[up]

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

Investment mechanism:
 
 
 
     
1  
2% interest after each full year on outstanding sum (inflation correction), with the special conditions:
 
2  
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.jhwh.be/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').
 
3  
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.
 
4  
The company will not be artificially altered to evade above mentioned democratization mechanism.
 
5  
The owner will receive adequate & fair compensation for outstanding business debts when the employees take it over, but no excessive debts.
 
6  
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.
 
7  
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.
 
8  
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).
 
9  
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 !)
 
10  
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.)
 
11  
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 agreement are.
 
12  
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 agreed conditions.
 
13  
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.)
 
14  
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).
 
15  
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.
 
16  
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%)
 
17  
These terms are not open to negotiation, all loans made by this fund follow these same rules, until further notice.
 
     
 
 
 

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 paying member;

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 resolved;

5 - members agree to the goals of the system and to vote accordingly;

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 but garbage.

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.

Notice

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.jhwh.be, 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 in principle.

Loans are preferably made in the province of Groningen / Holland.

So far the language is only English here (sorry).

Threat levels

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 "democratized" business.
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").