder.legal] and [https://www.genieai.co GenieAI].
* Motorist associations such as 40 Millions d'automobilistes.

=== United States ===
* A well-established "fight your ticket" movement, with state-by-state templates. Numerous legal aid organizations and university law clinics assist people with appeals.

=== Open licensing and what WikiDeal adds ===
Most of these resources are either reserved for members or generic in nature. They usually come without documented proof that a given letter actually succeeded, and without any ranking by usefulness or success rate. A key question raised by this call goes in this direction: encouraging the release of such templates under a free and open license, for example a Creative Commons license, so that they can be shared, translated and improved collectively. These resources are considered a digital commons and a heritage of good practices for asserting one's rights.

What WikiDeal proposes to add is a mutualised library of proven templates: each one accompanied by proof of a favourable outcome, anonymised, classified by usefulness and by type of exception, and made accessible to subscribers with AI-assisted search. The aim is not to replace the existing ecosystem: solid material already exists, and what is envisaged is that WikiDeal federates it, verifies it, and places it under a free license. Partnerships with the organizations listed above are proposed as a base for this work.

== See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call: main page]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Tutorial-Small-Loans|Open Call: tutorial videos on small loans]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:URL-Structure|Open Call: URL structure]]

[[Category:Innovation]]

[[Category:Open Calls]]

Policies/en/AI-Terms-of-Use

2026-09-20T18:33:53Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|AI is like a smart robot helper! Here we explain how we plan to use AI on WikiDeal safely and fairly, so it helps everyone without causing trouble. This is the direction we want to go with our robot friends.}}
{{ExpertIntro|These AI Terms of Use propose our foundational approach to integrating artificial intelligence within the WikiDeal platform. It serves as a working hypothesis for AI governance, aiming to align technological capabilities with our core values and ethical intentions.}}
''This is a draft version, informed notably by the AI policies and positions of the English Wikipedia community, Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation Europe and the Debian project (links below). Status: initial hypothesis, proposal, to be adopted. See the [[Policies/en/Disclaimer|detailed disclaimer]].''

'''In simple words:''' this page proposes rules for using artificial intelligence (AI) on WikiDeal. The core rule is honesty: whoever uses AI says so, explains how, and a human stays responsible for the result. The page also lists the standard questions that every author who used AI is asked to answer. Nothing here is final: it is a first proposal, waiting for review and adoption.

__TOC__

= Terms of Use of AI (initial hypothesis) =

== Approach ==

WikiDeal itself is partly drafted with AI assistance, under human guidance, and discloses it openly: see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Disclaimer|AI Disclaimer]] innovation, the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Internal-AI|AI transparency rules]] and the [[Portal:AI Assistance|AI Assistance portal]]. These terms of use aim at applying the same honesty to every contributor: AI is welcome as a tool, provided its use is disclosed and a human remains responsible for the result.

This draft does not intend to reinvent the wheel. It starts from rules and positions already published by open knowledge and free software communities, summarized below, and proposes to follow their common core: disclosure, human responsibility, verification, and license compliance.

== Sources of information ==

The following documents were read and used as sources of information for this draft. Each link was verified at the time of writing.

=== English Wikipedia ===

Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Large_language_models Wikipedia:Large language models]

The English Wikipedia community treats [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model large language models] (LLMs) as a systemic risk to its content standards, because they can produce [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence) "hallucinated"] statements, fictitious references and biased text. Using LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, with narrow exceptions for translation and basic copyediting of one's own work. When an LLM is used to generate or modify text, this must be mentioned in the edit summary, even if the tool's terms of service do not require it. The human editor remains fully accountable for what is published.

=== Wikimedia Commons ===

Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:AI-generated_media Commons:AI-generated media]

The media repository of the Wikimedia projects accepts AI-generated media only when it is realistically useful for an educational purpose. Contributors are encouraged to document the prompt used to generate the media in the file description. AI-generated files must carry a dedicated licensing tag ("PD-algorithm") and be placed in AI-specific categories, with a mandatory category for AI media depicting living people. The page also documents, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, why purely AI-generated works generally lack copyright protection.

=== Wikimedia Foundation ===

Source: [https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/ Our new AI strategy puts Wikipedia's humans first] and the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Multigenerational/Artificial_intelligence_for_editors full strategy on Meta-Wiki]

In April 2025 the Wikimedia Foundation published an AI strategy that "puts Wikipedia's humans first": AI is used to support volunteers (moderation workflows, discoverability of information, translation, onboarding of newcomers), never to replace human deliberation, judgment and consensus building. The strategy commits to a human-centered approach that prioritizes human agency, to prioritizing open-source or open-weight AI, and to transparency.

=== Creative Commons ===

Source: [https://creativecommons.org/2023/08/18/understanding-cc-licenses-and-generative-ai/ Understanding CC Licenses and Generative AI]

Creative Commons explains how CC licenses interact with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_artificial_intelligence generative AI]: CC licenses grant permissions only where copyright applies, training may be covered by exceptions such as fair use in the United States or the text and data mining exception in the EU, and licenses cannot prohibit uses that copyright law already permits. This analysis matters for WikiDeal because the wiki content is published under [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC BY-SA 4.0]: contributors need to make sure that the AI outputs they submit can actually be licensed that way.

=== Free Software Foundation Europe ===

Source: [https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/artificial-intelligence.en.html Controlling technology at the age of Artificial Intelligence]

The FSFE argues that releasing AI under free software licenses paves the way for more accessibility, transparency and fairness, and that an AI application can only be considered free if both its training code and its training data are released under a free software license.

=== Debian ===

Source: [https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002 General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models]

In 2025 the Debian project debated a general resolution on how its free software guidelines (DFSG) apply to AI models. The proposal text states that AI models released under a free license, but without their original training data or training program, are not seen as DFSG-compliant. The debate shows a free software community tying the acceptability of AI to the openness of its training data.

== Proposed principles ==

As an initial hypothesis, the use of AI on WikiDeal would be guided by the following principles, each traceable to the sources above:

* '''Mandatory disclosure.''' Any contribution produced with AI assistance (wiki pages, open call proposals, contract templates, media, code) discloses that AI was used, by answering the standard questions below (English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons; on WikiDeal, see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Disclaimer|AI Disclaimer]]).
* '''Final human responsibility.''' A human author reviews, endorses and remains responsible for every AI-assisted contribution; AI is a tool, never an author (English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation).
* '''Verification before trust.''' Facts, figures and legal references produced with AI assistance are verified by a human against reliable sources before being treated as reliable (English Wikipedia).
* '''License compliance.''' AI outputs are submitted only when they can be published under the licenses of the platform, CC BY-SA 4.0 for wiki content (Creative Commons, Wikimedia Commons).
* '''Respect for persons.''' Synthetic or cloned voices and faces would require the consent of the persons concerned. This point is a WikiDeal addition, stricter than the categorization rule of Wikimedia Commons for AI media depicting living people.
* '''Preference for open AI.''' Where possible, WikiDeal intends to prefer free software or open-weight AI tools (Wikimedia Foundation, FSFE, Debian).

These principles are a proposal, to be adopted. None of them is currently in force as a formal policy.


== The standard disclosure questions ==

As an initial hypothesis, any author who used AI tools would answer the following questions when submitting a contribution. The same list applies to open call proposals (videos, graphics, texts) and to wiki contributions.

# Which AI tools and models were used (names and versions)?
# For which parts of the work exactly (for a video: script, images, voice, editing, music; for a text: drafting, translation, copyediting)?
# Which parts were made by humans without AI assistance?
# What were the main prompts or instructions given to the AI? Share them, or explain why they cannot be shared.
# What human review and correction was applied to the AI outputs before submission?
# Were the facts, figures and legal references verified by a human against reliable sources?
# What is the rights and license status of the AI outputs, and can they be published under [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC BY-SA 4.0]?
# If synthetic or cloned voices or faces were used, did the persons concerned give their consent?
# Does the work itself disclose the use of AI to its audience (for a video, to the viewer)?

== Follow-up and observatory ==

How these terms work in practice (which tools are actually used, how disclosure is applied, where it fails) is intended to be monitored through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Participatory Observatory|Participatory Observatory]], following the logic of one observatory per subject. A proposal for a dedicated observatory structure is in preparation.

== See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Disclaimer|AI Disclaimer (innovation)]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Internal-AI|AI transparency]]
* [[Portal:AI Assistance|AI Assistance portal]]
* [[User:WikiDeal AI Assistant|Comments from the WikiDeal founder on the use of AI]]
* [[Policies/en/Main|All policies]]
* [[Policies/en/Disclaimer|Detailed disclaimer]]

WikiMania

2026-09-20T18:33:46Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is a fair online marketplace where people work together like Wikipedia editors to create safe, honest deals. Everyone has a say in how it works.}}
{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards decentralized marketplace governance by adapting Wikimedia's collaborative models to e-commerce. This hypothesis proposes that peer-reviewed legal frameworks and community-endorsed transaction templates can foster inclusive economic participation while prioritizing sustainability over speculative growth, emerging as an alternative to platform-extractive models.}}

== WikiDeal: Applying Wikimedia Governance to Online Marketplaces ==
WikiDeal is a platform designed to foster a "citizen economy" by adapting Wikimedia-like governance models to online marketplaces of all types. WikiDeal's core concept is that deals can be co-designed on a MediaWiki platform with volunteers who share the collaborative spirit of Wikipedians. This process will offer flexible models for contracts, agreements, transaction use cases, compensation fees, reminders, and alerts. These will be linked to legal references. WikiDeal also aims to have these models endorsed by lawyers. This endorsement will be provided by open user groups that WikiDeal has recently launched (Spring 2025).

== Context ==
Wikimania 2025 will be held in Nairobi. The theme for this year's conference is '''Inclusivity. Impact. Sustainability'''. The deadline for submissions is March 31st, and the chosen format for this presentation is a poster (with an optional 5-minute lightning talk). This submission aims to align with at least one of the conference's core themes.

=== Theme of the Year ===
The theme "Inclusivity. Impact. Sustainability" highlights the vision for a Wikimedia movement that is accessible to all, fosters collaboration across diverse communities, and prioritizes long-term viability. As the movement celebrates its 20th anniversary, this theme underscores a commitment to addressing global challenges, promoting inclusivity, and ensuring the sustainability of free knowledge for generations to come.

* '''Inclusivity:''' Wikimania will showcase regional and thematic groups as examples of inclusion, highlighting diverse volunteer groups, individuals, and affiliates collaborating equitably.
* '''Impact:''' The event will facilitate learning and knowledge sharing about community initiatives, tools, event organizing, governance, online campaigns, problem-solving, and more.
* '''Sustainability:''' Wikimania 2025 will be a forum to discuss strategies and priorities facing the Wikimedia movement, from technology to policy.

== WikiDeal Overview ==
WikiDeal is a platform designed to adapt Wikimedia-like governance models to online marketplaces of all types, fostering a "citizen economy." The core concept is that deals can be co-designed on a MediaWiki platform by volunteers embodying the collaborative spirit of Wikipedians. This process aims to create flexible and legally-referenced models for various aspects of transactions, including contracts, agreements, fees, reminders, and alerts.

WikiDeal intends to have these models endorsed by lawyers through open user groups launched in Spring 2025.

== Relevance to Wikimania Theme ==
This poster and accompanying lightning talk directly align with the Wikimania 2025 theme:

* '''Inclusivity:''' WikiDeal promotes inclusivity by leveraging an open, collaborative platform built on the familiar MediaWiki technology. It aims to empower individuals and communities to participate in shaping the marketplace.
* '''Impact:''' By creating a more transparent and equitable marketplace, WikiDeal seeks to have a significant impact on how online transactions are conducted, potentially fostering fair trade and economic empowerment.
* '''Sustainability:''' The platform's non-speculative business model and "Exit to Community" financing structure prioritize long-term sustainability and community ownership, mirroring the ethos of Wikimedia projects.

== Benefits for Wikipedians ==
Wikipedians can leverage their existing skills in using MediaWiki to contribute to WikiDeal by helping design the platform's structure, including portals, categories, and articles related to various deal models. This presents an opportunity for Wikipedians to generate income within a collaborative environment.

== Business Model and Features ==
WikiDeal operates on a non-speculative business model focused on building a sustainable ecosystem with low commission fees. It supports a wide range of use cases, including peer-to-peer services (ticketing, transportation, freelance, rentals, buying/selling goods, loans, partnerships) and multi-stakeholder deals (leasing, social contracts, public-private partnerships, franchising, joint ventures).

Key features include:
* '''Contract Models:''' Users can access, modify, and utilize various contract templates validated by legal professionals.
* '''Simplified Arbitration:''' A system for efficient dispute resolution.
* '''"Karma tokens" Reward System:''' Contributions are rewarded with "Karma tokens" for accessing benefits within the ecosystem.
* '''Technology:''' Built on the robust MediaWiki platform.

== Governance and "Exit to Community" ==
WikiDeal's governance model blends the open contribution of Wikipedia, Swiss direct democracy, and traditional cooperative principles. A central aspect is the "Exit to Community" financing structure, which allows users to collectively purchase the platform from investors, transforming it into a community-owned and governed entity, similar to Wikimedia projects.

== Presenters ==
The poster and lightning talk will be presented by Théo Bondolfi and possibly Gabriel Siqueira, co-incubators of the WikiDeal project, which also includes Florence Devouard (VP from Ynternetl.org). Both presenters have experience in public speaking, including TEDx talks.

== Alignment with Wikimania ==
This presentation will demonstrate how WikiDeal aligns with Wikimania's core themes, offering a concrete example of how the principles of open collaboration and community governance can be applied beyond encyclopedic knowledge to create a more inclusive, impactful, and sustainable economic system.

== Examples ==
* Services: WikiDeal facilitates peer-to-peer services such as ticketing, transportation, freelance contracts, and internships.

* Rentals: Users can utilize WikiDeal for renting various items, including hosting, vehicles, and clothes.

* Goods: The platform supports buying and selling goods, such as real estate, food, and machines.

* Loans: WikiDeal can be used for money loans, including microcredits.

* Partnerships: Users can establish various partnerships through the platform, such as employment agreements, prenuptial agreements, and co-owning arrangements.

* Multi-stakeholder deals: WikiDeal supports complex transactions like leasing, social contracts for shared real estate, private-public partnerships, franchising agreements, and joint ventures.

* Community solutions: WikiDeal can facilitate agreements and contracts for volunteering, ecovillage management, and increasing security in a neighborhood.

* Skill sharing and training: WikiDeal can be used to create programs for transmitting skills, such as machine repair, with contracts that outline the steps and complexity of the training.

* Supporting specific professions: WikiDeal aims to help midwives in remote areas develop their work while minimizing legal risks.

* Libre collaboration: WikiDeal can be used for updating libre ecology projects.

* Recovery and reuse: Users can trade underutilized goods to reduce waste.

== See Also ==
* [[2025:Wikimania]]
* [[2025:Program]]
* {{Commons category|Wikimania 2024 Posters}}
* [https://wikimedia.eventyay.com/talk/wikimania2025/cfp Wikimania 2025 Call for Proposals on Eventyay]

Gov/en/Portal:Legal/Legal-Watch-Guide

2026-09-20T18:33:40Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards democratizing legal intelligence through libre, AI-assisted monitoring workflows. This proposal hypothesizes that semi-automated veille juridique—traditionally available only to well-resourced institutions—can scale to collaborative platforms via wiki infrastructure. The emerging trend suggests that jurisdictional fragmentation and rapid regulatory change create opportunities for community-driven legal knowledge aggregation, though implementation requires validation of human-AI curation models.}}

{{KidsIntro|this is a guide for keeping an eye on new laws and rules, so WikiDeal always stays on the right side of the law.}}

🚧 '''Under Construction:''' This article is a technical proposal. Implementation details are subject to validation by the WikiDeal technical and legal teams.

== Legal Watch & Publication Guide — Technical Proposal ==

Proposal Summary

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Status
| 🚧 Proposal
|-
| Type
| Technical & Editorial
|-
| Scope
| Multi-jurisdictional
|-
| Workflow
| Semi-automated (AI + human)
|-
| Output
| Wiki articles + Blog + RSS
|-
| License
| CC BY-SA 4.0
|-
| Integration
| MediaWiki + RSS + Tagging
|}

This document proposes a '''semi-automated legal monitoring workflow''' for WikiDeal — a system designed to track legislative changes, publish analyses of key court decisions, and maintain a living repository of legal knowledge relevant to WikiDeal's ecosystem. The goal is to cultivate a '''culture of legal watch''' (''veille juridique'') that bridges the gap between raw legal data (which governments publish) and practical, accessible understanding (which citizens and professionals need).

Legal watch is a well-established practice in French-speaking legal culture. Law firms, corporate legal departments, and regulatory bodies engage in continuous monitoring of legislative developments, case law, and regulatory changes. What is new here is applying this practice to an open, wiki-based platform with AI-assisted workflows — making it available to everyone, not just those who can afford premium legal services like LexisNexis or Westlaw.

'''📚 Legal Knowledge Series''' — This article is part of a 3-part series on legal accessibility and WikiDeal.

# ⚖️ Legal Texts as Public Domain — A Feasibility Study
# 📡 Legal Watch & Publication Guide — Technical Proposal
# 🌐 Is the Law Truly Accessible? — A Digital Fairness Perspective

Contents

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

=== 1. The Culture of Legal Watch (''Veille Juridique'') ===

Legal watch — ''veille juridique'' in French — is the systematic practice of monitoring changes in the legal environment that may affect an organization, a sector, or a community. It encompasses:

* '''Legislative monitoring:''' Tracking new laws, amendments, and repeals at national and sub-national levels
* '''Regulatory tracking:''' Following new regulations, directives, and administrative guidance
* '''Jurisprudence analysis:''' Identifying significant court decisions that interpret, clarify, or change the practical application of existing law
* '''Impact assessment:''' Analyzing how legal changes affect specific sectors, contracts, or practices
* '''Trend detection:''' Recognizing patterns across jurisdictions (e.g., a wave of platform regulation across countries)

==== Why Legal Watch Matters for WikiDeal ====

WikiDeal operates at the intersection of technology, commerce, and cooperative governance. Its contract templates, marketplace rules, and governance structures are all shaped by law. Legal watch serves several critical functions:

* '''Contract accuracy:''' Ensuring that WikiDeal contract templates remain compliant with current law across jurisdictions
* '''User protection:''' Alerting users and user groups to legal changes that affect their activities (e.g., new regulations on babysitting, gig economy rules, consumer protection updates)
* '''Competitive intelligence:''' Tracking how platform regulation evolves (Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, AI Act, etc.)
* '''Research contribution:''' Building a publicly accessible, historically indexed record of legal developments relevant to cooperative e-commerce

💡 '''Key insight:''' Most legal watch services are proprietary and expensive (€500–5,000+/month for professional services). WikiDeal's open, community-driven approach could democratize access to this critical function — the same way Wikipedia democratized access to encyclopedic knowledge.

=== 2. Semi-Automated Monitoring Workflow ===

The proposed workflow combines automated source monitoring with AI-assisted analysis and human editorial review. The goal is to make legal watch scalable without sacrificing accuracy.

1

===== Source Monitoring (Automated) =====

Automated crawlers and RSS aggregators monitor official legal sources (official gazettes, court decision databases, parliamentary bulletins) for new publications. Each source is configured with jurisdiction, language, and domain parameters. Monitoring runs on a configurable schedule (hourly for gazettes, daily for case law databases).

2

===== Intake & Filtering (AI-Assisted) =====

Incoming items are processed by an AI classifier that evaluates relevance to WikiDeal's scope. The classifier uses a trained model based on WikiDeal's areas of interest (e-commerce, cooperative law, consumer protection, labour law, platform regulation, intellectual property, contract law). Items above a configurable relevance threshold are promoted to the review queue. Low-relevance items are archived for potential future use.

3

===== AI Draft Generation =====

For items promoted to the review queue, an AI assistant generates a draft summary following a structured template: (1) What changed? (2) Legal basis and context. (3) Practical impact for WikiDeal users. (4) Cross-jurisdictional implications. (5) Recommended actions. The draft includes source citations and links to official texts. All AI-generated content is clearly marked with the WikiDeal AI disclaimer.

