PDA

View Full Version : Another damn EVE thread: Stocks/Corp ownership.


HelloKitty
11-08-2006, 18:14:27
Ok, since the POS thread is ugly and the wayt he POS itself is being funded is resolved, that leaves us with who owns the corp?

We will see as more people log on but I think most agree this is something that needs to be resolved now.

Cut and paste from the end of last thread.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Lurker the Second
You are essentially holding the stock in trust for the owners. I want to know who the owners are and how much each of us own in the corp. [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Venom
We really need to decide everyone's roll in the corp now. And as a tangent to that, ownership. We should have done it before we started building shit, but it's too late to cry about that now.

Well theres my answer. A least I am not the only one who wants it decided.

I am still for the stock distribution I mentioned.

It makes all vested membes equal in ownership, voting, etc and also allows the addition new members fairly.


Does anyone have a better plan or a different plan that addresses current stock, future stock, current members, and future members?


REPOST OF MY PLAN

CKU shares.

CKU itself will act as a board of directors and funding source for projects of the corp members. When agreed (by the officers for small amounts, or majority vote for larger investments) loans or gifts can be provided to members or allies.

The initial CKU shares (1000) will be divided equally as follows.

One Quarter (currently 250) of all shares will be retained by the current CFO on an alternate account.

--This is to provide a back up source of shares if a situation ever arises where the number of stockholders that are playing hold less than 50% of the stock. This way new stock can always be issued.

--In the event of any votes the CFO will add the held votes to the winning side.

--In the event any dividends are paid the CFO will transfer the gain from the held shares back into the corp account.

--In the event the CFO leaves the game for an extended time or quits they will transfer the extra shares to the current CEO until a new CFO is elected.

The remaining three quarters of the stock will be divided evenly among all current CKU members who have been in the corp for 4+ months. (for simplicities sake, we will say there are 10 of these people right now).

--These 10 people will each receive 75 shares. They are considered full voting/vested members of CKU.

--Once per month all newer members who reach their 4 month anniversary will become vested. 100 new shares will be created for each of these members. 75 will be given to them, 25 to the CFO (to maintain the one quarter backup).

--In this way all voting members will have an equal say in all corp votes.

Member taxes.

--Taxes will be set at 10% until a point where the corp is making a clear profit on its own.

Venom
11-08-2006, 18:15:13
And keep it civil, you fucks.

JM^3
11-08-2006, 18:20:25
I think that we should give all the stock to Goewyn..

JM

Beta1
11-08-2006, 18:38:35
lol seconded.

HelloKitty
11-08-2006, 18:46:59
As an alternate, we could just send me all 1000 stocks and I will continue to use them as I did before.

To create and vote on things like condemning venom for being a twat.

Its like abuse of power, but really its just speeeding up the conclusion of the votes.

Nav
11-08-2006, 18:59:20
Quick question. Is it possible to create new shares? Looking at the corp I couldn't see any share options.

HelloKitty
11-08-2006, 19:01:47
Yeah you can. You need to create a vote to do so, I think it is simple majority, but it may be 2/3.

Mraal
11-08-2006, 22:41:24
I'm personally less vocal about the ownership aspect - as far as I'm concerned, simply giving everyone equal amounts of stocks is a decent idea as it allows voting to be done simply through the Eve corp setup.

The only addition I might make is to phase in new members' stock - instead of giving them full stock at four months, maybe phase in 20% of their stock (at the 3:1 ratio of stock to them and stock to corp) at the end of their first, second, and third months, then bring in the balance (40%) at the fourth month. This gives new members gradually more voice in corp decisions; there's no reason why a two month member should have no voting rights in corp business; one would hope that by then they're active enough to at least have some voice.

chagarra
12-08-2006, 01:57:34
Now that I'm back ingame..

I don't really care how it's done, as long is there is agreement and rules to at least fall back on when things get FUBARed again.

HelloKitty
12-08-2006, 02:51:48
Originally posted by Mraal
I'm personally less vocal about the ownership aspect - as far as I'm concerned, simply giving everyone equal amounts of stocks is a decent idea as it allows voting to be done simply through the Eve corp setup.

The only addition I might make is to phase in new members' stock - instead of giving them full stock at four months, maybe phase in 20% of their stock (at the 3:1 ratio of stock to them and stock to corp) at the end of their first, second, and third months, then bring in the balance (40%) at the fourth month. This gives new members gradually more voice in corp decisions; there's no reason why a two month member should have no voting rights in corp business; one would hope that by then they're active enough to at least have some voice.

I have no problem with that. But that would require 3 times as many votes by the members and 3 times as many stock issues, and 3 times as much work for you and Nav.

HelloKitty
15-08-2006, 11:06:38
So, what are we doing?

Venom
15-08-2006, 11:37:58
I think the last discussion tired everyone out/scared them.

chagarra
15-08-2006, 12:36:40
Don't think anything's happening anywhere.... POS, Corp, hub, game...:sleep:

Lurker the Second
15-08-2006, 13:14:09
Assuming everyone in the corp now is issued one share each, and thus on an equal footing, why should anyone ever get free shares in the future? Half of you bitched and moaned about having your shares "diluted" when I suggested using shares to raise capital, but you have no problem giving free shares away? The former, when used in conjunction with raising capital, isn't share dilution at all, but the latter is flat out nothing else.

Please for the love of EVE separate in your minds stock ownership and the ability to participate and take advantage of corporate opportunities -- and that includes voting on corporate direction, where necessary.

Venom
15-08-2006, 14:46:47
But stocks is how corporate voting is done. And voting defines how everyone will participate in the corp. While CG is fine now for voting, eventually, if we get large, it will be ineffective to try and vote here. We'll have to vote with stocks.

