For centuries Democracy has been based on voting people. We know all of that: Greece, the French revolution, the modern democracies.
Seems like it is not working fine.
We’ve been voting for people who never had responsibilities for what they do. It is like if we’d go to a company and ask for a service, we give money for that service and the company isn’t responsible to provide that service. It doesn’t seem so funny. Other than not being funny, it is far from a concept called justice: there’s no balance. It is not happening what we really want.




We based our co-banking framework like a Design Democracy in order to distribute a reliable economic power to everyone who wants to create value and share it.

We based the system on the collective intelligence framework too. At first, you shouldn’t be biased by knowing who had the idea nor who’s going to realize it. You just say if you want that idea to become real or not. Then, when the idea reach enough voting level, the complete truth comes: who voted for, who appreciated it, who’s committed to realize it. Transparency at the best level.
If the people committed don’t manage to realize the goal, the idea remains, and awaits for completion. If the people are corrupted, you can substitute the people in charge anytime by submitting and voting a change. That idea, that need, that will wants to be realized.


Imagine a million people sending one euro to a common fund. The fund grows and ideas pop out. Some are loved, some other seem good investments, some other have great commitment, and so on. The ideas are never cancelled. When one idea gets 10% of the votes, becomes transparent, and when it is 100% committed, becomes approved. Loved ideas get more chances to be seen in the first, random view.

And to be more effective, we also need something called “multidimensional voting”. In democracies you just put a “like”. And that’s it.
We thought of some different voting other than likes. One is a heart: you love that idea. Another is commitment: you would participate in that, just like an action, or just like working in it. Another vote is money, just to say that it is a good investment. Then you have an automated one, that is called “memory”: if a similar idea was good, then this idea would have a “memory” benefit. Finally, we have a “Spam/Hateful/Illegal” vote that needs to be justified, and a diversity one: the idea is strange, unconventional, bizarre, crazy. And we could vote for bizarre ideas!

7 stages are set for the committed people to start their business. At every stage, they get incremental amounts of money. Anybody can check if they’re doing a good job, during the seven phases and afterwards. When the business starts, the people committed get paid: that’s great for them as it’s the job they were committed to! It’s like an identity-based employment market!
And when the business idea gets its revenues, after having paid the wages, the earnings go back to Cooperacy, so that other people may realize their ideas!
It’s a growing cycle that will allow a cooperative economy to be parallel with the competitive one. But not everybody loves competition.

We are different, we want to develop diverse ideas together.
What is yours?

The co-bank platform will be completed soon. Meanwhile, feel free to join Cooperacy using the footer registration link.


The difference between trust and reliability

Trust is another main condition, and it is divided in trust in the relationship and trust in the action, in a similar way we saw it in the case of equivalent enjoyment. The two words are: trust and reliability. If I trust your values, your emotions, your personality, I trust in you. If you are reliable, I can count on you. So I can trust you even if you are unreliable, because you are a good friend. And I can count on you even if you’re not a friend of mine: you are a reliable person. Trust has as major dimension that of the time: we base our trust on the past and we base on that past the future accountability. The trust in goods and services is reliability or accountability, the trust in feelings is identified better with the same word trust. When we feel betrayed the enjoyment is broken and we tend to feel anger and a desire of damaging the person we were thinking worth of trust. We need to feel secure while doing things together!

You can also evaluate trust with a simple mechanism: comparing the expectations other participants promised you and the real action you were involved in.

Give time its pace, allow experience to fix the situation and evaluate the results after a given amount of time.

Accountability, long term solutions, legitimacy, motive-based trust, “cheaters” transformation; relation-related: belonging to group, context, network; team spirit, identity; mutual esteem; mutual need.

Accountability about promises or agreements strengthens trust in any collaboration. Long term solutions contribute to people reliability as well, as they let people have stable bases for their behaviours.
Legitimization of roles, that is acknowledgement of their utility -and not their power- is another strong supportive factor. Motive-based trust is a special kind of trust based not on results but on the intentions and motivations which led to action, so that when we have a negative result but a fair and valuable motivation relationships aren’t weakened by the undesired outcomes.
In game theory, instead, the “cheater” is the one who gets the collaboration benefits, while not participating in the interaction. A collaboration should therefore activate methodologies of “cheaters” transformation -or motivation- to make them “join the group” and be part of the “we-identity”, or simply addressing them to groups that are more inline with their identity and desires, transforming their apathy or lack of participation into a will of belonging and participation.

The same identity, kin proximity and team spirit bring individuals to perceive as their own any success, advantage, benefit or any other dynamic developed in a context, a group, and a network: this narrows the relationships between participants of collaboration leading to generate or strengthen the conditions of cooperation and the adequacy of relational and real benefits. In the same way, the belonging to a common context, group, network or “kinship” brings individuals to relationships based on a higher attitude to trust each other.
In current sociological studies, the missing identification of people with their nation, society, network or group generates a strong loss of spontaneous collaboration, even if the personal attitude would have suggested different results. Nevertheless, recent tendencies show a new, wonderful inclination in humans: the love for diversity. Cultural integration and the appreciation of innovation, novelties and anything that is “different” is bringing up an awareness of the diversity advantages.
Other enhancers are mutual need -which in history led to collaboration between even the most fierce enemies- and mutual esteem, the latter ironically felt by the same enemies. Both have strong effects in generating the presence of the principal conditions of cooperation. Those situations in which “the need” forces to collaboration are of course different and usually represent a lack of freedom of choice in the interaction.