Fluid participation attributions - Revision history

TiberiusB: /* References */

2026-09-17T07:27:19Z

References

TiberiusB at 07:15, 17 September 2026

2026-09-17T07:15:57Z

TiberiusB: TiberiusB moved page Fluid participation rights to Fluid participation attributions without leaving a redirect: The term "right" implies an authority.

2026-09-17T07:11:48Z

TiberiusB moved page Fluid participation rights to Fluid participation attributions without leaving a redirect: The term "right" implies an authority.

TiberiusB: /* Separation of layers */

2026-09-17T06:54:22Z

Separation of layers

TiberiusB: /* Separation of layers */

2026-09-17T06:53:54Z

Separation of layers

TiberiusB: /* Benefit redistribution */

2026-09-17T06:51:46Z

Benefit redistribution

TiberiusB at 06:51, 17 September 2026

2026-09-17T06:51:02Z

TiberiusB at 06:44, 17 September 2026

2026-09-17T06:44:54Z

TiberiusB: /* References */

2026-09-17T06:41:25Z

References

TiberiusB at 06:38, 17 September 2026

2026-09-17T06:38:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, 17 September 2026
Line 554:		Line 554:
	* [[Economic model]]		* [[Economic model]]
	* [[Nondominium]]		* [[Nondominium]]
		+
		+
		+	=Historical note=
		+	On 16 of Sept 2026 Tibi proposed to retire the expression "fluid equity" from the OVN vocabulary, because the term "equity" was semantically charged and prevented people to fully consider the OVN reality as a contributory / participatory production model, where ''contributions'' (even financial) are not ''investment'', ''benefits'' are not ''profits'' and ''fluid equity'' is not a ''security''. He introduced the term ''fluid participation rights'', which only survived a few hours, until Matthew proposed to replace "rights" with "attributions".
		+	Matthew's argument: there's a tension that exists between where a person's ''rights'' end (property), and where a ''true commons'' needs to begin (vs Land): so fluid (meaning that whatever value flows) to attribution (to whom and at what allocation should it flow to..) it's a relational ontology. That doesn't collapse to a number, keeping settlement (a payout) as an act of governance.
		+	Tibi added to argument that "rights" is also semantically charged and in the legal-positivist and some conventionalist views "right" does imply a sovereign or a higher authority, which is not compatible with the p2p view.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''Fluid participation rights'' are rights, access, claims, permissions, governance capacities, and potential benefits that arise from an agent's validated contributions to an Open Value Network (OVN), and that can change dynamically as the agent's [[contribution]] record and the contribution records of other participants evolve.
+''Fluid participation attributions'' are affordances, access, claims, permissions, governance capacities, and potential benefits that arise from an agent's validated contributions to an Open Value Network (OVN), and that can change dynamically as the agent's [[contribution]] record and the contribution records of other participants evolve.
 The term replaces the earlier expression ''fluid equity'' in the OVN model.
-A related and more precise expression is '''contribution-derived participation''': participation in an OVN that is derived from, and continuously informed by, an agent's validated contributions rather than from the ownership of a fixed quantity of equity or from a passive financial investment.
+Ather related expressions are: '''contribution-derived participation''', '''access/claims arising from validated contributions''', or '''fluid participation standing'''.
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 In an OVN, a [[contribution]] is not an investment in a legal entity. It is an [[economic event]] occurring within a collaborative production process. The [[contribution]] may generate access to future [[benefits]], [[governance]] capacities, [[reputation]], resource-use rights, or other forms of participation according to the rules of the particular OVN or [[venture]].
-The purpose of ''fluid participation rights'' is therefore not to create a new form of stock. It is to make participation consequential in an open, contribution-based economic system.
+The purpose of ''Fluid participation attributions'' is therefore not to create a new form of stock. It is to make participation consequential in an open, contribution-based economic system.
@@ Line 16: / Line 17: @@
 == Definitions ==
-=== Fluid participation rights ===
+=== Fluid participation attributions ===