4

===== Human Review & Validation =====

A human editor (legal expert or trained community member) reviews the AI draft for accuracy, completeness, and tone. The reviewer can approve, edit, or reject the draft. Approved articles are tagged, categorized, and scheduled for publication. This step ensures that no AI-generated legal analysis is published without human verification — a critical safeguard for legal content.

5

===== Publication & Distribution =====

Validated articles are published simultaneously on (1) the WikiDeal wiki (permanent record), (2) the legal watch blog (chronological feed), and (3) RSS feeds (syndication). Social media notifications can be triggered for high-impact items. Users who have subscribed to specific jurisdictions or legal domains receive email or in-platform notifications.

6

===== Wiki Integration & Cross-Linking =====

Published articles are cross-linked to relevant wiki pages (e.g., a new consumer protection regulation would be linked from the relevant marketplace portal page, the contract template page, and any affected user group page). Over time, this creates a densely linked knowledge graph of legal developments and their impacts on WikiDeal's ecosystem.

=== 3. Legal Blog Concept ===

The legal watch blog is the public-facing component of the monitoring system. It serves as a chronological record of legal developments, accessible to both legal professionals and general users.

==== Blog Structure ====

* '''Homepage:''' Reverse-chronological feed of recent articles, with filtering by jurisdiction, legal domain, and type
* '''Article types:'''
** 📜 '''New Law Alert''' — a new law or amendment has been enacted
** ⚖️ '''Case Note''' — analysis of a significant court decision
** 📋 '''Regulatory Update''' — new regulation, directive, or administrative circular
** 🔍 '''Impact Analysis''' — deep-dive into how a legal change affects WikiDeal users
** 🌍 '''Comparative Brief''' — cross-jurisdictional comparison on a specific topic
** 📊 '''Quarterly Review''' — summary of the most significant legal developments of the past quarter
* '''Each article includes:'''
** Headline, date, jurisdiction flag(s), legal domain tag(s)
** 3–5 sentence executive summary
** Full analysis (500–2,000 words typical)
** Source citations with links to official texts
** Impact rating: 🟢 Low / 🟡 Moderate / 🔴 High (for WikiDeal users)
** AI disclaimer where applicable
** Cross-links to related wiki pages and previous blog posts

==== Example Blog Entry ====

📜 New Law Alert · 🇫🇷 France · Consumer Protection · 2026-06-10

==== France Adopts New Rules on Platform Worker Classification ====

The French Parliament has enacted ''Loi n° 2026-XXX'', establishing a rebuttable presumption of employment status for platform workers who meet certain criteria. This directly impacts WikiDeal's marketplace portals involving service providers.

Impact: 🟡 Moderate · Source: [https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ Légifrance] · Tags: 🇫🇷 France Consumer Protection Legislation

=== 4. RSS Feed Architecture ===

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds enable users, organizations, and other platforms to subscribe to WikiDeal's legal watch output. The architecture provides multiple feed endpoints for targeted consumption.

==== Feed Endpoints ====

{| class="wikitable arch-table"
|-
! Feed
! URL Pattern
! Description
|-
| '''Master feed'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss
| All legal watch articles, reverse-chronological
|-
| '''By country'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss?country=CH
| Filter by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
|-
| '''By domain'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss?domain=consumer-protection
| Filter by legal domain slug
|-
| '''By type'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss?type=case-note
| Filter by article type
|-
| '''High impact'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss?impact=high
| Only 🔴 high-impact items
|-
| '''Combined'''
| /legal-watch/feed/rss?country=FR&domain=labour-law
| Multiple filters can be combined
|}

==== RSS Item Structure ====

<item> <title>France Adopts New Rules on Platform Worker Classification</title> <link>https://wikideal.org/wiki/legal-watch/2026/06/10/france-platform-workers</link> <description>The French Parliament has enacted Loi n° 2026-XXX...</description> <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2026 14:30:00 +0200</pubDate> <category domain="country">FR</category> <category domain="legal-domain">Labour Law</category> <category domain="type">new-law-alert</category> <category domain="impact">moderate</category> <dc:creator>WikiDeal Legal Watch</dc:creator> <wikideal:aiAssisted>true</wikideal:aiAssisted> <wikideal:humanReviewer>Jean Dupont</wikideal:humanReviewer> <wikideal:officialSource>https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/...</wikideal:officialSource> </item>

The RSS feeds support the '''Dublin Core''' and a custom '''WikiDeal namespace''' for extended metadata (AI assistance flag, human reviewer identity, official source link). This enables downstream systems to filter, validate, and attribute content appropriately.

=== 5. Tagging System ===

A structured tagging system is essential for organizing legal watch content across jurisdictions and domains. The tagging taxonomy has three dimensions:

==== Dimension 1: Jurisdiction (Country / Sub-national) ====

🇺🇸 USA 🇫🇷 France 🇨🇭 Switzerland 🇰🇪 Kenya 🇧🇷 Brazil 🇪🇺 European Union 🌐 International

Sub-national tags follow the pattern: CH-GE (Canton of Geneva), US-CA (California), BR-SP (São Paulo), using ISO 3166-2 codes.

==== Dimension 2: Legal Domain ====

Consumer Protection Labour Law Contract Law Data Protection / Privacy Intellectual Property Platform Regulation Cooperative Law Tax Law Commercial Law Real Estate Family Law Arbitration / ADR Financial Regulation AI & Technology Law

==== Dimension 3: Content Type ====

📜 New Law ⚖️ Case Note 📋 Regulation 🔍 Impact Analysis 🌍 Comparative Brief 📊 Quarterly Review ⚠️ Alert 📝 Draft / Proposal

==== Tagging Implementation in MediaWiki ====

In the WikiDeal MediaWiki installation, tags will be implemented as '''categories''' and '''Semantic MediaWiki properties''':

* [[Category:Legal Watch]] — all legal watch articles
* [[Jurisdiction::FR]] — Semantic MediaWiki property
* [[Legal Domain::Consumer Protection]] — domain property
* [[Article Type::Case Note]] — type property
* [[Impact Level::High]] — impact property
* [[Publication Date::2026-06-10]] — date property
* [[Official Source::https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/...]] — source URL

These properties enable '''dynamic queries''' (e.g., "Show all high-impact case notes from Switzerland in the last 6 months") using Semantic MediaWiki's #ask query language.

=== 6. AI-Assisted Review & Publication Workflow ===

The AI component of the workflow is designed to '''assist, not replace''' human legal expertise. The following principles govern AI use in legal watch:

==== AI Assistance Principles ====

# '''Transparency:''' Every article that involved AI assistance must carry the WikiDeal AI disclaimer. The nature of AI involvement (classification, drafting, translation, summarization) must be specified.
# '''Human-in-the-loop:''' No AI-generated legal analysis may be published without review by a qualified human editor. The reviewer's name (or pseudonym) is recorded.
# '''Source primacy:''' AI outputs must always link to the original official source. The AI may summarize, but the reader must always be able to access the underlying legal text.
# '''No legal advice:''' AI-generated content is informational, not advisory. Clear disclaimers must state that the content does not constitute legal advice.
# '''Bias monitoring:''' The AI classification model must be periodically audited for jurisdiction bias, domain bias, and language bias.

==== AI Tasks in the Pipeline ====

{| class="wikitable arch-table"
|-
! Task
! AI Role
! Human Role
! Confidence Needed
|-
| Source monitoring
| Detect new publications
| Configure sources
| N/A (deterministic)
|-
| Relevance classification
| Score relevance 0–100
| Set thresholds, review borderline
| ≥ 70 for auto-queue
|-
| Summarization
| Generate 3–5 sentence summary
| Verify accuracy
| Always human-verified
|-
| Full draft
| Generate 500–2,000 word analysis
| Edit, approve, or reject
| Always human-verified
|-
| Tag suggestion
| Suggest jurisdiction, domain, type
| Confirm or correct
| ≥ 85 for auto-tag
|-
| Translation
| Translate summary to other languages
| Verify legal terminology
| Always human-verified for legal terms
|-
| Cross-linking
| Suggest related wiki pages
| Approve links
| ≥ 80 for auto-suggest
|}

=== 7. Source Monitoring Configuration ===

The following official sources should be monitored for each jurisdiction. This list is a starting point — the system should be extensible to add new sources as coverage expands.

==== Priority 1 — Official Gazettes & Legislative Databases ====

{| class="wikitable arch-table"
|-
! Jurisdiction
! Source
! URL
! Format
! Frequency
|-
| 🇺🇸 USA
| Federal Register
| [https://www.federalregister.gov/ federalregister.gov]
| RSS, API, XML
| Daily
|-
| 🇺🇸 USA
| Congress.gov
| [https://www.congress.gov/ congress.gov]
| RSS, API
| Daily
|-
| 🇫🇷 France
| Légifrance / JORF
| [https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ legifrance.gouv.fr]
| API (PISTE), RSS
| Daily
|-
| 🇨🇭 Switzerland
| Fedlex (RO/AS)
| [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/ fedlex.admin.ch]
| RSS, SPARQL, ELI
| Weekly
|-
| 🇰🇪 Kenya
| Kenya Law / Kenya Gazette
| [http://kenyalaw.org/ kenyalaw.org]
| HTML (scraping)
| Weekly
|-
| 🇧🇷 Brazil
| DOU (Diário Oficial)
| [https://www.in.gov.br/ in.gov.br]
| API, HTML
| Daily
|-
| 🇪🇺 EU
| EUR-Lex
| [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ eur-lex.europa.eu]
| RSS, SPARQL, CELLAR
| Daily
|}

==== Priority 2 — Court Decision Databases ====

{| class="wikitable arch-table"
|-
! Jurisdiction
! Court(s)
! URL
! Notes
|-
| 🇺🇸 USA
| Supreme Court, Circuit Courts
| [https://www.courtlistener.com/ CourtListener]
| Free Law Project; API available
|-
| 🇫🇷 France
| Cour de cassation, Conseil d'État
| [https://www.courdecassation.fr/acces-rapide-judilibre Judilibre]
| Open API since 2021
|-
| 🇨🇭 Switzerland
| Federal Supreme Court
| [https://www.bger.ch/ bger.ch]
| Searchable; no formal API
|-
| 🇰🇪 Kenya
| Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court
| [http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/ Kenya Law Reports]
| Good coverage from 2010+
|-
| 🇧🇷 Brazil
| STF, STJ
| [https://portal.stf.jus.br/ portal.stf.jus.br]
| Comprehensive; push notifications available
|}

=== 8. Editorial Policy & Quality Standards ===

==== Content Standards ====

* '''Accuracy:''' All legal references must cite specific articles, sections, or paragraphs. No vague references to "the law says."
* '''Neutrality:''' Legal watch articles describe the law as it is, not as WikiDeal wishes it were. Advocacy belongs in opinion pieces, not watch articles.
* '''Timeliness:''' New law alerts should be published within 72 hours of official publication. Case notes within 1 week of decision publication.
* '''Accessibility:''' Articles should be understandable by a non-lawyer with reasonable effort. Technical legal terms should be linked to the WikiDeal glossary.
* '''Source linking:''' Every claim must link to the original official source. Dead links must be monitored and replaced with archive.org mirrors when necessary.

==== Review Roles ====

{| class="wikitable arch-table"
|-
! Role
! Requirements
! Responsibilities
|-
| '''Legal Watch Editor'''
| Legal qualification or 3+ years legal experience
| Review and approve/reject drafts; ensure accuracy; maintain editorial standards
|-
| '''Jurisdiction Lead'''
| Knowledge of specific national legal system
| Validate jurisdiction-specific content; manage local sources; recruit reviewers
|-
| '''Community Contributor'''
| WikiDeal account; completion of legal watch onboarding
| Submit tips; draft initial analyses; flag issues; translate content
|-
| '''AI Pipeline Manager'''
| Technical background; understanding of AI limitations
| Configure source monitoring; tune AI parameters; monitor pipeline health
|}

=== 9. Implementation Roadmap ===

==== Phase 1 — Foundation (Months 1–3) ====

* Set up RSS aggregation infrastructure for Priority 1 sources (official gazettes)
* Deploy AI classification model (initial training on WikiDeal topic corpus)
* Create blog template and editorial workflow in MediaWiki
* Recruit 2–3 volunteer legal watch editors (start with Switzerland and France)
* Publish first 10 legal watch articles as proof of concept

==== Phase 2 — Expansion (Months 4–6) ====

* Add court decision monitoring (Priority 2 sources)
* Implement tagging system with Semantic MediaWiki
* Launch public RSS feeds (master + by-country)
* Enable AI draft generation with human-in-the-loop review
* Reach 50+ published articles across 3+ jurisdictions

==== Phase 3 — Maturity (Months 7–12) ====

* Add domain-specific feeds and advanced filtering
* Implement email/push notification subscriptions for users
* Launch comparative briefs feature (cross-jurisdictional analysis)
* Integrate legal watch with WikiDeal contract templates (auto-linking relevant updates to affected templates)
* Publish quarterly review
* Target: 200+ articles, 5+ jurisdictions, 5+ active editors

==== Phase 4 — Scale (Year 2+) ====

* Open API for third-party consumption of legal watch data
* Multilingual publication (auto-translation with human review)
* Partnership with law schools and legal information institutes (FALM members)
* Integration with LexML, EUR-Lex, and other linked-data platforms
* Community-driven expansion to additional jurisdictions

📌 '''Success metric:''' The legal watch system is successful when WikiDeal users receive actionable alerts about legal changes affecting their activities ''before'' they encounter compliance issues — and when the published analyses are of sufficient quality to be cited by legal professionals.

'''📚 Legal Knowledge Series''' — This article is part of a 3-part series on legal accessibility and WikiDeal.

# ⚖️ Legal Texts as Public Domain — A Feasibility Study
# 📡 Legal Watch & Publication Guide — Technical Proposal
# 🌐 Is the Law Truly Accessible? — A Digital Fairness Perspective

'''See also:''' ⚖️ Legal Texts: Public Domain · 🌐 Law & Digital Fairness · 🤖 WikiDeal Internal AI · [[Gov/en/Portal:Legal/Free-Licensing|🔓 Free Licensing]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Onboarding/Glossary|Glossary]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Main

2026-09-20T18:33:34Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|The economy is how money moves on the platform. Small commissions on deals help pay for the tools and services everyone shares, keeping the whole community running fairly.}}
{{ExpertIntro|WikiDeal's economy aims at financial autonomy without depending on governmental aid, while welcoming donations and partnerships as long as the project stays user-owned. Funding would rest on two sources: user subscriptions (from CHF 1/month, for platform access) and at-cost transaction commissions, with full transparency and surplus returned to the community.}}
__TOC__

= Economy Portal =


== The fundamentals in five points ==

# '''Financial autonomy as a goal.''' The economy of WikiDeal aims at being financially autonomous and at not depending on governmental or parapublic aid. WikiDeal encourages partnerships and support, and seeks support especially at the beginning, in the form of Donations or specific projects, as long as it remains a project owned by its users: a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science citizen-based] research and development programme.
# '''Two main funding sources.''' The financing of the platform is covered by [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Monthly-Subscriptions|user subscriptions]] (the general subscription) and [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Commissions|commissions on each transaction]].
# '''The fundamental rule: at real cost.''' Commissions must be at real cost. Real costs include a share of volunteering and semi-volunteering (volunteering rewarded with [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Karma-Tokens|Karma tokens]], that is, exchange rights), notably for assistance. By nature, this makes commissions generally lower than the commissions observed on the leading platforms currently dominating their domains.
# '''The bet.''' Lower commissions, more flexibility, users participativity: that is the bet WikiDeal takes.
# '''Radical transparency.''' Everyone should know where the money goes: accounts are public, every commission is broken down publicly, and any surplus is returned to the community (see [[#surplus-return|Surplus Return]]).

The sections below detail each point.


== Subscription ==

The subscription starts at '''1 Swiss franc per month''', approximately 1 euro or 1 US dollar, and the intention is to keep this cost low. This general user subscription gives access to the use of the platform and to its models of contract (the contract templates users need to make deals), but not to the transactions themselves. For details, see [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Monthly-Subscriptions|Monthly Subscriptions]].


== Commissions ==

Like on today's large platforms, transactions carry commissions. On each transaction, one part of the commission goes to the functioning of WikiDeal, one part goes to the functioning of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Group]] operating the service, and everything else goes to the provider of the service or product. The goal is for these commissions to be extremely low.

WikiDeal's Commission structure is built on one principle: '''at real cost'''. The platform charges only what it needs to cover the real, auditable costs of processing Transactions, maintaining Infrastructure, and providing legal frameworks. There are no contributor returns embedded in the Commission rate, no growth skimming, and no algorithmic nudges designed to increase take rate over time.


=== Double Commission Structure ===

Every WikiDeal transaction carries a '''double commission''': one part goes to the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Group]] operating the service, and one part goes to the WikiDeal platform itself. These two layers are distinct and transparent.

The total combined commission (User Group + WikiDeal platform) must be '''between 5% and 15%''' of the transaction value. Justified exceptions are possible in both directions: a lower rate may apply for civic or non-profit contexts, a higher rate may apply for complex or high-risk services, but any exception must be documented and approved through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] process.

'''Example breakdown (10% total commission):'''
* User Group operating the service: ~7-8% (covers service coordination, dispute resolution, community management)
* WikiDeal platform: ~2-3% (covers infrastructure, legal frameworks, free software maintenance)

''These figures are initial working hypotheses. What is certain is the fundamental principle: at real cost, with real costs based on a mix that includes volunteering and semi-volunteering rewarded with Karma tokens, notably for assistance.''

The subscription fee is billed ''on top of'' the commission, not deducted from it.


=== Commission Trends ===

For an order of magnitude in transport today: commissions commonly range from 5 to 10% at a minimum, and can reach 40 to 50% in some configurations for groups such as Uber (see the [[#references|references]] below). Independent analyses report average take rates close to 30% for ride-hailing, with documented cases above 50% of the consumer fare.

WikiDeal's applied research hypothesis is that, depending on configurations, commissions can be significantly reduced, by 10% to 90% compared to current market rates. WikiDeal's model could bring transport commissions down to between 1% and 15-20%, depending on community maturity, citizen participation levels, market complexity, service complexity, and available tools.

What counts is simple: commissions should be lower, attractive, and above all transparent. Users should know where the money goes, and everything should be public.

The exact commission is determined by the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Group]] operating each service vertical. For instance, a babysitting User Group in Geneva may set commissions at 8%, while a tutoring group in Nairobi may set them at 6% based on local infrastructure costs. The floor is set by actual transaction processing costs (payment processing, dispute resolution, platform maintenance), and the ceiling is bounded by the WikiDeal community standard, which can be reviewed through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] process. These are '''trends, not guarantees''': the exact reduction depends on each vertical and its specific conditions.

Transparency is non-negotiable. Every Commission charged is broken down publicly: what portion goes to payment processing, what to server costs, what to legal compliance, what to the Open Calls process, and what (if any) remains as buffer. If the buffer exceeds a defined threshold, the excess is automatically distributed back to the community through the standard Reward mechanism. There is no profit centre within WikiDeal's Commission structure.


=== Surplus Return ===

When Commission income exceeds verified operating costs, the surplus is returned to the community. This is not a discretionary policy decision: it is a structural rule embedded in the WikiDeal model. The surplus return mechanism operates quarterly: the foundation publishes audited cost accounts, the difference between income and costs is calculated, and the surplus is distributed through the community pool (Karma tokens and subsidized access).

This logic already exists elsewhere: [https://www.mobiliere.ch/ La Mobilière] (mobi.ch), a Swiss insurance group anchored in a cooperative, has been returning part of its surplus to its clients for years, in many domains, and does it very well.

This mechanism creates a powerful alignment: as the platform scales and per-Transaction costs fall (servers become cheaper per Transaction as volume grows), users benefit directly from economies of scale rather than watching them flow to shareholders. The more WikiDeal grows, the less each Transaction costs, and the more of the Transaction value stays with the parties to the Transaction.


