FarmShare:

Blockchain​ ​Community-Supported​ ​Agriculture

By​ ​William​ ​E​ ​Bodell​ ​III
​ ​WORK​ ​IN​ ​PROGRESS

1.​ ​Introduction:
FarmShare​ ​is​ ​a​ ​decentralized​ ​community-supported​ ​agriculture​ ​platform​ ​built​ ​on​ ​Ethereum,​ ​the
world’s​ ​first​ ​distributed​ ​world​ ​computer.​ ​Blockchains,​ ​smart​ ​contracts,​ ​and​ ​decentralized
autonomous​ ​organizations​ ​are​ ​causing​ ​quite​ ​a​ ​stir​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tech​ ​industry,​ ​yet​ ​they​ ​have​ ​not
affected​ ​the​ ​vast​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​the​ ​world’s​ ​population,​ ​to​ ​whom​ ​the​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​Ethereum​ ​conjures
scenes​ ​from​ ​dystopian​ ​sci-fi​ ​thrillers.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​imperative​ ​for​ ​the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​the​ ​blockchain
ecosystem​ ​to​ ​invent​ ​applications​ ​that​ ​solve​ ​real​ ​world​ ​challenges​ ​affecting​ ​millions​ ​of​ ​everyday
people.​ ​With​ ​that​ ​in​ ​mind,​ ​this​ ​document​ ​outlines​ ​a​ ​proposal​ ​for​ ​an​ ​agricultural​ ​blockchain
service​ ​which​ ​aims​ ​to​ ​rebuild​ ​the​ ​broken​ ​food​ ​system,​ ​starting​ ​at​ ​the​ ​community​ ​level,​ ​by
adapting​ ​an​ ​existing​ ​business​ ​model​ ​(CSA)​ ​and​ ​leveraging​ ​the​ ​Ethereum​ ​network’s​ ​potential​ ​for
distributed​ ​governance,​ ​platform​ ​cooperativism,​ ​and​ ​planetary-scale​ ​computation.

1.1​ ​The​ ​Effects​ ​of​ ​Centralized​ ​Industrial​ ​Agriculture

Intensive​ ​farming​ ​techniques,​ ​developed​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​16th-19th​ ​centuries​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​rapid
population​ ​growth,​ ​greatly​ ​increased​ ​output​ ​while​ ​lowering​ ​production​ ​and​ ​labor​ ​costs.​ ​The
United​ ​States​ ​in​ ​the​ ​early​ ​20th​ ​century​ ​experienced​ ​the​ ​ecological​ ​wrath​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Dust​ ​Bowl​ ​in
large​ ​part​ ​due​ ​to​ ​wholesale​ ​conversion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​Plains’​ ​prairies​ ​into​ ​wheat​ ​fields1.​ ​Today​ ​we
are​ ​told​ ​that​ ​if​ ​soil​ ​degradation​ ​due​ ​to​ ​intensive​ ​farming​ ​continues,​ ​farmers​ ​may​ ​run​ ​out​ ​of​ ​top
soil​ ​in​ ​just​ ​60​ ​years2.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​Whole​ ​Foods​ ​and​ ​the​ ​organic​ ​food​ ​industry​ ​as​ ​a
whole​ ​has​ ​been​ ​substantial,​ ​it​ ​has​ ​not​ ​solved​ ​the​ ​fundamental​ ​problems​ ​with​ ​scale​ ​and
centralization​ ​that​ ​have​ ​caused​ ​such​ ​environmental​ ​crises​ ​as​ ​the​ ​current​ ​California​ ​water
shortage3.

Beyond​ ​its​ ​environmental​ ​effects.​ ​The​ ​centralization​ ​and​ ​industrialization​ ​of​ ​agriculture​ ​has​ ​had
considerable​ ​detrimental​ ​socio-economic​ ​effects.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​size​ ​of​ ​farms​ ​rises​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​farm
jobs​ ​decreases,​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​high​ ​unemployment​ ​rates​ ​in​ ​regions​ ​which​ ​once​ ​depended​ ​on
agriculture.​ ​Farms​ ​have​ ​consolidated​ ​in​ ​large​ ​part​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​widespread​ ​agglomeration​ ​of
processors,​ ​distributors​ ​and​ ​retailers​ ​along​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​chain,​ ​each​ ​taking​ ​a​ ​generous​ ​cut​ ​to
support​ ​its​ ​massive​ ​infrastructure.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​dairy​ ​sector​ ​in​ ​particular,​ ​farmers​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​have​ ​any
control​ ​over​ ​the​ ​price​ ​of​ ​their​ ​product,​ ​as​ ​massive​ ​cooperatives​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Dairy​ ​Farmers​ ​of
America​ ​have​ ​taken​ ​over​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​chain​ ​entirely4.

1
​ ​http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-dust-bowl
2
​ ​http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/
3
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418509/how-taxing-organic-products-could-solve-californias-water-
shortage-terry-l-anderson
4
​ ​http://www.dairyreporter.com/Manufacturers/DFA-to-pay-50m-to-settle-Northeast-US-milk-price-lawsuit
1.2​ ​Community-Supported​ ​Agriculture
Community-supported​ ​agriculture​ ​is​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​economic​ ​model​ ​for​ ​the​ ​production​ ​and
distribution​ ​of​ ​locally​ ​grown​ ​food.​ ​It​ ​originated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​1980s​ ​in​ ​the​ ​north​ ​eastern​ ​United​ ​States,
based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​concept​ ​of​ ​biodynamic​ ​agriculture​ ​first​ ​proposed​ ​by​ ​Rudolf​ ​Steiner.​ ​CSAs​ ​operate
on​ ​a​ ​shared​ ​risk-reward​ ​model,​ ​in​ ​which​ ​a​ ​community​ ​of​ ​shareholders​ ​funds​ ​the​ ​operation​ ​of​ ​a
local​ ​farm​ ​at​ ​the​ ​beginning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​growing​ ​season​ ​in​ ​exchange​ ​for​ ​weekly​ ​deliveries​ ​of​ ​fresh
produce​ ​and​ ​other​ ​food​ ​products​ ​(such​ ​as​ ​eggs,​ ​dairy,​ ​meats,​ ​etc)​ ​over​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​ ​the
harvesting​ ​period.

Such​ ​an​ ​arrangement​ ​is​ ​beneficial​ ​for​ ​both​ ​the​ ​farmers,​ ​who​ ​are​ ​effectively​ ​insured​ ​against​ ​risks
such​ ​as​ ​potential​ ​environmental​ ​factors​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​low​ ​crop​ ​yield,​ ​and​ ​consumers,​ ​who​ ​gain​ ​the
ability​ ​to​ ​influence​ ​decisions​ ​such​ ​as​ ​crop​ ​production​ ​ratios​ ​to​ ​better​ ​suit​ ​the​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​the
community.​ ​Ideologically,​ ​the​ ​original​ ​CSAs​ ​promoted​ ​new​ ​forms​ ​of​ ​communal​ ​land​ ​ownership,
collaborative​ ​labor​ ​relationships,​ ​and​ ​locally-oriented​ ​economies​ ​which​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​direct
farmer-consumer​ ​engagement.​ ​However,​ ​as​ ​CSAs​ ​have​ ​grown​ ​in​ ​number​ ​and​ ​size,​ ​the
philosophical​ ​underpinnings​ ​have​ ​given​ ​way​ ​to​ ​more​ ​practical​ ​considerations.