-''Fluid participation rights'' are dynamically determined rights or capacities associated with an agent's participation in an OVN, where the extent or nature of those rights may change as contributions, roles, governance decisions, resources, ventures, and benefit-distribution rules change.
+''Fluid participation attributions'' are dynamically determined rights or capacities associated with an agent's participation in an OVN, where the extent or nature of those rights may change as contributions, roles, governance decisions, resources, ventures, and benefit-distribution rules change.
-Fluid participation rights may include:
+Fluid participation attributions may include:
 * access to shared resources;
 * access to infrastructure;
@@ Line 68: / Line 69: @@
 Consequently, the fundamental economic relationship is not: ''investor → enterprise → passive return'' but rather ''agent ↔ contribution ↔ collaborative process ↔ participation ↔ benefits''. This distinction is fundamental to the OVN model.
-== Fluid participation rights in the OVN model ==
+== Fluid participation attributions in the OVN model ==
 The OVN model is based on [[open]] participation, [[peer production]], [[contribution accounting]], [[peer governance]], shared infrastructure, and the distribution of benefits according to rules established by participants. The [[contribution accounting system]] is a system for recording [[contributions]] and relating them to the production and distribution processes of the network. Contributions can occur at the [[venture]], [[network]], and commons levels. A contribution becomes meaningful within the system when it is recognized and validated according to the rules of the relevant context. The [[contribution accounting system]] therefore performs several functions:
@@ Line 79: / Line 80: @@
 # supporting governance and coordination.
-''Fluid participation rights'' are therefore an '''output of the organizational system''' rather than a financial instrument issued independently of that system.
+''Fluid participation attributions'' are therefore an '''output of the organizational system''' rather than a financial instrument issued independently of that system.
 === Contribution accounting ===
-Contribution accounting is central to ''fluid participation rights''. An OVN records contributions because contributions are distributed through time, across agents, resources and processes. Without a persistent record, the network cannot reliably determine how participation relates to previous activity. The contribution record can include:
+Contribution accounting is central to ''fluid participation attributions''. An OVN records contributions because contributions are distributed through time, across agents, resources and processes. Without a persistent record, the network cannot reliably determine how participation relates to previous activity. The contribution record can include:
 * who contributed;
 * what was contributed;
@@ Line 98: / Line 99: @@
 === Benefit redistribution ===
-''Fluid participation rights'' can be used by a [[benefit redistribution algorithm]] (BRA).
+''Fluid participation attributions'' can be used by a [[benefit redistribution algorithm]] (BRA).
 A BRA may transform validated contribution information into a distribution of benefits. Benefits can include: monetary revenue, access to resources, access to infrastructure, governance rights, recognition, reputation, future participation opportunities, use rights, other forms of benefit defined by the network.
@@ Line 106: / Line 107: @@
 == Evolution across OVN generations ==
-''Fluid participation rights'' should be understood as an evolution of the same underlying principle across successive generations of OVN infrastructure.
+''Fluid participation attributions'' should be understood as an evolution of the same underlying principle across successive generations of OVN infrastructure.
 === OVN generation 1: NRP-CAS ===
@@ Line 210: / Line 211: @@
 === General principle ===
-''Fluid participation rights'' should not be classified as ''securities'' merely because they are:
+''Fluid participation attributions'' should not be classified as ''securities'' merely because they are:
 * derived from contributions;
@@ Line 384: / Line 385: @@
 == The strongest legal theory ==
-The strongest argument is therefore not: ''"Fluid participation rights cannot be securities because they are called participation rights."'' Nor is it: ''"OVNs are open organizations, therefore securities law does not apply."'' Those arguments are too weak.
