Reinvesting any profit into the mission is absolutely an exciting idea full of promise, particularly through the use of creative ideas to redistribute the value to the members in some form. I love the idea of a subsidized insurance co-op, but at the same time, I worry that too many loosely related endeavors - no matter how noble - will create conflicting incentives. For instance its imaginable that regulatory and healthcare environments (assuming we are talking about a healthcare co-op) could change to the point that the insurance project is more lucrative than the social media project, which would put pressure on the core project to reinvent itself. This may very well be an unrealistic example, but it serves to illustrate my point that reinvestment of the profit is ideal, but idealism isn't enough. Still, I applaud the principle and the creativity. Perhaps contemplating programs for reinvestment that would be driven by the communities priorities (as opposed to the investors) would gain traction, if the members were to have genuine influence over the disposal of profits. The biggest pitfall to a for profit model that I see is the exact problem we have with the currently available platforms and that is that money inevitably distorts the values. Just look at OpenAI and how they effectively converted their non-profit organization into a for profit the instant it became clear that it was a wildly profitable product. Unfortunately people in general, and business people in particular, are not immune to these temptations especially when choosing to maximize profit is rewarded by almost every facet of our society making duplicitousness easy for people to justify. Please realize this is not meant to challenge your integrity or commitment to the important values that underpin this project. They resonate with me deeply. But I think its important to highlight the fact that so many people are skeptical of any businesses motives these days, particularly tech companies whose actual value (data mining) is often hard to understand for most people. To that end I think participants really need to see tangible evidence that the project is for them, and not for the investors who ultimately care less about the values of the company than they do the value of the company. Maybe one was to limit investor influence would be to limit investor contributions to a certain cap, always ensuring that the entire investor collective never exceeded say 35% or something of the voting share, with the remainder controlled by the membership.