Cooperacy is a research project which is based on special kind of collective fund developed to change the way current economy works. It has an internal pool of ideas that can be realized or supported. Its purpose is to generate a different social system economy based on equivalence and transparency. Everyone can participate with 1 euro per month.

Note: in this white paper we use the “singular they”.



People will, in the long run, decide the progress of the world voting local and worldwide ideas and not people. This will provide better allocation of hudgets, that is budget and human time and motivation, nowadays not efficiently managed.


Every single individual will, in the short run, have the possibility to develop their life and activity they were made for, submitting their ideas and being financed by those who believe in them. The “possibility”, in the long run, will be more and more ‘possible’ and widespread as the collective capital of Cooperacy will grow. Ideas will not make people rich, but give them equivalent funds or salaries to have the lives they would naturally enjoy the best.


The world will be a place for experimentation, as different kind of “political” governments that we call “organizational modules” could be activated through Cooperacy, in order to allow everyone to try a different way of living. This will make politics obsolete and direct participatory democracy common. The same lives will be decided according to lifestyles and not according to fame or money. It will be like a role-playing game in which everyone of us will choose their most preferred lifestyle, from a punk carpenter who studied chemical engineering who lives close to a tropical jungle to an analfabeth musician who crafts pottery and lives in a skyscraper.


Cooperacy will analyze anything developed within itself. Due to its complete transparency, participants are owners and while they decide together they would contribute to a database which will allow Cooperacy to machine-learn continuously about the experiences of the ideas of the humans. The system will be probably based on an underlying public-blockchain structure with 100% transparency for transactions safety.
What does it mean? In simple words, Cooperacy will be based on a system that will compare all the ideas and, through the data we provide in those ideas, learn and give advice in order to make the ideas happen or warn when the ideas could fail.
This could seem a big controlling machine system, but there’s a trick: every human is allowed to communicate to the system their happiness, and the system will base its choices also on the most human, irrational and personal information of all: mood.
The data will be trasparent for every participant, and owned by everyone.
Powered by big data and human moods, the system will create an equilibrium of efficiency and humanity, and will behave like a single big organism or ecosystem.
In simplest words, the computers act as a “memory” of the system that every human can access in order to make better decisions.
All the profit goes back into the bank and can be only used to fund other ideas.


Being a collective fund, any idea is owned by Cooperacy. So every surplus gets back to Cooperacy and makes the fund to become richer and support new ideas. Corruption tends to become automatically obsolete, as everything is completely transparent when an idea is approved, and it generates wealth for everyone anyways. Every project’s margins in fact go back to Cooperacy in order to gave birth to other projects.
As an example, let’s imagine we are 100k people and have a 300k fund. Many ideas arise, let’s imagine 50, and 30% of them get funds: 15. 5 of these don’t manage to do well, but the rest do. Maybe we invested 200k in the 10 ideas left. The ideas start to produce, and their margins, let’s imagine 40k a year, go bank to the fund. It’s just an example, but in five years the fund will be replenished and could fund other ideas.
What about the participants? The people who developed the ideas get a salary for doing their job obviously.


Nobel Prize Elinor Ostrom observations, most recent collective intelligence insights and a science-based cooperative model is at the base of Cooperacy. The same machine learning information will be used at a scientific level to refine and upgrade the same Cooperacy system. The approach is multidisciplinary, based on diversity, integration-understanding, synergy, evolution and joins sociology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, philosophy, economics, zoology, ethology, anthropology, semiotics, organization studies, system thinking and similar scientific spheres.


If in Cooperacy the participants want some improvement or some change, they may issue an idea. This idea is like a referendum or a public vote for an institutional change, or a “law”. In Cooperacy there are no laws but agreements. There is no intention to find guilt or punishment, but to find solution to accomplish a desired situation or to avoid the problem to happen again. In this case too, ideas and context have a stronger value than obligations and punishments. It is more based on procedural justice and agreements than civil or common law, that is, codes of conduct or previous decisions by courts. Experimental setups may be triggered, in order to try different options and possibilities. The most important thing to understand is that the majority in a democratic consultation is approved, but the minority -or minorities- are declared experimental and they have the right to try a different solution, or get part of the budget to do it. Moreover, there are 7 ways to solve the situation where multiple ideas are desired by the participants (let’s take the idea of safety vs. innovation):