Lurker the Second
15-08-2006, 15:35:47
If the corp gets "that" big it will have to have its own web site anyway. Ideally, the fewer things that are subject to vote, the better. I don't really see that many things that should require voting -- directors, officers (if you want direct election rather than have the board appoint them), mergers and whether to go to war or not are pretty much the only things I can think of that merit a vote. Maybe I'm overlooking some things, but as far as I'm concerned I would just trust the directors to use their business judgment for other decisions. I don't need to vote to open a new office, buy a BPO, set up a POS or anything else like that. I will put my faith in the people who run the corp and if they are screwing up they can be replaced.

The only thing I would add is that the corp should have a policy whereby it will, if requested, buy back the shares of someone who is leaving the corporation. For simplicity's sake, I would value the shares for that purpose based strictly on market value of the corp's assets. If the corp ever becomes publicly traded, that will be unnecessary, of course.

HelloKitty
15-08-2006, 19:57:02
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Assuming everyone in the corp now is issued one share each, and thus on an equal footing, why should anyone ever get free shares in the future? Half of you bitched and moaned about having your shares "diluted" when I suggested using shares to raise capital, but you have no problem giving free shares away? The former, when used in conjunction with raising capital, isn't share dilution at all, but the latter is flat out nothing else.

Please for the love of EVE separate in your minds stock ownership and the ability to participate and take advantage of corporate opportunities -- and that includes voting on corporate direction, where necessary.

Umm, what?

So everyone gets one stock, leaving 980 or so stocks held, and no one ever gets stocks again? Thereby preventing any votes ever taking place, also amplifying the problem where if one person left the game the corp would be dead forever.



As for what you are saying, your method does dilute while the other does not.

Everyone gets equal shares, members who become vested get an equal number to what everyone else holds.

Tomorrow- Everyone vote is equal.
Next day- same thing
2 years from now with 1300 members that all joined on 8/20/2006. Every member is equal.



Lurkers idea.

Tomorrow- Everyone is equal.
Day after investments/selling stock. 5 people now have 10 times the say of the other 15 combined.
etc.


You also seem to be confused and think that someone wants to give future members "free shares". Yeah if we gave anyone who signed up shares right away, that would be retarded. But 6 months in the corp is a significant investment in the corp.

HelloKitty
15-08-2006, 20:02:49
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
If the corp gets "that" big it will have to have its own web site anyway. Ideally, the fewer things that are subject to vote, the better. I don't really see that many things that should require voting -- directors, officers (if you want direct election rather than have the board appoint them), mergers and whether to go to war or not are pretty much the only things I can think of that merit a vote. Maybe I'm overlooking some things, but as far as I'm concerned I would just trust the directors to use their business judgment for other decisions. I don't need to vote to open a new office, buy a BPO, set up a POS or anything else like that. I will put my faith in the people who run the corp and if they are screwing up they can be replaced.

Ask anyone who has played in any real MMO guilds. The larger the guild, the lower percentage of people who participate, even raid guild who kick people for not going to the site, spend a lot of time threatening to kick people and still don't get participation.

We don't even get it now since people don't want to bother.

Also, who is talking about voting on everything? If the corp wanted to buy a .5b BPO, we damn well should vote on it. But if the corp wants to do every day things thats what the officers are for.

The only thing I would add is that the corp should have a policy whereby it will, if requested, buy back the shares of someone who is leaving the corporation. For simplicity's sake, I would value the shares for that purpose based strictly on market value of the corp's assets. If the corp ever becomes publicly traded, that will be unnecessary, of course.

Thats fine, if the person wanted to sell them back. Nothing I have said precludes that and in the other thread I said something to that effect. Those retuned shares would just be part of what is given to the next vested member, so we wouldn't issue as many more.

Lurker the Second
16-08-2006, 00:34:42
Kitty, you are an idiot. You don't listen, you don't want to listen, you don't understand anything I say, you don't understand corporate structure, and you don't want to. You want to have a club, not a corporation.

I'm through trying to have a corporation and playing the capitalistic part of the game with you.

HelloKitty
16-08-2006, 02:35:07
I think you aren't listening.

You are the only one who wants to turn this into a business rather than a game.

I understand everything you have said, it is painfully simplistic, and in direct opposition to what everyone else wants.

Just because X company in the real world is a corporation and trades on the stock market, does not mean that a group of players in a game, where the dev choose the word "corporation" instead of "guild" because of the game setting, has to be run the same way.

If you want to play the stock market in eve, here you go

http://eve.hubau.be/

Thats where I have bought stocks.


If you want to turn the GUILD into a personal stock simulation, you may need to convince 19 other people.

Skanky Burns
16-08-2006, 02:47:41
Originally posted by chagarra
Don't think anything's happening anywhere.... POS, Corp, hub, game...:sleep: Organising the POS is coming along well, but would probably go faster if more people actually posted on the hub. :p

Venom
16-08-2006, 03:12:49
I'm trying to find someplace I can fit in and help.

Ginfizwithatwist
16-08-2006, 09:53:49
venom- evemail me in game since we never seem to be on together :sad: (stick me in your addressbook then you won't get cspa charged for it) with what you can pilot- combat, hauling etc and I can find out where we can best use your skills or post in the grouphub site :D

Venom
16-08-2006, 11:39:09
Alright. I'll do that.

chagarra
17-08-2006, 00:40:17
Grouphub.....

Why do I keep reading that as grouphug..

It seems more appropriate that way.. :D

Skanky Burns
27-10-2006, 02:43:11
For this discussion, not appropriate at all really. ;)

Now that heads have (hopefully) cooled a bit, now seems as good a time to resurrect this thread as any.

Venom
27-10-2006, 03:05:03
Oh god. Here we go.