05.December.2021

Ontonics Further steps

We extended a solution with two additional configurations one of an already existing element and one of a new element.

In relation to a closely connected field, we also worked on an extension of the scope of the main contract of one of our MCs, that already have gained valuable experience in this field.

13:24 UTC+1
SOPR #33h

*** Work in progress - some better wording ***
Topics
This issue is focused on matters and already publicated informations related to the following topics:

Legal matter [Labelling]
First of all, we would like to recall that

• calling our Ontoverse a metaverse,
• confusing our Ontoverse with the original Metaverse of the novel Snow Crash and any other immersive 3D Virtual World (VW) or Immersive Virtual Environment (IVE or ImVE) respectively Virtual Reality Environment (VRE), and
• confusing our Ontoverse with any other 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VE) in relation to the fields of Augmented Reality (AR), Augmented Virtuality (AV), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR), eXtended Mixed Reality (MXR) or eXtended Reality (XR), etc.,

are infringements of the copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation in relation to Intellectual Property (IP) and competition law.

Furthermore,

our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

Our Ontoverse is a creation of C.S. and therefore property of us

There will be no others than our original and unique, copyrighted, and otherwise legally protected expressions of ideas, including our

that performs and reproduces our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its

in whole or in part.

For sure, everybody has the same freedoms and the same duties. Therefore, an entity can have its

of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Socieites for guaranteeing openness and interoperability in the Ontologic Economic System (OES).

In relation to our Ontoverse (Ov), including our original and unique, one and only metaverse multiverse, we would like to make clear once again that no other entity has it all in contrast to our OntoCOVE and OntoScope, and the other Ontologic System Components (OSC), and all of the rest missing is created or comes with our OS, including our Evoos and Ontoscope, as well, such as

Therefore, our copyright is effective and at least the mandatory labelling is required as follows:

In certain circumstances, an entity can get rid of this mandatory labelling and also get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, including our Evoos, by signing our contracts and agreements, comfirming that C.S. holds all rights without any exceptions, paying (triple) damage compensations and outstanding royalties, and complying to the rules of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

More interestingly, the whole development already shows once again that our New Reality (NR) and Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) is being realized and we achieved one of our goals to make AR, VR, and so on truly working and common for the first time ever, as envisioned, announced, and promised.
In this sense: The Internet is dead. Long live the ... Ontoverse.

Legal matter [Internal vs. external OAOS]
Manufacturers are not only using our Ontologic System (OS) for their internal facilities, technologies (e.g. systems, platforms), goods, and services, business processes, but also for their external technologies, goods, and services, which effectively makes them Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs) as well.
This shows in case of the fields of mobility and vehicles how we

• automobile with our Ontoscope on Wheels and Automobile 2.0, and also
• aircraft with our Ontoscope with Wings and Aircraft 2.0 revolutions,

and

• internal and external processes of an entity, and
• unclosed and mandatory OAOS of our infrastructures,

which are based on our OS.
But according to the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR a fine line has to be considered without any exception in relation to the OAOS and the related subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies (see for example the section Main Contract Model (MCM) of the issue #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

Of course, we already do have the mandatory subsystems and platforms

• Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0), including
  • Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0) and
  • Networked Embedded System of the second generation (NES 2.0), including
    • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
    • Industry of the fifth generation (Industry 5.0 or I 5.0) (Industry of the fourth generation (Industry 4.0 or I 4.0) and Ontoverse (Ov)),
    • Military Internet of Things (MIoT),
    • etc.,

• Intelligent Private Transportation System (IPTS or IPrivTS) and Intelligent Public Transportation System (IPTS or IPubTS),

for all entities concerned, specifically automobile and aircraft manufacturers and suppliers, but also mobility service providers.

In addition, we also own the raw signals and data generated and collected on the basis of our OS respectively in our OS and our Ontoverse (Ov).
Therefore, the integration of all the raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, and algorithms, which are common to all members of our SOPR, is done in said subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our Societies (see also the section Main Contract Model (MCM) of the issue #33c of the 8th of September 2021).

Ontoverse [Virtual land]
No buy and sell of virtual land in our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL). Our OntoLand is comparable with a public area, a fenced public park, or reserve.

Do not buy anything called virtual land in relation to our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov). It is an illegal business or a scam.
There is no legal New Reality (NR) platform, including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and eXtended Reality (XR) platforms, in our OntoLand that sells virtual land.
No reasonable and trustworthy company will support this, because none of them risks to loose its allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

Like the real IDentity (rID) has become a digital IDentity (dID), every real land has become a digital land and every real address has become a digital address.
In addition, members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) can only lease or license, but not purchase

in our Ov, which are managed and operated by the Main Contractors (MCs) of the related name services and digital right services of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
It is the same like in the old and outdated Internet and World Wide Web (WWW).

Infrastructure [OAOS fabric and API Gateway]
We would like to recall that companies must file their Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and provide the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for registration, brokerage, mediation, and moderation of these OAOS as part of the management and orchestration of the common OAOS fabric of our SOPR Broker or Orchestrator to guarantee interoperability by our SOPR, if this is not provided otherwise by unwanted developments.
In general, this provision is not against OAOS Providers (OAOSPs), specifically OAOSPs of Software as a Service (SaaS) capability and operational models (SaaSx).
In particular, this provision includes also video games as part of our Ontoverse (Ov), including our original and unique, one and only metaverse multiverse.

Infrastructure [Utilities]
Please keep in mind that utilities are also already in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), like for example electric energy providers using our Cyber-Physical System (CPS), including the Smart Grid, and providing Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) executed on our Ontoscope (Os).

Ontologic eXchange (OntoX or OX)
In the following, we show in general how our Ontologic eXchange (OntoX or OX) cybersecurity and cybersafety infrastructure with its set of fundamental

including exchange points or hubs, looks like.

The OX infrastructure will be covering 100% of terrestial and mobile network traffic and the OX technology sits between the

The OX equipment

On the basis of the

the hardware and software, and also the map make it easier for the authorized entities to

without any involvement or knowledge from other entities, if required.

Universal Ledger (UL)
How it works for members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) in general and for illegal crypto platforms in particular is already crystal clear: The exclusve infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies include our Universal Ledger (UL), which implies that no other digital ledger or virtual ledger on this highest level is needed and tolerated, and we cannot see any reason why another digital ledger or virtual ledger is needed in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), at all.

Ontologic Geographic Information System (OntoGIS)
For sure, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is already executing the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, and raw signals and data) of C.S. and our corporation and installing standards and procedures for monitoring whether and how sovereign territories, federal and public entities, companies, and private entities are complying with the

Needless to say, this monitoring also includes any pledges and investements in activities related to our

In this relation, we explicitely mentioned that we utilize the mathematical structure of the hypergraph as basis for the layers or overlays of our

• semantic networks,
• ontologies,
• business process models,
• enterprise models,
• capability, operational, and interaction models,
• algorithms,
• etc.

of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Socieities (see also the section Main Contract Model (MCM) [Intelligent Mobility System (IMS)] of the issue SOPR #33f of the 19th of October 2021).