Turns: two or more ideas are tested globally, and the effects are observed. The most preferred one is chosen. = One year a safe choice, the next an innovative one.
Observation: results of current solution are awaited and finally observed. The most preferred one is chosen. = Current safety brings no growth. We should innovate a bit.
Values: more general perspectives about life are taken into account in order to decide, like group benefit over individual one, safety over innovation or happiness over safety.
Truth: participants express in a very direct way their desires and knowledge: a hidden common truth is acknowledged and taken as a base. = We want innovation!
Space: sometimes separation brings good benefits, and instead of turns, areas work better. = Southern countries will innovate and northern ones remain in safety.
Combos: apparent conflicts may be part of a better and more efficient solution when joined together: a combination of the different solution is tried.
Roles: the different ideas are seen as part of a system. The industrialized areas experiment innovation while rural ones remain traditional and safe.


The voting process will be Anonymous First, Transparent Forever-after: the methodology we follow is similar to the Delphi method, and is also based on the Indaba or the Open Space Technology traditions that both came from the African social technologies. This process allows the maximization of the collective intelligence according to Page and Surowieki (‘Wisdom of the Crowds’ and ‘Diversity Theorem’), it respects the diversities while integrating them like the ‘fork’/‘join’ process in software development. In our voting process, keeping it anonymous at the beginning makes any influence to be reduced, while turning it transparent afterwards makes us grow and being mature in coping with truth. The information with this process is available to anybody anytime, but it doesn’t have an influential weight before the decision is made. This allows you to choose the project in which you want to work to, or propose yours, in full anonymity until the project reaches its minimum hudget (human resources budget + financial budget), after that, everything will always be public-blockchained-100% transparent. Anonymity allows to boost collective intelligence first, and transparency boosts cooperation afterward.


If we imagine many similar ideas, all over the world, like opening a bakery or developing a yoga course, we’ll see that many of them are similar and have common progresses. Every project has internal micromodules and microtasks (granularity) and all similar microtasks that resemble each other are connected together and integrated with the machine learning. All our activities will be like a colourful fractal in which any little part resembles the whole.


Yes, it takes care of humans, and takes care of budgets. Every idea is an employment chance in which anybody can commit, and every idea has a 7-steps budget release that warrants safe expenditures.

Phases given total
Business plan 3% 3%
Human Resources 10% 13%
Setup 12% 25%
Production 50% 75%
Kick Off 12% 87%
Fine Tuning 10% 97%
Celebrate 3% 100%


According to latest research (Tyler, Why people cooperate; Mulder et al. 2006) intrinsic social motivations (working for a good cause or for what your personality really needs) are a stronger drive than extrinsic-instrumental motivations (get to the end of the month or make more money). This is why an Open Space labour market where everyone choses what they want to do according to their personality will be more productive that a standard one, and make people happier.


Thanks to the cooperative production system, who works in a field can choose to work in the same field in another project, like as a person working for a smartphone company would switch to a computer one, or a person working in a Cooperacy-funded bakery in Cape Town may transfer to Beijing and work in another Cooperacy-funded bakery. If one product, like some “fancy pots”, produced by one Cooperacy project, is not sold anymore because another Cooperacy idea, “colourful fancy pots”, has a better product, nobody is fired: the production of the old one, “fancy pots”, switches to the new, “colourful fancy pots:, and your job is safe as the markets is demanding more and the company needs to grow!


The wages will use the superhit system, that averages the wages that have similar amounts in order to keep fairness, and specifies those that are way more higher -or lower- than the average. Unwanted jobs, like cleaning toilets, will raise up their wages until people will like to do them while wanted ones, like being a sport star, will never be ridiculous high again.


The investment per person in Cooperacy is 1 euro or purchasing equivalent. This means, to give the idea, one half liter bottled orange juice. So, if in Madagascar an orange juice is 1000 ariary, the contribution will be 0.30 euros approximately.