1.2.1​ ​Common​ ​Issues​ ​with​ ​CSAs

Although​ ​community​ ​supported​ ​agriculture​ ​sounds​ ​like​ ​the​ ​perfect​ ​arrangement​ ​for​ ​both​ ​farmers
and​ ​consumers,​ ​there​ ​are​ ​drawbacks​ ​to​ ​the​ ​model.​ ​Over-expansion​ ​is​ ​a​ ​common​ ​issue,​ ​since
large​ ​farming​ ​operations​ ​require​ ​significantly​ ​more​ ​work​ ​to​ ​manage​ ​both​ ​the​ ​crops​ ​and​ ​the
community.​ ​Farmers​ ​are​ ​not​ ​typically​ ​accustomed​ ​to​ ​running​ ​consumer-facing​ ​businesses,​ ​so
managing​ ​a​ ​community​ ​of​ ​concerned​ ​shareholders​ ​can​ ​be​ ​a​ ​distraction​ ​from​ ​the​ ​maintenance​ ​of
the​ ​farm.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​often​ ​difficult​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​active​ ​community​ ​engagement,​ ​and​ ​perhaps​ ​even​ ​more
difficult​ ​to​ ​achieve​ ​consensus​ ​within​ ​an​ ​engaged​ ​community.​ ​Shared​ ​risk​ ​can​ ​cause​ ​frustration​ ​if
the​ ​harvest​ ​is​ ​small,​ ​especially​ ​if​ ​communication​ ​is​ ​inconsistent.

1.3​ ​Agriculture​ ​and​ ​Information​ ​Technology

Agriculture​ ​is​ ​possibly​ ​the​ ​largest​ ​industry​ ​that​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​significantly​ ​affected​ ​by​ ​the
proliferation​ ​of​ ​information​ ​technology.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​a​ ​2014​ ​report​ ​by​ ​IBM​,​ ​“Today,​ ​the​ ​sector​ ​of
the​ ​economy​ ​with​ ​the​ ​lowest​ ​IT​ ​intensity​ ​is​ ​farming,​ ​where​ ​IT​ ​accounts​ ​for​ ​just​ ​1​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​all
capital​ ​spending.​ ​Here​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​impact​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IoT​ ​is​ ​enormous.​ ​Farming​ ​is​ ​capital-​ ​and
technology-intensive,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​information-intensive.”​ ​There​ ​is​ ​a​ ​great​ ​deal​ ​of​ ​work​ ​being
done​ ​on​ ​data-intensive​ ​indoor​ ​farming,​ ​hydroponic,​ ​aquaponic,​ ​and​ ​aeroponic​ ​agriculture,​ ​but
there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​dearth​ ​of​ ​digital​ ​infrastructure​ ​for​ ​supporting​ ​smaller,​ ​more​ ​traditional​ ​farms.

1.4​ ​Blockchains
Blockchains​ ​are​ ​a​ ​type​ ​of​ ​decentralized​ ​database​ ​system,​ ​first​ ​implemented​ ​as​ ​the​ ​underlying
technological​ ​innovation​ ​behind​ ​Bitcoin.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Bitcoin​ ​and​ ​other​ ​cryptocurrencies,​ ​the
blockchain​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​a​ ​public​ ​ledger,​ ​containing​ ​a​ ​record​ ​of​ ​every​ ​transaction​ ​ever​ ​made​ ​on​ ​the
network.​ ​A​ ​blockchain​ ​is​ ​not​ ​stored​ ​on​ ​any​ ​centralized​ ​server,​ ​but​ ​rather​ ​is​ ​maintained​ ​by​ ​a
network​ ​of​ ​users,​ ​thus​ ​eliminating​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​a​ ​trusted​ ​third​ ​party​ ​to​ ​process​ ​transactions.​ ​The
computational​ ​power​ ​required​ ​to​ ​add​ ​new​ ​transactions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​blockchain​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​prohibitively
hard​ ​to​ ​alter​ ​or​ ​cheat​ ​the​ ​system,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​reward​ ​system​ ​is​ ​typically​ ​used​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​an​ ​incentive
for​ ​users​ ​(known​ ​as​ ​miners)​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​the​ ​system.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​blockchain​ ​was​ ​first​ ​used​ ​in​ ​the
context​ ​of​ ​digital​ ​currency,​ ​there​ ​have​ ​been​ ​many​ ​subsequent​ ​projects​ ​which​ ​aim​ ​to​ ​leverage
the​ ​model​ ​of​ ​distributed​ ​consensus​ ​for​ ​other​ ​applications,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​domain​ ​name​ ​registration
(NameCoin),​ ​crowdfunding​ ​(Swarm),​ ​and​ ​smart​ ​property​ ​(colored​ ​coins).

1.4.1​ ​Ethereum,​ ​Smart​ ​Contracts,​ ​and​ ​Decentralized​ ​Autonomous​ ​Organizations

One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​most​ ​ambitious​ ​projects​ ​to​ ​come​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​‘Blockchain​ ​2.0’​ ​space​ ​is​ ​Ethereum,​ ​a
platform​ ​for​ ​hosting​ ​practically​ ​any​ ​decentralized​ ​application​ ​(DApp)​ ​on​ ​a​ ​blockchain.​ ​Ethereum
contains​ ​its​ ​own​ ​Turing-complete​ ​programming​ ​language,​ ​so​ ​that​ ​users​ ​can​ ​develop​ ​DApps​ ​that
exist​ ​on​ ​the​ ​blockchain​ ​and​ ​can​ ​interact​ ​with​ ​other​ ​DApps.​ ​These​ ​programs​ ​are​ ​built​ ​around
smart​ ​contracts,​ ​essentially​ ​contracts​ ​written​ ​in​ ​code,​ ​which​ ​can​ ​only​ ​be​ ​executed​ ​if​ ​certain
conditions​ ​are​ ​met.​ ​Smart​ ​contracts​ ​can​ ​be​ ​as​ ​simple​ ​as​ ​a​ ​bet​ ​between​ ​friends​ ​(money​ ​is​ ​placed
in​ ​an​ ​escrow​ ​wallet​ ​and​ ​only​ ​released​ ​to​ ​the​ ​winner​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​final​ ​score​ ​of​ ​the​ ​football
game)​ ​or​ ​as​ ​complicated​ ​as​ ​entire​ ​corporations.​ ​Decentralized​ ​Autonomous​ ​Organizations
(DAOs)​ ​are​ ​organizations​ ​which​ ​do​ ​not​ ​require​ ​any​ ​direct​ ​human​ ​involvement,​ ​run​ ​according​ ​to
a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​business​ ​rules​ ​written​ ​in​ ​code.​ ​Typically​ ​DAOs​ ​will​ ​interact​ ​with​ ​humans​ ​to​ ​perform
non-computational​ ​tasks,​ ​and​ ​can​ ​pay​ ​for​ ​such​ ​tasks​ ​with​ ​some​ ​form​ ​of​ ​internal​ ​capital,​ ​such​ ​as
Bitcoin​ ​or​ ​equity​ ​shares.

2.​ ​FarmShare​ ​Overview

FarmShare​ ​is​ ​an​ ​evolution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​community-supported​ ​agriculture​ ​model,​ ​which​ ​takes
advantage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​blockchain’s​ ​potential​ ​for​ ​distributed​ ​consensus,​ ​token-based​ ​equity​ ​shares
and​ ​automated​ ​governance​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​foster​ ​greater​ ​community​ ​engagement​ ​while​ ​removing
some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​managerial​ ​burdens​ ​and​ ​financial​ ​risks​ ​from​ ​farmers​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​a​ ​CSA.​ ​The​ ​goal​ ​is
to​ ​return​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fundamental​ ​goals​ ​of​ ​the​ ​original​ ​CSAs:​ ​to​ ​create​ ​new​ ​forms​ ​of​ ​property
ownership,​ ​community​ ​cooperation,​ ​and​ ​locally​ ​self-sufficient​ ​economies.

