Ubiquity and a thin slice

Within this document Vivalence is the company and viva is the software system. This is the business model and economic strategy for both.

AI is collapsing the cost of building software toward zero and vibe-coding has penetrated the public consciousness. The result is a proliferation of excellent one-off applications — Claude one-shots something great, it gets used once, and there is no system to integrate, embed, and persist it in. Worse, each of these one-offs invents its own incompatible business logic and typesystem. Viva is the answer to both problems.

Vivalence offers viva under a permissive Fair Source. The goal is to maintain an ecosystem and to incentivize network effects, while providing clear channels for monetization, driving a flywheel of adoption and ecosystem growth. Economically, the intent is not to capture a market and compete in it. The intent is to become a standard, to tax the market, to fund the commons, to enable equal opportunity, and to be massively profitable. Ubiquity and a thin slice.

The business model treats fair source as a distribution channel, B2C as the reward for ecosystem, and B2B as profit incentive.

Platform Strategy

The system is offered free for private use — any natural person can change the system, host it for friends, run a massive private agent swarm, or generally do whatever they want. No support, no limits, and no strings attached.

Vivalence’s upside is that adoption pulls an ecosystem into existence: content, tooling, talent, and eventually assumption and hopefully massive FOMO. That ecosystem in turn pulls institutions towards the system, thus Vivalence’s monetized channels of Licensed use, PaaS, and Consulting.

For institutions, the value proposition is plentyful: viva is a powerful and flexible operating system with an architecture designed to adapt to their problems and solutions, while offering mechanisms to protect their own propietary data and business logic. Additionally, deployment of viva as a standard in the organization drives coherence and integration across divisions, while liberating decision-makers from vendor lock-in constraints and restrictions on aftermarket support. Available at low, flat, and predictable cost.

Ubiquity and a thin slice.

Revenue Streams

Licensing (B2B)

~€12/$13/£10/¥2,000/90元 per person per month, with a 10/12 discount on yearly.

Any institutional use requires a license. The same license for anyone. Issuance is automated, no human in the loop. An institution signs up, declares headcount, pays, uses — frictionless. No strings attached, no support by Vivalence, but full access to the system, registry and ecosystem, and no limitations on usage. This allows for massive scale with close to no cost.

Same terms everywhere, except for the special cases of use in AI training, ISP use (providing viva to third parties as a non-competing product or service), government use - which require separate agreements. Institutions that want operational responsibility handled for them — a throat to choke — move to PaaS.

PaaS (B2B)

Standardized hosted platform for institutions. Vivalence’s hardware, Vivalence’s operations, a standard set of daemons and modes. Customers get support, although limited. Example: a language learning application hosted for a company’s employees. No customization. If they want more, they move to consulting.

Consulting (B2B, B2G)

Custom solutions, hosted either on-premise (customer’s hardware) or dedicated (Vivalence’s hardware, custom deployment). Development of custom applications, content, integrations. Named support — you know the person whose throat you’re choking. This is where institutions with specialized needs or high assurance requirements land. From Vivalence’s standpoint, this is headcount-heavy, support-intensive, priced at a premium, and probably facilitated by a dedicated organization.

SaaS (B2C)

Vivalence hosts the chef’s selection of the ecosystem and sells access to it via a subscription. This is intended to serve convenience. The classical SaaS model: more usage through higher tiers.

To reward and incentivize the creation, maintenance, and quality of the applications in the ecosystem, the SaaS revenue stream is to be funneled back to viva’s infrastructure, dependencies, and contributors.

Subscription price is made of four quarters: one fourth covers COGS - infrastructure, customer acquisition, administration, payment. One fourth funds contributors - the creators who built the instances, modes and systems running as SaaS. One fourth goes toward viva’s dependencies - the software viva uses internally: deno, mikroorm, oak, svelte, vite, linux, docker, coolify, and more. The final fourth is Vivalence’s margin and will be extracted as profit and invested at the company’s discretion.

The ecosystem profits when Vivalence profits and economy funds the commons.

I am aware that no plan survives getting punched in the face, but this is the intended architecture as of today.