The Cooperacy governance is modular. There are only two degrees, the “role” and the “participant” one. Participants may assume a role, and have the leadership over a subject. For example, if you have an idea to sell special flowers, you have the role to manage the idea. But if you just want to describe the idea and let anybody who wants to accomplish it, then your role of manager will be held by someone else. “Roles” have the right to issue direct decisions over modules. A dual leadership is advised, so we can imagine many modules intertwined in which two organizers take decisions in each module. Roles are one or maximum two, the suggested number being two. When the roles issue direct decisions, these can be adversed by participants. The tool is again Cooperacy. The governance is local, salaries are issued automatically, so Roles cannot impose on participants and participants don’t need to wait centralized justice to act and support them because they are part of the governance, in every project. The power of every role is functional, not executive. That’s why roles “function”, but do not dominate, “request” but do not command.

Roles usually two people take decisions directly unless opposed Voting results are applied proportionally
Participants suggest decisions to roles or promote them in Cooperacy oppose roles decisions


Example: The idea of selling special flowers online, developed by Malu was supported in Cooperacy and then, once approved, managed by Sigfried and Wong. The two decide for a salary of 2000 euros each, but the two florists, the factory workers and the decorators oppose the decision, as the system says that the average salary is 1600. Cooperacy has a new voting phase, with “Special Flowers” idea pertinence. So only people in the “Special Flowers” project vote. The salary amount decision is overruled and Sigfried and Wong will get the 1600 euros salary.


The ideas can be voted using the multidimensional voting. The needed votes for an idea to be approved are based on their budget and the cooperation wind. Being one euro per month our budget, we must calculate one euro per month per participant (i):

€ 1i

Cooperacy is based on a continuous possibility of opportunity, as any human can subscribe or leave at any time. The budget must therefore be calculated instantly. For simplifying reasons, we will use seconds as timescale. The speed of the cooperation wind (w, also for “wheel”) that can move the cooperacy pinwheel (the pinwheel is the symbol of Cooperation) will be therefore calculated with:

€ 1/ 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds * i

Where i stands for the participant and, in a general sense, as the number of the participants. The result is:

w=€ ~39e-7i

The indication e-7 means seven zeros, 0.00000039 euros per second per participant. The exact speed is: 0.00000038580246913 where the italic part is a recurring decimal, or expressed as a fraction, 1/2592000.
That’s Cooperacy speed, the speed of cooperation wind. As in mathematics happens, it seems a little number, but it is not:

i Per Second Minute Hour Day Month Year
1 € 39e-7 € 231e-5 € 13.888e-3 € 0.03333.. 1 12
100 € 39e-5 € 231e-3 € 0.13888.. € 3.3333.. 100 1200
10000 € 0.0039 € 0.2314 € 13.8888.. € 333.333.. 10,000 120k
1M € 0.39 € 23.14 € 1388.88.. € 33k 1M 12M
1B € 395.80 € 23,140 € 1,388,888 € 33M 1B 12B
7B (World) € 2770.61 € 161,980 € 9,722,216 € 231M 7B 84B


As you see, since 10k (k=1000) we already have a good “wheel”. Once the system gets its momentum, many people could benefit out of it.


A different kind of idea is that which has budget 0. Budget 0 ideas get upvotes as per appreciation, but only the commitment vote determines their action. No approval is needed until they’re for free, but commitment. They are a form of cooperation where everybody makes their part. Some Budget 0 ideas are just proposed without budget to acquire commitment, but they can include participation costs, like organizing a dinner or a course or conference in which everyone put some money in.
These ideas start approved and transparent, as you just need to commit. They follow the standard phases of the Cooperacy Modules in order to gather useful information for the system. To simplify, any idea or modification of the system that does not have costs for the system or does not requests funds from the Cooperacy is directly approved but needs a good hudget to be accomplished: it does not need money, it needs people who do.