+The strongest argument is therefore not: ''"Fluid participation attributions cannot be securities because they are called participation rights."'' Nor is it: ''"OVNs are open organizations, therefore securities law does not apply."'' Those arguments are too weak.
 The stronger argument is: '''A properly implemented contribution-derived participation right is not a security because it represents a dynamically generated participation relationship within a productive peer network rather than a passive financial investment or transferable financial claim.'''
@@ Line 413: / Line 414: @@
 * network structures change.
-''Fluid participation rights'' therefore describe the evolving topology of participation. They are not fixed property claims.
+''Fluid participation attributions'' therefore describe the evolving topology of participation. They are not fixed property claims.
 == Separation of layers ==
@@ Line 430: / Line 431: @@
-'''The label does not determine the legal classification''' - Calling something "fluid participation rights" does not prevent a regulator or court from finding that it is a security. Economic substance remains decisive.
+'''The label does not determine the legal classification''' - Calling something "fluid participation attributions" does not prevent a regulator or court from finding that it is a security. Economic substance remains decisive.
 '''Cash contributions can increase regulatory risk''' - A contribution made exclusively in money, particularly where the contributor is passive and expects financial profit, can look more like an investment. The presence of non-financial contributions does not automatically eliminate this risk.
@@ Line 514: / Line 515: @@
 The retirement of the expression ''fluid equity'' represents a conceptual clarification of the OVN model. The earlier terminology emerged from an attempt to describe how contribution accounting could distribute future benefits. However, the word "equity" carries strong associations with corporate ownership, shares, securities, capital markets, investor rights, valuation, financial appreciation, and secondary trading. These associations can obscure the more fundamental OVN concept. The underlying idea is not ''"How much of the company does each person own?"'' but ''"How does each participant's contribution affect their participation in the evolving network?"''. The second question is closer to the actual architecture of an OVN. For this reason, the preferred terminology is now:
-* '''fluid participation rights''' — the resulting dynamic rights and capacities;
+* '''fluid participation attributions''' — the resulting dynamic rights and capacities;
 * '''contribution-derived participation''' — the principle by which participation is derived from contributions;
 * '''contribution accounting''' — the system that records and evaluates contributions;
@@ Line 521: / Line 522: @@
 == Summary ==
-''Fluid participation rights'' are a mechanism for connecting contribution to participation in an open peer-production network. They are not inherently shares, stocks, securities, or investment contracts. Their distinguishing characteristics are:
+''Fluid participation attributions'' are a mechanism for connecting contribution to participation in an open peer-production network. They are not inherently shares, stocks, securities, or investment contracts. Their distinguishing characteristics are:
 * they arise from participation and contribution;
 * they are dynamically calculated;
@@ Line 534: / Line 535: @@
 The strongest legal position is therefore not that OVNs are categorically outside securities law. Rather, it is that '''genuine contribution-derived participation represents a different economic relationship from passive financial investment''', and should be analyzed according to its actual structure and economic reality.
-Where an OVN maintains that distinction in practice, ''fluid participation rights'' provide a conceptual and architectural framework for linking [[contribution]], [[governance]], [[resource]] access and [[benefit redistribution]] without turning every participation relationship into a conventional equity instrument.
+Where an OVN maintains that distinction in practice, ''fluid participation attributions'' provide a conceptual and architectural framework for linking [[contribution]], [[governance]], [[resource]] access and [[benefit redistribution]] without turning every participation relationship into a conventional equity instrument.
 Where an implementation introduces transferable financial claims, passive investors, promised profits, speculative markets or investment-oriented promotion, the distinction becomes weaker and conventional securities or financial-regulatory analysis may apply.