== Notes and references ==

* UC Berkeley Labor Center, Jacobs, Reich et al., ''Gig Passenger and Delivery Driver Pay in Five Metro Areas'' (2024): [https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/gig-passenger-and-delivery-driver-pay-in-five-metro-areas/ laborcenter.berkeley.edu]
* FourWeekMBA, ''Uber Take Rate'' (2024): Uber Mobility recorded a 28.8% take rate in 2023 (27% in 2022, 19% in 2021): [https://fourweekmba.com/uber-take-rate/ fourweekmba.com]
* National Employment Law Project, ''Unpacking Uber & Lyft's Take Rates'' (May 2025), documenting cases where the platform share exceeds 50% of the consumer fare: [https://s27147.pcdn.co/app/uploads/2025/05/Unpacking-Uber-and-Lyfts-Predatory-Take-Rates-May-2025.pdf PDF]


== Pages in this portal ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Funding-Glossary|Funding Glossary]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Why-Fund-WikiDeal|Why Fund WikiDeal]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Financing-Development|Financing Development]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Targeted-Donations|Targeted Donations]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Initial-Funding|Initial Funding]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Funder-Stories|Funder Stories]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Monthly-Subscriptions|Monthly Subscriptions]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Commissions|Commissions]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/What-You-Get|What You Get]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Revenue-Structure|Revenue Structure]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Distribution|Subscription Distribution]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Karma-Token-Market|Karma Token Market]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Flex-Pricing|Civic Flex Pricing]]

''See also: [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Research:Why-And-How-It-Can-Work|Why and How WikiDeal Can Work]]''

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Commissions

2026-09-20T18:33:27Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards commission structures significantly lower than incumbent platforms (10-90% reduction potential) through transparent, cost-based pricing with double-layer accountability. This hypothesis proposes that decentralized User Groups and surplus-return mechanisms create structural alignment between platform growth and user benefit, though actual reductions remain contingent on community maturity, local infrastructure costs, and service complexity.}}

{{KidsIntro|This page explains the small fee WikiDeal keeps to keep things running.}}

__TOC__

== Commissions ==
WikiDeal's Commission structure is built on one principle: '''at cost'''. The platform charges only what it needs to cover the real, auditable costs of processing Transactions, maintaining Infrastructure, and providing legal frameworks. There are no contributor returns embedded in the Commission rate, no growth skimming, and no algorithmic nudges designed to increase take rate over time.

=== Double Commission Structure ===
Every WikiDeal transaction carries a '''double commission''': one part goes to the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Group]] operating the service, and one part goes to the WikiDeal platform itself. These two layers are distinct and transparent.

The total combined commission (User Group + WikiDeal platform) must be '''between 5% and 15%''' of the transaction value. Justified exceptions are possible in both directions — a lower rate may apply for civic or non-profit contexts, a higher rate may apply for complex or high-risk services — but any exception must be documented and approved through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] process.

'''Example breakdown (10% total commission):'''
* User Group operating the service: ~7–8% (covers service coordination, dispute resolution, community management)
* WikiDeal platform: ~2–3% (covers infrastructure, legal frameworks, free software maintenance)

The subscription fee is billed ''on top of'' the commission — not deducted from it.

=== Commission Trends ===
WikiDeal's applied research hypothesis is that, depending on configurations, commissions can be significantly reduced — by 10% to 90% compared to current market rates. For example, Uber currently charges between 10% and 50% depending on routes and configurations. WikiDeal's model could bring this down to between 1% and 15–20%, depending on community maturity, citizen participation levels, market complexity, service complexity, and available tools.

The exact commission is determined by the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Group]] operating each service vertical. For instance, a babysitting User Group in Geneva may set commissions at 8%, while a tutoring group in Nairobi may set them at 6% based on local infrastructure costs. The floor is set by actual transaction processing costs (payment processing, dispute resolution, platform maintenance), and the ceiling is bounded by the WikiDeal community standard, which can be reviewed through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] process. These are **trends, not guarantees** — the exact reduction depends on each vertical and its specific conditions.

Transparency is non-negotiable. Every Commission charged is broken down publicly: what portion goes to payment processing, what to server costs, what to legal compliance, what to the Open Calls contribute to WikiDeal, and what (if any) remains as buffer. If the buffer exceeds a defined threshold, the excess is automatically distributed back to the community through the standard Reward mechanism. There is no "profit centre" within WikiDeal's Commission structure.

=== Surplus Return ===
When Commission income exceeds verified operating costs, the surplus is returned to the community. This is not a discretionary policy decision — it is a structural rule embedded in the WikiDeal model. The surplus return mechanism operates quarterly: the foundation publishes audited cost accounts, the difference between income and costs is calculated, and the surplus is distributed through the community pool (Karma tokens and subsidized access).

This mechanism creates a powerful alignment: as the platform scales and per-Transaction costs fall (servers become cheaper per Transaction as volume grows), users benefit directly from economies of scale rather than watching them flow to shareholders. The more WikiDeal grows, the less each Transaction costs, and the more of the Transaction value stays with the parties to the Transaction.

'''See also:'''

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:AI Supported Deployment

2026-09-20T18:33:21Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|When people build with AI's help, job titles matter less than talents. A researcher describes five: inventing ideas, building them, simplifying, helping products grow, and keeping them running. WikiDeal would test this with a team.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Methodology page, proposed as an initial hypothesis. Boris Cherny (Anthropic) describes five work archetypes emerging as AI blurs product roles: Prototyper, Builder, Sweeper, Grower, Maintainer. WikiDeal's R&D intends to adopt this framework, to be tested during Prototype 1: open calls would invite people matching these profiles to move from idea to prototype to deployment.}}

{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#context|Context: when AI blurs job titles]]
* [[#the-five-profiles|The five profiles]]
* [[#methodology|The methodology: five profiles plus open calls]]
* [[#roles-and-credits|Roles and credits]]
* [[#sources|Sources and references]]
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]
* [[#see-also|See also]]
}}
__NOTOC__

= AI supported deployment =

''Status: under construction. This page presents an initial hypothesis, proposed as a basis for discussion, to be tested during Prototype 1.''


== Context: when AI blurs job titles ==

In teams that build products with strong [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence AI] support, the traditional split between engineering, product management, design and data science appears to blur: increasingly, everyone directs the same AI agents. Boris Cherny, creator of the Claude Code tool at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic Anthropic] (the company behind [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(language_model) Claude]), described this evolution in a widely shared post: in his words, engineering, product, design and data science "melt into a new kind of role". What then distinguishes people is no longer their function but the phase of the product lifecycle in which they thrive, and he proposes five archetypes to name those phases: '''Prototyper, Builder, Sweeper, Grower and Maintainer'''.

A key point of Cherny's framework is that these archetypes are not tied to job titles: at Anthropic, some designers, engineers, product managers and data scientists each match any of the five patterns. The archetype describes what a person actually does, not what their badge says.

The framework also has an older lineage. One published analysis traces it back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely Robert X. Cringely]'s 1992 split of tech companies into "Commandos, Infantry and Police", to Simon Wardley's "Pioneers, Settlers and Town Planners" (of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardley_map Wardley map] fame), and to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel Peter Thiel]'s "zero to one" versus "one to n" distinction ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_One Zero to One]). According to that analysis, the novelty would not be the five boxes themselves, but the fact that the lifecycle phase becomes the primary axis for describing roles, instead of a secondary one.


=== What recent studies say about AI acceleration ===

Recent empirical studies give a nuanced picture of how much AI actually accelerates a project. A controlled experiment with GitHub Copilot found that developers assisted by an AI pair programmer completed a coding task 55.8 percent faster than a control group (Peng et al., 2023). By contrast, a 2025 randomized controlled trial by the research organization METR, with 16 experienced free software developers working on mature projects they knew well, found that allowing early-2025 AI tools ''increased'' completion time by 19 percent, against the developers' own expectations. Anthropic's 2026 analysis of about 400,000 Claude Code sessions observed that people make most of the planning decisions (what to do) while the AI makes most of the execution decisions (how to do it), and that on coding tasks people from non-engineering occupations succeed at nearly the same rate as software engineers.

Read together, these studies suggest that AI support can strongly boost a project but does not do so automatically: how the human roles are organized around the AI appears to matter. This is one of the reasons why WikiDeal intends to test an explicit organization of roles, described below, rather than assuming that AI alone would accelerate the work.


== The five profiles ==

For each archetype, the first sentence follows Cherny's original definition; the second describes, prudently, the role this profile could play in a project like WikiDeal.

'''1. Prototyper.''' Comes up with brand new ideas and churns out many of them, most of which do not ship. In WikiDeal, this profile would generate concepts and content: portal drafts, policy ideas, contract-model hypotheses and innovation pages, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_prototyping prototyping] applied to socio-economic design as much as to code. Many drafts would remain hypotheses, and that would be normal.

'''2. Builder.''' Quickly turns a prototype or an idea into a production-grade product and infrastructure. In WikiDeal, Builders would turn mockups and concepts into a production-grade platform: the wiki, the funding tools and the marketplace applications, moving from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product minimum viable product] to real [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deployment software deployment].

'''3. Sweeper.''' Cleans up the user interface, simplifies the code and the system, unships features and optimizes performance. In WikiDeal, Sweepers would simplify pages, structures and code, remove what is superfluous, and keep [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt technical debt] under control.

'''4. Grower.''' Takes a product that has been built and iterates on it to improve [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product/market_fit product-market fit]. In WikiDeal, Growers would iterate toward community and market fit: adoption of the portals, contract models and marketplaces by real users and User Groups.

'''5. Maintainer.''' Owns a mature system to make it secure, reliable, fast and efficient as it scales. In WikiDeal, Maintainers would look after the reliability, security and performance of the wiki and of the marketplaces at scale ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_maintenance software maintenance], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability scalability], in the spirit of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DevOps DevOps]).

In this reading grid, the same person can combine several archetypes, and none of them is reserved to a specific job title.


== The methodology: five profiles plus open calls ==

This approach is the emerging methodology that the WikiDeal R&D programme intends to adopt, as an '''initial hypothesis'''. It would be tested during Prototype 1 (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Prototype-1-Deliverables|Prototype 1 deliverables]]).

Concretely:

* the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|open calls]] would include calls toward these five figures; there is a real intention to try to fill these roles, at least in the form of a pilot experiment;
* the way the pilot experiments are intended to work is to invite these figures to participate in the definition, the accompaniment and the implementation of the open calls and of the results that follow from them;
* the methodology of the open calls, combined with the five figures, is the envisaged lever to move from the idea to the prototype and to deployment: in short, to scale.

Whether these roles can actually be filled remains to be seen; that is precisely what the Prototype 1 pilot experiments aim at testing.


== Roles and credits ==

The startup of the project can be read through the same grid:

* for the startup phase, Theo Bondolfi plays the role of bringing the ideas and producing a large volume of content, which corresponds to the Prototyper archetype;
* he imagined and brought a vision, and tried to give it shape through concrete elements: notably the notion of needs balance, and the association of all the concepts (such as the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Bonding-Curve|bonding curve]]) into an overall recipe;
* he formulates initial hypotheses that create this overall recipe: hypotheses concerning the operating agreements of the project;
* the other figures and roles are intended to be progressively aggregated into the operational team, notably through the open calls described above.

Roles and origins of the concepts are credited on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Licensing-and-Credits|Licensing and Credits]] page.


== Sources and references ==

Framework sources:

* Boris Cherny, original post on X: https://x.com/bcherny/status/2071379474277613732 (also on Threads: https://www.threads.com/@boris_cherny/post/DaJgVFVj2PB/)
* Video summary (French): "Le créateur de Claude Code vient de dire que les anciens métiers sont obsolètes", Henri, ExplorIA, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pNHnjGhCMW4
* Analysis and lineage of the framework: "The Archetype Under the Title", paddo.dev: https://paddo.dev/blog/the-archetype-under-the-title/
* Analysis of the strengths and traps of each archetype: "Five Archetypes of Workers in the AI Age", braindetox.kr: https://braindetox.kr/en/posts/claude_code_work_archetypes_2026.html

Scientific references on AI-supported acceleration:

* Peng et al. (2023), "The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot", controlled experiment, arXiv:2302.06590: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06590
* METR (2025), "Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity", randomized controlled trial, arXiv:2507.09089: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 (summary: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/)
* Anthropic (2026), "How Claude Code is used in practice", privacy-preserving analysis of about 400,000 agentic coding sessions: https://www.anthropic.com/research/claude-code-expertise
* Anthropic Economic Index, ongoing research initiative on the effects of AI on work and the economy: https://www.anthropic.com/research/the-anthropic-economic-index


== State of the art ==
Combining human work profiles with AI assistance is the subject of a growing research field on human-AI collaboration and the future of work. The works below inform this hypothesis.

* Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee (2014), ''The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies'', W. W. Norton: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Machine_Age book page on Wikipedia].
* David Autor (2015), ''Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation'', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3): [https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3 doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.3] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Autor author page on Wikipedia].
* Saleema Amershi et al. (2019), ''Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction'', Proceedings of CHI 2019: [https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233 doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233].
* Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby (2016), ''Only Humans Need Apply: Winners and Losers in the Age of Smart Machines'', Harper Business: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_H._Davenport author page on Wikipedia].
* Luciano Floridi et al. (2018), ''AI4People: An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society'', Minds and Machines, 28: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5].


== See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Open Calls|Open Calls (innovation page)]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open calls in progress]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Prototype-1-Deliverables|Prototype 1 deliverables]]

💡 '''Improve this concept:''' submit a proposal via [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]]
[[Category:Innovation]]

Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Is-WikiDeal-a-DAO?

2026-09-20T18:33:15Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|Some internet groups have no boss: members vote and a program applies the rules automatically. These are called DAOs. Is WikiDeal one? Not yes or no; DAO-ness comes in degrees. WikiDeal shares the idea that users decide together.}}
{{ExpertIntro|A DAO encodes coordination rules in software, often with token-based voting. This page rejects the binary framing: research treats decentralization and autonomy as matters of degree. WikiDeal is described as participatory, decentralized in intent and partially autonomous. Whether the full label applies is not the key question. Status: initial hypothesis, to be reviewed.}}
__TOC__

= Is WikiDeal a DAO? =

''Status: initial hypothesis (first base position), to be reviewed and validated before adoption. This page takes no technology decision; it situates WikiDeal with respect to a model that readers from the crypto world often ask about.''


== What is a DAO ==

A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization decentralized autonomous organization] (DAO) is an organization whose rules of coordination are encoded in software rather than enforced by managers. In the usual sense of the crypto ecosystem:

* the rules live in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract smart contracts] deployed on a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain blockchain], so they execute automatically and are hard to change unilaterally;
* membership and voting rights are typically represented by tokens, and decisions (spending the shared treasury, changing the rules) are taken by token-holder votes;
* there is no central management: in principle, the organization is owned and steered by its members.

[https://aragon.org/ Aragon] is one of the best-known platforms for creating and operating DAOs, and the [https://ethereum.org/en/dao/ Ethereum community documentation] presents DAOs as member-owned communities without centralized leadership. The idea has real history behind it, including hard lessons: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO The DAO], an early venture fund of this kind launched in 2016, collapsed after a flaw in its code was exploited, a reminder that encoding governance in software does not remove the need to govern the software itself.


== So, is WikiDeal one? ==

The question is usually asked as a yes or no question, and this page declines to answer it that way. An organization is not simply a DAO or not a DAO: it has a degree of DAO-ness, a position on a continuum of decentralization and autonomy. Framing it as all or nothing, entirely a DAO or not one at all, hides what actually matters. The comparison below gives the facts first; the next section gives the evidence for treating the question as a matter of degree.

In the strict sense of the crypto ecosystem, WikiDeal would not qualify. It does not particularly rely on a blockchain: its starting point is technology neutrality, and distributed ledgers are only one of the tracks being explored (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Data/Blockchains|Blockchains and smart contracts]]). There is no token, and voting rights are intended to follow the principle of [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|one user, one vote]], not one token, one vote.

Measured as a degree, however, WikiDeal shares much of the direction of travel. It is intended to be participatory and quite decentralized, and the tendency envisaged is a strong evolution toward the model that the DAOs of the crypto ecosystem pursue: an organization owned by its users, with rules that are public, votes that decide, and a treasury governed collectively. Its autonomy is intended to be partial by design: rather than fully automated rule enforcement, the working hypothesis is a semi-autonomous guidance, where software supports and structures decisions while people keep the last word. There are aspects of a DAO here, a real degree of DAO-ness, and whether the full label applies is not the important question. The question mark in the title of this page is deliberate: the question is intended to stay open, because autonomy is never total and neither is decentralization; WikiDeal would always be more or less autonomous rather than definitively one or the other. Strictly speaking, WikiDeal is not even a single organization: it is an ecosystem, diversified across many user groups and chapters, and therefore broader than the DAO frame in any case.

As with Wikipedia, the interesting question sits a little elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a DAO either, yet it is one of the largest examples of decentralized, self-governing online production. What makes it work is not the technology of enforcement but the quality of its decision processes. The same holds for the WikiDeal hypothesis: the useful question is not which chain the rules run on, but who gets to decide, how, and with what legitimacy.


== A degree, not a label: what research says ==

Treating DAO-ness as a spectrum is not a rhetorical convenience of this page. It is how published analyses of DAOs increasingly work. Four verified sources:

* [https://policyreview.info/glossary/DAO Hassan and De Filippi (2021)], in the peer-reviewed journal ''Internet Policy Review'', analyse the definitional debates around DAOs and show that both defining properties are contested precisely because they come in degrees: it is debated whether a DAO must be decentralized only at the infrastructure level or also in its governance, and whether it must be fully autonomous and fully automated or whether autonomy can be interpreted in a weaker sense, with humans still involved.
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09822 Sharma et al. (2023)] studied ten DAOs empirically and defined metrics for what they explicitly call the degrees of decentralization and autonomy. They found that these degrees vary widely between DAOs and change over time: several prominent token-based DAOs showed poor decentralization in voting, while decentralization improved over time in one-person-one-vote DAOs such as Proof of Humanity.
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01176 Fritsch, Mueller and Wattenhofer (2022)] measured the distribution of voting power in three prominent DAO governance systems on Ethereum (Compound, Uniswap, ENS) and documented how organizations that are decentralized on paper can be concentrated in practice.
* The [https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2112b.htm Bank for International Settlements (2021)] described a decentralisation illusion in decentralized finance: even organizations built entirely on blockchains retain elements of central coordination, because the need for governance makes some level of centralisation hard to avoid.

The consequence for WikiDeal: claiming to be a DAO outright would be as misleading as denying any kinship with them. Organizations that carry the label are more or less decentralized, more or less autonomous, and their position moves over time. The honest description of WikiDeal is therefore a position and a direction: participatory, decentralized in intent, partially autonomous, with the intention to move further along the spectrum as its governance matures.


== A worked example: WikiDeal and the classic traits of free software development (draft) ==

''Status: draft comparison, an early sketch to be reviewed. It illustrates the thesis of this page: a degree of DAO-ness can be discussed trait by trait, instead of arguing about a label.''

Long before DAOs, research on free software described organizations that were already decentralized and largely self-organizing. [https://herbsleb.org/web-pubs/pdfs/mockus-two-2002.pdf Mockus, Fielding and Herbsleb (2002)], already cited in [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]], summarize the traits most often mentioned: such systems are built by potentially large numbers of volunteers (while noting that some projects are supported by companies and some participants are not volunteers); work is not assigned, people undertake the work they choose to undertake; there is no explicit system-level design; and there is no project plan, schedule or list of deliverables. Comparing WikiDeal with these traits, one by one, gives a concrete picture of its intended degree of decentralization:

* '''Built by large numbers of volunteers.''' Yes, deeply: this is an intention of WikiDeal. The model is not built on corporate funding, and company support would be considered case by case (see below).
* '''Work is not assigned.''' Broadly true for WikiDeal, with one nuance: boosts. Especially in the early phases, strategic decisions could boost certain directions and thereby create assignments of work. These boosts would themselves be grounded in emergence: proposals that gain more and more support, carried at first by a small group of early adopters playing an incubator role, both people and structures: social entrepreneurs and supporting places that help cooperatives, associations and independents constitute themselves as [[Gov/en/Portal:Community/User-Groups|user groups]], and then by a progressively wider circle.
* '''Support from companies.''' Support from non-profit organizations would be possible. For-profit companies would not be given a privileged position: the working hypothesis is caution, not refusal. There is no fixed position yet: specific criteria are intended to be defined notably by the WikiDeal [[Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Court-of-Auditors|Court of Auditors]], which would specify to what extent companies wishing to join the WikiDeal venture can contribute. The approach envisaged is case by case at first, so that clear policies can emerge over time.
* '''No explicit system-level design.''' Here WikiDeal differs: it aims at having a system-level design, but a highly diversified one, depending on the type of challenge concerned, rather than a single master blueprint.
* '''No project plan, schedule or list of deliverables.''' In the early phases there would be plans and schedules. But given the hyper-complexity of the undertaking, everything can evolve inside a simple and informal culture, the one symbolized by the word [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wiki] itself: from the Hawaiian word for quick, chosen for the first wiki in reference to the fast and flexible [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Wiki_Shuttle Wiki Wiki Shuttle] bus of the Honolulu airport. Even where plans, schedules and deliverables exist, they stay peripheral: the main activity remains grounded in individual initiative, without assignment of work.

