Part 1: Ecological Vision of Intelligenism – Timing Identification for Organizational Construction

After achieving 1) a relatively complete consensus-building mechanism system, 2) a clear and theoretically feasible business direction, and 3) a clear and feasible Intelligent Consortium organizational structure, all potential participants must reach consensus on selecting an effective and fair consensus-building mechanism execution platform. This platform can be self-built or utilize third-party software. While similar platforms (e.g., third-party forums, social media discussion groups, or community software) are used during the development of consensus and business mechanisms, their fairness and enforcement requirements are less stringent due to the lack of significant organizational interests in the pre-organizational phase. However, once the organization is established and engages in commercial activities, involving increased interests and personnel, selecting a fair and effective execution platform becomes critical.

Throughout the process of developing and refining consensus and business mechanisms, initiators and potential participants must assess the number of participants in discussions, approval degrees, and other progress-related data, continuously updating this information through self-operated or third-party platforms. These data reflect the development of the pre-organizational phase and serve as key references for potential participants to decide whether to support or join the organization. During this phase, initiators and participants can include guidelines and rules in the consensus-building mechanisms for periodic approval evaluations (e.g., satisfaction votes or written feedback) to track changes in overall approval. Hard criteria, such as the ideal number and type of participants or the scale of capital funding, should also be agreed upon through consensus-building mechanisms as key indicators for determining when to initiate the organization.

Organizational Initiation Trigger

When initiators and some potential individuals believe the consensus-building mechanisms are sufficiently refined to meet organizational construction conditions or receive requests to form the organization, they must reach a preliminary consensus on whether the timing for construction is mature. Upon achieving consensus, they can introduce an “organizational initiation trigger” to finalize the timing for organizational formation. The trigger mechanisms below are merely examples conceived by the author and do not represent the only options. Various trigger mechanisms can be innovated and developed in future practice, and multiple triggers may be used in a single organizational initiation scenario.

Organizational Initiation and Trigger Types

• Donation Trigger: After reaching consensus on organizational formation, a donation channel can be established to fund subsequent actions based on the existing consensus-building mechanisms and action consensus (e.g., $1-$10 donations). These actions may include hiring temporary staff, setting up a website, or forming a company. Donations reflect potential individuals’ attitudes toward initiation. Thresholds and caps can be set for total donations and individual contributions. For example, a $5,000 donation threshold could trigger hiring temporary staff for further actions. Before setting the trigger, initiators must reach consensus with donors (quasi-organizational individuals) on the use of donated funds through the consensus-building mechanisms.

• Other Triggers: Triggers could include hosting offline events like meetups or conferences, allowing potential members to discuss organizational details. Such triggers may be limited by time and location, potentially excluding key individuals; however, for Intelligent Consortium organizations that require physical venues (e.g., restaurants or bars), offline events can be a viable trigger.

Additional Implications of Triggers

Potential individuals can become initial members of the Intelligent Consortium through trigger mechanisms, potentially participating in voting to differentiate themselves from others who did not participate. Notably, donations via a donation trigger are not investment and the donors won’t get investment return. For example, a consumer may donate to support the organization’s ideology and structure, hoping to purchase its products in the future; a potential employee may donate to secure future employment; or a capital provider may donate to gain future investment opportunities. Donation or other trigger actions represent minimal contributions to drive organizational construction, neither constituting consumption nor investment.

Triggers like donations can provide limited startup funds for paying temporary operational staff before capital introduction, though the scale is expected to be small (hundreds or thousands of dollars). Triggers also screen for high-approval potential participants, fostering emotional connections or identity approval. Events like meetups provide further interaction channels, accelerating organizational construction.

Post-Trigger Organizational Arrangements (Consensus Content)

Trigger activation signifies the completion of organizational construction, but transitioning to smooth operations requires a clear and comprehensive plan. Before applying triggers, initiators, and participants should reach consensus on the following, ensuring implementation post-trigger:

• Organizational Construction Timeline Post-Trigger: After trigger activation, the organization may receive limited operational capital or other support. A clear timeline must be set to avoid indefinite delays. If construction stalls, clear rules should address organizational failure and handle remaining capital appropriately. Significant work remains between trigger activation and operations, requiring scheduling and use of trigger-raised capital to hire temporary staff.

• Definition of Organizational Individuals: Post-trigger, individuals transition from potential to quasi-organizational individuals (donors) or remain potential (non-donors). Consensus should address the influence weight distinctions between these groups to optimize consensus-building mechanisms, assigning different weights based on donation amounts, while setting limits to prevent excessive influence by single donors.

• Financial Arrangements Pre-Capital Injection Period: If triggers raise operational funds, preliminary financial arrangements should cover budgets, reimbursement processes, temporary staff payments, and disposal of remaining funds if construction stalls.

• Personnel Arrangements Pre-Capital Injection Period: Temporary staff arrangements for construction tasks should include work assignments, basic information disclosure (anonymous or non-anonymous), and calculations of individual’s uncompleted rights conversion value in the organization (G’), proportion of an individual’s uncompleted rights conversion in the organization (G’%), and driving influence (A) (see relevant sections in “On the Intelligent Consortium”).

• Disclosure Rules for Construction Progress: Beyond confirming the timeline, consensus should cover rules, channels, and methods for disclosing construction progress.

• Punitive and Protective Arrangements for Rule Violations: Supervision and evaluation of actual progress are needed, with punitive or restrictive measures for violations. Contingency plans should address failure to meet progress expectations, including re-entering consensus-building mechanisms to adjust arrangements or terminating construction and reverting to pre-trigger status to seek other opportunities to form the intelligent consortium.