@@ Line 421: / Line 421: @@
 * '''Contribution record''' - The system records: ''Agent → Contribution → Context → Validation''. This is primarily an economic-information function.
 * '''Participation state''' - The network derives: ''Validated contributions -> Participation state -> Access / governance / benefits''. This is primarily an organizational and governance function.
-* '''Financial claims''' - A separate layer may create: Financial contract -> Monetary claim -> Future payment obligation -> Transferability / investment market. This layer is materially more likely to invoke securities, investment, lending, partnership, tax, or other financial regulation.
+* '''Financial claims''' - A separate layer may create: ''Financial contract -> Monetary claim -> Future payment obligation -> Transferability / investment market''. This layer is materially more likely to invoke securities, investment, lending, partnership, tax, or other financial regulation.
 The architecture should therefore avoid confusing Layer 2 with Layer 3. An OVN can use contribution-derived participation without necessarily creating financial securities.

@@ Line 419: / Line 419: @@
 For legal and architectural clarity, an OVN should separate at least three layers.
-* Layer 1: Contribution record The system records: ''Agent → Contribution → Context → Validation''. This is primarily an economic-information function.
+* '''Contribution record''' - The system records: ''Agent → Contribution → Context → Validation''. This is primarily an economic-information function.
-* Layer 2: Participation state - The network derives: ''Validated contributions -> Participation state -> Access / governance / benefits''. This is primarily an organizational and governance function.
+* '''Participation state''' - The network derives: ''Validated contributions -> Participation state -> Access / governance / benefits''. This is primarily an organizational and governance function.
-* Layer 3: Financial claims - A separate layer may create: Financial contract -> Monetary claim -> Future payment obligation -> Transferability / investment market. This layer is materially more likely to invoke securities, investment, lending, partnership, tax, or other financial regulation.
+* '''Financial claims''' - A separate layer may create: Financial contract -> Monetary claim -> Future payment obligation -> Transferability / investment market. This layer is materially more likely to invoke securities, investment, lending, partnership, tax, or other financial regulation.
 The architecture should therefore avoid confusing Layer 2 with Layer 3. An OVN can use contribution-derived participation without necessarily creating financial securities.

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 ''Fluid participation rights'' can be used by a [[benefit redistribution algorithm]] (BRA).
-A BRA may transform validated contribution information into a distribution of benefits. Benefits can include:
+A BRA may transform validated contribution information into a distribution of benefits. Benefits can include: monetary revenue, access to resources, access to infrastructure, governance rights, recognition, reputation, future participation opportunities, use rights, other forms of benefit defined by the network.
 A [[benefit redistribution algorithm]] therefore does not issue securities. It can instead determine how the results of a collaborative process are distributed among the agents who participated in creating them.

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:11, 17 September 2026
(No difference)