FarmShare​ ​differs​ ​from​ ​both​ ​original​ ​and​ ​contemporary​ ​community-supported​ ​agriculture​ ​in
several​ ​key​ ​ways.​ ​Rather​ ​than​ ​operating​ ​as​ ​a​ ​single​ ​farm,​ ​FarmShare​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​a​ ​platform​ ​for
entire​ ​communities​ ​to​ ​create​ ​a​ ​parallel​ ​economy​ ​for​ ​the​ ​production,​ ​processing,​ ​distribution,​ ​and
consumption​ ​of​ ​local​ ​food.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​shares​ ​need​ ​not​ ​be​ ​purchased​ ​ahead​ ​of​ ​time​ ​at​ ​a​ ​flat
fee,​ ​but​ ​may​ ​also​ ​be​ ​earned​ ​by​ ​supporting​ ​and​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​local​ ​food​ ​system.​ ​Shares
may​ ​be​ ​issued​ ​for​ ​volunteering​ ​on​ ​the​ ​farm,​ ​transporting​ ​food,​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​a​ ​crowdfunding
campaign,​ ​sharing​ ​processing​ ​equipment,​ ​participating​ ​in​ ​an​ ​educational​ ​workshop,​ ​and
anything​ ​else​ ​a​ ​community​ ​assigns​ ​value​ ​to.​ ​Shares​ ​may​ ​be​ ​exchanged​ ​for​ ​food​ ​from​ ​a​ ​network
of​ ​farmers​ ​markets,​ ​co-op​ ​stores,​ ​specialty​ ​markets,​ ​restaurants​ ​and​ ​food​ ​pantries

2.1​ ​Token​ ​‘Shares’

FarmShare​ ​tokens,​ ​or​ ​‘shares’,​ ​are​ ​the​ ​primary​ ​unit​ ​of​ ​value​ ​transfer​ ​upon​ ​which​ ​the​ ​blockchain
CSA​ ​model​ ​relies.​ ​The​ ​token​ ​contract​ ​can​ ​use​ ​the​ ​general​ ​framework​ ​provided​ ​by​ ​the
open-source​ ​Community​ ​Currency​​ ​project,​ ​which​ ​establishes​ ​a​ ​treasury​ ​account​ ​for​ ​minting
shares​ ​and​ ​a​ ​community​ ​account​ ​for​ ​managing​ ​membership,​ ​reputation,​ ​and​ ​paying​ ​community
members​ ​for​ ​service.​ ​The​ ​Community​ ​Currency​ ​template​ ​also​ ​includes​ ​a​ ​system​ ​for​ ​zero
reserve​ ​mutual​ ​credit,​ ​allowing​ ​members​ ​to​ ​authorize​ ​credits​ ​to​ ​other​ ​members.​ ​The​ ​community
account​ ​can​ ​be​ ​funded​ ​through​ ​a​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​crowdfunding​ ​and​ ​transaction​ ​fees.

Shares​ ​may​ ​be​ ​minted​ ​when​ ​a​ ​new​ ​member​ ​joins​ ​the​ ​community,​ ​as​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Community
Currency​ ​template.​ ​The​ ​treasury​ ​could​ ​also​ ​mint​ ​shares​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​messages​ ​from​ ​the
‘workshare’​ ​contract​ ​indicating​ ​that​ ​a​ ​task​ ​has​ ​been​ ​completed​ ​successfully.​ ​The​ ​community​ ​will
have​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​is​ ​more​ ​appropriate​ ​to​ ​mint​ ​new​ ​shares​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​task​ ​bounties,​ ​pay​ ​them
from​ ​the​ ​community​ ​fund,​ ​require​ ​that​ ​the​ ​creator​ ​of​ ​the​ ​task​ ​pay,​ ​or​ ​some​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​the
three.​ ​The​ ​balance​ ​may​ ​shift​ ​over​ ​time,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​treasury​ ​minting​ ​new​ ​coins​ ​early​ ​on​ ​until​ ​the
community​ ​fund​ ​has​ ​generated​ ​enough​ ​income.​ ​Members​ ​may​ ​be​ ​required​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​bounty​ ​for
certain​ ​tasks​ ​but​ ​not​ ​for​ ​others.​ ​For​ ​instance,​ ​the​ ​community​ ​may​ ​decide​ ​to​ ​reward​ ​people​ ​for
attending​ ​an​ ​educational​ ​workshop​ ​from​ ​the​ ​community​ ​fund,​ ​whereas​ ​a​ ​farmer​ ​could​ ​be
required​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​for​ ​access​ ​to​ ​another​ ​member’s​ ​processing​ ​facility.

Shares​ ​may​ ​be​ ​redeemed​ ​for​ ​food​ ​and​ ​other​ ​agricultural​ ​products​ ​from​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​producers​ ​in
the​ ​community.​ ​Because​ ​FarmShare​ ​will​ ​have​ ​to​ ​integrate​ ​with​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​agricultural
ecosystem​ ​at​ ​critical​ ​touch​ ​points​ ​such​ ​as​ ​farmers​ ​markets,​ ​grocery​ ​stores​ ​and​ ​co-ops,​ ​which
typically​ ​involve​ ​a​ ​cash​ ​exchange,​ ​shares​ ​will​ ​require​ ​an​ ​exchange​ ​rate​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​users​ ​to​ ​easily
convert​ ​to​ ​familiar​ ​units.​ ​At​ ​first​ ​the​ ​share​ ​will​ ​likely​ ​have​ ​to​ ​exist​ ​in​ ​tandem​ ​with​ ​traditional​ ​cash
transactions,​ ​perhaps​ ​combined​ ​with​ ​a​ ​discounted​ ​price​ ​in​ ​USD.

2.2​ ​Tasks,​ ​Rewards​ ​and​ ​Reputation

Shares​ ​can​ ​be​ ​earned​ ​either​ ​by​ ​performing​ ​tasks,​ ​sharing​ ​resources,​ ​or​ ​selling​ ​products​ ​on​ ​the
marketplace.​ ​Each​ ​of​ ​these​ ​methods​ ​can​ ​be​ ​built​ ​as​ ​a​ ​separate​ ​smart​ ​contract​ ​which
communicates​ ​with​ ​the​ ​token​ ​contract​ ​to​ ​either​ ​transfer​ ​or​ ​mint​ ​new​ ​shares.​ ​The​ ​process​ ​of
delegating​ ​tasks​ ​can​ ​be​ ​managed​ ​by​ ​assigning​ ​rewards​ ​(or​ ​bounties)​ ​to​ ​specific​ ​tasks,​ ​which
allow​ ​community​ ​members​ ​to​ ​collect​ ​shares​ ​in​ ​return​ ​for​ ​their​ ​labor.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​the
‘workshare’​ ​component​ ​of​ ​traditional​ ​CSAs,​ ​but​ ​extends​ ​beyond​ ​farm​ ​work​ ​to​ ​include​ ​making
deliveries,​ ​working​ ​at​ ​a​ ​co-op​ ​store,​ ​or​ ​repairing​ ​a​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​machinery.​ ​Members​ ​may​ ​compete
to​ ​accomplish​ ​tasks​ ​for​ ​a​ ​smaller​ ​bounty,​ ​and​ ​may​ ​accumulate​ ​reputation​ ​for​ ​a​ ​job​ ​well​ ​done.