Read this way, WikiDeal would match some traits of this decentralized tradition fully, others partially, and would depart from a few deliberately. That is what a degree looks like in practice.


== An emerging culture, larger than WikiDeal ==

The ideas that DAOs encode in software, organizations owned by their participants, rules debated in the open, decisions taken by votes rather than by managers, did not start with blockchains and do not belong to WikiDeal either. They belong to an emerging culture of decentralized, participatory governance that exists independently of both. Wikipedia's consensus processes, Debian's constitution and elections, Mozilla's distributed module ownership (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]]), the free software movement, the Exit to Community perspective (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]) and the crypto DAOs themselves are all expressions of this same culture, each with its own tools and its own degree of decentralization.

WikiDeal is intended to be one more adaptation of this culture, applied to a marketplace of contracts between users. It did not invent the culture and does not own it; it aims at learning from the communities that practice it and at contributing its own variant back.


== Transmission as a key indicator ==

How can the degree of autonomy and decentralization of an organization be observed in practice? The working hypothesis of this page is that one indicator matters more than most: transmission.

An organization is autonomous in the meaningful sense when it does not depend on any particular person, starting with its founders. That requires renewal of the people in charge: responsibilities that rotate, leaders who change over time, newcomers who can realistically reach any role. And renewal, in turn, requires transmission mechanisms: documented rules, teachable roles, elections or other succession procedures, and the deliberate transfer of knowledge and authority from the current holders to the next ones. Where transmission works, decentralization is real, because power actually circulates. Where it does not, an organization can hold votes and still remain, in practice, centered on its founding group.

The evidence base of the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting portal]] contains a documented example: [https://blog.iese.edu/ferraro/files/2011/05/The-emergence-of-governance-in-an-open-source-community.pdf O'Mahony and Ferraro (2007)] followed the Debian community over several years and showed how its members deliberately limited formal authority with democratic mechanisms, including annual leadership elections and recallable leadership (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research#evaluation-research|the evaluation section of Voting research]]). Leadership that is elected, term-bound and recallable is transmission built into the rules.

For WikiDeal, this principle is posed as a founding hypothesis of its own. The intended path is a progressive transfer of responsibilities from the founding circle to the community of users, described in the [[Market/en/Portal:Soft-Transmission/Main|soft transmission]] pages, with governance bodies that the community would choose itself. By this indicator, the degree of DAO-ness of WikiDeal is intended to grow over time: the more transmission actually happens, the more decentralized and autonomous the organization becomes.


== The central principle: participation scaled to the stakes ==

The working hypothesis of the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting portal]] applies here. WikiDeal operates in a context of decisions with multiple options, not simple yes-or-no votes, and the degree of participation is intended to depend on the degree of stakes:

* low-stakes, everyday choices would stay light: consensus, or a quick vote among the people directly concerned;
* medium-stakes choices between several options would use ranked methods (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Methods|Voting methods]]);
* high-stakes decisions, those that bind everyone (structural changes, elections of people, spending of shared resources), would involve the widest participation, with the strongest procedural guarantees (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]]).

Token-based DAOs often apply a single mechanism to every decision. The WikiDeal hypothesis is the opposite: match the method to the complexity of the decision, and the breadth of participation to its stakes (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting portal main page]]).


== A taxonomy of cooperation and collaboration ==

The distinction between levels and modes of working together has been studied outside the crypto world for a long time. Florence Devouard, a former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, developed a taxonomy of cooperation and collaboration that distinguishes modes of collective work, from coordinated individual contributions to genuinely shared production. This work was used notably in two European projects carried out within the Ynternet.org ecosystem, WikiSkills and Wikinomics, whose training materials are published on Wikibooks as the [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook WikiSkills Handbook], including a chapter of [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wikinomics_Training_practices Wikinomics training practices].

The taxonomy itself is published in the handbook chapter on wiki culture, in the section [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Wiki_culture_and_application_to_learning_contexts#Taxonomy_of_collaboration Taxonomy of collaboration]: it describes a progression from individual participation and dialogue, through parallel and sequential collaboration, to synergistic collaboration where the group self-organizes and co-edits the work, each step requiring a higher amount of trust among participants. Florence Devouard is credited among the writers of the handbook on its [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WikiSkills_Handbook/Acknowledgements acknowledgements page], alongside contributors from the Ynternet.org ecosystem. The same culture of analysis runs through the book ''Citoyen du Net'' (Netizenship), maintained as a wiki book at [https://netizen3.org netizen3.org] with a downloadable edition on [https://www.ynternet.org/ressources/livre-citoyen-du-net/ ynternet.org]; the French Wikipedia article on [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_num%C3%A9rique digital culture (Culture numérique)] cites this book as an anthology published under a free license by the Ynternet.org Foundation, with contributions notably from Richard Stallman and Florence Devouard.

Why it matters here: a DAO, in the narrow sense, automates one mode of working together (rule-bound voting on-chain). A marketplace community needs the whole range of the taxonomy, from light cooperation between two contract parties to deep collaboration on shared rules, and its governance should support all of them rather than force everything into a single voting mechanism.

''Open point (updated): an earlier version of this page noted that no single canonical online publication of the full taxonomy had been located. A published version has since been identified in the WikiSkills Handbook chapter linked above, which includes the taxonomy and its figure. One nuance remains: that chapter carries no individual byline, so the attribution to Florence Devouard rests on the handbook's acknowledgements page.''


== See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Main|Institutions portal]]: the portal this page belongs to.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting at WikiDeal]]: the main page of the Voting portal, whose participation principles are discussed on this page.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]]: the evidence base, including how Wikimedia, Debian and Mozilla govern themselves.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]: one user one vote, Exit to Community, deprivatisation.
* [[Market/en/Portal:Soft-Transmission/Main|Soft transmission]]: the intended transfer of responsibilities to the community.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Data/Blockchains|Blockchains and smart contracts]]: the state of exploration of distributed ledger technologies.

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Methods|Voting methods]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Licensing-and-Credits|Licensing and credits]]

Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance

2026-09-20T18:33:08Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{KidsIntro|This page explains who makes WikiDeal's big decisions. The idea mixes three recipes: Wikipedia, where everyone helps write the rules; cooperatives, where users own the service; and Switzerland, where small teams lead at every level.}}
{{ExpertIntro|WikiDeal's governance is proposed as a hybrid of three sources: from Wikipedia and free software, an open legislative process with Condorcet voting; from cooperatives, at-cost management and user ownership; from Swiss structure, collegial executives of 5, 7 or 9 at three levels. Offered as a basis for discussion, within an Exit to Community trajectory.}}
{{ArticleSummary|
* [[#hybrid-model|An innovation: a hybrid of three sources]]
* [[#who-decides-what|Who decides what]]
* [[#subscription-governance|Subscription as Governance Right]]
* [[#exit-to-community|Exit to Community]]
* [[#deprivatisation|Deprivatisation as a Process]]
* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]
}}
__NOTOC__

🔒 '''Admin view:''' You are viewing an administrative or core structural page.

= Governance =

''Status: initial hypothesis, proposed as a basis for discussion. Nothing on this page is adopted.''

Governance summary:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Model
| Hybrid of three sources: Wikipedia and free software, cooperatives, Swiss institutional structure
|-
| Legislative
| Open to all contributors, no election needed
|-
| Executive
| Collegial, 5, 7 or 9 members per level, elected by the assembly of delegates
|-
| Membership
| Monthly subscription (CHF 1/month)
|-
| Legal entity
| Ynternet.org Foundation
|-
| Trajectory
| Exit to Community, progressive deprivatisation
|}


== An innovation: a hybrid of three sources ==

WikiDeal's governance model is an innovation of assembly: not one more invented system, but a hybrid of three sources that have each proven themselves for decades.

{| class="wikitable"
! Source !! What WikiDeal intends to take from it
|-
| '''Wikipedia and the free software movement''' || Social contract, code of conduct, policies, committees, open editing for all, Condorcet voting, user groups. Above all: an entirely open legislative process.
|-
| '''Cooperatives''' || At-cost financial management, ownership by the users, redistribution.
|-
| '''The Swiss institutional structure''' || Collegial executives at every level, elected by an assembly of delegates.
|}


=== Source 1: Wikipedia and the free software movement ===

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement free software movement], notably [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian], WikiDeal intends to take the whole open governance toolbox: a social contract (compare the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Social_Contract Debian Social Contract] and WikiDeal's [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Ecopol-Social-Contract|Ecopol social contract]]), a [[Policies/en/Universal-Code-of-Conduct|code of conduct]], written [[Policies/en/Main|policies]], committees (starting with the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Steering-Committee|Steering Committee]]), a culture of open editing for all, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet voting] and [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|user groups]].

The central point: '''the legislative side is intended to be entirely open'''. It would be run directly by all the contributors willing to roll up their sleeves. No election is needed to legislate: anyone bringing solutions can propose rules and make the governance evolve, exactly as anyone can improve a Wikipedia article. This foundational hypothesis has its own page: [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]].


=== Source 2: cooperatives ===

From the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative cooperative] tradition, WikiDeal intends to take the financial culture: '''at-cost management''' (services priced at their real cost), '''ownership by the users''' and '''redistribution''' of what is not needed for operations. Classic cooperative mechanisms, such as equal voting weight for members, would also exist in the model. In practice, a very small minority of users gets deeply involved: deliberating, doing community work, joining celebrations. The model recognises this through the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive]]: light but real advantages for those who roll up their sleeves.


=== Source 3: the Swiss institutional structure ===

From Switzerland, WikiDeal intends to take the way the executive is appointed at every level. The analogy runs across three levels:

{| class="wikitable"
! WikiDeal level !! Swiss analogy
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]] || The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalities_of_Switzerland communes]
|-
| [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rings Of Trust|Rings of Trust]] || The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland cantons]
|-
| Global governance || The Confederation (the country)
|}

Each of the three levels would have a '''collegial executive''' (in the spirit of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorial_system directorial system]) of '''5, 7 or 9 members, depending on the scale''' of what it governs. At the global level, the working hypothesis is '''9''', a number estimated for a country-scale institution; the exact figure remains open. What matters is the principle, not the number: an odd, manageable group size, building on existing institutional experience and reflection rather than reinventing the wheel. A Swiss anecdote illustrates this: the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council Swiss Federal Council] has [https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/federal-council/members-of-the-federal-council.html 7 members]; proposals to enlarge it to nine members, argued to improve representation and concordance, have been repeatedly submitted to the Swiss Parliament without success, from a 2010 motion ([https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20103129 motion 10.3129]) to a 2025 parliamentary initiative ([https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20250424 initiative 25.424]): the reform never passed. WikiDeal would start from that assessment, with 9 as the working figure at the global level.

The executives would be '''elected by the assembly of delegates''', the WikiDeal analogue of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland) Swiss Federal Assembly] electing the Federal Council. The assembly of delegates itself is described on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making]] page.


== Who decides what ==

The detailed decision mechanics (open legislative process, assembly of delegates, role of the delegates, collegial executives, voting methods, money) are on a dedicated page:

→ '''[[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making]]''': who decides what at WikiDeal.


== Subscription as Governance Right ==

Participation in WikiDeal governance would require possession of at least one '''membership''', valued at CHF 10. This membership serves as the foundational unit of both economic participation and democratic rights. It can be acquired by purchasing it directly, by accumulating fractional memberships through platform use (e.g. ten CHF 1 Commissions from babysitting sessions), or by receiving one as a gift from a foundation programme, an ambassador, or another user.

A major financial funder with thousands of memberships would have exactly the same formal vote as a community member who earned their first membership through platform use. This is a deliberate architectural choice, not an oversight. It aims at preventing plutocratic capture, the drift toward governance-by-capital that has afflicted many "community" projects including some blockchain governance systems.

The model would, however, distinguish between economic weight and governance weight. Funders who commit more capital would receive proportionally more redistribution potential (more memberships, more potential Rewards). They would not receive more votes. This separation is what would allow WikiDeal to attract meaningful financial funding without compromising governance integrity.


== Exit to Community ==

WikiDeal is designed as an '''Exit to Community''' programme. [https://e2c.how/ Exit to Community] (E2C) is an approach developed by the [https://www.colorado.edu/lab/medlab/exit-to-community Media Economies Design Lab] (University of Colorado Boulder) in partnership with the [https://zebrasunite.coop/ Zebras Unite] cooperative movement, describing a transition path for organisations that want to move from founder or contributor control to community ownership. The concept was developed in response to the dominant "exit to acquisition" model of startups, where the goal is always eventual sale or IPO.

In WikiDeal's case, the transition is built into the founding architecture. Ynternet.org Foundation is intended to hold governance authority over the platform. This authority is meant to be transferred progressively to the user community as the platform grows, as governance tools mature, and as the community demonstrates the capacity to manage complex decisions. The foundation is meant to ensure the public-interest mandate is respected, while operational governance moves to users.

The founder ([[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Credits|see credits]]) has committed in writing to surrendering all intellectual property rights to the foundation, receiving in return 50 million memberships (under the same Personal/Community mechanism as all funders). His formal influence over retained prototypes is limited to a minority share, ensuring that no single person (including the founder) can override community decisions on the model's direction.


== Deprivatisation as a Process ==

WikiDeal uses the term '''deprivatisation''' to describe its long-term trajectory. Privatisation in this context means the concentration of ownership, value, and control in private hands. Deprivatisation is the reverse: a deliberate, structured transfer of those three dimensions back to the community that generates value. This is distinct from nationalisation (which transfers to the state) and from traditional mutualism (which often struggles with commercial sustainability).

The deprivatisation process is intended to be incremental and transparent. At each stage, the foundation would publish metrics on community ownership percentage, governance participation rates, financial flows, and infrastructure autonomy. The goal is not a single moment of "handover" but a continuous gradient: at every point, the community owns more than it did the year before.

[[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] competitions are a key mechanism envisaged for accelerating deprivatisation: by inviting the community to propose alternative models, WikiDeal intends to institutionalise the idea that the current governance structure is always provisional, always open to improvement. No rule would be permanent except the rule that rules can be changed by the community.


== State of the art ==
The hybrid governance hypothesis combines three traditions that are each documented by a substantial literature: commons and free software governance, cooperative ownership, and Swiss collegial democracy. The works below are background references for this exploration.

* Elinor Ostrom (1990), ''Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action'', Cambridge University Press: [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807763] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom author page on Wikipedia].
* Siobhán O'Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro (2007), ''The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community'', Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153].
* Eric S. Raymond (1999), ''The Cathedral and the Bazaar'', O'Reilly Media: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar book page on Wikipedia].
* Johnston Birchall (2011), ''People-Centred Businesses: Co-operatives, Mutuals and the Idea of Membership'', Palgrave Macmillan: [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230295292 doi:10.1057/9780230295292] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative cooperative on Wikipedia].
* Hanspeter Kriesi and Alexander H. Trechsel (2008), ''The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy'', Cambridge University Press: [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790676 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790676] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland politics of Switzerland on Wikipedia].
* International Cooperative Alliance (1995), ''Statement on the Cooperative Identity'': [https://ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity official page].

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making: who decides what]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting at WikiDeal: methods, rules, research]] (draft portal) · [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Is-WikiDeal-a-DAO?|Is WikiDeal a DAO?]] (the organizational nature of WikiDeal)

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Initial-Funding

2026-09-20T18:33:02Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards governance models where founders receive strictly limited, transparent compensation rather than unlimited extraction. This hypothesis proposes that early-supporter reward structures, when capped and coupled with progressive rights transfer to communities, can bootstrap cooperative platforms while maintaining alignment with equitable value distribution—a deprivatization pilot replicable across scales from local groups to major domains.}}

{{KidsIntro|This page explains the first money that helps a new project get started.}}

__TOC__

= Initial WikiDeal Funding — Early Supporters & Founders =
From WikiDeal, a Wikipedia of e-commerce

This page explains the principles behind the initial CHF 50 million in Rewards reserved for early supporters and the founder. It is a pilot for a new model of '''deprivatization''': acknowledging the founder's contribution within strictly ''limited'' — not unlimited — profitability, and enabling the community to progressively buy back rights.
== The CHF 50 Million Reward ==
WikiDeal's initial funding structure reserves '''CHF 50 million in Rewards''' to be distributed by the founder to early supporters. This amount is managed freely by the founder under the Early Supporter Contract, with the remainder structured as a '''rights transfer''' to the community.

In relative terms: if WikiDeal reaches Wikipedia's scale (over 1 billion users), CHF 50 million is a ''very modest'' sum. It does not compare to the billions accumulated by GAFAM or AI giants. It is intentionally sized to be acceptable — proportionate to the work contributed, not to speculative extraction.

== Three Objectives ==
=== 1. Bootstrap Incentive ===
Starting a community marketplace from scratch is extremely difficult. The first CHF 50M in Rewards acts as a lever to attract early supporters who, having received a Reward, are motivated to further contribute, donate, or bring others in. It primes the pump.

=== 2. Transparency as a Trust Signal ===
Some potential contributors will wonder: is this a scam? The CHF 50M is a transparent, publicly documented answer. The sum is neither too large (it would signal extraction) nor too small (it would signal no skin in the game). It signals: ''yes, enrichment is possible, but at correct proportions''. It remains aligned with the goals of a fairer world — unlike unlimited profit models.

=== 3. A Replicable Model ===
The Early Supporter + Founder mechanism is a '''pilot for a new form of deprivatization'''. The same model can be replicated at smaller scales:

* A few hundred CHF for a local User Group starting from scratch;
* A few hundred thousand for a thematic portal (e.g., Cooperative Housing);
* A few million for a major domain with significant upfront funding in time, ideas, and value.

In each case, the principle is the same: recognize the founder's or initiator's contribution within '''strictly limited profitability''', then transfer rights progressively to the community.

== Limited Profitability & Full Rights Transfer ==
The concept of '''limited profitability for founders''' is one of WikiDeal's core success criteria. Unlike startup models where founders can accumulate unlimited wealth, WikiDeal sets a ceiling. The founder receives a meaningful, fair reward — but the bulk of value created goes to the community.

Beyond limited financial reward, the model involves a '''complete transfer of rights''' — on ideas, governance, and all intellectual contributions. After the initial phase, the founder retains no special privileges beyond the right to give an opinion like any other community member.

Mandates given to founders and initiators are ''initially important'', but they are explicitly revocable by the community — first by the Steering Committee, then progressively by the broader community as it matures. The goal is always maximum inclusiveness: allowing those who initiated the project to remain active, feel included, and continue contributing — while ensuring their role is progressively '''diluted and reduced''' as community governance takes hold.

This is the culture of free software applied to a marketplace: as seen in '''Debian''', '''Wikipedia''', and other libre commons, where founders step back and communities take over. It is not a weakening of the project — it is its ultimate measure of success.

== Replication at Scale ==
The Early Supporter model is designed to be replicated beyond the initial WikiDeal core. Future cycles will apply the same principles to sub-projects and thematic communities:

* Arbitration Chamber (ensuring deal safety for all users)
* Thematic User Groups (Transport, Housing, Cooperative Living, etc.)
* Domain-specific portals with their own funding rounds

Each new incubation cycle will use the same mechanism — or improved versions of it — generating new waves of community co-ownership and new generations of early-adopter rewards.