Furthermore, we explicitely mentioned that we have the priority for using the raw signals and data generated on the bais of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoverse (Ov), and Ontoscope (Os) with its Ontoscope Components (OsC) released for {?civilian foreign intelligence service} civil (public and private, and also commercial) use, including those that are provided by satellites, and come before anybody else (see the section Legal matter [Digital properties] of the issue SOPR #33y of the 3rd of August 2021).
What we add here is that for example one of the suggested Main Contractors (MCs) has already a project running that monitors methane emissions and shows the values in its OntoGlobe or OntoEarth variant. This goes to our OntoGIS as well, like all the other raw signals and data and all the other items that are common to all members of our SOPR.

Moreover, we explicitely mentioned how we balance the tasks of our MCs accordingly, so to say as compensation, but also as to counter any attempts to build up and establish a monopoly (see for example the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

This is common to all members of our SOPR.

Consent Management System (CMS)
A new law for the data protection or privacy in our Ontoverse (Ov)

A draft bill is planned for the first quarter of 2022 in the F.R.Germany and should be based on the adaptation of the e-privacy directive of the European Union (EU).

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital money supply]
The central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities, and also deposit insurers, and other financial authorities have to do their duty and comply with the

which means they have to prohibit inofficial digital and virtual currencies, including illegal cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets, and other cryptotulips immediately and then put up proper regulation and handling for them.

Furthermore, we have all the times needed to do build up and establish a digital money supply and related services properly and we will not be driven by any entity.
In this relation, we would like to propose the following protocol and steps:
1. Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will establish the related infrastructures for our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) beginning around the summer of 2022.
2. Our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) will join up with the central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities beginning around the winter of 2022/2023.
3. Together we will successively hook the central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities into the basic subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our Societies beginning around the start of 2023.
4. Together we will successively issue the official digital and virtual currencies beginning around the spring of 2023.
5. Together we will successively hook the commercial banks and Financial Technology service providers (FinTechs) into the basic subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our joint ventures and our OntoBank beginning around the spring or summer of 2023.
6. The commercial banks and FinTechs successively hook the (end) customers into their subsystems and platforms beginning around summer or autumn 2023.
7. We all will do business.

Our OntoBank will also establish the related

Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) [Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay)]
Financial companies and automobile manufacturers want to make it easier for customers to pay for things, like for example

directly from their cars. As part of technology partnerships, automakers want to offer so-called in-car payment services, which do not require an extra device such as an handheld Ontoscope for authentication. Customers would not need a password; the Ontoscope on Wheels, also wrongly called smartcar, itself would become the payment device.

Of course, what holds for a hand-held, head-mounted, wrist-worn, and wearable Ontoscope also holds for an Ontoscope on Wheels.
Therefore, an in-car-payment service must work like any other payment service and comply with national and international legislations and regulations, which requires that it is hooked into our Ontologic Bank Payment System.

Main Contract Model (MCM) [Co²S]
Since we began to draft and design the structures of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, and the Main Contract Model (MCM), we always come back to one of our first thoughts, which is the designation of the Communications Service Providers (CSPs) as the Main Contractors (MCs) for the Communication and Collaboration System (Co²S) of said infrastructures. Therefore, we have already listed them with the note "evenly distributed among OAOSPs".
And in the last days, we are getting more and more the conviction that this would be the best balance.

06.December.2021

09:59, 14:08, and 17:37 UTC+1
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM

*** Work in progress - some better wording ***

We quote a report, which is about the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) respectively the related parts of our Ontologic System (OS) and was publicated on the 21st of January 2020: "ABMS Demos Speed New Capabilities To Warfighters
Keen to build support for its Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) for command and control of future multi-domain operations [(MDO) (2017)], the Air Force [...].
[...]
Another goal of the ABMS exercises is to demonstrate how existing platforms can be upgraded to allowing them to communicate machine-to-machine with each other, sensors such as satellites and soldiers on the field. The capability to communicate in near-real time is the linchpin in DoD's evolving concept for MDO.
[...]
ABMS [...] is essentially the first effort by DoD to "build the Internet of Things for the military."
The Air Force used the briefing to publicly unveil an organization chart of the ABMS family of systems. ABMS is comprised of six key technology types or "product areas," and the 28 specific products it intends to develop over time [...].
Each of those ABMS component parts have been labeled with the moniker ONE: such as "gatewayONE" for the radio-antenna system providing translation services between the F-22 and F-35.
[...]
[...] the other "successes" during the exercise were:

[...] the Air Force eventually hopes to link cloudONE to the planned DoD-wide JEDI cloud - which is [... replaced by the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC)].
"We're huge fans of the cloud. That's why we have one," [an official person] said. "That's why we've gone ahead and worked ahead of the JEDI contract to make sure that we're learning how to fight with both Global Cloud and Cloud at the Edge."
"The two providers that are providing cloudONE are Amazon and Microsoft," he added. "Microsoft is the selected performer for JEDI, so when they're up and running, if their contract vehicle provides better rates or advantages on, we will, of course, use it."
[...]
[...] will be expanded to include Space Command and Strategic Command, as well as participants from the new Space Force. [...]"

We quote a first report, which is about the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) of the Space Development Agency (SDA) respectively the related parts of our Superstructure and was publicated on the 19th of September 2019: "Details of the Pentagon's our New Space Architecture Revealed
After years of studies, the Pentagon is poised to proceed with building out a new military space architecture designed to defend what is called "the ultimate high ground."
[...]
While the Air Force and the new U.S. Space Command will still develop and control large, exquisite satellites such as GPS and protected communications, the new architecture that [our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), and also] the agency will build calls for seven "layers," with some of them featuring 200 to 400 small, quickly replaceable spacecraft. The sheer numbers will prevent adversaries from destroying an entire system and enable "resiliency through proliferation," [a director of the new Space Development Agency (SDA)] told [...].
There won't be a winner-takes-all contract for these fleets, he said. There are already the creator and winner C.S. and our winners SOPR and SSUM with their exclusive infrastructures, including our Superstructure. Part of resilience calls for multiple satellite makers providing the spacecraft so there is no single point of failure and to ensure that interoperability is built into the system, he said.
Each layer involves a certain task, including communications, sensing and targeting. All are intended to provide services to combatant commanders in the field. Other more strategic missions such as GPS, global communications and remote sensing will be left to the Air Force's existing systems and the National Reconnaissance Office.
The first layer is command-and-control on the ground. The second layer is a space-based communication system for all the other layers called the "backbone layer" that will be built out first. The SDA intends to launch a pair of demonstration satellites in fiscal year 2021 and then build out a fleet of 200 to 400 spacecraft to create a mesh network, with satellite-to-satellite connections being carried out by laser communications. [...]
The capability envisioned not "only does communication from satellite systems but from the ground up to satellites and then to tactical users with the goal being that transport system will talk directly to fielded weapon systems. So we're going to use the existing user equipment because that's what the transport layer will talk to," [the director of the SDA] said.
The system will undergo a technology refresh every two years with a lifetime expectancy of five years for each spacecraft, he said. "So every two years, we will get more and more capabilities," he added.
There will be three sensing layers. The first is the "tracking layer" for advanced missile threats. The SDA will work with the Missile Defense Agency on this layer with some experiments and tests already taking place under the MDA, with an aim for an initial capability in 2024.
The "custody layer" will sense and track objects on the ground roughly the size of a truck. "It will provide a targeted solution and get that information directly to a weapon system," [the director of the SDA] said. In this case, the SDA does not plan on fielding a fleet of satellites exclusively for this layer. Payloads will be placed on Air Force or other agency spacecraft, he said.
"Our goal is to get data from sensor [to] the shooter as rapidly as possible," [the director of the SDA] said.
The final sensing system is called the "deterrence layer," which is a space situational awareness architecture that will initially look out from geostationary orbit to the region around the moon. Current systems look at low-Earth orbits up to geostationary orbits, roughly 23,000 miles about Earth, but not a lot of attention has been paid to the region beyond that.
"That is an area that is getting more contested and we want to make sure we have capabilities there," he said. "Maybe there are objects that are orbiting out there that we were not aware of so we can detect them and identify them as possible threats," he said, noting that there will be more civilian activity in the region as NASA sends missions there.
The "battle management layer" will provide autonomy, tipping and queuing and data fusion. This will likely be carried out by onboard processing and cloud computing residing on existing spacecraft rather than on dedicated satellites, [the director of the SDA] said.
"We want to do as much as possible in space so that we don't have latencies with going to ground, and eventually ... we would be able to operate without ground contact work for a given period of time," he said.
The final space-based layer is "navigation." That concept is still being fleshed out but will likely be similar to the battle management layer, with onboard processing to provide navigation and launch data to the other satellites, he said.
"We are orchestrating the fielding and development of the next-generation national defense space architecture. So we're working with a lot of other folks, especially the Air Force to make sure that all of those components necessary for the architecture get built out," [the director of the SDA] said. The Air Force's current systems will be integrated into the overall architecture, but not the [National Reconnaissance Office (]NRO[)]'s assets, which will continue to provide the intelligence community with strategic remote sensing capabilities, he explained.
The Space Development Agency will work closely with the NRO to make sure there is no duplication of efforts and that their systems are interoperable, he added.
[...]
"It's SDA's mission to be the orchestrator for that next-generation architecture. So we are the ones that say, 'This is what needs to be done.' But you know, we're not doing that in a way that conflicts right now. [But our SOPR and SSUM are the ones that say how our Ontologic System (OS) with its Caliber/Calibre, Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), infrastructures, and other elements is done, and also managed and orchestrated, for sure.] We're doing it in a way to ensure that there's the most synergy," [the director of the SDA] said."

We quote a second report, which is about the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) of the Space Development Agency (SDA) respectively the related parts of our Superstructure and was publicated on the 19th of June 2020: "SDA To Rent Commercial Ground Stations
[...]
Instead of building ground stations around the world to link to the hundreds of satellites planned for its Low Earth Orbit (LEO) architecture, the Space Development Agency (SDA) plans to rent commercial capacity [...].

The concept, SDA Director [...] told the Small Satellite Alliance yesterday, is that DoD will build a primary Missions Operation Center and Space Operations Center, but tap into commercial providers once the number of satellites on orbit begins to grow substantially. [...]
"As the proliferation grows [and] your constellations grow, you need to be able to reach out to ground entry points, all around the globe, so that you can have some kind of coverage," he explained. "Our plan for that is to have a few sites ... where we would would just rent time with what the commercial industry is building out there for these ground sites. [...]"
[...]
One of the biggest challenges to mega-constellations in LEO has been the cost of building the ground stations required to uplink and downlink data. This is because satellites in LEO orbits (up to 2,000 kilometers above sea level) zip around at the speed of bullets, some 7.8 kilometers per second - meaning that any one satellite is over a station site on the ground only for a few minutes.
In other words, the laws of physics conspire to make communicating with LEO sats expensive and technically more challenging than with satellites in Geosynchronous Orbit [(GSO)], some 36,000 kilometers up. [GSO satellites, including Geostationary Earth Orbit (]GEO[) satellites remain stable over one spot on the ground because their speeds match the speed of Earth's rotation.
The ground-station issue is also part of the reason why SDA is pursuing its so-called "data transport layer" designed as a "mesh network" that allow satellites to process data on board and shoot it back and forth to each other, via high speed optical links. It allows for a kind of 'chain communication' so that even if a remote sensing satellite that has just snapped a picture [...] isn't over a ground facility, it can zap its information to another satellite that can transmit it back to Earth.
One industry representative told [...] that "there would be a lot of interest" in such a model from satellite operators. That includes established companies that already have built ground stations for their own satellites, as well as newcomers such as Amazon, with its Amazon Web Service Ground Station scheme.
One of the persistent problems the Defense Department has is that it does not coordinate building of the ground segment with production of the space segment.
[...]
"That's the ultimate vision, but obviously that's not going to happen for a while. So, for Tranche 0, all of that processing will be done on the ground," he added. "And on Tranche 1, then that's when we'll have enough satellites up there that we can have essentially persistence over a region ... and we'll start to move more processing on board for autonomy. ... With Tranche 2 global coverage, you'll have a lot more autonomy onboard."
[...] SDA also is developing plans so it can integrate with the satellite ground systems and receivers/radios already in use by the military services at the tactical edge. For example, SDA wants to ensure that "whatever we develop we want to make sure it accelerates" the Air Force's Enterprise Ground System (EGS).
SDA also is working hard to ensure its architecture fits in with and supports various service plans for implementing DoD's top-priority Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept, he said. [...] Defense Secretary Mark Esper in May ordered that all the services' nascent command and control (C2) systems for enabling all-domain operations via JADC2 be able to link with SDA's transport layer.
[...]
He added that SDA is also working with Navy, although "they're just a little quieter about some of the specifics about their technology," and the Air Force (which he noted "has been the most vocal" about their JADC2 ambitions) on their Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) family of systems. Specifically, that include apertureONE radio frequency antenna for receiving satellite signals, and radioONE, as well as the gatewayONE the service has already demonstrated in its first ABMS On-Ramp exercise back in December, when it was used to link the incompatible F-22 and F-35 comms systems.
[...]
He said that SDA is going to launch Tranche 0 at the end of 2022 and demonstrate its capabilities on-orbit during 2023. Following that, it will be the "right time" to subsume SDA under Space Force.
"There will be enough critical mass at that point, and enough pull on the capabilities that it won't be stopped. If you do it before that - anytime before we fly that Tranche and demonstrate the utility - I think it will be stopped.""

We quote a third report, which also is about the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) of the SDA respectively the related parts of our Superstructure and was publicated on the 9th of October 2020: "SDA Missile Tracking [...]
[...] the Space Development Agency's (SDA) first contracts for new LEO missile tracking satellites [...]
[...]
[...] the firm already has caught the Air Force's eye with its Starlink broadband communications sats in LEO - playing a role in the effort to develop the Advanced Battle Management System for linking sensors to shooters across all-domains. [...]
[...]
[...] The low-cost satellites are supposed to "provide missile warning and tracking information to national defense authorities, and tracking and cueing data for missile defense elements," according to SDA officials. [...]
[...]
That architecture [...] has seven different "layers" including types of satellite constellations and ground infrastructure. SDA on Aug. 31 announced awards [...] for development of 10 satellites each for its "Transport Layer" constellation, being designed as the communications backbone for future all-domain operations.
[...]
First, Space Force's Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) is well on its way to deploy the Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next-Gen OPIR) constellation to replace today's Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites. The program now is getting ready its Block 0 satellites, expected to be up and running by 2029. Block 0 comprises three satellites in GEO [...], and two satellites in polar orbits [...]. However, the Space Force is now contemplating whether some of the follow-on Block 1 iteration of the birds, development of which would be funded starting in 2022, might be deployed in LEO.
Further, [Space Development Agency (]SDA[)] is working with the Missile Defense Agency, which is designing LEO sats to carry the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (HBTSS). HBTSS is a medium field-of-view sensor that provides higher-quality targeting information. Two of those satellites are currently in the works for launch in 2023, according to an SDA official - although as [...] readers know, there is still some controversy about what some in Congress see as a shotgun marriage between SDA and MDA on the plan.
[...]
Indeed, the wider question of SDA's future may be the larger risk to all the vendors involved in these early stages, experts said. As we've reported extensively, an internal debate within DoD, the Air Force and the Space Force is boiling about when - if at all - to integrate SDA into the Space Force's acquisition chain of command, as Congress desires. That question, in turn, is caught up in the wider discussion within DoD and between DoD and Congress about how exactly to organize space acquisition writ large.
"The future prospects for the SDA's efforts are far from clear, especially with a potential change in administration and the pending movement of the SDA to the Space Force," [a director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies] said.
[A] director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, agreed. "There's also the question of where this program fits into the overall national security space architecture," he said. "At $35 million each, which is cheap in DoD satellite terms, just this one layer would be somewhere between $10 billion and $17 billion for 300 to 500 satellites. Even if that cost comes down per unit, it doesn't take into account the need to refresh it [permanentely with failed satellites and] with new satellites every [2 to 5] years and all the other hundreds to thousands of satellites in the SDA's concept."
"How does that fit in with what the Space Force is planning for future space constellations?" he added. "Where will the money for this program come from, and will it mean less money for the Space Force and all the existing space programs of record? We honestly don't know yet because we don't know how all these space acquisitions authorities and plans will be integrated, at least publicly.""

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) and Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC) programs: "Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure
[...]

Cancellation and JWCC
The JEDI contract with Microsoft was cancelled on July 6, 2021 with the expectation that a new program called "Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability" (JWCC) would replace it, which would involve services from multiple vendors.[21][22] The JWCC multi-award contract was ultimately awarded on November 19, 2021 to all four of the original JEDI companies: Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle.[23]"

Comment
Somehow, we have the impression that certain companies, that already participated in the rip-off 1.0 and 2.0, were informed before the official announcements of contracts and used their insider knowledge. Specifically suspicious was the activity of the company Amazon and its subsidiary Amazon Web Services at that time.
But we were already there in the end of October 2006 with our OS and even in December 1999 with our Evoos.

In the following we list the more relevant matters and events:

As one can see by the publication dates, even if not all of the given dates might be correct, the overall concept is the related part of our Ontologic System (OS) and the realization for the military has begun with the MDO concept and hence is relatively new.
Obviously, the whole reorganization and modernization, and also the whole infrastructure of the United States Army are based on our

and its realization by our Societies, including the TRADOC and MDO, JEDI and JWCC, ABMS, and NDSA, and so on, whereby the NDSA is a part of our Superstructure, which belongs to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and SSUM, and our other Societies.

Even more important is the fact that we have proven once again that our OS, including these parts related to the fields of intelligence service and military,

and therefore enjoys the copyright protection worldwide, as every truly competent attorney in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) law will confirm.

Therefore, the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR and SSUM are effective and the related regulations demand to use the mandatory subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures, including our Superstructure, of our SOPR and SSUM, and our other Societies:

• Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0), including
  • Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0) and
  • Networked Embedded System of the second generation (NES 2.0), including
    • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
    • Industry of the fifth generation (Industry 5.0 or I 5.0) (Industry of the fourth generation (Industry 4.0 or I 4.0) and Ontoverse),
    • Military Internet of Things (MIoT),
    • etc.,

• Intelligent Private Transportation System (IPTS or IPrivTS) and Intelligent Public Transportation System (IPTS or IPubTS),

Classified raw signals and data have to be handled like GPS data. Mandatory unrestricted access to unclassified raw signals and data, realized similarily like with GPS data, because they also belong to C.S.. Our SOPR infrastructures have the priority for raw signals and data, which are unclassified for {?civilian foreign intelligence service} civil (public and private, and also commercial) use.
It is also known that we will build ground stations. Our SOPR infrastructures have the priority for connections of satellites with ground stations.

The U.S.American Department of Defense, the CIA, and the U.S. Army are no outlaws, quite contrary, but are acting like such since over 2 decades now by spying and stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and cheating and blocking our corporation alone and together with other local and foreign entities.
In any case of foul play, which would mean rip-off 3.0, we will legally act most aggressively against all State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and private enterprises.

Indeed, we noted a more legal approach by the DoD and Co., but so far the rip-off is done only more discreet and the result is still a serious crime.
We also observed a much more agile development approach. One reason for this is that it is an actual trend in the industries. But another reason is that the DoD and Co. do not know in detail what our SOPR builds and hence what to take next from us. In fact, as long as they do not pay and comply, we do not show more, and they cannot take more.
In addition, we will begin with legal actions to restore law and order, rights, properties, reputations, and momenta, as well as follow-up opportunities.
In wise foresight, our SOPR has already begun to block satellite constellations, specifically the size and scope of utilization of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, and will increase its efforts to frustrate any attempt of illegal and serious criminal activities.
We also already have begun to act against companies, that damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR and our other Societies. This also has consequences on already nawarded contracts.

Please also note, that in some few months after the first round of modernization ended the related portion of the budget of the military is taken as the basis for the calculation of our royalties. For sure, there is no double billing, but the contractors, suppliers, and service providers have to pay the royalties eventually and set the prices for them accordingly, which increases the costs for the end users.

Winning matters. Respecting, complying, and paying matters, too.

08.December.2021

Comment of the Day

Race changer™
Quick change™

Clarification

We do not know what kind of brain crack certain entities have. But ... just read the

Simply said, there is no legal Decentralized Web (DWeb), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce), also wrongly called Web3©™, but only our Ontoverse (Ov), including our original and unique (definitions of the) Web 3.0™, Web 4.0©™, and Web 5.0©™, and also metaverse multiverse©™.

Ontonics Further steps

Meep! Meep! Make way!
Yeah, our business unit Style of Speed™, the creator of the Automobile 2.0 and Aircraft 2.0 revolutions, and our Superbolt #4 Electric Power (EP), the creator of our electric energy storage technology, also known as the Game Changer™ in New Energy™, have joined forces and begun with the work on our Race Changer™ series of world championships in the field of (electric) motor sports, including

The Race Changer™ series is a formidable not to say perfect marketing opportunity and instrument for presenting and demonstrating our Game Changer™ battery as well as Quick Charger™ station service grid.

Indeed, the idea was born out of our demand that our Style of Speed racing team is allowed to compete with an electric Formula One car against the ordinary Formula One racing cars in the Formula One World Championship and if this still is prohibited that a revision of the regulations for this and all other world championships is done by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) ASAP.

For sure, with the technology of our business unit Style of Speed™ and our Superbolt™ #4 Electric Power (EP), better known as the Game Changer™ or better said Race Changer™ in New Energy™, electric Formula One motor racing is possible since around 5 years already. A distance of at least 150 or even 300 kilometers without recharging is no problem at all. Most potentially, Quick Swap™ is even faster and much safer than refueling at a pit stop, if necessary at all.
We will prove it in the next future once and for all after the rest of the pack has signed or will sign our contracts.

By the way:

10:00 UTC+1
SOPR #33i

*** Work in progress - more order, better wording ***
Topics
This issue focuses on the topics ownership regulation, sovereignties and securities, and military:

Legal matter
As we discussed several times before, sovereign territories (e.g. union of states, country, state of union of states) demand for

We also learned that some other sovereign territories want to realize their sovereign Internet or Cloud (Cyber)Space, which also already confirms our prediction that every sovereign territory wants this eventually.
In this context, we would like to note that a

which are realized

are different types or approaches of computing and networking.
We find it very nice that all governments and companies have asked for allowance to perform and reproduce our OS (see for example the section Legal matter of the issue #33f of the 19th of October 2021 for moral right).

Howsoever, it is up to the all entities to sign, pay, and comply with the

Legal matter [Ownership regulation]
We would like to recall once again that no entity can afford and wants to afford our OS on a large scale. A rip-off, expropriation, or any other illegal action does not work either.
Correspondingly, we proposed our so-called societal compromise and drafted the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS), and also the other Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), and our other Societies.
Still open are the scope of application and the formalization of the 51% + 49% ownership regulation, also known as win-win policy.

The 51% + 49% ownership regulation was initially meant more as a

In fact, the idea was more or less shooting from the hip, but to our big surprise the whole idea got a much broader scope and a much higher momentum by the appreciation of governments, that also jumped on the bandwagon of

specifically because they are thinking that they get the power of control over our OS in this way. No, they are drawing wrong conclusions and hence do not get more power of control, because the 51% + 49% ownership regulation gives a government no more legal rights due to the reasons that the

are still effective inside and outside their sovereign territories.

Consequently, the SOPR guarantees equal right for all and thus the right for win-win for all, for sure.

But if a sovereign territory insists on its sovereignties and securities, then it must enjoy the win-win policy, but also dump their open trade overboard.
Furthermore, no matter how the final decision will be, the key date for a company evaluation for the purchase of shares of a company is the 1st of January 2015, because we do not pay for respectively buy back our own our rights and properties stolen from us before.

However, we must also draw attention to the facts that our intention is also made more difficult by the shareholdings of an entity.

However, it also is important to note that widespread application of this regulation is a complex undertaking in general, which is further complicated by the diversity of ownership structures in particular.

Legal matter [Federal and public entities]
In the section Legal matter [State-Owned Enterprise (SOE)] of the issue SOPR #33y of the 3rd of August 2021 we already explained that "the scope of activites of such joint ventures [established between SOEs and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation] covers only sovereign tasks of a country with a federal or public (e.g. societal and military) characteristic, but not technologies, goods, and services with a private (e.g. personal and commercial) characteristic".
Correspondingly, the same separation of

also applies to all joint ventures with federal and public entities, including authorities, administrations, agencies, institutes, and other bodies, specifically in relation to a private utilization or even commercialization of an infrastructure with its set of fundamental

that are based on our Ontologic System (OS) and hence are in the legal scope of the ... Ontoverse (Ov).
Due to the legal structure of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR, this regulation also applies for contractors of federal and public entities, because they have to be contractors of these joint ventures and eventually main contractors of our SOPR.

A prominent example is a National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) or another satellite or satellite constellation of a military, because it is in the legal scope of the Superstructure of our Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM) and the Superstructure belongs to the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

In this relation, we would like to recall that every member of our SOPR is allowed to use the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including our Superstructure, with their set of fundamental disclosed and undisclosed

being realized, build, and implemented anyway.

Furthermore, ministries (e.g. Department of Defense (DoD)), but also other federal and public authorities, administrations (e.g. National Aeronauticcs and Space Administration (NASA)), agencies (e.g. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)), institutes, and other bodies cannot avoid to become members of our SOPR and therefore do not need to award contracts related to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including our Superstructure, which by the way has to be done by the mandatory joint ventures with our SOPR, Ontonics, or another business unit of our corporation as well, but only need one or more private and on-premise satellites for very special reasons and tasks, so to say.

These specific regulations are particularly important for

that should become a Main Contractor (MC) of our SOPR and SSUM to meet all legal requirements.

We would also like to note that with this provision there is

Infrastructure [Military]
It is obvious and not deniable anymore that many entities worldwide, specifically all entities in the U.S.America, are totally focused on only our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), including Evoos, since they followed our activities by usual espionage in the late 1990s and the tide has turned in the military sector some years ago as well.

Specifically, the whole reorganization and modernization, and also the whole infrastructure of the United States Army are based on our

and its realization by our Societies, whereby the NDSA is a part of our Superstructure, which belongs to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and SSUM, and our other Societies.

The development also shows already today that the whole reorganization and modernization, and also the whole infrastructure of the militaries of the other member states of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance (Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but also of other sovereign territories and intergovernmental intelligence and military alliances already are or eventually will be based on the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as well.

Obviously, we have here our original and unique

Eventually, these integrations are part of the creation of something totally new with the original and unique expression of idea to "bridge seamlessly between these different application modes [and these different realities]" on the basis of our creation of the eXtended Reality (XR) and the Caliber/Calibre.

Coincidentally, we summarized some of the parts of our OS related to this matter recently. See for example the

As one can see by the publication dates of related materials, the overall concept is the related part of our Ontologic System (OS) and the realization for the military is relatively new.

Even more important, all the possibilities and benefits, including the total diffusion and penetration, as well as the profound change of operation made possible on the basis of our OS, including Evoos, prove that they

and therefore

as every truly competent attorney in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) law will confirm.

Therefore, the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR are effective and the related regulations demand to use the mandatory subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures, including our Superstructure, of our SOPR and SSUM, and our other Societies:

• Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0), including
  • Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0) and
  • Networked Embedded System of the second generation (NES 2.0), including
    • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
    • Industry of the fifth generation (Industry 5.0 or I 5.0) (Industry of the fourth generation (Industry 4.0 or I 4.0) and Ontoverse),
    • Military Internet of Things (MIoT),
    • etc.,

• Intelligent Private Transportation System (IPTS or IPrivTS) and Intelligent Public Transportation System (IPTS or IPubTS),

As already said in the beginning, ministries and also federal authorities, administrations, agencies, and commissions, including intelligence services and armed forces, do know C.S. and our corporation since the 1990s respectively more than 20 years, because it is their job to know entities like us.
Furthermore, they have appropriated the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. without permission alone and in collaboration, as usual according to our investigations.
Both facts imply that

• need to become members, and artwork and technology licensing partners of our SOPR and
• have to be fully compliant with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR,

as it is legally required, and

• is qualified for everything concerning national security, cybersecurity, and so on.

The related regulations of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR are crystal clear and the formal procedures have been publicated, discussed, and explained broadly and hence sufficiently for every entity concerned.

Mandatory establishment of joint ventures between federal and public entities and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as the one group of joint venture partners and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation as the other group of joint venture partners.

Due to the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, and raw signals and data) of C.S. and our corporation,

is qualified for contracts and agreements with the ministries, federal authorities, agencies, and commissions, like for example the Intelligence Community (IC).

All contracts of the federal authorities, agencies, and commissions, and their State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have to be awarded to a qualified company by mandatory joint ventures between federal and public entites and SOEs as the one group of joint venture partners and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation as the other group of joint venture partners.
The legally correct procedure is that a company will hand over an agreement or awarded contract to said joint ventures and then they can award the main contract to qualified companies, specifically the Main Contractors (MCs) of our SOPR.

Mandatory unrestricted access to raw signals and data.
Needless to say, the raw signals and data related to national security are not interesting for us, but their activities will be monitored by others and us.
Also, some of these classified raw signals and data are released for public and private use. And at this point our SOPR infrastructures have the the priority and come before anybody else, as is the case with such agreements and deals.

Classified raw signals and data have to be handled like GPS data. Mandatory unrestricted access to unclassified raw signals and data, realized similarily like with GPS data, because they also belong to C.S.. Our SOPR infrastructures have the priority for raw signals and data, which are unclassified for {?civilian foreign intelligence service} civil (public and private, and also commercial) use.
For example, satellite images for monitoring the launch of InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are also used for monitoring the start of wildfires. These images go to our OntoEarth or OntoGlobe at first before any other entity.

It is also known that we will build ground stations. Our SOPR infrastructures have the priority for connections of satellites with ground stations.

If required our SOPR will enforce all of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, and raw signals and data) of C.S. and our corporation.

If a company does not stop claiming for our original and unique creations and instead start making crystal clear to the public to be only the implementer and operator of our original and unique AWs and further IPs immediately, specifically our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., then our SOPR will

If a federal and public entity of a sovereign territory refuses to comply with the

then our SOPR will

During the starting phase of our Ontoverse (Ov), a transitional regulation is effective, which will be finalized with said establishment of joint ventures.

The time and cost savings, as well as the other advantages, synergies, and "ramifications far outside the realm of technology" are enormous, so much so that any amount of license fee is fully justified as is also the case for our decision for Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions, as we always explained and do now and here again.
It is already observed to generate massive savings in certain fields and is also expected to do so in other fields and therefore we always participate in the overall benefits provided with our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) for the whole public worldwide.
Taking all reasons together shows why our License Model (LM) is what it is.
Therefore, our royalty is a fair share of the revenue of a state (e.g. tax revenue) respectively the funding of an agency minus the costs for the service, because no double billing (compare with Value-Added Tax (VAT)).

11.December.2021

Comment of the day

Superchord™
Bionicchord™
Ontochord™

13.December.2021

15:12 UTC+1
Clarification

For sure, C.S. does not lack vision and integrity. Quite the total opposite is the fact at least in this observable universe as proven again and again over more than 2 decades.
For example, one of the many visions of C.S. is the OntoLab, The Lab of Visions, and another vision is our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

Our Ontologic System (OS) includes our Ontoverse (Ov), which is what another entity described as "an embodied Internet where you're in the experience, not just looking at it".
However, this statement is not quite correct, because it is about so much more, specifically our

And indeed, it is not merely about having an experience in an immersive 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VE) respectively Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) anymore, like in the case of the original Metaverse of the novel "Snow Crash", but about being in our New Reality Environment (NRE) and New Reality (NR), which

of our Ontologic System (OS), and includes what is wrongly called metaverse, multiverse, web3, or whatsoever.

16.December.2021

Ontonics Further steps

We have realized a planned optimization of a process and positioned us at the ultimate top in the related field as well.
Extra funny is the fact, that as less we do not need the result of the process as more other entities do so.

The questions are now if and where we should build related plants.

17.December.2021

20:10 UTC+1
Investigations::Mutlimedia

Comment
Read for example the

The integration of

• Design by contract (DbC) or Programming by Contract,
• Contract-Based Channel (CBC),
• smart contract-based technology, and
• Ricardian contract design pattern,

• capability-based operating systems,

• Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) of us,

• fair coin toss, and
• atomic broadcast,

• Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocols, including
  • Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) protocol, and
  • Redundant Byzantine Fault Tolerance (RBFT) protocol,
• Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,

guarantees

• challenge tolerance, including
  • survivability, including
    • fault tolerance,
  • disruption tolerance, and
  • traffic tolerance,

  and

• trustworthiness, including
  • dependability, including
    • safety,
    • integrity,
    • reliability,
    • availability, and
    • maintainability,
  • security, including
    • integrity,
    • availability,
    • confidentiality,
    • nonrepudiability, and
    • Auditability, Authorisability, and Authenticity (AAA),

    and

  • performability, including
    • Quality of Service (QoS),

because this is required for the realization of our Ontologic System (OS), which includes our

• is the fusion of all (information) spaces, environments, worlds, and universes respectively realities,
• is based on our Caliber/Calibre, and
• includes for example Tron, but also Tron turned inside out with respect to reality and virtuality.

Obviously, the cybernetic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, and cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension of C.S. is not about democratizing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, but about a much higher goal.
And our Ontoverse (Ov) is also no rebranding of crypto as Web3©™ or any other marketing activity. It always was what it is, is what it is, and will be what it is.
It is that easy. So where is the problem?

This should also answer the question which one of the many descriptions is the correct one. Of course, it is the description of its creator, who still is C.S., which by the way is also the only legal description.

There is also no (virtual) land grab already underway by already powerful people (read once again the Clarification of the 5th of November 2021, specifically the third and second last sections). We also simply quote our related comments:
"For sure, the companies Meta (Facebook) and Roblox do not own our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov), just because it is a part of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S.."
"Furthermore, the companies Apple and Alphabet (Google) do not own our Ontologic System (OS) with its Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and Ontoscope (Os) [(e.g. iPhone and iPad, and Google, Samsung, and Co. Android Smartphone)]. Therefore, they do not control all of our digital interactions and online lives, but are also tenants in our [...] garden[, fenced park, public park, protected area, protected reserve, and] paradise, like the companies Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung, Epic Games, Tencent, and so on."
Needless to say, but this also holds for every other entity.
Simply said, we own it.
This is not a trick.
This is just the law.

We would also like to ask the questions, why making a self-portrait is an act of narcissim and why an artist and copyright holder of such a self-portrait but also of our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and Web3©™, Web 3.0™, Web 4.0©™, and Web 5.0©™ is a narcissitic king.
And we would also like to give the answer to the question about who will be king of our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and Web 3.0™ and Web3©™: There is not such a question at all and hence we will not see who will become the King of Web3, because C.S. is already holding this position in relation to our OntoLand (OL) and running the show since the end of October 2006 as well, though the term king is even wrong in relation to the creator of our Ontologic System (OS), Ontoverse (Ov), Ontoscope (Os), and much more.

By the way:

• comply with all national and international legislations and conventions,
• even unclosed our OS, and allow and license certain parts of our OS under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions for the benefit of the public, and
• reinvest in the infrastructures and eventually in the communities and societies.

18.December.2021

14:11 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

Since quite some time we are thinking about the best place for publicating the legal matter of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS), the License Model (LM), and the Main Contract Model (MCM).
But the right place seems to be the website of Ontonics.

We already have our consortium called Ontonics::Garden, which somehow matches our Societies. But we have the opinion that a new menu point would be better.

... , we will set up related webpages and begin to collect the related material on them, that we have publicated before.

19.December.2021

15:15 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - links to former explanations missing ***
We looked once again at the Byzantine fault-tolerant, transactional Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Askemos and concluded (once again) that our Evolutionary System (Evoos) is also the foundation of Askemos (see also the ... of the ... and the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the ).

We quote from the paper titled "Askemos - A Distributed Settlement": "autonomous, distributed operating system on top of peer to peer networks"
"Askemos defines a virtual machine on document level, which is defined in terms of abstract trees and pure functional transformation of them, both described in XML. This virtual machine has no physical representation at any single machine. Instead it works distributed among independent components which appear as if they observed it. To achieve that effect, the participating machines compute the process steps of the virtual machine independent[ly] and vote among each other about the correct result."
"with strong emphasis on trustworthiness"
"Places have the properties of processes and objects in other operating systems. They receive messages. Upon reception they react with a possible property change (controlled by the virtual machine) and send messages out to other places. [...] the chosen model divides processes into process steps, which are visible to the underlying machine (agent)."
""[A]t minimum an idea is a set of associations from properties to values. These associations are usually called pairs, arcs, or arrows. [...] In terms of computer science this is a frame and the foundation basic building block of the Askemos virtual machine." This leads us straight to graphs, the Arrow System of the TUNES system, ontologies, the Resource Description Framework (RDF), and the Web Ontology Language (OWL)."
"To summarize: the user space of Askemos consists of autonomous cells called "places". These cells have the ability to memorize values as their internal state and compute - in an atomic transaction - a new state and set of values to be send as messages to other places."

Comment
We recall some properties of our Evoos, which is (based on) a true operating system (os) and not merely a P2P VM, and includes for example

• Fuzzy Logic (FL),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC),

At first, we also took over the fraudulent and even criminal manipulation of an online encyclopedia, which claims that Askemos is based on the smart contract transaction protocol. But there is neither a reference of the smart contract transaction protocol nor a reference of the blockchain technique. The fact is that one of the foundations of Askemos is a vote-based consensus protocol, specifically a Byzantine agreement respectively a Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocol, and it references the approach of the Secure Intrusion-tolerant Replication on the Internet (SINTRA) and in this way the Redundant Byzantine Fault Tolerance (RBFT) and Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) protocols or methods, though we still cannot recognize SINTRA in Askemos.

Howsoweve, it is obvious that the system structure of Askemos resembles the structure and the working of a neuron or nerve cell of a brain and the overall working resembles the working of a brain and could be described as a common sense or a spirit or a consciousness, which are realized as a reflective Distributed Virtual Machine (DVM), which we find is wrongly called operating system.
Eventually and exactly the same as with our fields of Cybernetical Intelligence (CI) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0), including Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0), including Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Industry 5.0 (Industry 4.0 and Ontoverse (Ov)), significant and profound evidences have been provided that prove that entities have taken the Evoos of C.S. as source of inspiration for the P2P VM Askemos and created causal links with this original and unique cybernetic work in this way.

But we also explained that the smart contract transaction protocol and the blockchain technique are integrated in the Ontologic System (OS) by creation and design of its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and our investigation showed that no conclusive prior art exists even not with Askemos of the first generation (Askemos 1.0) (see the Clarification of the 5th of June 2021).

Askemos is nonsense as an Distributed operating system (Dos), Distributed Virtual Machine (DVM), and Peer-to-Peer Computing System (P2PCS), because every single processing step of the DVM requires the consensus of the participating machines, that satisfies the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) threshold, which is 3f + 1 replicas, replications, or copies to handle f failures and not just more than 50%. We always asked us how Askemos should work in practice on a large scale, for example on the scale of a Wide Area Network (WAN). In fact, it suffers the same deficits like the platforms based on the smart contract transaction protocol and the blockchain technique of the first generation.

In total contrast, we added all the other approaches to increase the performance and make it practicable on the scale of a Wide Area Network (WAN). For making a Resilient Distribtued System (RDS) truly practicable one needs a capability-based operating system, validated and verified properties, etc., etc., etc..
For example, if suitable, then we use f + 1 replicas, replications, or copies to tolerate f failures together with a content hash in messages, data, or metadata for verification, which in addition can be stored as block of a blockchain-based system respectively in a digital and virtual ledger. The untuned RDS is already 20% faster than a central server with Byzantine resilience and with all the other features of our OS it is truly practicable in New Reality Envrionments (NREs).

Forget it and instead learn that there is no prior art and therefore no legal basis for

Eventually, Askemos of the first generation (Askemos 1.0) is not sufficient as prior art, which could be exploited as a legal loophole for illegal crypto platforms, like for example Ethereum.
Askemos of the second generation (Askemos 2.0) is a part of our Ontologic System (OS) and a copyright infringement anyway, like for example other illegal crypto technologies in general and illegal P2P VMs in particular.

The other works, specifically the reflective Doss TUNES OS and Apertos (Muse), also do not provide sufficient prior art, because we have developed further the whole field of Distributed Computing (DC) or Distributed System (DS), including reflective Dos.

Finally, we can close this chapter about all of these cryptography-based and resilient technologies as well.

22.December.2021

06:41 and 19:53 UTC+1
Investigations::Mutlimedia

We quote a report, which is about The Matrix saga and our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and was publicated on the 21st of December 2021: "The Matrix's real-world legacy - from red pill incels to conspiracies and deepfakes
"I don't know the future... I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell you how it's going to begin."
The closing monologue of 1999's The Matrix saw Keanu Reeves' heroic character Neo deliver a stark warning to the world's controlling machines, having discovered that humanity was trapped in a simulated reality.
Released as society lay on the cusp of the internet revolution and fretted over the millennium bug, the film not only tapped into technological developments of the time, but posed far-flung questions about the internet, consciousness and social control that have since come to shape society.
As a fourth instalment, Matrix Resurrections, hits cinemas - 18 years on from the original trilogy drawing to a close - we look at the saga's enduring and often prophetic legacy.

'Desert of the real'
The Matrix's co-creator siblings Lana and Lilly Wachowski loosely based their dystopian vision on the work of French academic philosopher Jean Baudrillard.
Long before Reeves donned Neo's trench coat and shades, they asked that he read Baudrillard's 1981 book Simulacra and Simulation to prepare for the role.
It pondered a "desert of the real" - a world where true reality had been replaced by the illusions of capitalism.
The film took the concept, with rebel leader Morpheus using the exact phrase when introducing Neo to the ruins of the outside world, and rewired it.
Where for Baudrillard there was no escape from the simulation, the Wachowskis offered hope in the "promise of a true natural world 'unplugged' and separate from the Matrix", explains Prof Richard Smith, editor of The Baudrillard Dictionary. [No, they do not offer that at all, because the Matrix has no Augmented Reality (AR) and Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR), no New Reality (NR), no this and that, but only Simulated Reality (SR or SimR) and Virtual Reality (VR).
Baudrillard was not a fan of the change. "The Matrix is surely the kind of film about the matrix that the matrix would have been able to produce," he said.
Either way, the rabbit hole had been opened. Here are four main ways it has hacked our reality.

[...]

