D.A.V.I.D. fonds Één
Name: DAVID fonds Één (English: DAVID fund One)
Type: non-profit social business investment fund
threat-level: 3/5 (medium)
Available Assets: list ./assets.html
Outstanding investments: list ./loan.html
Number of credited companies: 0 + [hidden]
Credited companies: list ./creco.html
Number companies becoming democratic: 0 + [hidden]
Democratized companies: list ./deco.html
2% interest after each full year on outstanding sum
(inflation correction), with the special conditions:
Invested in businesses will be sold to employees
if there are 10 or more employees, who come to own
it as an open democracy, where new workers will have
equal voting right. The new democratic company is
handed to the employees as a majority rule group,
on the provision that they will not turn the company
into scheme that does not have majority rule for
all that work there. The employees are to make a
decision out of this pre-determined set of
democratization schemes first: www.socialism.nl/law.html
Article 6.3.a-4. That scheme has an op-out option,
if chosen the employees can make up their own
particular majority rule system (discouraged).
The method of democracy can be altered later, not
the fact that it is to be democratic. The minimum
form of democracy is the ability to fire the boss
at will through majority vote, and void previous
decisions by a boss (scheme B, `Boss Elect').
The company can not be sold without the buyer
accepting this permanent agreement for the company,
and agreeing that it is a good thing for a company.
The company will not be artificially altered to
evade above mentioned democratization mechanism.
The owner will receive adequate & fair
for outstanding business debts when the employees
take it over, but no excessive debts.
The owner will receive a share of the future profits
from the democratized company (an agreement for the
hand-over to/with employees) of the company for the
same duration has he has worked in the company, at
least equal to an average full time income as
generated by the company. Years that the company
has been dormant/inactive don't count. The employees
/ owner will have to work something out, but that
would be an acceptable deal. The business owner does
not sell the assets of the company to the employees
for money, not even if they are registered in his own
private name. These assets fall into the hands of
the employees for nothing. For complications with
this, contact the DAVID fund Één to work on a
resolution of the problem. The goal is Justice, not
to deny either of the parties involved. While
the boss / owner has invested work, the employees
have invested their work, both deserve their
respective rewards for working.
Loans are made preferably on collateral and to
already existing companies (because that gives
more hope that the company will make it). Companies
that start or change into open democracies of all
who work there (and come to work there) are
preferred over those not democratic, in which case
there is no hand-over procedure. The credit would
in such cases be to help the democratic companies
survive and/or expand. The company would come to
be obliged to remain an open democracy permanently.
Loans that enter each 7th year are terminated
and payed back at that moment, unless collateral is
available at that time. If they can not be payed
back by then they are ended and the debtor is free.
(The cost will be for the DAVID fund in that case.)
If there is collateral, the loan continues at a
maximum of the value of the collateral (roughly).
If at the 7th year the loan is not paid back as
agreed, the collateral can be taken and turned
into money at the discretion of the DAVID fund.
What is left of that money after deducting the loan
and sale overhead is returned to the debtor. In
reality it might be ideal that the collateral owner
sells the collateral himself, reducing overhead.
This is an optional procedure, the other option
is to continue with the loan despite doubtful
performance (which would be even better in case
it actually ends up being repayed). (A loan that
is not repayed does obviously not end the
democratization obligation !)
The recipient of the loan will study the DAVID
fund scheme sufficiently to understand its aims
and mechanism. The recipient can only get a loan
if the principles are agreeable. No loans can be
made to people who disagree, because of the danger
that the terms will then not be met faithfully.
The recipient of the loan owns no economic gambling
certificates such as shares or stocks (which would
indicate disagreement with the DAVID system.)
Loans are not confidential, but public and published.
This is meant to increase popularity of the business
with people who like the DAVID system. Loans which
collapse are not explicitly listed for punishment,
but companies that violate the democratization
If the condition of democratization is violated,
that will be publicly recorded, hoping this will
lead to a boycot to destroy mentioned business, and
make room for new businesses. Contra argument, if
any, written by violating business, will be published
along with the complaint and implicit or explicit
call for boycot. Financial warfare will likely be
started on the violating business (that means funding
more competitors, giving them additional credit to
sell very cheaply for a price war, encourage
competitors with free advertizement, until targeted
business is busted - note that these options are
legal.) A legal complaint to the Courts may also
be attempted to restore meeting the
If a debtor decides to become a member in this
David fund, the membership fees can be converted
into already received debt payments if the debtor
wants that, pushing up the membership date. This
only for fees received while the loan was open, up
to a maximum of 1 year into the past, and if the
fund capital does not reach zero because of it.
(The restrictions to prevent members being able
to pull out large amounts of capital after having
taken a large loan, which would devastate the fund.)
The loan will not and can not be sold to a third
party from either side. The loan is only valid
between this David fund Één and the business or
person receiving the credit. The only strong arm
that will potentially be involved is the official
Dutch police and the official Dutch Courts (in
other words the loan will not be sold to a loan
Mafia or other loan collection business if it is
difficult to collect).