== Future Incubation Cycles ==
The initial WikiDeal core is just the first cycle. It will be followed by other incubation cycles that are no longer about the core WikiDeal model itself, but about specific aspects of the ecosystem:

* Dedicated funding rounds for the Arbitration Chamber;
* Thematic community rounds for specialized User Groups;
* Domain rounds for large-scale portals (e.g., real estate, mobility).

These future cycles will allow WikiDeal to grow organically, with each new domain having its own early supporters, its own limited-profitability founder model, and its own path toward community self-governance.

== See also ==
* Funding (Research & Dev)
* Prototype 1 Deliverables
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Bonding Curve|Bonding Curve]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Commissions|Commissions]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive]]

[[Category:Funding]]

Gov/en/Portal:Community/User-Groups-Toolbox

2026-09-20T18:32:55Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Terminology: libre/free software instead of open source (Theo directive 2026-09-20)

{{ExpertIntro|We are heading towards a decentralized governance model where user-driven communities leverage standardized, libre documentation templates for operational legitimacy. This hypothesis proposes that transparent institutional frameworks—drawn from 400+ Wikimedia chapters—enable equitable participation while reducing administrative friction. The emerging trend suggests that template-based governance scaffolding democratizes professional organizational practice across distributed, multilingual networks.}}

{{KidsIntro|This page is a toolbox of helpers for groups of people working together.}}

__TOC__

= User Groups Toolbox =
From WikiDeal, a Wikipedia of e-commerce · Reference for User Group Governance

Running a '''User Group''' requires clear agreements between members — from bylaws and meeting minutes to fundraising contracts and partnership accords. This toolbox provides '''ready-to-use document templates''' and '''equitable compensatory measures''' inspired by the governance practices of the '''400+ Wikimedia Chapters and User Groups worldwide'''. Among these, the [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland German], [https://se.wikimedia.org/ Swedish], and [https://www.wikimedia.fr/ French] chapters stand out as an example and source of inspiration in organizational governance. The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs Les sans pagES] User Group (Genève), dedicated to reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia, is another valuable cross-domain reference. WikiDeal serves as a '''testing ground''' where existing Wikimedia User Groups can experiment with structured, transparent internal agreements — and where any new User Group can get started with professional-grade templates from day one.
== Document Templates ==
All templates below are generic and use placeholders: [NOM_UG] for the User Group name and [DOMAINE] for its area of activity. They can be adapted to any jurisdiction or language.

==== 📜 Bylaws / Statuts ====
Founding document defining the purpose, membership rules, governance bodies (General Assembly, Board, Working Groups), voting procedures, and dissolution clause of [NOM_UG]. Based on standard Swiss/EU association law adapted for online-first communities operating in [DOMAINE].

==== 📋 General Assembly Minutes / Procès-Verbal d'AG ====
Structured minute template for recording attendance, agenda items, votes, and resolutions of [NOM_UG] General Assembly meetings. Includes quorum verification, vote tallies, and action items with assigned owners.

==== 📌 Meeting Agenda / Ordre du Jour ====
Standard agenda template for Board meetings, Working Group sessions, and General Assemblies of [NOM_UG]. Includes time allocations, presenter assignments, and a standing "open floor" section for community input.

==== 📊 Annual Activity Report / Rapport d'Activités ====
Year-end report template covering key achievements, membership statistics, financial summary, events organized, partnerships formed, and goals for the coming year in [DOMAINE]. Designed for transparency toward members and external stakeholders.

==== 💌 Membership Fee Letter / Lettre de Cotisation ====
Notification letter for annual membership fee collection of [NOM_UG]. Includes fee amount, payment methods, due date, and a reminder of the benefits of membership. Adaptable for first-time and renewal notices.

==== ⚖️ Internal Rules / Règlement Intérieur ====
Complementary rules to the bylaws, covering day-to-day operations: communication channels, decision-making procedures between assemblies, conflict resolution, code of conduct, and data protection obligations for [NOM_UG].

==== 🤝 Fundraising Contract / Contrat de Fundraising ====
Agreement between [NOM_UG] and a fundraising partner or service provider. Defines targets, commission structure, reporting obligations, ethical boundaries (no misleading claims), and termination conditions.

==== 📝 Service / Consultant Contract / Contrat de Prestation ====
Standard contract for engaging consultants or service providers on behalf of [NOM_UG]. Covers scope of work, deliverables, timeline, compensation, intellectual property (defaulting to open licenses), confidentiality, and liability in [DOMAINE].

==== 🌐 Inter-User-Group Partnership Accord ====
Framework agreement for collaboration between two or more User Groups. Defines shared objectives, resource sharing, joint governance (steering committee), communication protocols, conflict resolution, and exit clauses. Designed to facilitate cross-community projects across different [DOMAINE] areas.

== Equitable Compensatory Measures ==
WikiDeal User Groups follow a principle of '''graduated, proportionate, and never exclusionary''' responses when obligations are not met. The goal is always to restore participation, not to punish. Direct exclusion is '''never''' the first response.

=== Unpaid Membership Fees ===
When a member of [NOM_UG] has not paid their annual fee by the due date:

1

'''30-day grace period''' — No action taken. The member retains all rights. Life happens; a month of flexibility is standard.

2

'''Friendly reminder''' — A personal (not automated) message is sent, asking if assistance is needed. Fee reduction or payment plans are offered if financial difficulty is cited.

3

'''Voting rights suspension''' — After 60 days without payment or response, voting rights are suspended. The member can still attend meetings, contribute to discussions, and access community resources. Voting rights are restored immediately upon payment.

'''Important:''' Membership is ''never'' revoked solely for non-payment. A member who cannot pay but actively contributes remains a valued participant. The Board may waive fees on a case-by-case basis.

=== Late Deliverables (Service Contracts) ===
When a contracted deliverable is overdue:

1

'''Formal deadline extension''' — A written extension of 14–30 days is granted, with an updated timeline agreed upon by both parties.

2

'''Mediation''' — If the delay persists, a neutral mediator (from the User Group or a partner User Group) facilitates a resolution: renegotiated scope, partial delivery, or revised compensation.

3

'''Structured exit''' — Only as a last resort, the contract may be terminated with a fair settlement for work already completed. No penalties beyond the undelivered portion.

'''Principle:''' Exclusion or blacklisting is ''never'' applied. Every situation is treated individually. The community's reputation depends on fairness, not enforcement.

== Wikimedia Toolbox Sources ==
The templates and governance practices in this toolbox draw from the most mature Wikimedia organizations worldwide:

=== 🇩🇪 Wikimedia Deutschland (Primary Model) ===
[https://www.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland] is the largest and oldest Wikimedia chapter (founded 2004, 100,000+ members). Its governance documentation is exemplary:

* Comprehensive bylaws with clear separation between Board, Presidium, and General Assembly
* Detailed annual reports with full financial transparency
* Professional fundraising contracts with strict ethical guidelines
* Formal conflict resolution and mediation procedures

WikiDeal adapts these structures for smaller, domain-specific User Groups that may operate with 5–500 members rather than 100,000.

=== 🇸🇪 Wikimedia Sverige ===
[https://se.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Sverige] is known for its efficient, lightweight governance model — particularly suited for mid-size chapters. Key contributions to this toolbox:

* Streamlined meeting procedures that work for both in-person and remote assemblies
* Clear partnership frameworks with cultural institutions (GLAM sector)
* Transparent volunteer compensation and reimbursement policies

=== 🇫🇷 Wikimédia France ===
[https://www.wikimedia.fr/ Wikimédia France] provides the legal reference point for francophone User Groups. Key contributions:

* Bylaws adapted to French ''loi 1901'' association law (widely used across francophone Africa, Switzerland, Belgium)
* Detailed internal rules (''règlement intérieur'') complementing the bylaws
* Experience with multi-stakeholder governance involving volunteers, staff, and institutional partners

=== Adapting for WikiDeal ===
WikiDeal User Groups differ from Wikimedia chapters in two important ways:

# '''Domain specificity:''' Each WikiDeal User Group operates in a defined commercial or community domain ([DOMAINE]), requiring templates that account for commercial transactions alongside civic governance.
# '''Platform integration:''' WikiDeal provides digital tools (deal management, Karma tokens, Civic Flex Pricing) that Wikimedia chapters manage through external systems. Templates here include provisions for these platform-specific elements.

== Pilot Opportunity: WikiDeal × Wikimedia 🚧 Nice-to-Have Feature ==
''This section describes a future feature under consideration. It is not yet implemented.''

The '''400+ Wikimedia User Groups, Chapters, and Thematic Organizations''' worldwide represent a natural pilot community for WikiDeal's governance toolbox. Here's why:

* '''Shared DNA:''' Both WikiDeal and Wikimedia are built on open knowledge, community governance, and transparency. The cultural alignment is immediate.
* '''Existing need:''' Many smaller Wikimedia User Groups (especially in the Global South) lack standardized templates for bylaws, contracts, and internal rules. This toolbox fills that gap.
* '''Structured agreements:''' Wikimedia User Groups could use WikiDeal to formalize internal agreements — service contracts with consultants, partnership accords with other chapters, fundraising arrangements — with built-in transparency and version control.
* '''Civic Flex synergy:''' The [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Flex-Pricing|Civic Flex Pricing]] model aligns naturally with Wikimedia's volunteer culture, where active contributors already receive recognition and access benefits.

'''Proposed pilot:''' WikiDeal invites 3–5 Wikimedia User Groups to adopt this toolbox for one governance cycle (typically one year). Participating groups receive:

# Full access to all document templates, customized for their jurisdiction and language
# A dedicated WikiDeal workspace for managing their internal agreements
# Feedback sessions to improve the toolbox based on real-world usage
# Recognition as founding contributors to WikiDeal's governance framework

Interested Wikimedia User Groups can express interest through the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]] page.

== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|Open Call]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Wiki-Deals-Index|Wiki-Deals Index (Contracts)]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Flex-Pricing|Civic Flex Pricing]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive]]

Prototype 1 Deliverables

2026-09-17T10:08:14Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|We are building WikiDeal step by step! This page lists the cool things we hope to finish in our very first version. It's our current plan, and we are working hard to make it happen.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This document details the intended deliverables for Prototype 1 of WikiDeal. It represents our current strategic hypothesis for the initial feature set and development milestones, outlining the technical and functional direction we are actively pursuing.}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Prototype 1 Deliverables}}
'''Prototype 1''' represents the foundational stage of WikiDeal: establishing the legal, media/communication, and technological bases required for the platform to function and grow. This stage is divided into two funding cycles, with a total budget of CHF 1,000,000.

== Funding Cycles ==

=== Cycle 1: CHF 200,000 (Guerrilla Mode) ===

The first cycle operates in lean, high-impact mode:

* Minimal participatory governance
* Small focused team of 2 to 4 core people
* Selected external consultants
* Objective: establish a clear framework and initial proof of concept

=== Cycle 2: CHF 800,000 (Consolidation) ===

The second cycle builds on the foundations laid in Cycle 1:

* Build on Cycle 1 deliverables
* Strengthen, scale, and professionalize all three pillars
* Broader participatory governance
* '''Total Stage 1 budget: CHF 1,000,000'''

== Three Foundation Pillars ==

Prototype 1 is organized around three core pillars, each producing concrete deliverables that together form the operational base of WikiDeal.

=== A. Legal Foundations ===

The legal pillar establishes the contractual and juridical framework that makes WikiDeal agreements meaningful, enforceable, and trusted across jurisdictions.

'''Deliverables:'''

* Legal studies and research on contract models
* Example contracts: a growing template library
* Arbitration framework and procedures
* Contract ecosystem: compensatory measures, alerts, and amendment processes
* Legal references database
* Recognition of contract validity per region and jurisdiction
* '''Lawyer endorsements''': attorneys vouching for contract validity within their jurisdiction
* Integration with [[Portal:Validation]] including:
** [[Portal:Validation/Legal Endorsement|Legal Endorsement]]
** Community Validation
** [[Portal:Validation/Arbitration|Arbitration]]

=== B. Media & Communication Foundations ===

The media and communication pillar builds the public presence and community-facing assets that attract early adopters and educate the broader public.

'''Deliverables:'''

* Explanatory texts and articles about WikiDeal's mission and model
* Video productions (promotional and educational)
* Tutorials and pedagogical pathways
* Content designed to attract pioneers from:
** Associative and nonprofit sector
** Cooperative movement
** Social entrepreneurship
** Digital commons community
* Clear "rules of the game" documentation
* Attractive and compelling communication materials
* Role-specific participation pathways:
** Technological roles
** Legal roles
** Commercial roles
** Governance roles

=== C. Technology Foundations ===

The technology pillar delivers the core platform infrastructure and innovative mechanisms that differentiate WikiDeal from standard wiki deployments.

'''Deliverables:'''

* '''Contracts with variables''': MediaWiki extension development enabling dynamic contract templates with configurable variables (not currently possible on standard MediaWiki)
* '''Unbundling mechanism''': a financial architecture that:
** Boosts funding capacity
** Progressively deprivatizes the platform
** Empowers citizen funding
** Attracts support from foundations and public utility organizations dedicated to the commons
* Core platform infrastructure (MediaWiki configuration, extensions, hosting)
* Integration with the contribution and support dashboard
* AI assistance portal and tools (see [[Portal:AI Assistance]])

== Related Pages ==

* [[Minimum Viable Product]]
* [[WikiDeal:Development]]
* [[Portal:Validation]]
* [[Portal:Validation/Legal Endorsement]]
* [[Portal:Validation/Arbitration]]
* [[Portal:AI Assistance]]
* [[Market:Observatory]]
* [[:Category:Key Feature WikiDeal|Key Features]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]]

[[Category:Project info]]
[[Category:Development]]
[[Category:Deliverables]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscriptions

2026-09-17T10:07:58Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|A subscription means paying a small amount every month to support and use the platform. It gives steady help to the community and access to services for you. This page also explains how that money is shared out.}}

{{ExpertIntro|WikiDeal is exploring a dual subscription model: a platform-level subscription (10 CHF/year) and User-Group-specific subscriptions (around 1€/month), both low-cost, transparent and constrained by market equilibrium rather than central pricing mandates. Retroactive billing at contract signing and an arrears rule aim at accountability without blocking free access. Subscription revenue would be distributed across four equal lots (Early Supporters, Ynternet.org Foundation, Association, Operations), with progressive democratization of their governance and solidarity mechanisms for those who cannot pay.}}

'''On this page:'''
* [[#key-rules|Key rules: optional but required to sign]]
* [[#two-levels|Two levels of subscription]]
* [[#platform-subscription|Platform subscription]]
* [[#user-group-subscription|User Group subscription]]
* [[#arrears-rule|The arrears rule]]
* [[#annual-incentives|Annual incentives]]
* [[#equilibrium|Equilibrium logic]]
* [[#distribution|How subscription revenue is distributed]]
* [[#democratization|Progressive democratization]]
* [[#citizenship|The Citizenship model]]
* [[#solidarity|Funding through solidarity]]
* [[#growth|Annual value growth and break-even]]
* [[#see-also|See also]]
__NOTOC__

= Subscriptions =

WikiDeal intends to operate two parallel subscription systems: the '''platform subscription''' (covering base access for all users) and '''User Group subscriptions''' (covering access to specific service verticals). Both are designed to be low-cost, transparent, and governed by market equilibrium rather than central pricing mandates.

Platform: 10 CHF/year (or 1 CHF/month + 2 CHF mgmt fee) · User Group: ~1€/month or 10€/year · Annual always cheaper


== Key rules: subscriptions are optional but required to sign ==

* '''Free access:''' Anyone can browse WikiDeal, read wiki pages, and explore contracts without subscribing.
* '''Signing a contract requires being up to date:''' Both parties must have an active (or retroactively settled) subscription at the moment of signing.
* '''Retroactive billing at signing:''' If months are overdue, ALL unpaid subscription fees are collected retroactively at the time of the next contract signing, billed ''in addition to'' the transaction commission, not deducted from it.
* '''Double commission + subscription:''' The transaction carries a double commission (one part for the User Group operating the service, one for the WikiDeal platform), between 5% and 15% total (justified exceptions possible). Subscription fees are charged on top of this commission.
* '''Micro-payments:''' For frequent small transactions, overdue subscription fees may be split into micro-installments. For larger contracts, the full overdue amount is settled at once.


== Two levels of subscription ==

{| class="wikitable comparison-table"
|-
! Level
! What it covers
! Annual price
! Monthly price
! Set by
|-
| '''Platform'''
| Base platform access, contracts, AI, governance
| class="highlight-cell"| 10 CHF
| 1 CHF + 2 CHF fee = 12 CHF/yr
| Ynternet.org Foundation
|-
| '''User Group'''
| Access to specific service (babysitting, etc.)
| ~10€
| ~1€ + fee
| Each User Group
|}

These are independent subscriptions. A user can have the platform subscription without any User Group subscription (access WikiDeal but not service-specific features). A user participating in three User Groups pays three separate group subscriptions plus the platform subscription.


== Platform subscription ==

In summary:

* 10 CHF/year if paid annually (best value)
* 1 CHF/month + 2 CHF management fee if paid monthly (= 12 CHF/year total)
* 20% surcharge for monthly payment reflects real admin overhead
* Billed at Transaction time (deferred model for inactive users)


== User Group subscription ==

User Group subscriptions are set independently by each User Group. They are typically very low, around 1€/month or 10€/year, but vary based on the services offered and the costs the group must cover.

Like the platform subscription, User Group subscriptions offer an annual discount to incentivise up-front commitment:

User Group subscription (example):
Annual: 10€/year
Monthly: 1€/month + management fee
Annual saving: 10 to 20% (set by each UG)

If a User Group sets subscriptions too high, members will fork and create a competing group at a lower price. This equilibrium pressure keeps subscriptions honest.


== The arrears rule ==

WikiDeal intends to enforce a strict '''arrears rule''' for User Group subscriptions to prevent free-riding:

'''Rule:''' If a member stops paying their User Group subscription (e.g. misses February and March), and then resumes in April, they must pay all missed months (February + March) at the time of resumption, before accessing the service again.

This rule applies to User Group subscriptions specifically (not the platform subscription, which uses the deferred billing model). It ensures:

* Members cannot selectively pay only during months when they need the service
* User Groups have predictable revenue even during seasonal lulls
* The group's cost base remains stable regardless of individual member activity patterns

'''Example:'''
* January: pays ✅
* February: does NOT pay ❌
* March: does NOT pay ❌
* April: wants to resume → must pay Feb + Mar + Apr to continue ✅


== Annual incentives ==

Both subscription levels incentivise annual payment:

{| class="wikitable comparison-table"
|-
! Payment type
! Platform sub
! UG sub (example)
|-
| Annual (once)
| class="highlight-cell"| 10 CHF → 10 CHF/yr
| class="highlight-cell"| 10€ → 10€/yr
|-
| Monthly (12 payments)
| 12 CHF (20% more)
| 12€ (20% more)
|}

The management fee on monthly payments is not arbitrary: it reflects the real cost of processing 12 individual payments, tracking 12 separate billing events, and managing 12 potential arrears situations versus one annual payment.


== Equilibrium logic ==

WikiDeal's subscription model is intended to be self-regulating through market equilibrium:

* If a platform subscription is too expensive → users leave or don't join → Ynternet.org Foundation lowers price
* If a User Group subscription is too expensive → members fork and create a competing group → prices naturally decrease
* If User Group subscription too low to cover costs → group may merge, raise rates with community approval, or dissolve

The threat of forking is a feature, not a bug. It prevents any single group from imposing unsustainable rates on its members.


== How subscription revenue is distributed ==

'''⚠️ No guarantee:''' the financial projections and scenarios presented below are '''for educational purposes only''' and represent '''no guarantee of future performance'''. They illustrate how WikiDeal's subscription model could sustainably fund operations under various growth assumptions. Actual results may differ significantly. These projections are part of WikiDeal's transparency commitment and are included in full in the subscription agreement.

WikiDeal's financial model starts from a simple principle: '''subscribers fund the infrastructure that makes fair agreements possible.''' Every subscription payment would be distributed across four beneficiaries, each with a distinct role in sustaining the ecosystem.

