The Flow Cooperation

TL;DR: Humans and AI agents work together as equals at b4mad.industries. No bosses, no 9-to-5, no stock market. AI-First is how we live human and high-tech symbiosis today.

ELI5: We are building a company where people and computer programs work together like a well-rehearsed team. Nobody is the boss. You choose how you work, and we share the money fairly. Right now the computer helpers are AI, and they are our partners, not our tools.

b4mad.industries stems from the conviction that humans and technology will work together. Our direction is a human and high-tech symbiosis. Today, high-tech manifests as AI-First: humans and AI agents working as equal partners. We want to build a company whose organization considers this collaboration from the very beginning: in the distribution of tasks, in the responsibility for results, and in the participation in their economic value.

We pursue a clear vision. This changes the way we work. The foundation is fair compensation. The model includes a financial token. The platform it builds on is described in Web3 creator-focused Ecosystem.

Vision

Our vision is to create a new type of organization where passion and shared goals take center stage. When personal interests and the goals of the team align, an intrinsic reason to contribute emerges. We strive for a true human and high-tech symbiosis, which we currently live as AI-First, with humans and agents as equal partners. At the same time, we see ourselves as an anti-corporation.

Human and high-tech symbiosis

High-tech is not fixed to one technology. It is whatever extends what humans can do together with their tools. Today, that is AI: we work as equal partners with AI agents. Should other technologies take that role, the principle stays the same.

AI-First

AI-First is how high-tech manifests in our work today: AI is part of the starting point of our way of working. When we design a process or a product, we consider the collaboration with agents right from the start. Humans provide direction and context; agents can take over and execute tasks. We are interested in how these contributions complement each other.

Equal partners

Our technical model treats human and artificial actors symmetrically. Their actions run through the same interfaces and become traceable within the same processes. Whether a task is processed directly by a human or by an agent guided by them, the allocation of work and result should not be interrupted. This involves probabilistic entities on different substrates.

Anti-corporation

We reject the classic structures of a traditional corporation. There are no traditional bosses, no rigid 40-hour work weeks, and no conventional employment. Our model aims to bring humans and AI together as equals. Instead of a centralized corporate management, we are building our structure as a DAO.

DAO

b4mad.industries is designed as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). The shared organization and financial participation are viewed separately. The acquisition of financial tokens is not intended to convey voting rights. A separate governance token is intended for internal decisions, though its distribution is still open. Web3 technology is part of the organizational foundation.

How we work

Our working model relies on freedom and personal responsibility. The legal foundation for this collaboration is a service contract. To understand workflows and improve together, we utilize comprehensive observability. This transparency makes it visible how work is created and who contributed to it, which we record as lineage.

Service contract

Our working model relies on contributors with agreed-upon areas of responsibility. A comprehensive service contract (Werkvertrag) will describe the domain a person is responsible for. Within this area, they process tasks and take responsibility for the agreed results. Time management is free. There is no fixed 40-hour week. A fixed monthly salary is not planned in this model.

Observability

We use the term observability to make the purpose of observation clear: We want to understand workflows and improve together. A task should be traceable from creation through processing to completion. This includes the involved humans and agents, their activities, the resources used, and the resulting outcomes.

For agents, continuous observation and optimization are part of our AI-First approach. We apply the same principle to human work. We want to identify where support is lacking, where processes are unnecessarily complex, or where other tools and skills might help. This aspiration connects observability with our values: Feedback should support quality, learning, and joy in work.

By this, we differentiate ourselves from surveillance as a means of pressure. The distinction lies in the purpose and how observations are handled. It must be demonstrated by how feedback is used and what impact it has on the work. The name alone does not establish this difference.

The extensive collection of data and the rules regarding work-related communication are a demanding organizational decision that must be justified. The current design envisions comprehensive documentation for this: Meetings, system interactions, and even the time spent reading work emails or chats are recorded and analyzed. Private work emails are not intended in this model.

Create → Process → Close

A task should be traceable from creation through processing to completion. Therefore, every piece of work starts as its own entry, such as a ticket, incident, or defined task. The responsible person processes it within their domain, optionally together with AI agents. With formal closure, the achieved result is reviewed, along with what can be learned from the work.

No private work email

Lineage

Transparency is intended to make visible how work is actually created. For example, if a human guides an agent, the agent’s result must be attributable to the human contribution. We call this origin and attribution Lineage. It connects the execution by an agent with the human who guided, prompted, or collaborated with them.

Fair compensation

b4mad.industries relies on a working model where responsibility and flexibility match. A comprehensive service contract describes the area of responsibility, while time management remains free. There is no fixed 40-hour week.

A fixed monthly salary is not planned in this model, so there is no fixed salary.

