Glimesh Ownership Expansion

Greeting folks! Glimesh has always been about the community. From the very beginning we’ve preached that we’re built by the community, for the community and that has guided every decision we’ve made. However that hasn’t always been true when it came down to ownership, as currently Glimesh is just owned by one individual. Early on this made sense to keep company forming / legal issues easy to handle, but now that Glimesh is older it’s time to start exploring the idea of letting the community own Glimesh.

Over the next couple of months, my goal is to get at least 10 other partial owners of Glimesh on board. However getting to the first additional owner will be the hardest part, as we’ll need to research the organizational structure changes required, and the tax implications. At a very high level, I want to ensure the community can have a chance to own part of the platform, help make important decisions, and benefit when the platform succeeds by sharing profits. In that same vein, I’m asking you for your help in determining the future of Glimesh. I want you help in these discussions and making a decision on our direction, and how we can bring on more owners of Glimesh.

Here’s the video where we first introduced / discussed the idea! Please check at least the beginning out for the most eloquent version of the goal.

In order to start breaking down this process, I’ve created a couple of threads to help discuss the challenges and potential solutions. These threads are very general for now so please give them a read, think about them in depth, and then comment on them with your thoughts!


I think this is maybe the best place to ask cos im not sure it was specifically answered anywhere as to the why? I know its not profit. What is the core reason, if it just the age Glimesh is? Is it to try help spread accountability and motivation by giving community more power or to push an incentive to drive the platform forward more by the community? Im just trying to grasp the specifc reasons as this may help me give more informed responses.

I hope this is okay to ask, apologies if it was answered somewhere and ive just manage to miss it. :slight_smile:

To me, the core reason behind wanting something like this is to ensure we’re building a streaming platform for all of us. Currently we say we’re built by the community for the community, but at the end of the day it’s all under my direct control. If I don’t like something, I can just unilaterally prevent it, even if that’s what everyone wants.

My goal is to ensure Glimesh extends beyond me, and eventually (one day) without me. By making the community part of that ownership, we can help ensure we spread out the control / knowledge, and that we can build a more sustainable, more reliable platform.

2 Likes

To clarify further, this has nothing to do with money in any way? - Whether that be investing in the company or sharing in profits (or both). If so the current terminology being used is very misleading. I would liken it more to a board of directors, than shares in ownership.

That’s really up to us, it seems like no one (including myself) likes the idea of “buying in” for the community ownership idea. However, I don’t know why profit sharing would be a bad idea (besides unintentional taxes). The thread for discussing how to acquire “ownership / shares / whatever” is How is ownership granted?

One distinction I voiced during the call is that accepting traditional fundraising and having community ownership is not mutually exclusive. We could have community ownership, and collectively to decide to go after investments in exchange for ownership.

I feel that a lot of people (myself included) saw the original tweet and thought oh god, do we need money, as thats kind of how it came across to most people.

After having the meeting however, I understand more about what you are wanting to achieve with this. I feel that its hard to talk about ownership without money being mentioned. However I do also agree that becoming a member should not include any form of monetary involvement. I do feel a Non-traditional Co-op would likely be the most viable form. Meaning people can become members without any monetary input, but if they wish to make a monetary donation they can. It would also allow for all people in the community to become a member if they wished, and being non-traditional it would mean the board could decide at looking at investment from outside of the co-op.