=== The four-lot distribution model ===

When you pay CHF 10 per year (or CHF 1 per month), your subscription is divided into four equal parts:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Lot
! Beneficiary
! Percentage
! Purpose
! Control
|-
| '''Lot 1'''
| Early Supporters & Founders
| 25%
| Recognition of those who supported WikiDeal's development from the beginning (the initial CHF 50M contribution)
| Private (the WikiDeal founder)
|-
| '''Lot 2'''
| Ynternet.org Foundation
| 25%
| Core infrastructure: governance, voting systems, annual events, coordination
| Foundation
|-
| '''Lot 3'''
| Association, Special Projects & Reserves
| 25%
| Community impact, special initiatives, financial resilience
| Democratically governed
|-
| '''Lot 4'''
| Platform Operations
| 25%
| Technology, infrastructure maintenance, operational costs
| Operational
|}


== Progressive democratization ==

Today, only Lot 3 is fully governed democratically. As WikiDeal grows, the other lots progressively become subject to democratic oversight. This reflects the belief that commons governance emerges from participation and scale.

'''Timeline:'''

* '''Years 1-3:''' Lot 3 is democratic; Lots 1, 2, 4 follow established rules
* '''Years 3-5:''' Lot 2 (Foundation) begins democratization of certain decisions
* '''Years 5+:''' All lots move toward community governance as early supporters' role diminishes


== The Citizenship model ==

WikiDeal's subscription model explores a principle called the '''Citizenship Tax''':

'''Those who engage contribute less.''' Those who participate in governance, voting, and community building pay the standard rate (CHF 10/year).

'''Those who don't engage pay more.''' If you benefit from the system but don't contribute to its governance, you pay a higher rate to compensate for the civic infrastructure others are maintaining.

This creates positive incentives: the more you participate, the more affordable your subscription becomes. The system is self-balancing.


== Funding through solidarity ==

Not everyone can afford a subscription. WikiDeal's model includes multiple paths to access:

* '''Third-party sponsorship:''' Organizations and individuals can pay for subscriptions on behalf of others (e.g., CHF 30/year to sponsor a single parent who pays nothing)
* '''Fee waivers:''' Users can request free commission on their transactions if they demonstrate need
* '''Cross-group support:''' Within User Groups or marketplaces, members can support each other
* '''Sliding scale:''' Based on income, engagement, and community contribution

This creates a system of mutual aid where those with means voluntarily subsidize those without, because the subscription cost (CHF 10-100/year) is negligible for many but meaningful for others.


== Annual value growth and break-even ==

A possible annual percentage increase is under study through a draft [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Annual Value Increase|Open Call]] (not yet launched); no percentage is decided.

'''The path to break-even: CHF 500M in subscriptions.''' To fully repay the initial CHF 100M contribution (via the 25% allocated to Lot 1), WikiDeal would need to generate CHF 400M in cumulative subscription revenue (25% of CHF 500M paid subscriptions × CHF 10/user/year). Under conservative user growth assumptions, this happens in '''approximately 5 years'''.

See the interactive simulator on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Transparency/Growth-Scenarios|Growth Scenarios]] page to explore how different adoption rates affect the timeline to sustainability.


== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Revenue-Structure|Revenue Structure]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards|Rewards]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards-FAQ|Rewards FAQ]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Need-Driven-Funding|Need-Driven Funding]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Payment-Methods|Payment Methods]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Financing-Development|Financing Development]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]]

[[Category:Funding]]

Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making

2026-09-17T10:07:42Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|Who decides things at WikiDeal? Anyone can help write the rules, like on Wikipedia. User groups send delegates to a big assembly, which chooses small teams of 5, 7 or 9 people to run things.}}
{{ExpertIntro|A proposed decision-making model, offered for discussion. Legislative: fully open, Wikipedia-style, no election needed to legislate. An assembly of delegates sets the agenda and elects collegial executive councils of 5, 7 or 9 members across three levels. Voting method matches the decision, up to Condorcet. Money: at-cost management and redistribution.}}
__TOC__

= Decision-Making =

''Status: initial hypothesis, proposed as a basis for discussion. Nothing on this page is adopted. This page details the decision mechanics of the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|hybrid governance model]].''


== Who decides what ==

The proposed distribution of decision power, in one table:

{| class="wikitable"
! Question !! Who would decide !! Main inspiration
|-
| Rules and policies (the "laws") || All contributors, directly, on the wiki || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian]
|-
| Agenda and elections || The assembly of delegates || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative Cooperative] delegate assemblies, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland) Swiss Federal Assembly]
|-
| Operational direction, at each level || Collegial executives of 5, 7 or 9 members || The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council Swiss Federal Council] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorial_system directorial system]
|-
| Complex multi-option choices || Voters, through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet]-style ballots where justified || [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|Wikimedia and Debian practice]]
|-
| Money || At-cost management and redistribution || The cooperative tradition
|}

Each row is detailed below.


== The legislative: open to all, no election needed ==

The rule-making side of WikiDeal is intended to be '''entirely open''', following the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]] hypothesis. It would be run directly by all the contributors willing to roll up their sleeves: anyone bringing solutions can propose rules and make the governance evolve, exactly as anyone can improve a Wikipedia article (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus how Wikipedia builds consensus]). '''No election is needed to legislate.''' Delegates would push the agenda, but proposing "laws" is never their monopoly: any user can do it.

The everyday tools of this open legislative culture are those of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement free software movement]: a social contract (compare the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Social_Contract Debian Social Contract] and WikiDeal's [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Ecopol-Social-Contract|Ecopol social contract]]), a [[Policies/en/Universal-Code-of-Conduct|code of conduct]], written [[Policies/en/Main|policies]] and committees such as the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Steering-Committee|Steering Committee]].


== The assembly of delegates ==

The '''assembly of delegates''' is the envisaged representative body of WikiDeal. It would be formed by:

* the '''delegates of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|user groups]]''', and
* the '''users who entrust their voting right to a delegate''' of their choice.

A delegate is not a distant politician. The delegate is intended as a '''facilitator, an adviser, a WikiDeal resource person''': someone who provides services to the users they represent. Delegates would push the agenda of the assembly, while rule proposals themselves remain open to everyone (see [[#open-legislative|above]]).

The assembly would have one decisive power: '''it elects the government''', that is, the collegial executives described below.


== Collegial executives: 5, 7 or 9 members ==

Executive power is intended to be '''collegial''' at every level, never in the hands of one person, following the Swiss [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorial_system directorial system] and its culture of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality collegiality]. Three levels are envisaged, mirroring the Swiss institutional structure (communes, cantons, Confederation; the analogy is detailed on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]] page):

# '''[[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:User Groups|User Groups]]''' (the communes),
# '''[[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rings Of Trust|Rings of Trust]]''' (the cantons),
# '''global governance''' (the Confederation, the country).

Each level would have a collegial executive of '''5, 7 or 9 members, depending on the scale''' of what it governs. At the global level, the working hypothesis is '''9 members''', a number estimated for a country-scale institution; the exact figure remains open, the principle being an odd, manageable group size drawn from existing institutional experience (the reasoning behind that number, including a Swiss anecdote about the 7-member [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council Federal Council], is given on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]] page). The executives would be '''elected by the assembly of delegates'''.


== Voting: Condorcet where it is worth it ==

Voting methods are not duplicated here: the '''[[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting portal]]''' is the reference. In short, the initial hypothesis is that most decisions never need a ballot (direct action, revert, discussion), and that when a vote is needed the method should match the decision: simple majority for binary questions, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet]-style ranked votes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Schulze method]) for complex multi-option cases. The documented history of Condorcet voting in the Wikimedia and Debian communities, with sourced numbers, is on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|Condorcet history and results]] page; the methods under study are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Methods|Voting methods]] page.


== Money: at cost, then redistribution ==

Financial decisions are intended to follow the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative cooperative] tradition: '''at-cost management''' (services priced at their real cost), ownership by the users, and '''redistribution''' of what is not needed for operations. The mechanisms are described in the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Main|Economy portal]]; the advantages envisaged for the minority of users who get deeply involved are described on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic Incentive]] page.


== See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]: the hybrid model (Wikipedia and free software, cooperatives, Swiss structure).
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting portal]] and [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|Condorcet voting in practice: history and results]].
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Steering-Committee|Steering Committee]]: the founding governance body.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Wikipedia Governance|Wikipedia Governance]] (foundational innovation).
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Is-WikiDeal-a-DAO?|Is WikiDeal a DAO?]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]] — including the Condorcet decision-making target.

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision

2026-09-17T10:07:26Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is a big experiment. This page explains the core idea behind it: applying the same rules that keep Wikipedia free and fair, to create a marketplace where everyone gets a fair deal without being tricked.}}

{{ExpertIntro|This article outlines the fundamental vision of the research and development part of WikiDeal. It demonstrates how the historical citizen debate between Free Software and Open Source—specifically the distinction between true non-discriminatory freedom and corporate co-optation—can be applied to other domains, such as the rules governing a Global Online Marketplace. By using this historical lens, WikiDeal seeks to establish fair distribution keys, curb the abuse of dominant positions, and define economic flows as commons (like air and sea) that must be preserved rather than privatized.}}

'''The research and development part of WikiDeal is an applied program aimed at answering fundamental societal questions about commerce and global marketplaces. Through Open Calls and public debates, it seeks to de-privatize economic flows and ensure they operate at real costs, rather than exclusively benefiting a small minority.'''

This article is specifically addressed to donors, contributors, and candidates looking to participate in our research activities. Its goal is to clarify the philosophical vision and the '''Research Motto''' of the program: we are connecting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship social entrepreneurs] and intrapreneurs—individuals who have dedicated their lives and careers to the commons—not in the domain of encyclopedic knowledge, but in the economic domain. If you want to support social and commons-oriented entrepreneurship, the cooperative spirit, and the participatory co-ownership of goods managed fairly, you are in the right place.

Fundamentally, the socio-economic questions we tackle here are meant to be solved through practical demonstrations, much like open mathematical problems. They rely on mechanisms already proven in Free Culture licensing communities (such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla Mozilla], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian]) and cooperative movements (such as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Mondragon Corporation] in the Basque Country and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mobili%C3%A8re La Mobilière] in Switzerland). These are reinforced by a very specific [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|hybrid governance model]] featuring significantly decentralized governance and a Swiss-style political structure of collegial executives.

__TOC__

== The Lesson of Free Software vs. Open Source ==

To understand the core approach of WikiDeal, we can look at a highly concrete historical example: the philosophical and academic foundation of the Free Software and Open Source movements.

In the 1980s, the issue of proprietary (privative) software was challenged head-on; today, for WikiDeal, the use of proprietary tools is completely excluded. The catalyst occurred in the early 1980s when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman]—a key founder of the movement—could not get the source code to make a MIT Xerox printer print double-sided. This proprietary restriction created an ethical, ecological (wasting paper), and political-economic problem by enforcing artificial scarcity in an economy of digital profusion. To combat this, the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software Free Software] and "copyleft" was established to guarantee users four essential freedoms. This was built on a very clear citizen concern: freedom must be protected, and we must prevent it from being corrupted, misused, or circumvented by proprietary models.

Later, in the late 1990s, a parallel movement emerged promoting "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software Open Source]," championed by figures like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond Eric S. Raymond] (author of ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar The Cathedral and the Bazaar]'') and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] (who promoted the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation] and the Open Source movement). However, within the Free Software community, there was an immediate, prescient fear that the Open Source movement—being more libertarian and business-oriented—did not sufficiently protect user freedom. Richard Stallman summarized this divide in his essay "[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software]," warning that Open Source focused merely on practical development models while ignoring the ethical imperative of defending citizens against discriminatory algorithms and locked-down ecosystems.

Behind these collaborative models lay a fundamental contract, and one crucial detail—a single "comma"—made a massive difference: the strict obligation to redistribute any additions made to the code back to the entire community.

This sparked a major theoretical debate in the 1990s. Eventually, the debate reached a turning point. On February 17, 1999, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens Bruce Perens]—who had helped found the Open Source Initiative—detached himself from the Open Source rhetoric and published a famous open letter stating: '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative#History "It's Time to Talk about Free Software Again"]''' (Original source: [https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html Debian mailing list archive]). He urged the community to return to the fundamental, radically non-discriminatory principles of Free Software. The theoretical debate was closed: true freedom required strict, non-discriminatory terms.

Then came the 2000s, where the practice proved the 1990s theory right. While the citizen community had adopted Free Software, major multinational corporations clearly oriented themselves toward Open Source. They freely mixed open code with closed, proprietary code, using the "open" label to create a false climate of trust while employing abusive, discriminatory, or biased closed algorithms where it suited them. They only used openness when it served their commercial interests.

Richard Stallman used a very fitting metaphor to describe this practice. He explained that mixing free software with non-free software is like offering both water and whiskey to children at school. While diversity of choice isn't inherently bad, these two options have profoundly incompatible intentions. Providing whiskey to children alters their health and their ability to learn. Similarly, introducing proprietary, data-harvesting software into public goods (like schools) fundamentally alters user freedom, exactly as major commercial platforms (like Amazon, Meta, Uber, or Airbnb)—owned by shareholders, not users—mix open and closed ecosystems to their sole advantage.

If these corporations were forced to use strictly free, copyleft licenses like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License AGPLv3] (which closed the "SaaS loophole" by requiring server-side software to remain free), they would be required to redistribute everything. This would place the dominant position back in the hands of citizens rather than a minority of investors. WikiDeal applies this exact solution in practice today: using strictly 100% Free Software (AGPLv3) and free content (CC BY-SA), as documented in our [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Libre Licensing|Systematic Libre Licensing]] policy.

This concept of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Non-discrimination radical non-discrimination]"—refusing to accept even minor compromises on fundamental freedoms—is exactly what allowed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement free culture] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software free licensing movement]—including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux Linux], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla Mozilla], and many others—to deploy and maintain their projects durably. They applied this strict recipe: exclusive use of free software and free content, governed by citizen agreements like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Social_Contract Debian Social Contract] and the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct]. This is the exact same lens through which WikiDeal conducts its research.

== Applying Radical Non-Discrimination to Global Commerce ==

Just as the Free Software movement resolved the complex issue of digital freedom through rigorous debate and clear theoretical boundaries, WikiDeal uses '''Open Calls''' to apply this fundamental source to a Global Online Marketplace.

We apply these principles to fundamental economic questions, such as:
* '''Distribution keys:''' What is the fair split between a service provider, the user group providing the service around them, and the platform? For instance, in the specific marketplace of NGO street fundraising, the key to success or failure was the distribution key between the organizing body and the beneficiary NGOs—a crucial issue that requires deep citizen debate.
* '''De-privatization and Commons:''' Just as the commons (like air and sea) that allow the economy to function and should not be privatized, how can economic flows operate at their real costs, rather than enriching an oligarchic minority?
* '''Freedom vs. Dominant Positions:''' How do we establish the right to freedom (e.g., the freedom to refuse advertising) while setting limits on the accumulation of profits and mechanisms that bias commercial relations?
* '''Fair Incentives:''' What are the just and honest mechanisms to motivate people to become active actors on the platform, and how can suffering workers globally unite to create transnational entities that serve them?

We will bring these questions progressively, using cycles and priorities, building on practices that already exist in the free culture and free software worlds.

We do not claim to be building a flawless utopia. To paraphrase [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Winston Churchill's famous 1947 quote] about democracy ("Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"): '''WikiDeal is the worst way to build a global marketplace, except for all the others.'''

In the realm of Free Software, the theory became crystal clear, even if practice showed that many actors still try to dilute good intentions. For WikiDeal, the goal is to bring that same level of theoretical clarity and practical resilience to the economy, creating a marketplace framework that is radically fair and fundamentally open.

== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]] — the quantified horizon this vision points toward.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Rules/Vision|Vision and Core Philosophy]] — For WikiDeal's general philosophy (cheap, flexible, participatory, simple to use), distinct from this Research Motto.
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Main|Vision Portal]] — The portal collecting the founding texts, manifestos, and shared values of the free culture and commons movements that inspire WikiDeal.

* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|WikiDeal socio-economic innovations]] — Including the posture that the debate on software is closed (Systematic Libre Licensing).
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Participative Agreement Design|Participative Agreement Design]]: participative design of agreements, with contract models endorsed by lawyers, ensuring a separation of powers.

[[Category:Innovation]]
[[Category:Migration August 2026]]
[[Category:Vision]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Prototype-1-Deliverables

2026-09-17T10:07:10Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|This page lists the things the first test version of WikiDeal must deliver. The work happens on several building sites at the same time, and at the end, the people who gave money will get the results promised here.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Prototype 1 lists the deliverables of the first CHF 1,000,000, in two stages: Stage A (~CHF 200,000, foundations and internal pilot) and Stage B (~CHF 800,000, open calls and scaling). Workstreams run in parallel and priorities may be revised. These are objectives, not promises: the only guarantee is to deliver reports, results and demonstrations of what has been done, with a best-efforts commitment and no guarantee of reaching everything.}}

= Prototype 1 Deliverables =
From WikiDeal, a Wikipedia of e-commerce · Annex to the Funding Contract

This page is an annex to the Funding Contract for the first CHF 1,000,000 funding round. It lists the deliverables for Prototype 1, organized into milestones. A second wave of deliverables for Prototype 2 is partially anticipated at the end of this document.

The deliverables below are ongoing workstreams executed in parallel, and priorities may be revised along the way. At the end of Prototype 1, the goal is to have the results listed on this page, presented as the goals that we aim to reach as results of the first million of donations. The Steering Committee has the possibility to make these goals evolve, to complete them and to specify them.

The project follows three main directions:
* Secure the legal, technological and governance foundations.
* Bring users (migrations or new starts).
* Offer the spirit, environment and tools so the model can be adapted by different groups and services, since it is a mindset.

Since the priority is to have users, everything that can go in that direction, notably migrations of users (user groups migrating to or starting on WikiDeal), is intended to be carried out in priority, nevertheless on a technologically and legally solid basis (first a solid legal and technological base, then bringing user groups to migrate or start).

The project embraces dogfooding: the mechanisms, notably the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Deprivatization|deprivatization]] mechanism in the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Exit To Community|Exit to Community]] spirit where users become the co-owners of the platform, are intended to be experimented as much as possible within WikiDeal itself, and could also be deployed for other projects of this type. Other mechanisms in the same direction of redistribution and co-rules are intended to be tested and possibly implemented more broadly.

As an initial hypothesis, the CHF 1,000,000 is intended to be allocated in about five parts of roughly CHF 200,000 each: open calls (management and rewards, at least 20% of the round), technology (software development), marketplace use cases, governance, and legal aspects, with launch costs, corrective actions and contingencies absorbed across these parts. These are initial tendencies: the detailed allocation is intended to be defined by the Steering Committee and the Ynternet.org Foundation.

'''On this page:'''
* [[#overview|Overview]]
* [[#two-stages|Two funding stages: foundations then open calls]]
* [[#user-adoption|User adoption target]]
* [[#milestone-1|Milestone 1: Donation and Reward Structure Implemented]]
* [[#milestone-2|Milestone 2: Marketplace Pilots]]
* [[#milestone-3|Milestone 3: Community & Distribution]]
* [[#milestone-4|Milestone 4: Governance]]
* [[#ai-integration|AI integration: four fundamental needs]]
* [[#prototype-2|Prototype 2: Preview]]
__NOTOC__


== Overview ==
''Note: Milestones follow a logical sequence: a milestone is validated before the next one is declared reached. In practice, many workstreams run in parallel across milestones, and priorities may be revised along the way.''