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
-'''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission''' - In '''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission''', the Supreme Court of Canada considered the meaning of an investment contract. The Court adopted the approach associated with the US [[Howey test]], asking whether the arrangement involved an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come from the efforts of others. The Court emphasized the economic reality of the transaction rather than merely its formal structure.
+'''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission''' - In '''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission''', the Supreme Court of Canada considered the meaning of an investment contract. The Court adopted the approach associated with the US [[Howey test]], asking whether the arrangement involved an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come from the efforts of others. The Court emphasized the economic reality of the transaction rather than merely its formal structure. (''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission'', [1978] 2 SCR 112, Supreme Court of Canada.)
 This precedent is important for OVNs because it cuts in both directions. It means that an OVN cannot avoid securities regulation simply by declaring that something is "not equity". But it also provides an important basis for distinguishing genuine ''contribution-derived participation'' from an investment contract. If the participant is actually contributing productive resources, participating in the venture, exercising governance rights, and helping produce the resulting benefits, the ''"efforts of others"'' component of an investment-contract analysis becomes materially different from a passive investment.
 '''Hogg decision''' - The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal's decision in '''Re Hogg''' provides another relevant distinction. The Tribunal concluded that tokens themselves were not necessarily investment contracts and emphasized that whether something constitutes an investment contract depends on the relevant facts. The Tribunal also distinguished the underlying token from the contractual or promotional arrangement through which it was offered.
-<ref>''Re Hogg'', Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal, Reasons and Decision.</ref>
+(''Re Hogg'', Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal, Reasons and Decision.)
 This supports an important principle for OVNs: '''A data structure representing participation is not automatically identical to the legal arrangement through which that participation is created or marketed.''' Consequently, an OVN should distinguish:
 * the contribution record;
@@ Line 295: / Line 294: @@
 This separation is particularly important in Nondominium / [[NDO]].
 == United States ==
-'''Howey and investment contracts''' - US federal securities law uses the concept of an "investment contract". The traditional test derives from '''SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.'''<ref>''SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.'', 328 U.S. 293 (1946).</ref> The modern formulation asks whether there is:
+'''Howey and investment contracts''' - US federal securities law uses the concept of an "investment contract". The traditional test derives from '''SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.'''. The modern formulation asks whether there is:
 # an investment of money;
 # in a common enterprise;
@@ Line 306: / Line 304: @@
 The test is concerned with the economic reality of the arrangement. The US Securities and Exchange Commission's March 2026 interpretive release concerning crypto assets continues to apply the Howey framework to investment contracts and distinguishes assets from transactions in which an asset is offered or sold as part of an investment contract.
-<ref>U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ''Application of the Federal Securities Laws to Certain Types of Crypto Assets and Certain Transactions Involving Crypto Assets'', March 17, 2026.</ref>
+(U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ''Application of the Federal Securities Laws to Certain Types of Crypto Assets and Certain Transactions Involving Crypto Assets'', March 17, 2026.)
@@ Line 323: / Line 321: @@
 European Union law approaches financial instruments through several overlapping legal regimes, including MiFID II and MiCA.
 MiCA does not apply to crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments; such instruments remain within the financial-services framework.
-ESMA's guidelines on the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments emphasize that classification requires a case-by-case assessment and that the substance and characteristics of the instrument must be considered. <ref>European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), ''Guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments'', ESMA75453128700-1323.</ref>
+ESMA's guidelines on the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments emphasize that classification requires a case-by-case assessment and that the substance and characteristics of the instrument must be considered. (European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), ''Guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments'', ESMA75453128700-1323.)
-'''Transferability and negotiability''' - EU law places particular importance on whether an instrument constitutes a transferable security negotiable on the capital market. In '''Case C-627/23, Commune de Schaerbeek and Commune de Linkebeek v Holding Communal SA''', the Court of Justice of the European Union considered the meaning of securities negotiable on the capital market. The Court adopted a broad interpretation: restrictions on transfer do not necessarily prevent an instrument from being a transferable security if the restrictions do not make capital-market negotiability impossible or extremely difficult. <ref>''Commune de Schaerbeek and Commune de Linkebeek v Holding Communal SA'', Case C-627/23, Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 9 January 2025.</ref>
+'''Transferability and negotiability''' - EU law places particular importance on whether an instrument constitutes a transferable security negotiable on the capital market. In '''Case C-627/23, Commune de Schaerbeek and Commune de Linkebeek v Holding Communal SA''', the Court of Justice of the European Union considered the meaning of securities negotiable on the capital market. The Court adopted a broad interpretation: restrictions on transfer do not necessarily prevent an instrument from being a transferable security if the restrictions do not make capital-market negotiability impossible or extremely difficult. (''Commune de Schaerbeek and Commune de Linkebeek v Holding Communal SA'', Case C-627/23, Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 9 January 2025.)
 This precedent is particularly important for OVNs. It means that '''non-transferability should not be treated as an absolute legal safe harbour'''. Instead, the design of participation rights should consider:
@@ Line 551: / Line 549: @@
 == References ==
 * ''Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario Securities Commission'', [1978] 2 SCR 112, Supreme Court of Canada.
 * ''Re Hogg'', Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal, Reasons and Decision.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 17 September 2026
Line 294:		Line 294:

	This separation is particularly important in Nondominium / [[NDO]].		This separation is particularly important in Nondominium / [[NDO]].
		+
		+	<references />

	== United States ==		== United States ==