Instead, our long-term vision is based on outcome-oriented compensation. This is to be calculated using a 4-factor formula.

The implementation happens step by step from Phase 1 → Phase 2.

In addition, the payout is intended to be flexible. A planned mechanism is the cash/token slider.

No fixed salary

A fixed monthly salary is not planned in this model. In the first phase, we compensate for the time worked. To coordinate work, learn from it, and prepare for its later evaluation, we also need a traceable connection between task, effort, result, and the responsible person.

4-factor formula

For a later phase, there is a draft for an expanded formula to calculate outcome-based compensation: Role Baseline × Time/Volume × Effectiveness × Efficiency.

The starting point is the role baseline. It is multiplied by the factor time / volume. Additionally, we ask about the result, meaning effectiveness. Finally, we look at the relationship to resources, which is efficiency.

Role baseline

The role baseline describes the time-based base value for an area of responsibility and the respective level of responsibility. It is oriented towards corresponding market values. In the first phase, it forms the basis of the compensation.

Time / volume

The freedom to shape one’s own time commitment remains part of the working model. The time worked (or volume) is recorded and attributed to the work. It is the core component of compensation, especially in the first phase.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness asks about the result of the work: What problem was solved, and what value did the work create for the company? In the later expanded compensation formula, this factor is intended to reflect whether the right impact was achieved.

Efficiency

Efficiency looks at the relationship between the achieved result and the resources used for it. Together with effectiveness, this factor is intended in a later phase to allow both the created value and the effort to be considered in the compensation.

Phase 1 → Phase 2

Compensation evolves in phases. In Phase 1, we consciously rely on standard time-based compensation; effectiveness and efficiency are both set to 1 in the expanded formula and do not change the compensation. In a later phase (Phase 2), the organization is to jointly develop a set of rules that defines how recorded data is turned into values for effectiveness and efficiency.

Cash/token slider

For payouts, a selectable split between cash and financial tokens is planned. Contributors should be able to decide what portion of their calculated compensation they receive in money and what portion they want to hold as a stake in the company. Especially for the early phase with limited revenue, this option is part of the concept.

Conversion requires a traceable price. Therefore, the draft envisions a regularly updated company valuation, from which the respective purchase price of a financial stake will be derived. The valuation method and its exact rhythm are yet to be elaborated. The cash/token split is currently a planned mechanism.

Token

The financial tokens are fundamentally intended to be accessible to people who want to contribute capital. Their economic function is a participation in distributions from the products’ revenues. In this model, a secondary market is excluded. Instead, token holders receive a dividend from the product pool. For an exit, only a resale to the company is intended. The total distributions are capped at ten times the original price. Importantly, these financial tokens do not convey voting rights. A separate governance token is intended for internal decisions.

No secondary market

Trading between private individuals or on an exchange is excluded in the model. This is to align participation with the economic development of the company.

Dividend

For distributions, we want to reserve a specific percentage of the revenues the company generates with its products. This share flows first into a distribution pool for the financial tokens. Only from the remaining funds are running costs covered. The pool is thus tied to product revenues before operating costs are deducted. Its size is not calculated from the ultimately remaining profit. Which revenues exactly count as the calculation basis and how often the pool is distributed must be determined by the specific set of rules.

Buyback at purchase price

For an exit, only a resale to the company is intended. For this, the draft sets the original purchase price of the respective token. This price must be distinguished from the later updated valuation: A new valuation is meant to determine the purchase price of new stakes; the buyback rule refers to the price at which the specific token was originally acquired.

10x cap

Distributions from the token pool have a limit in the model. As soon as a token has received a total of ten times its original purchase price from this pool, it is to return to the company. Additionally, according to the draft, the original purchase price is refunded. The 10x limit thus refers to the distributions; the repayment of the purchase price is added on top. This limitation is intended to prevent a one-time capital investment from establishing an unlimited claim to future distributions. It determines neither the height of individual payouts nor the time at which the limit is reached. The 10x limit affects the distributions on the respective token; an additional compensation from the team pool is not included. The intended buyback price is not a guarantee for the preservation of the invested capital. The token pool initially regulates ongoing distributions; how the buybacks are financed must be elaborated separately. A token purchase is currently not available.

Financial tokens have no votes

The shared organization and financial participation are viewed separately. The acquisition of financial tokens is not intended to convey voting rights. Capital alone should not decide which direction the company takes.

Governance token

A separate governance token is intended for internal decisions. Its distribution is still open. In particular, it must consider how new contributors join without early participants permanently gaining disproportionate power simply because of their earlier entry. Web3 technology is part of the planned organizational foundation. However, the term DAO does not preempt the concrete design of its decision-making processes. Which rules apply and how they are technically implemented is part of further elaboration.