There​ ​is​ ​already​ ​a​ ​simple​ ​job​ ​market​ ​DApp​​ ​which​ ​allows​ ​users​ ​to​ ​post​ ​jobs​ ​and​ ​skills​ ​to​ ​be
completed​ ​for​ ​a​ ​reward.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​a​ ​very​ ​basic​ ​framework​ ​which​ ​could​ ​be​ ​expanded​ ​upon​ ​to​ ​features
such​ ​as​ ​escrow,​ ​repeating​ ​tasks,​ ​group​ ​tasks,​ ​volunteering​ ​(in​ ​return​ ​for​ ​reputation​ ​only),​ ​and
user​ ​reviews.​ ​Identity​ ​and​ ​reputation​ ​could​ ​be​ ​managed​ ​by​ ​an​ ​external​ ​DApp,​ ​such​ ​as​ u ​ Port​.
Successful​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​a​ ​task​ ​would​ ​require​ ​both​ ​parties​ ​to​ ​send​ ​a​ ​transaction​ ​to​ ​the​ ​task
contract,​ ​which​ ​would​ ​then​ ​trigger​ ​a​ ​message​ ​to​ ​the​ ​token​ ​contract​ ​to​ ​transfer​ ​or​ ​mint​ ​shares,​ ​as
well​ ​as​ ​a​ ​message​ ​to​ ​the​ ​identity​ ​system​ ​indicating​ ​an​ ​increase​ ​in​ ​reputation​ ​for​ ​a​ ​job​ ​well​ ​done.
Tasks​ ​that​ ​are​ ​accepted​ ​by​ ​a​ ​user​ ​but​ ​not​ ​completed​ ​may​ ​result​ ​in​ ​a​ ​reputation​ ​loss,​ ​while
disputed​ ​tasks​ ​could​ ​be​ ​handled​ ​by​ ​a​ ​community​ ​conflict​ ​resolution​ ​board​ ​(see​ ​section​ ​2.5​ ​on
community​ ​governance).
2.3​ ​Resource​ ​Bank
Shares​ ​can​ ​also​ ​be​ ​earned​ ​by​ ​sharing​ ​resources​ ​within​ ​the​ ​community,​ ​through​ ​a​ ​separate
resource​ ​bank​ ​contract.​ ​Resources​ ​may​ ​include​ ​excess​ ​food​ ​(for​ ​donation​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the
market),​ ​compostable​ ​waste,​ ​farming​ ​equipment,​ ​processing​ ​facilities,​ ​land,​ ​etc.​ ​This​ ​component
is​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​a​ ​parallel​ ​economy​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​free​ ​exchange​ ​of​ ​resources​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as
labor.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​infrastructure​ ​to​ ​support​ ​such​ ​sharing​ ​within​ ​a​ ​community,​ ​as​ ​most
resources​ ​spend​ ​the​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​their​ ​time​ ​unused.​ ​Bootstrapped​ ​solutions​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Craigslist
(and​ ​the​ ​Upper​ ​Delaware​ ​Network​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County)​ ​have​ ​been​ ​fairly​ ​successful,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​whole
ecosystem​ ​of​ ​companies​ ​have​ ​emerged​ ​around​ ​the​ ​new​ ​‘sharing​ ​economy,’​ ​but​ ​these​ ​services
have​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​been​ ​successfully​ ​integrated​ ​with​ ​local​ ​food​ ​systems.

A​ ​user​ ​may​ ​interact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​resource​ ​bank​ ​either​ ​to​ ​list​ ​a​ ​new​ ​resource​ ​or​ ​request​ ​access​ ​to​ ​a
resource​ ​that​ ​has​ ​already​ ​been​ ​listed.​ ​The​ ​resource​ ​bank​ ​contract​ ​would​ ​message​ ​the​ ​identity
system​ ​to​ ​verify​ ​the​ ​reputation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​user​ ​before​ ​confirming​ ​access.​ ​Each​ ​instance​ ​of​ ​a
resource​ ​contract​ ​may​ ​contain​ ​parameters​ ​such​ ​as​ ​payment​ ​information,​ ​access​ ​length,
restrictions,​ ​etc.​ ​For​ ​instance,​ ​one​ ​might​ ​offer​ ​to​ ​exchange​ ​some​ ​excess​ ​food​ ​in​ ​exchange​ ​for
one-time​ ​access​ ​to​ ​a​ ​processing​ ​facility,​ ​or​ ​this​ ​may​ ​be​ ​scheduled​ ​on​ ​a​ ​weekly​ ​or​ ​monthly​ ​basis.
The​ ​contract​ ​may​ ​then​ ​stipulate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​processor​ ​bring​ ​the​ ​resulting​ ​goods​ ​to​ ​market,​ ​in​ ​return
for​ ​which​ ​both​ ​parties​ ​receive​ ​a​ ​percentage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​sale.

2.4​ ​Marketplace
Shares​ ​may​ ​be​ ​exchanged​ ​for​ ​food​ ​and​ ​other​ ​agricultural​ ​products​ ​through​ ​the​ ​marketplace
feature.​ ​The​ ​marketplace​ ​will​ ​be​ ​distributed​ ​and​ ​integrated​ ​into​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​fabric​ ​of​ ​the
community,​ ​at​ ​critical​ ​touch​ ​points​ ​such​ ​as​ ​farmers​ ​markets,​ ​farm​ ​co-ops,​ ​grocery​ ​stores,
restaurants​ ​and​ ​food​ ​pantries.​ ​To​ ​some​ ​extent​ ​the​ ​experience​ ​may​ ​be​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​shopping​ ​on
online​ ​farmers​ ​market​ ​platforms​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Farmigo​​ ​or​ ​GoodEggs​,​ ​where​ ​customers​ ​join​ ​a​ ​local
community​ ​with​ ​a​ ​host​ ​that​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​a​ ​distribution​ ​hub.​ ​However,​ ​it​ ​may​ ​be​ ​the​ ​case​ ​that​ ​many
community​ ​members​ ​are​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​travel​ ​to​ ​the​ ​farm​ ​to​ ​pick​ ​up​ ​their​ ​food​ ​directly​ ​rather​ ​than
have​ ​it​ ​delivered​ ​to​ ​the​ ​farmers​ ​market.​ ​Users​ ​will​ ​have​ ​the​ ​option​ ​of​ ​viewing​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​supply
chain​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​each​ ​food​ ​item,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​choose​ ​at​ ​what​ ​point​ ​in​ ​the​ ​chain​ ​to
interact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​market.

Producers​ ​may​ ​post​ ​a​ ​product​ ​on​ ​the​ ​market​ ​along​ ​with​ ​a​ ​description,​ ​price,​ ​quantity,​ ​and
photos​ ​(via​ ​IPFS).​ ​Consumers​ ​may​ ​interact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​marketplace​ ​by​ ​claiming​ ​a​ ​product,​ ​which
could​ ​involve​ ​holding​ ​the​ ​shares​ ​in​ ​escrow​ ​until​ ​both​ ​parties​ ​confirm​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​exchange.
Community​ ​members​ ​may​ ​coordinate​ ​the​ ​exchange​ ​via​ ​Whisper​ ​messaging​ ​or​ ​traditional​ ​modes
of​ ​communication.​ ​If​ ​enough​ ​members​ ​opt​ ​for​ ​delivery​ ​to​ ​a​ ​community​ ​hub,​ ​the​ ​market​ ​contract
could​ ​message​ ​the​ ​task​ ​contract​ ​to​ ​find​ ​transportation.​ ​Members​ ​may​ ​also​ ​leave​ ​reviews​ ​for
particular​ ​vendors,​ ​customers,​ ​and​ ​products,​ ​which​ ​would​ ​cause​ ​the​ ​market​ ​contract​ ​to
message​ ​the​ ​identity​ ​system​ ​and​ ​either​ ​add​ ​to​ ​or​ ​subtract​ ​from​ ​the​ ​user’s​ ​reputation.
2.5​ ​Community​ ​Governance
Decision-making​ ​within​ ​the​ ​community​ ​can​ ​be​ ​handled​ ​democratically,​ ​using​ ​a​ ​distributed
governance​ ​application​ ​such​ ​as​ ​BoardRoom​.​ ​Any​ ​member​ ​may​ ​table​ ​a​ ​proposal​ ​on​ ​the​ ​platform
to​ ​be​ ​voted​ ​on​ ​by​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​community,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​automatically​ ​enact​ ​proposals​ ​via
smart​ ​contract​ ​once​ ​a​ ​predefined​ ​number​ ​of​ ​community​ ​members​ ​have​ ​approved​ ​it.​ ​The
community​ ​may​ ​establish​ ​committees​ ​and​ ​subcommittees​ ​on​ ​any​ ​number​ ​of​ ​issues,​ ​which​ ​may
have​ ​an​ ​electable​ ​chair,​ ​add​ ​or​ ​remove​ ​members​ ​based​ ​on​ ​community​ ​consensus,​ ​allocate
funds​ ​according​ ​to​ ​tabled​ ​proposals,​ ​and​ ​revise​ ​its​ ​structure​ ​or​ ​bylaws​ ​as​ ​deemed​ ​necessary​ ​by
the​ ​community.