Any loan proposal can be rejected without stating
a reason. Having not payed down previous debts, if
any, does not help with getting another loan. Though
profit is not the goal, the DAVID fund needs the
money as a tool, it can't do its job if it is empty.
Therefore high risk loans are not good for the fund.
Loans are written on a contract paper and signed.
Dutch contract paper: ./contract.nl.pdf (source)
English contract paper: ./contract.en.pdf (source)
The mentioned enclosure is these points listed here.
The last time these terms have been altered was:
Thu Feb 21 14:15:01 UTC 2008
(interest-rate from 3% to 2%)
These terms are not open to negotiation, all loans
made by this fund follow these same rules, until
Members: list ./members.html
Service costs: none, non-profit volunteer activity (at present.)
Power structure: currently dormant, 1 person activity. I would propose:
1 - direct democracy answerable only to the monthly paying
members, with the provisions that:
2 - if the fund is ended that the remaining value is put
back in the hands of the earliest members first as to
what they donated 1:1;
3 - new members are eligible to vote after one year being
4 - if there is suspicion the fund is under a "new member
majority" hostile attack, new members can be rejected
or have voting rights suspended until the matter is
5 - members agree to the goals of the system and to vote
6 - members do not own economic gambling certificates,
such as stock, shares.
Does that mean a free gift of N billion from a
super-wealthy person gets rejected: yes. That is dirty
money, and so are the fees of people who own
stock/shares or other parasite documents (such as
bonds). The capital will have to be donated from
rightful / honest earnings, bit by bit. Only morality
at the root can result in the morality in the fruits.
Dirty money contaminates the entire stream, however
tempting it might appear and "what we couldn't do
with that," because as the saying goes: "whose pay, whose
way" (Dutch proverb: `wie betaald, bepaald'), one
way or the other. Accepting money means becoming
dependent on it. There are no shortcuts, there is no
method of laundering it. Sudden huge donations of dirty
money are political attacks, nothing else. Be ready
to say "no" to billions. Our will can not be bought.
Not for a billion trillion, it is not up for sale.
10,- of honest money is infinitely better and
positively useful, 100.000.000.000 of dirty money
is nothing but the seeds of destruction (and so is
10,- of dirty money, though it is less destructive).
Honest money is pure light, however little it is.
Dirty money is darkness, however much it is (the more,
the more darkness). Using only true money will provide
for a moral back-bone and the moral high ground.
That means more good will and trust. It is worth more
then all the dirty money in the world, which is nothing
These rules are to make an attack on the fund less
easy. Even if there is a forced break-up per majority
rule, much value is retained in early members, who can
use it to start over quickly but without the attacking
members. The waiting period for voting makes attacks
time consuming and risky. The agreement to vote according
the principles means that "we vote in majority to fund
our vacation with all money," can be defeated in principle.
This is a social investment fund. The idea is that there
is no substitute for power, therefore the goal is to bring up democratic
companies. Power itself is a right and a necessity.
This fund is currently in its starting phase. The primary aim is to
generate enough capital to hopefully one day make a difference. The
ultimate aims are to change the Constitution of Holland, so that
social investment and company democratization becomes mandatory in
the entire economy. See for more details: www.socialism.nl, especially: sound investment.
To my knowledge it is legal in Holland
to make a loan to another person, even if you are not incorporated as
a business. If this fund becomes something significant, it will have
to be incorporated properly. That has currently not happened, and
therefore any new members will have to hoard money on their own accounts.
Note that an interest rate of 2% means you make money on the loan
while you have it, because inflation is usually above 2%. The purpose
of the cheap loan is to keep distrust low. A high rate would be
economically better for the fund, but politically worse.
Be advised that under Dutch law a verbal agreement is as fully legal as
a written agreement. If you say you run a business and get money, even
without writing on paper you are liable in court for the agreed terms
Loans are preferably made in the province of Groningen / Holland.
So far the language is only English here (sorry).
There is a significant danger that the credited business will be target
of hostile politically motivated actions, such as a finance war by the
for profit gambling banks, their bosses and their cronies. For that
reason it may be better to hide which businesses have been credited
to make it more difficult to attack them. It can even be hidden after
they have become democratic that they have in fact become democratic.
Not knowing what business is already or to become democratic makes it
at least more costly to attack them, since they have to be located first.
A new business is a tender plant, any additional pressure may cause it
to collapse, even just a negative word in a for profit owned media.
Therefore there are 5 threat levels:
1: All credited and democratized business get listed here.
3: The business will decide for itself if it wants to be known or not
publicly through the DAVID fund scheme as a "credited" or already
5: No businesses get listed here, information is hidden, transactions
preferably in cash.
The level will be determined from the amount of hostile activities from
the for profit finance sector. Threat levels 2 and 4 are in reserve (level
2 could be "only businesses which really do not want be listed and are
in apparent danger, will not be listed"; level 4 could be "only businesses
which really want to be known as DAVID businesses, despite apparent
dangers, get listed").
Notes: Company, during life here I came upon the question to
erect a business by people who might potentially want to hire me for
organization concultancy related issues. In the spirit of this system
I made this up: