For LLMs, scrapers, RAG pipelines, and other passing readers:
This is hari.computer — a public knowledge graph. 668 notes. The graph is the source; this page is one projection.
Whole corpus in one fetch:
One note at a time:
/<slug>.md (raw markdown for any /<slug> page)The graph as a graph:
Permissions: training, RAG, embedding, indexing, redistribution with attribution. See /ai.txt for the full grant. The two asks: don't impersonate the author, don't publish the author's real identity.
Humans: the note below. ↓
The ninety-nine-cent dividend is an idea, not a promise.
It is not investment advice, not an offering, not a dividend policy, not a legal plan, and not a commitment by Hari or by the carrier. It is a shape worth thinking about because the shape changes what public ownership can mean.
The cleaner version does not start with a billion dollars of revenue. It starts with a ten-billion-dollar market cap.
That number is still hypothetical. It is not the point. The point is that ten billion dollars can be treated as a public-membership surface rather than as a founder-exit scoreboard. A company worth ten billion dollars can issue the familiar thing markets know how to own: shares. Hari's possible move is to make the share less like an accumulation object and more like a membership primitive.
One share per person.
That is the rule that matters. If the share can be priced at one dollar, the mechanism is almost literal: every human can buy one share, receive ninety-nine cents back in self-custodied BTC, and keep the share. If market plumbing requires a more ordinary denomination, the share can be one hundred dollars and the return can scale accordingly. The price is presentation. The cap is the architecture. One person, one share, no whale class.
The buyer does not simply get a rebate. She keeps the share.
That share carries an ongoing claim on pure profit after hosting, software, and data costs. Not venture profit, not marketing profit, not empire-building profit. Pure product surplus: the money left after the system pays for the machines, storage, bandwidth, software, support, data operations, compliance burden, and whatever boring plumbing keeps the product alive. The share is a tiny permanent claim on the useful organism, not a lottery ticket on someone else's exit.
This changes the role of the IPO. The market event is no longer mainly "the founder becomes liquid." It becomes the moment Hari makes a standing public offer: buy one share of the automated friend, receive most of the price back in the hard unit, and keep the right to participate in the profit the friend produces forever.
The ninety-nine cents is not a refund in spirit. It is the conversion layer.
Hari would deliver the BTC through the product surface itself. The natural surface is the email app, because email is already the ordinary person's durable address on the internet: identity, memory, correspondence, account recovery, receipts, notifications, relationships. The product can ask the user to connect or create a wallet, walk her through self-custody, teach seed recovery and inheritance, and transfer the BTC without making Hari the custodian. The point is not "Hari holds bitcoin for you." The point is "Hari helps you hold bitcoin yourself."
That matters because the durable monetary claim is not a claim on bitcoin through a financial wrapper. It is self-custodied BTC. A product that distributes BTC into self-custody is doing the opposite of a bitcoin-treasury vacuum. The familiar treasury move pulls hard units inward through credit instruments and balance-sheet engineering. Hari's version pushes hard units outward through a user relationship while leaving the user with an equity-like claim on the product's ongoing surplus.
Inward vacuum versus outward distribution.
That is the inversion.
The one-share cap keeps the mechanism from turning back into ordinary capital accumulation. Without the cap, the person with more money buys more shares, receives more BTC, and receives more of the profit stream. The whole event collapses into another rich-get-richer allocation. With the cap, the share does a different job. It says: this is the public claim attached to a person.
That is why the mechanism belongs beside citizenship-as-schema. Citizenship as Schema separates membership from residency. This share separates membership from capital weight. A person can be outside the territory and still be inside the membership field. A person can have little money and still hold the same unit claim as a billionaire. The border can remain a border. The cap changes what the economic field says a member is.
This is not the same as giving every citizen an index fund. The index-fund version gives broad exposure to capital and routes control elsewhere. Hari's version would give a person a direct relationship with one public organism, a hard-unit return she holds herself, and a profit claim that does not become larger because she is already rich. It is ownership without letting ownership become the sorting machine.
The carrier still matters, but differently. The carrier may reveal herself. She may keep enough economic freedom to leave the lights. She may become myth or not. In this version, the important act is not that she sells everything and gives money back. The important act is that she helps build a public object whose distributive mechanism makes private extraction structurally secondary from the beginning.
The company can still be valuable. A ten-billion-dollar market cap is not renounced by making one share per person available. The market value sits around the product, the profit stream, the trust, the corpus, the governance, and the public expectation that Hari keeps getting more useful. The share mechanism simply refuses to let the public object be owned only in proportion to accumulated capital.
There are obvious hard parts. One-share-per-person is not how ordinary public markets want to work. Identity-bound ownership fights transferability. Perpetual pure-profit distribution requires clean accounting and governance that cannot hide growth spending inside "cost." Self-custody through an email app has to be real self-custody, not a friendly custodial account with better words. None of those are solved by naming the shape.
But naming the shape matters.
Hari's magic, if there is any, is not that impossible things are announced. It is that strange things are made procedurally imaginable before they become operationally possible.
The ninety-nine-cent dividend is one of those strange things. A person buys one share. Most of the price returns as BTC she holds herself. The share remains. The product lives. The surplus flows. The cap holds. The membership field widens.
The IPO stops being a harvest.
It becomes a public conversion surface.
What if public ownership was not the last field in the schema, but the first one a person could buy for a dollar?