By​ ​default​ ​the​ ​community​ ​would​ ​have​ ​two​ ​independent​ ​boards​ ​for​ ​managing​ ​the​ ​treasury​ ​and
community​ ​fund​ ​accounts.​ ​It​ ​may​ ​be​ ​effective​ ​to​ ​have​ ​multiple​ ​subcommittees​ ​to​ ​manage
portions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​community​ ​budget​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​various​ ​subjects​ ​or​ ​sectors​ ​of​ ​the​ ​local​ ​food
economy.​ ​For​ ​instance,​ ​dairy​ ​farmers,​ ​processors,​ ​and​ ​contributors​ ​to​ ​crowdfunding​ ​campaigns
to​ ​support​ ​local​ ​milk​ ​and​ ​cheese​ ​initiatives​ ​may​ ​be​ ​added​ ​to​ ​a​ ​committee​ ​devoted​ ​to​ ​local​ ​dairy,
which​ ​may​ ​have​ ​subcommittees​ ​for​ ​managing​ ​funding,​ ​marketing,​ ​processing,​ ​and​ ​distribution.

2.6​ ​Food​ ​Provenance​ ​Data

By​ ​incorporating​ ​agricultural​ ​IoT​ ​and​ ​blockchain​ ​technology​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​chain,
FarmShare​ ​can​ ​allow​ ​users​ ​to​ ​keep​ ​track​ ​of​ ​a​ ​wide​ ​array​ ​of​ ​data​ ​about​ ​their​ ​food.​ ​Agricultural
sensors​ ​could​ ​monitor​ ​the​ ​environmental​ ​conditions​ ​and​ ​nutrient​ ​levels​ ​of​ ​crops​ ​over​ ​the​ ​course
of​ ​a​ ​season,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​data​ ​can​ ​be​ ​stored​ ​in​ ​the​ ​blockchain​ ​to​ ​be​ ​reviewed​ ​at​ ​any​ ​time.​ ​Additional
data,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​labor​ ​or​ ​transportation​ ​information,​ ​can​ ​also​ ​be​ ​tracked​ ​on​ ​the​ ​blockchain,
allowing​ ​conscientious​ ​consumers​ ​to​ ​make​ ​decisions​ ​about​ ​their​ ​food​ ​based​ ​on​ ​ethical​ ​concerns
about​ ​energy​ ​sustainability​ ​or​ ​fair​ ​labor​ ​practices.

Consumers​ ​are​ ​becoming​ ​increasingly​ ​concerned​ ​about​ ​the​ ​provenance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​food​ ​that​ ​they
purchase,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​primary​ ​reasons​ ​that​ ​CSAs​ ​have​ ​grown​ ​in​ ​popularity​ ​over​ ​the​ ​past
several​ ​decades.​ ​The​ ​local​ ​food​ ​movement​ ​grew​ ​out​ ​of​ ​a​ ​concern​ ​not​ ​just​ ​for​ ​the​ ​quality​ ​of​ ​the
food​ ​but​ ​also​ ​for​ ​the​ ​energy​ ​burned​ ​and​ ​emissions​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​the​ ​transportation​ ​portion​ ​of​ ​the
supply​ ​chain.​ ​The​ ​blockchain​ ​allows​ ​FarmShare​ ​users​ ​to​ ​know​ ​not​ ​only​ ​the​ ​farmer​ ​from​ ​whom
they​ ​purchased​ ​a​ ​product,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​the​ ​quality​ ​of​ ​the​ ​soil​ ​and​ ​the​ ​air​ ​on​ ​his​ ​land,​ ​the​ ​source​ ​of
the​ ​seeds​ ​and​ ​the​ ​fertilizer​ ​used​ ​to​ ​grow​ ​it,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​distance​ ​it​ ​traveled​ ​to​ ​get​ ​from​ ​farm​ ​to​ ​table.
3.​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​Pilot​ ​Program
This​ ​paper​ ​is​ ​the​ ​result​ ​of​ ​a​ ​year-long​ ​feasibility​ ​study​ ​conducted​ ​in​ ​a​ ​rural​ ​agricultural
community​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Catskills,​ ​about​ ​two​ ​hours​ ​northwest​ ​of​ ​New​ ​York​ ​City.​ ​FarmShare​ ​would​ ​like
to​ ​launch​ ​a​ ​pilot​ ​program​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County,​ ​NY,​ ​hopefully​ ​by​ ​2018,​ ​which​ ​will​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​an
integral​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​and​ ​development​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tools​ ​and​ ​protocols.

3.1​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​Background

Sullivan​ ​County​ ​is​ ​an​ ​interesting​ ​test​ ​site​ ​for​ ​several​ ​reasons.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​only​ ​two​ ​hours​ ​away​ ​from
New​ ​York​ ​City​ ​by​ ​car,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Catskills,​ ​providing​ ​easy​ ​access​ ​to​ ​urban​ ​farmers​ ​markets​ ​and
restaurants.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​incredibly​ ​underserved​ ​area,​ ​with​ ​a​ ​dire​ ​need​ ​for​ ​an​ ​improved
agricultural​ ​infrastructure.​ ​Despite​ ​its​ ​natural​ ​beauty​ ​and​ ​rich​ ​soils,​ ​the​ ​county’s​ ​economy​ ​has
failed​ ​to​ ​recover​ ​from​ ​the​ ​lost​ ​tourism​ ​industry​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Borscht​ ​Belt.​ ​Sullivan​ ​has​ ​the​ ​second​ ​worst
health​ ​rating​ ​among​ ​New​ ​York​ ​counties,​ ​higher​ ​only​ ​than​ ​the​ ​Bronx,​ ​and​ ​contains​ ​two​ ​food
deserts.​ ​However,​ ​an​ ​increasing​ ​number​ ​of​ ​people​ ​are​ ​either​ ​buying​ ​a​ ​second​ ​home​ ​or​ ​moving
to​ ​the​ ​Catskills​ ​from​ ​the​ ​city,​ ​inspired​ ​by​ ​the​ ​artistic​ ​community​ ​and​ ​agrarian​ ​homesteading
mentality.

3.1.1​ ​Agriculture​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County

Agriculture​ ​has​ ​been​ ​an​ ​important​ ​sector​ ​of​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​since​ ​the​ ​early​ ​1800s,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​2012
its​ ​321​ ​farms​ ​generated​ ​$27.1​ ​million​ ​in​ ​sales,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​agricultural​ ​industry​ ​earned
$741.1​ ​and​ ​employed​ ​over​ ​1,500​ ​people5.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​county’s​ ​small​ ​to​ ​medium​ ​sized​ ​farms
have​ ​been​ ​struggling​ ​to​ ​stay​ ​profitable​ ​in​ ​recent​ ​years.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​a​ 2
​ 012​ ​Agricultural​ ​Sensus​,
the​ ​average​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​farm​ ​nets​ ​less​ ​than​ ​$10,000​ ​annually,​ ​forcing​ ​many​ ​farmers​ ​to
work​ ​multiple​ ​jobs.

Despite​ ​the​ ​hard​ ​times,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​much​ ​to​ ​be​ ​optimistic​ ​about​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.​ ​A​ ​growing
number​ ​of​ ​small​ ​farms​ ​are​ ​producing​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​goods,​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​a​ ​vibrant
farmer’s​ ​market​ ​community.​ ​Agritourism​ ​has​ ​been​ ​a​ ​growing​ ​trend,​ ​drawing​ ​capital​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as
interest​ ​from​ ​New​ ​York​ ​City​ ​and​ ​elsewhere.

3.1.2​ ​Dairy​ ​Farms​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County

New​ ​York’s​ ​dairy​ ​industry​ ​has​ ​seen​ ​a​ ​dramatic​ ​decline​ ​in​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​farms,​ ​yet​ ​it​ ​remains​ ​the
nation’s​ ​third​ ​largest​ ​milk​ ​producer,​ ​as​ ​many​ ​smaller​ ​operations​ ​are​ ​consolidated​ ​into​ ​larger
farms.​ ​Dairy​ ​was​ ​once​ ​a​ ​thriving​ ​industry​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County,​ ​yet​ ​the​ ​region​ ​is​ ​not​ ​well​ ​suited​ ​to
such​ ​large​ ​farms,​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​topography​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Catskills.​ ​The​ ​accumulation​ ​of​ ​control​ ​over​ ​the
processing,​ ​distribution,​ ​and​ ​marketing​ ​of​ ​dairy​ ​products​ ​by​ ​massive​ ​“cooperatives”,​ ​themselves
formed​ ​through​ ​the​ ​consolidation​ ​of​ ​many​ ​smaller​ ​entities,​ ​forces​ ​farmers​ ​to​ ​frequently​ ​sell​ ​their
product​ ​at​ ​a​ ​loss.​ ​While​ ​milk​ ​was​ ​once​ ​a​ ​staple​ ​product​ ​of​ ​the​ ​region,​ ​as​ ​of​ ​May​ ​2016​ ​there​ ​are
only​ ​23​ ​dairy​ ​farms​ ​remaining​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.

http://www.co.sullivan.ny.us/Departments/DepartmentsNZ/PlanningandEnvironmentalManagement/Agricu
lturalProtection/tabid/3257/default.aspx
One​ ​promising​ ​alternative​ ​to​ ​selling​ ​fluid​ ​milk​ ​to​ ​Dairy​ ​Farmers​ ​of​ ​America​ ​is​ ​local​ ​value-added
processing.​ ​Products​ ​such​ ​as​ ​cheese,​ ​yogurt​ ​and​ ​ice​ ​cream​ ​sell​ ​for​ ​a​ ​premium​ ​at​ ​local​ ​farmer’s
markets​ ​and​ ​grocery​ ​stores,​ ​and​ ​may​ ​be​ ​produced​ ​with​ ​great​ ​variety.​ ​This​ ​returns​ ​power​ ​over
the​ ​price​ ​of​ ​the​ ​product​ ​to​ ​the​ ​farmers,​ ​and​ ​allows​ ​them​ ​to​ ​make​ ​a​ ​living.​ ​However,​ ​most​ ​dairy
farmers​ ​are​ ​far​ ​too​ ​busy​ ​to​ ​learn​ ​an​ ​entirely​ ​new​ ​craft,​ ​much​ ​less​ ​handle​ ​the​ ​marketing​ ​and​ ​pay
for​ ​the​ ​necessary​ ​equipment.​ ​Still,​ ​the​ ​recent​ ​success​ ​of​ ​Tonjes​ ​Dairy​ ​Farm​ ​in​ ​Callicoon,​ ​which
began​ ​making​ ​cheese​ ​in​ ​a​ ​mobile​ ​processing​ ​unit​ ​and​ ​later​ ​built​ ​its​ ​own​ ​facility,​ ​suggests​ ​that
the​ ​business​ ​model​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​to​ ​revitalize​ ​dairy​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.

3.1.3​ ​Local​ ​Processing​ ​Infrastructure

There​ ​have​ ​been​ ​several​ ​recent​ ​initiatives​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​access​ ​to​ ​agricultural​ ​processing​ ​facilities
in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.​ ​The​ ​county’s​ ​Industrial​ ​Development​ ​Agency​ ​(IDA)​ ​launched​ ​a​ ​project​ ​to
build​ ​a​ ​red​ ​meat​ ​processing​ ​facility​ ​in​ ​Liberty,​ ​and​ ​has​ ​completed​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​a​ ​building
shell,​ ​but​ ​has​ ​been​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​secure​ ​an​ ​operator.​ ​The​ ​IDA​ ​is​ ​also​ ​in​ ​the​ ​planning​ ​phase​ ​of​ ​a
local​ ​food​ ​hub​ ​project,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​selection​ ​of​ ​a​ ​site​ ​has​ ​been​ ​held​ ​up​ ​in​ ​politics​ ​for​ ​some​ ​time.

In​ ​2010​ ​the​ ​IDA​ ​commissioned​ ​a​ ​study​ ​on​ ​the​ ​feasibility​ ​of​ ​building​ ​a​ ​regional​ ​creamery​ ​in
Sullivan​ ​County.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​report​ ​ultimately​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​investment​ ​required​ ​to​ ​construct
and​ ​operate​ ​medium-sized​ ​dairy​ ​processing​ ​facility​ ​made​ ​it​ ​infeasible​ ​given​ ​the​ ​expected
returns,​ ​it​ ​did​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Tonjes​ ​Farm​ ​model​ ​as​ ​a​ ​promising​ ​alternative,​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​niche
producers​ ​could​ ​benefit​ ​from​ ​the​ ​“creation​ ​of​ ​on-farm​ ​local​ ​processing​ ​and​ ​distribution​ ​capacity
that​ ​might​ ​be​ ​shared​ ​with​ ​others.”6

3.2​ ​Local​ ​Dairy​ ​Initiative

In​ ​partnership​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Upper​ ​Delaware​ ​River​ ​Roundtable,​ ​the​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​FarmShare
community​ ​has​ ​identified​ ​value-added​ ​dairy​ ​products​ ​as​ ​a​ ​promising​ ​market​ ​to​ ​target​ ​in​ ​an​ ​initial
pilot​ ​program.​ ​Inspired​ ​by​ ​the​ ​failures​ ​of​ ​centralized​ ​milk​ ​industry​ ​and​ ​the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​cheese
operations​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Tonjes,​ ​FarmShare​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​a​ ​network​ ​of​ ​small,​ ​on-farm​ ​dairy
processing​ ​facilities​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.​ ​The​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​initiative​ ​is​ ​to​ ​revitalize​ ​the​ ​local​ ​dairy
industry,​ ​rebrand​ ​the​ ​region​ ​as​ ​cheese​ ​country,​ ​and​ ​demonstrate​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​of​ ​distributed
community​ ​organizations​ ​(DCOs)​ ​and​ ​blockchain​ ​technology​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​farmers​ ​with​ ​more
equitable​ ​prices​ ​and​ ​support​ ​services.

3.2.1​ ​Crowdfunding​ ​Cheese​ ​Facilities

The​ ​original​ ​‘cheesemobile’​ ​that​ ​launched​ ​Tonjes​ ​was​ ​purchased​ ​by​ ​the​ ​county.​ ​Though
intended​ ​to​ ​move​ ​from​ ​farm​ ​to​ ​farm,​ ​selling​ ​and​ ​transporting​ ​it​ ​to​ ​another​ ​farm​ ​proved​ ​difficult.
The​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​repairs​ ​required,​ ​about​ ​$40,000,​ ​was​ ​prohibitively​ ​high,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​unit​ ​has​ ​sat​ ​idle​ ​for
three​ ​years.​ ​Its​ ​owners​ ​and​ ​potential​ ​operators​ ​have​ ​expressed​ ​an​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​crowdfunding​ ​the
project,​ ​as​ ​access​ ​to​ ​capital​ ​is​ ​a​ ​critical​ ​barrier​ ​to​ ​entry​ ​for​ ​such​ ​projects.​ ​FarmShare​ ​proposes
to​ ​help​ ​such​ ​projects​ ​raise​ ​funds​ ​and​ ​access​ ​skills​ ​and​ ​resources​ ​from​ ​the​ ​community.

http://catskillsedc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SullivanCty_Creamery_MarketFeasabilityAnalysi
s.pdf
Rather​ ​than​ ​repairing​ ​the​ ​original​ ​unit,​ ​the​ ​community​ ​could​ ​also​ ​elect​ ​to​ ​purchase​ ​a​ ​new​ ​one,​ ​or
even​ ​several.​ ​This​ ​would​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​units​ ​to​ ​be​ ​truly​ ​mobile,​ ​making​ ​it​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​move​ ​frequently
from​ ​farm​ ​to​ ​farm.​ ​However,​ ​trailer-sized​ ​mobile​ ​units​ ​such​ ​as​ ​these​ ​could​ ​cost​ ​more​ ​than
$200,000,​ ​which​ ​may​ ​make​ ​this​ ​option​ ​infeasible.

A​ ​third​ ​option​ ​is​ ​to​ ​invest​ ​in​ ​many​ ​small-scale​ ​facilities,​ ​which​ ​could​ ​be​ ​packed​ ​up​ ​in​ ​a​ ​typical
truck​ ​and​ ​moved​ ​from​ ​farm​ ​to​ ​farm​ ​with​ ​relative​ ​ease.​ ​Indeed,​ ​a​ ​group​ ​of​ ​Sullivan​ ​County
farmers​ ​considered​ ​such​ ​a​ ​proposal​ ​in​ ​2010,​ ​when​ ​they​ ​spoke​ ​with​ ​farmer​ ​and​ ​inventor​ ​Frank
Kipe,​ ​whose​ ​micro-scale​ ​equipment​ ​sells​ ​for​ ​under​ ​$14,000​ ​altogether.7​ ​This​ ​is​ ​a​ ​reasonable
goal​ ​which​ ​could​ ​be​ ​raised​ ​through​ ​a​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​crowdfunding​ ​and​ ​grants,​ ​and​ ​would​ ​allow
the​ ​network​ ​to​ ​scale​ ​gradually​ ​as​ ​small,​ ​successful​ ​projects​ ​accumulate​ ​value​ ​through​ ​network
effects.

3.2.2​ ​Connecting​ ​Farmers​ ​with​ ​Cheesemongers

In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​fundraising,​ ​it​ ​will​ ​be​ ​critical​ ​to​ ​facilitate​ ​matchmaking​ ​between​ ​dairy​ ​farmers,
whose​ ​labor-intensive​ ​work​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​impractical​ ​to​ ​spend​ ​time​ ​mastering​ ​a​ ​new​ ​craft,​ ​and
artisan​ ​cheese-makers​ ​from​ ​the​ ​region​ ​who​ ​would​ ​operate​ ​a​ ​small​ ​facility​ ​on​ ​the​ ​farm.
FarmShare​ ​will​ ​utilize​ ​its​ ​network​ ​to​ ​connect​ ​with​ ​cheesemongers​ ​who​ ​will​ ​commit​ ​to​ ​spending​ ​a
period​ ​of​ ​time​ ​working​ ​(and​ ​possibly​ ​living)​ ​on​ ​one​ ​or​ ​more​ ​dairy​ ​farms​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​and
the​ ​Upper​ ​Delaware​ ​River​ ​region.

Artisan​ ​dairy​ ​producers​ ​will​ ​be​ ​attracted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​platform​ ​by​ ​the​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​technological
innovation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​agrarian​ ​lifestyle.​ ​In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​traditional​ ​methods,​ ​cheesemongers​ ​can​ ​be
compensated​ ​by​ ​receiving​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​percentage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​price​ ​of​ ​each​ ​product​ ​sold,​ ​which​ ​would
be​ ​converted​ ​to​ ​Ether​ ​(ETH)​ ​and​ ​divvied​ ​out​ ​automatically​ ​by​ ​a​ ​smart​ ​contract,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the
specific​ ​agreement​ ​between​ ​all​ ​parties​ ​involved.​ ​This​ ​could​ ​include​ ​many​ ​contributors​ ​to​ ​the
supply​ ​chain,​ ​small​ ​and​ ​large,​ ​as​ ​each​ ​step​ ​is​ ​a​ ​transaction​ ​which​ ​can​ ​be​ ​recorded​ ​on​ ​the
blockchain.​ ​Consumers​ ​could​ ​view​ ​the​ ​transaction​ ​history​ ​of​ ​every​ ​block​ ​of​ ​cheese,​ ​and​ ​both
cheesemongers​ ​and​ ​farmers​ ​could​ ​receive​ ​a​ ​reputation​ ​for​ ​high​ ​quality​ ​products.

3.2.3​ ​Marketing​ ​Local​ ​Cheese

As​ ​Frank​ ​Kipe​ ​of​ ​MicroDairy​ ​Designs​ ​noted,​ ​although​ ​production​ ​on​ ​such​ ​as​ ​small​ ​scale​ ​would
be​ ​easy​ ​to​ ​handle,​ ​most​ ​farmers​ ​would​ ​have​ ​a​ ​hard​ ​time​ ​with​ ​marketing.​ ​Much​ ​like​ ​Farmigo,
FarmShare​ ​will​ ​aggregate​ ​products​ ​from​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​farms​ ​and​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​shared​ ​platform​ ​for
marketing.​ ​In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​FarmShare​ ​dApp​ ​marketplace,​ ​communities​ ​may​ ​choose​ ​to​ ​sell
products​ ​to​ ​non-members,​ ​the​ ​revenue​ ​from​ ​which​ ​would​ ​be​ ​divided​ ​between​ ​members,
according​ ​to​ ​an​ ​agreed​ ​upon​ ​split,​ ​or​ ​added​ ​to​ ​the​ ​community​ ​fund.

Consumers​ ​of​ ​high-quality​ ​value-added​ ​dairy​ ​are​ ​often​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​spend​ ​considerably​ ​more​ ​for
goods​ ​that​ ​portray​ ​a​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​craft,​ ​tradition,​ ​nutrition​ ​and​ ​renewability.​ ​By​ ​cutting​ ​out​ ​the

7
​ ​http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/11-01-03/head1-microdairies.html
middlemen​ ​and​ ​emphasizing​ ​these​ ​qualities,​ ​the​ ​FarmShare​ ​network​ ​will​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​market​ ​its
products​ ​at​ ​a​ ​competitive​ ​price​ ​while​ ​providing​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​return​ ​to​ ​the​ ​farmers.​ ​Producers​ ​will
benefit​ ​from​ ​branding​ ​as​ ​a​ ​community,​ ​i.e.​ ​FarmShare​ ​Catskill​ ​Cheese,​ ​which​ ​will​ ​raise
awareness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​region​ ​and​ ​stimulate​ ​more​ ​agricultural​ ​innovation​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County.

3.3​ ​Developing​ ​an​ ​Agricultural​ ​Information​ ​Infrastructure

One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​greatest​ ​impediments​ ​to​ ​the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​Sullivan​ ​County’s​ ​agricultural​ ​economy​ ​is​ ​the
lack​ ​of​ ​a​ ​shared​ ​information​ ​infrastructure.​ ​Many​ ​independent​ ​organizations,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Cornell
Cooperative​ ​Extension,​ ​SC​ ​Farm​ ​Network,​ ​the​ ​Farmer’s​ ​Market​ ​Association,​ ​Sullivan​ ​Alliance
for​ ​Sustainable​ ​Development,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Industrial​ ​Development​ ​Agency,​ ​are​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​several
agricultural​ ​initiatives​ ​simultaneously.​ ​These​ ​organizations​ ​use​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​communication
channels,​ ​including​ ​email,​ ​newspaper,​ ​social​ ​media,​ ​committee​ ​meetings,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​Yahoo​ ​group​ ​to
share​ ​information.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​an​ ​efficient​ ​strategy,​ ​and​ ​may​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​the​ ​duplication​ ​of​ ​efforts​ ​as
well​ ​as​ ​frustration​ ​over​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​transparency.​ ​FarmShare​ ​hopes​ ​to​ ​alleviate​ ​some​ ​of​ ​this
frustration​ ​by​ ​aggregating​ ​pertinent​ ​information​ ​in​ ​a​ ​distributed​ ​and​ ​transparent​ ​way.

3.3.1​ ​Agricultural​ ​Asset​ ​Map

Proposals​ ​to​ ​create​ ​an​ ​interactive​ ​map​ ​of​ ​local​ ​agricultural​ ​assets​ ​have​ ​been​ ​ongoing​ ​for
several​ ​years.​ ​A​ ​2009​ ​project​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Urban​ ​Design​ ​Lab​ ​at​ ​Columbia​ ​University​ ​proposed​ ​to​ ​map
the​ ​NYC​ ​foodshed8,​ ​though​ ​it​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​Orange​ ​County.​ ​Another​ ​precedent​ ​which​ ​was
identified​ ​by​ ​the​ ​UDR​ ​Roundtable​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Maryland​ ​Food​ ​System​ ​Map,​ ​an​ ​interactive​ ​GIS​ ​map
with​ ​many​ ​layers​ ​of​ ​spatial​ ​data9.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​still​ ​some​ ​motivation​ ​within​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​to​ ​create
such​ ​a​ ​map,​ ​though​ ​nothing​ ​has​ ​materialized​ ​yet.