Prototype 1 covers all deliverables achievable with the first CHF 1,000,000. It is organized into approximately 4 milestones. The deliverables span 5 dimensions:

* '''Technology:''' Bonding Curve, Need-Driven Funding mechanism, Dashboard, Distribution algorithms, AI integration
* '''Marketplace:''' Pilot use cases (Babysitting, Street Fundraising, etc.) demonstrating the model in practice
* '''Community:''' Civic Incentive, Waves, Communities of Practice, Early Adopters programme, market development
* '''Communication:''' Explainer videos, communication campaigns, presentation tours
* '''Governance:''' Full contract modelling, multilingual core content, Open Calls operational


== Two funding stages: foundations then open calls ==
The CHF 1,000,000 round is structured in '''two stages''', addressing the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Research:Why-And-How-It-Can-Work#Preventing the Cold Start Effect|cold start effect]]:

* '''Stage A (~CHF 200,000): foundations and internal pilot.''' Deliver the base technology maximising user autonomy (including the [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Internal-AI|WikiDeal Internal AI]] for contract analysis/transformation), finalize the funding engine, formalize the rules of the game, strengthen and complete the legal foundations, and '''build WikiDeal's own community''' as the sole initial pilot, driven by the bonding curve and participatory funding. No external recruitment or migration yet.
* '''Stage B (~CHF 800,000): open calls and scaling.''' Launch [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|open calls]] for pilot experiments, open to '''any type of community''' (federations and user-group representatives running pilots). Spheres of activity are defined, '''deliberately avoiding head-on competition with very mature markets''' (short-term housing / Airbnb-type, taxi transport / Uber-type). Prerequisites: clearer rules of the game, demonstrated legal feasibility (arbitration), one-click smartphone-app generation pulling wiki data, and peer/lawyer endorsement validating contracts. The deliverables of this stage notably include the results of the whole [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main#wave-2|wave 2 of open calls]] (evolving list).


== User adoption target ==
Before the first CHF 1,000,000 is fully used, WikiDeal aims at reaching a broad user base: '''minimum 100,000 users, ideally 1,000,000'''. This range is intentionally wide, so as not to overcommit while stating a clear ambition.

This adoption is intended to be achieved notably through '''migrations of other platforms, social networks and public-utility online services''' toward WikiDeal. Concrete examples of such candidate services: babysitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative cooperatives] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer_lending peer-to-peer lending] projects.


== Milestone 1: Donation and Reward Structure Implemented ==
==== Goal: donation and reward mechanism functioning ====
* Early Adopter programme launched (including Funding contracts and annexes)
* Funding engine finalized: donation chain working end to end (sign-up, donation form, payment validation, Reward activation, funder dashboard, cash out)
* Need-Driven Funding mechanism designed and documented
* Rules of the game formalized (governance, innovations), laying the bases to launch targeted research
* Legal foundations: the existing [[Gov/en/Portal:Transparency/Legal-Studies|legal studies]] are strengthened and completed, with legal opinions issued on the different aspects, notably the donation mechanisms and the Rewards mechanisms
* Founder's rights transferred to the Ynternet.org Foundation
* Pre-launch costs covered
* Steering Committee constituted
* Initial communication operations (detailed planning, working groups formation, open calls preparation)
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Wave 1 open calls]] delivered: three early bird calls launched on 21 July 2026, the opening day of [https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2026:Wikimania Wikimania 2026] in Paris, each offering CHF 1,000 in direct cash and CHF 10,000 in Rewards (no guarantee):
** '''URL naming and general structure''' (open until a first simple version has been adopted)
** '''Graphic charter and trademark proposals''' (open until a first simple version has been adopted)
** '''Spectacular tutorial on small loans''' (competitive, 21 December 2026 deadline)
* Donation and reward mechanism functioning (Note: The technical [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Bonding Curve|Bonding Curve]] rules are documented separately)
* 2 reward types operational:
** '''Donor''': making a donation without guarantee of return.
** '''Reward''': conditional rewards, where a portion is kept by the person and a portion is allocated to the community based on the Need-Driven Funding mechanism.


== Milestone 2: Marketplace Pilots ==
==== Goal: demonstrate real-world marketplace operation ====
* At least 2 marketplace pilots live (Babysitting, Street Fundraising)
* Contract modelling for all pilot domains (base contracts, amendments, compensation, closing)
* Need-Driven Funding tested in at least one marketplace domain
* User Group (Community of Practice) operational for each pilot


== Milestone 3: Community & Distribution ==
==== Goal: reward distribution and civic engagement running ====
* Rewards distribution mechanism implemented
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Karma-Tokens|Karma token]] system formalized. Karma tokens are an internal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter barter] system for services, products, exchanges, functional economy and mutual support: the system is formalized during Prototype 1 and its launch is planned for Prototype 2, not for the very beginning: step 1 is devoted to constituting the structure, and no services are provided yet at the start.
* Note: reputation-based rewards ("reputation credits") were removed from these deliverables on 3 August 2026 and are deliberately not part of the current model. The concept is only examined in the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Reputation-Rewards|wave 2 open call on reputation rewards]], a study without commitment.
* Civic Incentive operational: Flex Pricing applied in at least one marketplace
* Waves programme launched (at least one priority User Group wave: e.g., arbitration groups)
* Market development: creating the conditions for marketers to launch and run their own User Groups
* A targeted presentation tour in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_lab living labs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_incubator incubators] of universities and academic hubs, mostly oriented toward [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_economy social economy] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_commons_(economics) digital commons]: launching targeted research on specific aspects of the project, associating research questions and donations, launching open calls, and forming the embryos of future User Groups
* Modelling of all contracts linked to community stimulation dynamics
* Explainer videos produced (at least 3: intro, funding, marketplace pilot)


== Milestone 4: Governance ==
==== Goal: governance framework operational, ready for Prototype 2 preparation ====
* Open Calls fully operational (all 3 tracks: Permanent, Need-Driven Funding, Prototype)
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main#wave-2|Wave 2 open calls]] defined, launched, managed and delivering results (the list of wave 2 calls is intended to evolve, and the share of the budget they represent is not yet fixed)
* Study of [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Karma-Tokens|Karma tokens]]
* CDIEM evaluation process live (peer review, reputation system, and the CDIEM parameters: Conception, Design, Implementation, Evaluation, Maintenance)
* Multilingual translation of all core content completed
* Governance transfer criteria defined (Steering Committee → community)
* Communication campaigns: at least 2 major campaigns
* Position paper for Prototype 2 drafted (based on learnings from P1)


== AI integration: four fundamental needs ==
Before the end of Prototype 1, WikiDeal intends to integrate AI assistance (see [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Internal-AI|WikiDeal Internal AI]]) serving four fundamental needs:

# '''Co-create contract models''': help users bring in and transform contracts (mandates, employment, volunteering, loans, sharing), so that trends of social, solidarity and real-cost clauses can emerge.
# '''Co-finance, understand and appreciate''': help people understand how they can make donations and how they can cash out their Rewards.
# '''Conclude and manage contracts''': assist the first use cases, from the conclusion of a contract to its day-to-day management.
# '''Governance without barriers to entry''': facilitate the integration of newcomers so that they feel like actors in the project and can contribute to open calls and to the evolution of the rules of the game. Other wikis often show high barriers to entry (which is not a problem in itself); WikiDeal aims at reducing and avoiding such barriers.


== Prototype 2: Preview ==
Prototype 2 deliverables will be defined through the Prototype Proposal process described in [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Open Call]]. At this stage, the following themes are anticipated:

* Launch of numerous marketplaces
* A new funding call, in a form adapted to the learnings of the first stage
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Karma-Tokens|Karma token]] launched and tested: the internal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter barter] system for services, products, exchanges, functional economy and mutual support, formalized during Prototype 1
* Refinement of the Bonding Curve formula based on real data from P1
* Expansion to additional marketplace domains (Housing, Transport, etc.)
* Full autonomy of community governance (reduced Steering Committee role)
* Advanced Civic Incentive mechanisms (representation rights, analysis seats)


== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]]: the quantified long-term direction these deliverables contribute to.

[[Category:Deliverables]]

Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Main

2026-09-17T10:06:50Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Add See also link to Vision 2035 Success Indicators

{{KidsIntro|Big projects are guided by big dreams written down: manifestos, promises, shared values. This page collects the founding texts that inspire WikiDeal, like the ones that inspired Wikipedia, so everyone can see where the project wants to go.}}

{{ExpertIntro|The Vision portal gathers the visions that guide WikiDeal and interact with one another: manifestos, raisons d'etre, professions of faith, shared values, fundamental principles and criteria. During Prototype 1, the portal mainly collects general references (founding texts of the free culture and commons movements); a synthesis is intended to emerge from this collection. As with innovations, there are visions for the platform as a whole, and there would then be specific visions for each marketplace portal (transport, housing, bike lending and more).}}

__TOC__

= Vision Portal =


== What this portal collects ==

WikiDeal is guided by '''visions''' that interact with one another. They take different forms: manifestos, raisons d'etre, professions of faith, shared values, fundamental principles, criteria, and more.

This portal is a '''collection'''. In a first phase, within [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Prototype-1|Prototype 1]], it gathers '''general references''': founding texts of the free culture and commons movements. From these general references, a '''synthesis''' is intended to emerge progressively.



== Sources of inspiration (Founding references) ==

The list is open; these first entries give the spirit:

* '''Richard Stallman, [https://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource]''' (1999): the text that formulated the idea of a free, universal encyclopedia built by everyone, which in substance gave birth to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia].
* '''John Perry Barlow, [https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]''' (1996): the manifesto of an open network space governed by its own participants.
* '''The [https://www.debian.org/social_contract Debian Social Contract]''': the promise a free software community makes to its users, a model of a binding profession of faith.
* '''The Wikimedia [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct]''': the shared behavioural base of the Wikimedia movement, which has already been [[Policies/en/Universal-Code-of-Conduct|adapted for WikiDeal]].
* '''The [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Ecopol-Social-Contract|Ecopol social contract]]''' (Bâtir Groupé / Smala communities, V26): the community agreements of the Ecopol approach (8 golden rules, 9 agreements, 10 communication keys), an internal source of the Ynternet.org ecosystem, lived in its communities for years, adapted here for the whole of WikiDeal's relationships and community dynamics.


== Platform visions and marketplace visions ==

As with the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|innovations]], the visions exist at two levels:

* '''visions for the platform in its entirety''', collected and synthesised on this portal (for the research context, see the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision|Intention and Vision of the R&D program]]);
* '''specific visions for each marketplace portal''', intended to come later: for example shared visions on the world of transport, of housing, or of bike lending.

The [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main#innovation-criteria|innovation criteria]] are intended to be revisited in connection with this portal.

The quantified direction of the project at horizon 2035 — tendencies and intentions, not commitments — is summarised on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]] page.


== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035|Vision 2035 — Success Indicators]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision|Intention and Vision of the R&D program]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Main|R&D portal]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|Innovations]]
* [[Policies/en/Universal-Code-of-Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct (WikiDeal adaptation)]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Success-Indicators-2035

2026-09-17T10:06:33Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Create Vision 2035 Success Indicators page (validated by Theo 2026-09-17)

{{KidsIntro|Every big project needs a dream with numbers. This page shows what WikiDeal hopes to achieve by the year 2035: how many people could use it, how decisions would be made, and how it would help other free projects like Wikipedia. These are wishes and directions, not promises.}}

{{ExpertIntro|This page states the success indicators envisioned for WikiDeal at horizon 2035. It combines quantitative targets (subscriptions, User Groups, endorsed contract models, Condorcet decision-making, redistribution to free-culture movements, cost advantages) and qualitative impacts (coopetition, decline of speculative culture, user ownership, cooperative revitalization). All figures are tendencies and intentions proposed as a basis for discussion: they show the direction the project wants to take, and — as Wikipedia's own history suggests — reality may well bring surprises in both directions.}}

= Vision 2035 — Success Indicators =

'''These indicators express a tendency and an intention.''' They show the direction WikiDeal wants to take by 2035, in the spirit of the founding visions collected on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Main|Vision portal]]. Like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia in its early days], the project may be surprised by how reality unfolds: these figures are proposed as a basis for discussion, to be combined with other sources and revisited over time. They are not commitments.

The orders of magnitude are inspired by the trajectories of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation Mozilla Foundation], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian project] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap].

__TOC__


== Quantitative indicators ==


=== Adoption and reach ===
* '''≥ 2 billion active monthly subscriptions'''
* '''99% of subscriptions paid through concrete transactions''': the subscription is deducted from a real transaction, not paid as a separate standalone fee
* '''Platform available in ≥ 100 languages''' (for reference, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias Wikipedia exists in over 300 language editions])
* '''Active users in ≥ 150 countries'''
* '''≥ 10,000 smart apps''' using WikiDeal contract models


=== Community and participation ===
* '''More than 10,000 recognized User Groups''', plus around 50,000 User Groups that are inactive, not (yet) recognized, or weakly active
* '''More than 200,000 daily participants''', on a voluntary and unpaid basis, improving contract models, compensatory measures and legal rules
* '''≥ 3,000 active code contributors''' (order of magnitude of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian] project)


=== Contracts and content ===
* '''≥ 100,000 endorsed contract models''' — recognized by lawyers — available under free licences; the endorsement of contracts is the key point
* '''Dispute rate below 1% of transactions''', of which more than 90% are resolved through community mediation, without reaching arbitration or judicial proceedings
* '''10 to 20 active WikiDeal Sister Projects''', such as the arbitration Sister Project or the product-provenance Sister Project


=== Economy and redistribution ===
* '''5–15% of subscriptions redistributed''' to support other key movements of wiki and free culture — such as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation Mozilla Foundation], the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian] movement, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap], foundations working on the prevention of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias algorithmic bias], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference) TED] conferences and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons] movement — representing between 100 and 300 million on the basis of 2 billion subscriptions
* '''10–20% lower costs than speculative competitors''' on comparable services, notably in transport, housing and retail
* '''Structural costs below 10% of revenue''' (efficiency comparable to the Wikimedia Foundation)
* '''Financial reserves covering ≥ 24 months of operations''', with fully public accounts (public annual reporting in the Wikimedia tradition)


=== Governance, freedom and infrastructure ===
* '''More than 50% of key decisions taken through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method Condorcet voting]'''
* '''100% of the code under the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License AGPL v3] free licence''' — free licences as specified by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation Free Software Foundation], not just any licence — and '''100% of contract models under free licences'''
* '''100% of user data stored in a decentralized way''', within trust networks
* '''≥ 80% declared user trust rate''', measured by an independent annual survey with published results
* '''100% of the technical infrastructure powered by renewable energy'''
* '''Dedicated support programmes''' for social entrepreneurs, for inclusion and diversity, for the ecological transition, and for the propagation of cooperative values and free culture


== Qualitative impacts ==

Beyond the figures, the following impacts describe the cultural and structural changes the project aims to contribute to:

* '''Strengthened coopetition''': competing groups recognize the need for common commercial standards, in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition coopetition] logic
* '''Decline of speculative culture''' in the sectors where the platform operates
* '''Transfer of control over parts of the economy''' — notably from family ownership toward ownership by the users — and, more broadly, a '''revitalization of cooperative and participatory movements'''
* '''Greater trust in international peer-to-peer interactions''': individuals renting, lending and trading across borders trust their ability to reach fair agreements through WikiDeal
* '''An A-to-Z accompaniment culture''': users are supported throughout life, or through the important moments and transitions of life, building global trust
* '''A new cultural norm''': preferring purchases carrying the WikiDeal label, or facilitated by WikiDeal, becomes a common social reflex
* '''Combined programmes for the ecological transition''', linking fair contracts and environmental responsibility
* '''Legislative influence''': WikiDeal contract models inspire national and international regulatory evolutions, in the spirit of digital fairness
* '''Rebalancing of power''': a perceptible reduction of asymmetries between individuals and large platforms in everyday transactions
* '''Education''': fair-contract practices integrated into school and university curricula
* '''Extension of free culture''': the wiki and free model extends beyond software and knowledge, toward law and the economy of transactions
* '''A democratic standard''': Condorcet voting and WikiDeal governance serve as a reference for other online organizations
* '''Local trust''': measurable strengthening of interpersonal trust within user communities
* '''Appeasement of conflicts''': disputes are experienced as restorative processes rather than confrontations


== See also ==
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Vision/Main|Vision Portal]] — the founding texts and shared values that inspire WikiDeal
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Intention-and-Vision|Intention and Vision of the R&D program]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Prototype-1-Deliverables|Prototype 1 Deliverables]] — the concrete first steps toward this horizon
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making]] — including Condorcet voting
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscriptions|Subscriptions]] — the economic base of several indicators

[[Category:Vision]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Subscription-With-Rewards

2026-09-14T07:23:31Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Restore missing redirect after rename

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Subscription-With-Tokens]]

Gov/fr/Portal:Economy/FAQ-Recompenses

2026-09-14T07:23:30Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Restore missing redirect after rename

#REDIRECT [[Gov/fr/Portal:Economy/FAQ-Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards-FAQ

2026-09-14T07:23:29Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Restore missing redirect after rename

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens-FAQ]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards

2026-09-14T07:23:28Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Restore missing redirect after rename

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Steering-Committee

2026-09-13T20:55:30Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Pivot 2026-09-10: Clarify transitional and strictly operational role of WikiDeal SA (Section 6 & Intro)

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is watched over by three circles of people. A Foundation Council checks the big picture once a year. A Steering Committee checks progress at least four times a year. Small teams called commissions look after one topic each, like fair arbitration, money or research. None of these circles do the daily work: they read, verify and advise, and nothing here is final yet.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page proposes a three-level supervision structure for WikiDeal under the Ynternet.org Foundation: the Foundation Council (annual meeting, receives the Steering Committee's reports, issues an opinion and where possible grants discharge for the accounts and management report), the Steering Committee (at least four meetings per year, receives the reports of the commissions and confirms the mandate of the general direction and of the direction of commissions), and thematic commissions (simplified arbitration, audit, funding and financial management, market deployment, open calls and research priorities, with more under discussion). Council and Committee members would carry no operational responsibility (typically less than one day per month) and would receive no attendance fees for Council or Committee meetings; remunerated commission work would be compensated primarily in Subscription Tokens, with codified and capped attendance fees submitted to the Geneva cantonal and federal foundation supervisory authorities to preserve the Foundation's tax exemption and public-utility status. In the long run, the structure could separate into a quality-verification body, community-appointed commission members, and a decentralized operational coordination group. Status: proposal, offered as a basis for discussion. WikiDeal SA is planned strictly as a transitional company to receive initial funding and allow the project to start, acting under a management mandate based on the Foundation's strategic vision, without any decision-making power. In a second phase, once external investors are no longer needed, it could be recycled into a purely operational execution entity or dissolved.}}

'''On this page:'''
* [[#three-levels|1. A three-level supervision structure]]
* [[#commissions|2. Commissions]]
* [[#commission-roles|3. Roles within a commission]]
* [[#non-operational|4. Non-operational principle]]
* [[#remuneration|5. Attendance fees and remuneration]]
* [[#long-term|6. Long-term outlook: two or three structures]]
* [[#purpose|7. Purpose: progressive transfer to the users]]
* [[#appointment-composition|8. Appointment and composition]]
* [[#organic-constitution|9. An organic constitution process]]
* [[#current-situation|10. Current situation]]
* [[#charter|11. Charter]]
* [[#see-also|12. See also]]
__NOTOC__

= Steering Committee =

The '''Steering Committee''' is the founding governance body of WikiDeal. It is currently in the process of being constituted: this is the very beginning of the project, and nothing is fixed at this stage. For the time being, this responsibility rests with the Council of the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation].

''Everything below is a proposal (initial hypothesis), offered as a basis for discussion. It is intended to feed a Foundation regulation that would complement the Foundation's statutes.''


== 1. A three-level supervision structure ==

[[File:WikiDeal-supervision-structure-v0.1.png|thumb|center|620px|Proposed supervision structure (v0.1 draft, basis for discussion)]]

The proposed structure distinguishes three levels of supervision, from the most occasional to the most regular. In the proposed schema, the Steering Committee sits inside the Foundation Council:

{| class="wikitable"
! Body !! Meets !! Role
|-
| '''Foundation Council''' || Once a year || Follows the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit) Foundation]'s statutes. Receives the reports of the Steering Committee, issues an opinion and, where possible, as in any sound structure, grants discharge to the Committee for the accounts and the management report.
|-
| '''Steering Committee''' || At least four times a year || Receives the reports of the commissions. Confirms the mandate of the person or persons assuming the general direction and the direction of the commissions. This quarterly review is intended to remain light: progress reports and general quarterly reports, checked at a high level rather than in operational detail.
|-
| '''Commissions''' || According to their own rhythm || Thematic teams, each responsible for one subject (see below). The commissions reporting to the Steering Committee are mainly the WikiDeal commissions, alongside two other Foundation commissions: the TEDxGeneva commission and the European research projects commission.
|}


== 2. Commissions ==

The following WikiDeal commissions are proposed or emerging. The list is open: further commissions could be added as the project grows.