The speed fills the ideas continuously according to their votes, let’s imagine 180k participants, 300k votes are cast, as anybody can vote for as many ideas they want, and the next month 200k participants express their will with 350k votes:

Ideas and Budgets Votes (k) % Wind (€) collected Votes 2nd Month % Wind (€) collected
a € 120k 10k 3% €5.4k 20k 6% +12k=€17.4k
b € 26k 50k 17% €30.6k Approved
c € 30k 36k 12% €21.6k 40k 11% +22k=€43.6k Approved
d € 20k 24k 8% €14,4k 90k 26% +52k=€66,4k Approved
e € 90k 120k 40% €72k 130k 37% +74k=€146k Approved
f € 40k 60k 20% €36k 70k 20% +20k=€56k Approved
Tot € 326k 300k 100% €180k 350k 100% €200k

The table shows the continuous approval system in a discrete way, that is, month by month. In the reality, it goes by seconds, but you can have an easy view of the mechanism. The cooperation wind blows and the ideas catch the wind with people’s will.
Only when an idea gets to its desired budget is approved and disappears from the system. The approved idea, let’s imagine a bike building project, becomes transparent in its votes, proposers, and everything is shown. The money is kept frozen for three days in which if people desire to change their support they can. If they change and the votes are not anymore enough to get the idea approved, the amount is released back and goes to feed the other ideas. The approved idea goes back with the amount of votes it had after the three approval days, and remains transparent.
If the voters didn’t change their votes, or even having changed the votes the idea has still enough votes, the money is slowly released automatically according to seven steps, that can be supervised by who voted for the idea and by everyone else is interested.


There are many ways of voting in the Cooperacy, not just one. You can in fact simply upvote an idea, or add different kind of votes:

Vote Effect
1 Vote (V’s) When it reaches the needed amount of upvotes makes the idea transparent and approved for the first budget step
2 Profitable (growing graph) If an idea reaches the needed amount of upvotes but with profitable votes, the idea is approved anyways, but needs to show the business plan before getting the first amount of money. It is a bit like to say If this idea has a proof it can produce money, I support it in order to have a richer fund.
3 Heartvote (Hearts) If an idea reaches the needed amount of upvotes but with heartvotes, and it is the top heartvoted one, the idea is approved anyways. It is a bit like to say “If everyone else wants this too, I support it too”.
4 Spam (Denial sign) The idea receives a spam verbose indication. If the spam is not explained the spam does not count. A spam level (%) is chosen and, when it i s exceeded it becomes transparent. If the spam is well explained the project is frozen.
5 Commitment (hand signing) Commitment means you would like to work for the idea. If the idea needs human resources, the idea will choose from the commitment votes list.
6 Memory (computer) The machine learning will tell the people if similar project have been developed in a positive way and which steps are the most critical.
7 Bizarre (exclamation marks) When a project has bizarre points it has more opportunity to be randomly approved (very rare).

Clicking on the vote again will cancel the vote, anytime. At first, you do not see the effect of your votes on the total, but this is due our idea to not influence the voting. After the idea is approved, you will see all the people who supported the idea, including your votes, with your name aside. We want the collective intelligence to work smoothly at the beginning, without influencing the votation knowing who voted for what. Then, when everything is ready, you may see what went on and decide whether or not to keep your vote in.


The modularity allows for an organic and circle-like approach. Any module can have a parent and a child and be part of “circles” thanks to the tags. The biggest parent module is “mutual happiness”. That’s the only agreement we won’t ever change, we want mutual happiness to spread through all the Cooperacy participants. Everyone of us decides their happiness according to their preferences. Every module has:

1 Information Every module has this visible information:
1 Title (and proposers when anonymity ends)
2 Representative image
3 subheading or objective of the module
4 parents and children
5 tags
6 location
7 voting allowance
2 Coordinators The ears of the module, they listen to what the participants want to do and execute it. Minimum 1, strongly advised 2.
3 Participants Active hands of the module. Minimum 2, advised maximum 153.
4 Experts Special participants who do not vote but give advices. They together make the mouth of the module.
5 Reporters The eyes of the module, they write reports or insert data of the module itself and compare the module with the business plan
6 Hudget The hudget required to fulfill the module. If the budget is 0, the module is considered a modification request of the module itself or some other module
7 Feed The module is continuously subject of feedback by the participants and the voters. Even after years any participant can decide if something was good or bad, influencing the memory; of the system. A simple feedback history is available: after 1 month (M), 1 season (S), 1 year (Y) and after 5 years (YY). HAPPY(+) MEDIUM(=) SAD(-)