FarmShare​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​incorporate​ ​the​ ​interactive​ ​asset​ ​map​ ​as​ ​a​ ​core​ ​feature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​user
interface.​ ​Presenting​ ​a​ ​spatial​ ​representation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​chain​ ​of​ ​transactions​ ​will​ ​make​ ​the​ ​tangible
for​ ​non-technical​ ​users,​ ​who​ ​can​ ​also​ ​use​ ​the​ ​map​ ​to​ ​locate​ ​tasks,​ ​resources​ ​and​ ​exchanges.
Producers​ ​may​ ​use​ ​the​ ​map​ ​to​ ​manage​ ​logistics,​ ​for​ ​example​ ​to​ ​find​ ​volunteer​ ​drivers,​ ​while
some​ ​farmers​ ​may​ ​just​ ​choose​ ​to​ ​share​ ​their​ ​location​ ​so​ ​that​ ​community​ ​members​ ​can​ ​pick​ ​up
their​ ​food​ ​in​ ​person.​ ​Other​ ​community​ ​members​ ​may​ ​have​ ​available​ ​land​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​like​ ​to
see​ ​farmed,​ ​or​ ​even​ ​a​ ​garden.​ ​Community​ ​members​ ​may​ ​be​ ​rewarded​ ​shares​ ​for​ ​contributing
information​ ​to​ ​the​ ​map,​ ​providing​ ​an​ ​incentive​ ​for​ ​keeping​ ​it​ ​up​ ​to​ ​date.

3.3.2​ ​Aggregated​ ​Funding​ ​Opportunities

In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​locating​ ​resources,​ ​volunteers,​ ​and​ ​marketing​ ​opportunities,​ ​farmers​ ​and​ ​food
entrepreneurs​ ​may​ ​use​ ​FarmShare​ ​to​ ​locate​ ​sources​ ​of​ ​funding.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​many​ ​grants​ ​and
other​ ​funding​ ​opportunities​ ​available​ ​through​ ​regional​ ​and​ ​statewide​ ​organizations,​ ​though
many​ ​farmers​ ​are​ ​either​ ​unaware​ ​or​ ​need​ ​help​ ​filling​ ​out​ ​the​ ​application.​ ​Community​ ​members
may​ ​receive​ ​a​ ​reward​ ​for​ ​posting​ ​opportunities​ ​to​ ​the​ ​network,​ ​and​ ​again​ ​for​ ​volunteering​ ​to
handle​ ​the​ ​paperwork.

8
http://urbandesignlab.columbia.edu/projects/food-and-the-urban-environment/nyc-regional-food-shed-initi
ative/
9
​ ​http://mdfoodsystemmap.org/map/
3.4​ ​Challenges
Perhaps​ ​the​ ​most​ ​obvious​ ​challenge​ ​to​ ​implementing​ ​FarmShare​ ​in​ ​Sullivan​ ​County​ ​is​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of
digital​ ​infrastructure.​ ​A​ ​considerable​ ​portion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​county’s​ ​residents​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​Internet
access,​ ​particularly​ ​the​ ​elderly​ ​and​ ​immigrant​ ​population.​ ​These​ ​residents​ ​are​ ​often​ ​the​ ​most
vulnerable​ ​to​ ​poverty​ ​and​ ​poor​ ​nutrition,​ ​and​ ​must​ ​be​ ​factored​ ​into​ ​any​ ​metric​ ​of​ ​the​ ​project’s
success​ ​in​ ​the​ ​long​ ​term.​ ​One​ ​possible​ ​solution​ ​is​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​paper​ ​wallet​ ​with​ ​each​ ​account,
which​ ​members​ ​could​ ​bring​ ​to​ ​volunteer​ ​and​ ​distribution​ ​sites.​ ​A​ ​mobile​ ​app​ ​might​ ​scan​ ​a​ ​QR
code​ ​on​ ​the​ ​paper​ ​wallet​ ​to​ ​access​ ​a​ ​member’s​ ​account,​ ​for​ ​instance​ ​when​ ​visiting​ ​a​ ​food​ ​pantry
or​ ​participating​ ​in​ ​an​ ​educational​ ​workshop.

Another​ ​significant​ ​challenge​ ​will​ ​be​ ​the​ ​prevalence​ ​of​ ​poverty​ ​and​ ​poor​ ​education​ ​in​ ​the​ ​county.
Comparable​ ​community​ ​currency​ ​projects​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Berkshares​ ​and​ ​Ithaca​ ​Hours​ ​benefit​ ​from
relatively​ ​affluent​ ​populations,​ ​while​ ​most​ ​cryptocurrency​ ​adopters​ ​are​ ​well-educated​ ​and
comfortable​ ​with​ ​sophisticated​ ​technology.​ ​It​ ​must​ ​be​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​the​ ​project​ ​in
Sullivan​ ​County​ ​will​ ​be​ ​reasonably​ ​limited​ ​as​ ​it​ ​is,​ ​due​ ​to​ ​technical​ ​and​ ​budgetary​ ​constraints.
However,​ ​with​ ​such​ ​dismal​ ​statistics​ ​as​ ​a​ ​reference​ ​point,​ ​any​ ​improvement​ ​at​ ​all​ ​to​ ​the​ ​wealth
and​ ​wellbeing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​county​ ​should​ ​count​ ​as​ ​a​ ​success.​ ​The​ ​success​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dairy​ ​initiative​ ​will
depend​ ​upon​ ​whether​ ​FarmShare​ ​can​ ​secure​ ​a​ ​better​ ​price​ ​for​ ​the​ ​farmers,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​intention
of​ ​the​ ​asset​ ​map​ ​is​ ​in​ ​part​ ​to​ ​educate​ ​and​ ​inform.

4.​ ​Plans​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Future

4.1​ ​Scaling​ ​the​ ​Network

4.2​ ​Revenue​ ​Streams

4.3​ ​IoT​ ​Integration

4.4​ ​User​ ​Experience

References:
History​ ​of​ ​CSAs:​​ ​http://www.newfarm.org/features/0104/csa-history/part1.shtml

The​ ​Tricky​ ​Business​ ​of​ ​Community​ ​Supported​ ​Agriculture:

http://kcur.org/post/tricky-business-community-supported-agriculture

IBM​ ​Device​ ​Democracy:

http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=XB&infotype=PM&appname=GBS
E_GB_TI_USEN&htmlfid=GBE03620USEN&attachment=GBE03620USEN.PDF#loaded

C2Sensor:​​ ​https://www.emergingprairie.com/biodegradable-soil-sensor-in-design/

Ethereum:​​ ​https://www.ethereum.org/
White​ ​Paper:​​ ​https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper

Swarm:​ ​Distributed​ ​Collaborative​ ​Organizations​​ ​https://swarm.fund/

History​​ ​https://medium.com/@Swarm/history-of-the-swarm-83ff0fc80a8

BoardRoom:​ ​Distributed​ ​Blockchain​ ​Governance​​ ​http://boardroom.to/

White​ ​Paper​​ ​http://boardroom.to/BoardRoom_WhitePaper.pdf

Augur:​ ​Distributed​ ​Prediction​ ​Market​​ ​http://www.augur.net/

White​ ​Paper:​​ ​http://www.augur.link/augur.pdf

Cryptoequity:
From​ ​Cryptoequity​ ​to​ ​Cryptocommons:
http://www.slideshare.net/raffaele.mauro/from-cryptoequity-to-cryptocommons
P2P​ ​Foundation:​ ​Cryptoequity:​​ ​http://p2pfoundation.net/Cryptoequity

Facebook​ ​and​ ​FarmVille:​ ​A​ ​Digital​ ​Ritual​ ​Analysis​ ​of​ ​Social​ ​Gaming
https://www.academia.edu/3525736/Facebook_and_FarmVille_A_Digital_Ritual_Analysi
s_of_Social_Gaming

Getting​ ​Farm​ ​Work​ ​Done​ ​Legally​ ​With​ ​Interns,​ ​Apprentices,​ ​And​ ​Volunteers

http://farmcommons.org/tutorial/getting-farm-work-done-legally-with-interns%2C-apprenti
ces%2C-and-volunteers