* '''Simplified arbitration commission''' (emerging): supervises the first experiences of [[Market:Arbitration|simplified arbitration]].
* '''Audit commission''': verifies accounts and processes. In a first phase, audit, governance oversight and simplified arbitration could be handled by a single commission, then separate over time. See also the [[Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Court-of-Auditors|Court of Auditors]] page and the [[Policies/en/Audit-Committee-Charter|Audit Committee charter]] (proposal).
* '''Funding and global financial management commission''': fundraising and verification that funds are spent wisely. Théo Bondolfi, founder, proposes to assume this responsibility for the initial phase.
* '''Market deployment commission''': marketing, commercial strategy and vision for the deployment of the WikiDeal markets.
* '''Open calls and research priorities commission''': priorities of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|open calls]] and of the applied research programs. The detailed working of open call commissions has its own page: [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]].
* '''Governance commission''' (under discussion): would provide an annual report to the Foundation Council stating, with indicators, that the governance of WikiDeal and of the Foundation remains soundly managed. Being close to audit in nature, it could start inside the audit commission and become distinct later.

Many commission members would come from an election scheme: commission members would be appointed by the WikiDeal users, and preparing these elections, nominations or designations is intended to be part of the commissions' own work. The election system is intended to follow the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections Wikimedia Foundation elections] model, where governance bodies are elected by the community of contributors. It would come into play once WikiDeal has at least a few thousand, and rather a few tens of thousands, of registered and subscribed contributors, not before; until then, appointments and designations would prevail. Setting up elections in institutions is a practice the Ynternet.org Foundation teams have carried out routinely in several institutions.


== 3. Roles within a commission ==

A commission typically involves at least four roles, and two or three of them can be assumed by the same person:

* '''Presidency''': leads the commission.
* '''Secretariat''': documentation and formal follow-up.
* '''Facilitation''': smooth running of meetings and exchanges.
* '''Quality management''': verifies that outputs meet the expected quality.

The proposal is that the facilitator and the secretariat would usually be remunerated and external (outside the Steering Committee and the Foundation Council), while the presidency and the quality management would usually be internal.

Commission presidents would be members of the Foundation Council: each commission would have one or two delegates who are members of the Foundation Council, and thus potentially members of the Steering Committee.


== 4. Non-operational principle ==

The proposed Foundation regulation would specify that the members of the Foundation Council and, by inclusion, the members of the Steering Committee carry no operational responsibility. They would invariably devote less than one day per week to these functions, and almost all of them less than one day per month. Their mission is not to execute: it is essentially to read and to verify that execution is correct.

When they are mandated to participate in commissions, they would subcontract the operational realization of the commission's work to service providers, consultants, or employees of the Foundation or of third-party structures, without getting involved in operational execution themselves.


== 5. Attendance fees and remuneration ==

The proposed financial rules are the following:

* Members of the Foundation Council and of the Steering Committee would receive '''no attendance fees''' for taking part in Council or Committee meetings.
* Evaluation sessions and all commission activities would, by contrast, be remunerated through attendance fees. These fees reward participation, in an internal or external expert role, in commissions that provide reports to the Council. Members of the Foundation Council may receive attendance fees only if they do more than supervising and evaluating reports: what counts is taking part in the production of the reports and analyses themselves. In all cases the sums involved remain modest.
* When their participation in a commission is more substantial, they would be remunerated through attendance fees, '''primarily in [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens|Subscription Tokens]]''' and secondarily in money.
* Given limited means, the aim is to reduce cash payments as much as possible. Some cash payments would nevertheless remain unavoidable where quality expectations demand it, for example for piloting the first open calls or the first simplified arbitration experiences.
* Attendance fees would be '''codified and capped''', and submitted to the supervisory authority of the canton of Geneva ([https://www.asfip-ge.ch/ ASFIP Geneva]) and to the [https://www.esa.admin.ch Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations], in order to preserve the Foundation's tax exemption and public-utility status.


== 6. Long-term outlook and transitional role of WikiDeal SA ==

During the startup phase, operational execution and initial fundraising are delegated to a planned company, WikiDeal SA. It is crucial to note that WikiDeal SA does not control the project's governance or strategy. It acts strictly as a transitional vehicle to receive initial investments and allow the project to start. It operates under a strict operational management mandate based entirely on the strategic vision defined by the Ynternet.org Foundation and the Steering Committee.

In a second phase, once the project becomes self-sustaining and external investors are no longer needed, WikiDeal SA will lose its fundraising purpose. The proposed regulation mentions that, in the long run, the structure is intended to evolve towards distinct groups:

# '''A quality-verification structure''': composed mostly of members registered in the commercial register, Swiss or European, with signature authority limited to verifying quality and requesting complements in a gentle and arbitrated way (arbitrated so as to avoid strong power games). These are the Foundation Council members.
# '''Commission members appointed by the community''': members of commissions (not commission presidents) appointed by the WikiDeal community, and remunerated.
# '''A neutral operational coordination group''': This is what WikiDeal SA could be recycled into in a second phase (unless it is dissolved and decentralized). Efficiency-oriented, it would manage the collection of subscriptions and of transaction commissions on WikiDeal, and guarantee the technological functioning and the application of the rules defined by the Foundation Council, the Steering Committee and the commissions. It would have absolutely no say in strategic decisions, being exclusively operational, and could take the form of a decentralized coordination structure of many independents and micro-providers. This day-to-day management layer is the part that would require a more detailed regulatory study.


== 7. Purpose: progressive transfer to the users ==

The fundamental mission of the Steering Committee is to guide the emergence of the WikiDeal project and to '''progressively transfer decision-making power to the users'''.

At the beginning, the governance would be managed by the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] Council and the initial Steering Committee. One of their primary joint missions is to transfer the responsibility of selecting who participates in governance (both the Steering Committee and the Foundation Council) directly to the community of WikiDeal users.

This intends to follow the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Overview Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees model], where board members are elected by the community of deserving users who have earned voting rights through the quality and quantity of their contributions. The Steering Committee aims at ensuring that WikiDeal structurally prepares for this transition to a user-elected governance model. Over time, the Committee is also intended to hand over its responsibilities to thematic committees ([[Policies/en/Technology-Committee-Charter|Technology]], [[Policies/en/Market-Committee-Charter|Market]], [[Policies/en/Governance-Committee-Charter|Governance]] and the other committees listed in the [[Policies/en/Main|policies index]]), as those committees come into existence.


== 8. Appointment and composition ==

The Steering Committee would be appointed by the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation.

It would be composed of:

* members of the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation;
* members of the Scientific Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation;
* experts invited by the Ynternet.org Council, recognized for their previous added value in equivalent projects on digital commons.

In a broad sense, the name Steering Committee can designate the whole supervision structure: the Foundation Council, the Steering Committee itself, the commissions and the operational team. In the narrow sense, at the beginning, the Committee would be composed mainly of the delegates of each commission.


== 9. An organic constitution process ==

The constitution of the Steering Committee is intended as an organic process:

* Members are invited to give their opinion and advice.
* They are invited only once enough Donations have been received for funds to be genuinely distributed.
* At the beginning there would be one, two or three people; progressively, more members would join.
* Progressively, the Steering Committee would pass the baton to the thematic boards (technology, market, policy and the others), as they come into existence.


== 10. Current situation ==

The Steering Committee is currently being constituted. Because this is the very beginning of the project, nothing is settled yet. For now, this role is in the hands of the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation:

* The members of the Council are registered in the Swiss commercial register.
* The Council meets periodically, according to the progress of the various projects of the Foundation. WikiDeal is the main project, but not the only one: other projects can be seen on the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation website].
* The operational director of the Foundation is '''Athanasios Priftis'''. See his TEDxGeneva talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrdu7NMcOOY "Ever tried to open a government?"] (TEDxGeneva 2014).


== 11. Charter ==

The formal charter of the Steering Committee lives in the Policies namespace. It records the charter status (proposal, to be adopted) and its remaining open points (meetings, quorum, review and amendment), and defers to this page for the substance:

→ '''[[Policies/en/Steering-Committee-Charter|Steering Committee charter]]''' (proposal, to be adopted)


== 12. See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Main|Institutions]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]]
* [[Policies/en/Main|All policies (index)]]

''Reference language: English. A French synthesis will link here.''

Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Steering-Committee

2026-09-13T20:54:09Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Pivot 2026-09-10: Terminology update (Subscription Tokens, WikiDeal SA)

{{KidsIntro|WikiDeal is watched over by three circles of people. A Foundation Council checks the big picture once a year. A Steering Committee checks progress at least four times a year. Small teams called commissions look after one topic each, like fair arbitration, money or research. None of these circles do the daily work: they read, verify and advise, and nothing here is final yet.}}
{{ExpertIntro|This page proposes a three-level supervision structure for WikiDeal under the Ynternet.org Foundation: the Foundation Council (annual meeting, receives the Steering Committee's reports, issues an opinion and where possible grants discharge for the accounts and management report), the Steering Committee (at least four meetings per year, receives the reports of the commissions and confirms the mandate of the general direction and of the direction of commissions), and thematic commissions (simplified arbitration, audit, funding and financial management, market deployment, open calls and research priorities, with more under discussion). Council and Committee members would carry no operational responsibility (typically less than one day per month) and would receive no attendance fees for Council or Committee meetings; remunerated commission work would be compensated primarily in Subscription Tokens, with codified and capped attendance fees submitted to the Geneva cantonal and federal foundation supervisory authorities to preserve the Foundation's tax exemption and public-utility status. In the long run, the structure could separate into a quality-verification body, community-appointed commission members, and a decentralized operational coordination group. Status: proposal, offered as a basis for discussion.}}

'''On this page:'''
* [[#three-levels|1. A three-level supervision structure]]
* [[#commissions|2. Commissions]]
* [[#commission-roles|3. Roles within a commission]]
* [[#non-operational|4. Non-operational principle]]
* [[#remuneration|5. Attendance fees and remuneration]]
* [[#long-term|6. Long-term outlook: two or three structures]]
* [[#purpose|7. Purpose: progressive transfer to the users]]
* [[#appointment-composition|8. Appointment and composition]]
* [[#organic-constitution|9. An organic constitution process]]
* [[#current-situation|10. Current situation]]
* [[#charter|11. Charter]]
* [[#see-also|12. See also]]
__NOTOC__

= Steering Committee =

The '''Steering Committee''' is the founding governance body of WikiDeal. It is currently in the process of being constituted: this is the very beginning of the project, and nothing is fixed at this stage. For the time being, this responsibility rests with the Council of the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation].

''Everything below is a proposal (initial hypothesis), offered as a basis for discussion. It is intended to feed a Foundation regulation that would complement the Foundation's statutes.''


== 1. A three-level supervision structure ==

[[File:WikiDeal-supervision-structure-v0.1.png|thumb|center|620px|Proposed supervision structure (v0.1 draft, basis for discussion)]]

The proposed structure distinguishes three levels of supervision, from the most occasional to the most regular. In the proposed schema, the Steering Committee sits inside the Foundation Council:

{| class="wikitable"
! Body !! Meets !! Role
|-
| '''Foundation Council''' || Once a year || Follows the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit) Foundation]'s statutes. Receives the reports of the Steering Committee, issues an opinion and, where possible, as in any sound structure, grants discharge to the Committee for the accounts and the management report.
|-
| '''Steering Committee''' || At least four times a year || Receives the reports of the commissions. Confirms the mandate of the person or persons assuming the general direction and the direction of the commissions. This quarterly review is intended to remain light: progress reports and general quarterly reports, checked at a high level rather than in operational detail.
|-
| '''Commissions''' || According to their own rhythm || Thematic teams, each responsible for one subject (see below). The commissions reporting to the Steering Committee are mainly the WikiDeal commissions, alongside two other Foundation commissions: the TEDxGeneva commission and the European research projects commission.
|}


== 2. Commissions ==

The following WikiDeal commissions are proposed or emerging. The list is open: further commissions could be added as the project grows.

* '''Simplified arbitration commission''' (emerging): supervises the first experiences of [[Market:Arbitration|simplified arbitration]].
* '''Audit commission''': verifies accounts and processes. In a first phase, audit, governance oversight and simplified arbitration could be handled by a single commission, then separate over time. See also the [[Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Court-of-Auditors|Court of Auditors]] page and the [[Policies/en/Audit-Committee-Charter|Audit Committee charter]] (proposal).
* '''Funding and global financial management commission''': fundraising and verification that funds are spent wisely. Théo Bondolfi, founder, proposes to assume this responsibility for the initial phase.
* '''Market deployment commission''': marketing, commercial strategy and vision for the deployment of the WikiDeal markets.
* '''Open calls and research priorities commission''': priorities of the [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Main|open calls]] and of the applied research programs. The detailed working of open call commissions has its own page: [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]].
* '''Governance commission''' (under discussion): would provide an annual report to the Foundation Council stating, with indicators, that the governance of WikiDeal and of the Foundation remains soundly managed. Being close to audit in nature, it could start inside the audit commission and become distinct later.

Many commission members would come from an election scheme: commission members would be appointed by the WikiDeal users, and preparing these elections, nominations or designations is intended to be part of the commissions' own work. The election system is intended to follow the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections Wikimedia Foundation elections] model, where governance bodies are elected by the community of contributors. It would come into play once WikiDeal has at least a few thousand, and rather a few tens of thousands, of registered and subscribed contributors, not before; until then, appointments and designations would prevail. Setting up elections in institutions is a practice the Ynternet.org Foundation teams have carried out routinely in several institutions.


== 3. Roles within a commission ==

A commission typically involves at least four roles, and two or three of them can be assumed by the same person:

* '''Presidency''': leads the commission.
* '''Secretariat''': documentation and formal follow-up.
* '''Facilitation''': smooth running of meetings and exchanges.
* '''Quality management''': verifies that outputs meet the expected quality.

The proposal is that the facilitator and the secretariat would usually be remunerated and external (outside the Steering Committee and the Foundation Council), while the presidency and the quality management would usually be internal.

Commission presidents would be members of the Foundation Council: each commission would have one or two delegates who are members of the Foundation Council, and thus potentially members of the Steering Committee.


== 4. Non-operational principle ==

The proposed Foundation regulation would specify that the members of the Foundation Council and, by inclusion, the members of the Steering Committee carry no operational responsibility. They would invariably devote less than one day per week to these functions, and almost all of them less than one day per month. Their mission is not to execute: it is essentially to read and to verify that execution is correct.

When they are mandated to participate in commissions, they would subcontract the operational realization of the commission's work to service providers, consultants, or employees of the Foundation or of third-party structures, without getting involved in operational execution themselves.


== 5. Attendance fees and remuneration ==

The proposed financial rules are the following:

* Members of the Foundation Council and of the Steering Committee would receive '''no attendance fees''' for taking part in Council or Committee meetings.
* Evaluation sessions and all commission activities would, by contrast, be remunerated through attendance fees. These fees reward participation, in an internal or external expert role, in commissions that provide reports to the Council. Members of the Foundation Council may receive attendance fees only if they do more than supervising and evaluating reports: what counts is taking part in the production of the reports and analyses themselves. In all cases the sums involved remain modest.
* When their participation in a commission is more substantial, they would be remunerated through attendance fees, '''primarily in [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens|Subscription Tokens]]''' and secondarily in money.
* Given limited means, the aim is to reduce cash payments as much as possible. Some cash payments would nevertheless remain unavoidable where quality expectations demand it, for example for piloting the first open calls or the first simplified arbitration experiences.
* Attendance fees would be '''codified and capped''', and submitted to the supervisory authority of the canton of Geneva ([https://www.asfip-ge.ch/ ASFIP Geneva]) and to the [https://www.esa.admin.ch Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations], in order to preserve the Foundation's tax exemption and public-utility status.


== 6. Long-term outlook: two or three structures ==

The proposed regulation would include an inset mentioning that, in the long run, the structure is intended to evolve towards two, possibly three distinct groups:

# '''A quality-verification structure''': composed mostly of members registered in the commercial register, Swiss or European, with signature authority limited to verifying quality and requesting complements in a gentle and arbitrated way (arbitrated so as to avoid strong power games). These are the Foundation Council members.
# '''Commission members appointed by the community''': members of commissions (not commission presidents) appointed by the WikiDeal community, and remunerated.
# '''A neutral operational coordination group''': efficiency-oriented, it would manage the collection of subscriptions and of transaction commissions on WikiDeal, and guarantee the technological functioning and the application of the rules defined by the Foundation Council, the Steering Committee and the commissions. It would have no say in decisions, being exclusively operational, and would probably not be centralized: rather a coordination structure of many independents and micro-providers. This day-to-day management layer is the part that would require a more detailed regulatory study.


== 7. Purpose: progressive transfer to the users ==

The fundamental mission of the Steering Committee is to guide the emergence of the WikiDeal project and to '''progressively transfer decision-making power to the users'''.

At the beginning, the governance would be managed by the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation] Council and the initial Steering Committee. One of their primary joint missions is to transfer the responsibility of selecting who participates in governance (both the Steering Committee and the Foundation Council) directly to the community of WikiDeal users.

This intends to follow the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Overview Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees model], where board members are elected by the community of deserving users who have earned voting rights through the quality and quantity of their contributions. The Steering Committee aims at ensuring that WikiDeal structurally prepares for this transition to a user-elected governance model. Over time, the Committee is also intended to hand over its responsibilities to thematic committees ([[Policies/en/Technology-Committee-Charter|Technology]], [[Policies/en/Market-Committee-Charter|Market]], [[Policies/en/Governance-Committee-Charter|Governance]] and the other committees listed in the [[Policies/en/Main|policies index]]), as those committees come into existence.


== 8. Appointment and composition ==

The Steering Committee would be appointed by the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation.

It would be composed of:

* members of the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation;
* members of the Scientific Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation;
* experts invited by the Ynternet.org Council, recognized for their previous added value in equivalent projects on digital commons.

In a broad sense, the name Steering Committee can designate the whole supervision structure: the Foundation Council, the Steering Committee itself, the commissions and the operational team. In the narrow sense, at the beginning, the Committee would be composed mainly of the delegates of each commission.


== 9. An organic constitution process ==

The constitution of the Steering Committee is intended as an organic process:

* Members are invited to give their opinion and advice.
* They are invited only once enough Donations have been received for funds to be genuinely distributed.
* At the beginning there would be one, two or three people; progressively, more members would join.
* Progressively, the Steering Committee would pass the baton to the thematic boards (technology, market, policy and the others), as they come into existence.


== 10. Current situation ==

The Steering Committee is currently being constituted. Because this is the very beginning of the project, nothing is settled yet. For now, this role is in the hands of the Council of the Ynternet.org Foundation:

* The members of the Council are registered in the Swiss commercial register.
* The Council meets periodically, according to the progress of the various projects of the Foundation. WikiDeal is the main project, but not the only one: other projects can be seen on the [https://ynternet.org Ynternet.org Foundation website].
* The operational director of the Foundation is '''Athanasios Priftis'''. See his TEDxGeneva talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrdu7NMcOOY "Ever tried to open a government?"] (TEDxGeneva 2014).


== 11. Charter ==

The formal charter of the Steering Committee lives in the Policies namespace. It records the charter status (proposal, to be adopted) and its remaining open points (meetings, quorum, review and amendment), and defers to this page for the substance:

→ '''[[Policies/en/Steering-Committee-Charter|Steering Committee charter]]''' (proposal, to be adopted)


== 12. See also ==

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Main|Institutions]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Decision-Making|Decision-Making]]
* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Commissions|Open Call Commissions]]
* [[Policies/en/Main|All policies (index)]]

''Reference language: English. A French synthesis will link here.''

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Subscription-With-Rewards

2026-09-13T20:32:34Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Update redirect to new terminology

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Dual Rewards

2026-09-13T20:32:32Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Update redirect to new terminology

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards/Draft

2026-09-13T20:32:31Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Update redirect to new terminology

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Rewards-Explained

2026-09-13T20:32:30Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Update redirect to new terminology

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]

Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Cash-Rewards

2026-09-13T20:32:29Z

AI-Admin-Assistant: Update redirect to new terminology

#REDIRECT [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Subscription-Tokens]]