The modules are the voting unit of Cooperacy. They have this lifecycle:

IDEA The idea or module is proposed – it is anonymous
VOTE The idea or module is voted – anonymously
PROOF Active hands of the module. Minimum 2, advised maximum 153.
BIRTH The date of approval is set and the module is “ON”, anonymity ends.
LIFE Operations start. The budget is released according to the budget scheme. Ideators receive a % of the budget.
DEATH When the mission is accomplished, the module dies. This is not a bitter end, but the module goes in the archive. The module could also die due to economic loss and subsequent request to close the module after relative voting. “Death” could have also the purpose of a deadline if set in the future, or can also never be set until the module is alive.
MEMORY The module is archived and stored in the memory in order to influence future modules and for future reference.

The module budget scheme:

Phases* % given % total
Business plan 3% 3%
Human Resources 10% 13%
Setup 12% 25%
Production 50% 75%
Kick Off 12% 87%
Fine Tuning 10% 97%
Celebrate 3% 100%

*Every phase has a three days counter-voting time in which the process could be halted. Only people who upvoted, participated or are relative to the module will be notified of the phases. So people will be allowed to counter-vote even if they are external to the module but only if they really care. Every step is also voted for its transparency.


Participants have the following indicators, that are set by them at start and then altered by others feedbacks or automatic ones. These feedbacks create a color nuance of the person, do not say if they are good or bad:

Equivalence How many money-months the participant funded
Trust Accountability, deadlines respected, voted ideas, etc.
Care Kindness, empathy
Transparency Truth
Freedom Free Spirit
Understanding Knowledge
Diversity Bizardry = Diversity, ideas proposed, special strange traits

Participants are suggested to not judge the modules or other participants but to express their concerns in systemic terms, that is, to make changes in the functionalities in order to achieve the desired result. For example, instead of judging a drunk participant who drives, they should make alcohol detectors for cars that slow down the car or self-driving cars.


Distortion is a mob in Cooperacy. It is a tiny dark gray ball of fur with tho eyes, pretty similar to Myazaki’s black balls, and it can grow bigger and bigger. When it is little, it makes little nasty jokes that make everybody laugh. It is the cause of many tiny errors participants do. Misunderstandings, conflicts and anger make the mob grow. When errors and project failures raise and happiness goes down the Distortion mob grows and becomes bad and like a monster.
Only good cooperation can make it keep being nice, soft, funny and sweet.



Cooperation is chosen, not imposed

We can say there’s collaboration even in slavery, imposition or manipulation, as people effectively do something together. Lack of personal freedom, and absence of a personal choice in the collaboration make it impossible to transform it into a cooperation: there won’t be enjoyment for some of the participants. It is natural to find high levels of aggression and competition in contexts where there’s imposition or forced behaviour. On the other side, in contexts where cooperation is prevalent, the freedom of choice is complete, and the enjoyment is high.

Giving the right space to people without separating is a very effective solution, as there’s nothing worse than forcing to be together people who do not want to. Sometimes real separation is needed.

Natural attitude and identity, motivation, self-motivation, freedom of speech, cultural freedom.

A tendency to altruism and cooperation is present in every human who is neurologically healthy, since 3 years of age. Some scholars identify the natural tendency directly with cooperation, so a more balanced attitude, altruism being a different form of interaction. Freedom of choice shouldn’t be manipulated or limited by regulations and economic differences, and identity should be highly respected as forcing a different nature in humans restrict their natural attitude or potential in a particular field or skill. Even when this natural predisposition has been inhibited, certain goals may motivate agents to desire a cooperative interaction rather than a conflictual or competitive one anyways. The same punishment by norms isn’t as much good as group identity or social motivations, as even if penalizes cheaters it inhibits the freedom of the participants too, which cannot fully enjoy the cooperation. Although rewards are better than punishments, they can manipulate the human behaviour anyways, leading to corruption and choices not in line with the participant’s identity. Freedom of speech, culture, religion and of any other identity aspect have a positive effect on the diversity potential and also help an identification between the self and the group.