4. Living in the Matrix?
[Image caption:] The matrix, although seemingly real to those unawakened within it, is actually built from computer code [and therefore a Virtual Reality Environment (VRE)]
Beyond shifting perceptions of truth, our increasingly interconnected online presence, known as a digital footprint, realises elements of the original Matrix film in ways that felt pure science fiction at the time of release.
Our willingness, tacitly or otherwise, to share personal information and agree to monitoring via technology, from mobile phones apps to machine learning tools like smart speakers, has allowed a very detailed picture of our personal lives and habits to be generated. [We only note our cybernetic self-portrait and cybernetic reflection, Ontologic Applications (OA), and Ontoscope (Os).]
[...]
Elsewhere, the overlap between our digital and real life profiles has been increased by augmented reality and virtual reality, which mirror the way the rebels in the original film plug in and out of the simulation. [In relation to our Ontologic System (OS), we note our Caliber/Calibre, cybernetic profile and cybernetic portrait, cybernetic reflection, access places and access devices (e.g. Ontoscope (Os)) in our Ontoverse (Ov), and Simulated Reality (SR or SimR). As we already said in a comment to a quote before, the film does not mirror AR, but only mirrors SimR and VR.]
Facebook recently announced long-term plans to create a virtual metaverse - allowing more of life to be lived out immersively online.
By the same token, the way Morpheus's freedom fighters hack the matrix system to install programmes, scenarios or different appearances reflects today's real-world rise of deepfake videos - a computer-generated copy that aims to impersonate someone.
Transhumanism, the belief that humans can improve beyond their physical and mental limitations and "upgrade" their bodies by incorporating technology, also matches the way characters in the film can download skillsets and learn to manipulate physics laws within the simulation. [Caliber/Calibre, cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension, Terms of the 21st Century]
The film's nod to identity and the body as malleable has been strengthened by Lilly Wachowski, who retrospectively described it as a trans allegory [...] last year.
[...]
So where does all this leave The Matrix as we look to the future?
Some believe full-circle. In 2016, a group of physicists suggested it is likely that our universe is not real and is instead a giant simulation run by a higher power. Technologists in Silicon Valley [...] have supported the idea.
As implausible as it sounds, it fits the legacy of The Matrix. As Neo warned the machines in 1999: "I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders and boundaries ... a world where anything is possible"."

Comment
The original Metaverse of the novel "Snow Crash" is only an immersive 3D Virtual World (VW) or Immersive Virtual Environment (IVE or ImVE) respectively Virtual Reality Environment (VRE), but has nothing in common with an Augmented Reality Environment (ARE), Augmented Virtuality Environment (AVE), Mixed Reality Environment (MRE), and eXtended Mixed Reality Environment (XMRE) or eXtended Reality Environment (XRE), and also Synthetic Reality Environment (SRE or SynRE).
Furthermore, the Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation (OASIS) of the novel "Ready Player One" is already based on our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov), and therefore a copyright infringement.
Eventually, there is no prior art, that has, combines, or integrates the fields of AR, AV, and VR respectively the field of Mixed Reality (MR), mobile phone respectively our Ontoscope (Os) and desktop computer, and cybernetic reflection (e.g. cybernetic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait), augmentation, and extension.
Also note that it makes no sense at all without our Caliber/Calibre and New Reality (NR) to say a person with its avatar is inside an ARE. That is utter nonsense by definition of the field of AR, which for example "projects graphics [or virtual objects] on top of the real world".

Obviously, the first report is about our metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and therefore infringes our copyright.

As not expected otherwise, the latest sequel of the movie saga titled The Matrix Resurrections has relations to our Ontologic System (OS), because they all copy C.S. and our corporation.
We have not viewed the movie and we also would like to avoid to get informations before we view it, for the sake of fun and surprise (keyword spoiler).
But we have seen some evidences: Movie posters from Japan show the protagonists with red and blue glasses or 3D glasses somehow reflecting our expression of idea shown for example in the image "Lego figure" by C.S..
We also have other reflections everywhere. It begins with the date of its release 12.22.21 respectively 22nd of December 2021, as also shown on movie posters. Furthermore, we have a love story, mirrors, self-reflections in mirrors, and mirrors, which function as portals.
Our first impression was that The Matrix 4 is now a mirror world reflecting our Ontoverse (Ov) to some extent. We also already documented attempts to connect The Matrix with the real world in the sense of our Caliber/Calibre, as can be seen with a headline of a first report "The Matrix's real-world legacy", and at least one more report publicated on the same day, which seems to be an update by the same fake commentator based on our comments and provides us a related statement of the film maker: "After Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg announced his dreary plans for a "metaverse," a "Matrix"-like "embodied internet" where "instead of just viewing content, you are in it," the film franchise's marketing team responded by tweeting a new tagline for "The Matrix Resurrections": "Now based on real events.""

With the second report the dirty fellows tried unsuccessfully to solve their problems with their infringement of our copyright and other fraudulent and even criminal actions. Here they take the philosophical work of art "Simulacra and Simulation" and the science fiction movie saga "The Matrix" to present alleged prior art and continue with their simulacrum in relation to the existence of C.S. and our corporation and their simulation of an ordinary technological progress and technical benefit for the public as part of their already busted and failed attempt to create a totally wrong consensus reality, and to mislead the public. But their problems remain, because C.S. created another work of art, which can be experienced and is real. And if an entity wants to perform or reproduce our OS with its Ov, then it has to ask for the allowance and license, and comply with our regulations.

As in the case of "Snow Crash", there is only reality and VR, but no AR and AV in The Matrix. The protagonists have to be plugged into a Simulated Reality (SR or SimR), which is the simulation of a Western megacity of the year 1999 created and operated by the machines, while lying or sitting in a real place and then havinf no control and experience in relation to Reality (R). :þ

From the

we can simply conclude that The Matrix was not prophetic at all, which was only said in the report, because we created the OS to prove our competences and capabilities in this area. That prophetic legacy of The Matrix simply does not exist, because a prediction of the future is not the expression of idea behind this movie saga at all. The directors definitely had no realization of a Reality Environment (RE) in mind or anything else that the lying press is telling the public.
"Simulacra and Simulation" also has no prophetic legacy, because it is only about signs and semiotics, which substitute (the meaning of) an original with (the meaning of) a simulacrum or a simulation, describes and tries to explain observations of the past and the present, and also has nothing in common with physics, technologies, realities, REs, multimedia, and so on. The author even was not fond about multiple realities and universes. Period.
We also are not aware about a historically documented evidence or other proof for the claim that both, the first sequel and the fourth sequel of The Matrix, were inspired by "Simulacra and Simulation" and it seems to be that the directors want to jump on bandwagons now that they do not need to take the risk for their careers and businesses anymore. But that is not the way it works in arts and sciences and hence in science fiction.

Furthermore, a fraudulent philosopher discussed (again) the simulation argument or Simulated Reality (SR or SimR) hypothesis directly after we presented our OS at the end of October 2006.
What those physicists did is nothing else than an infringement of our copyright in relation to our Caliber/Calibre in the context of ontology, ontologics, and simulation and to mislead the public about the true origin of our work of art like that philosopher and the lying press. We have seen exactly the same fraud before in the field of SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)) by scientists and other persons having the same bad character and attitude, and doing the same bad activities. Obviously, some criminals thought to be clever when repeating the same bad action and it should be very easy to find out who they are. We already do know one of them.

Obviously, the second report is also about our metaverse Ontoverse (Ov) and therefore also infringes our copyright.

No prior art has been presented in relation to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
As we said, our OS passed the test of time.
That was it, and now we can prove retrospectively the infringements of at least the last 15 years.

21:10, 21:35, 21:57, and 22:55 UTC+1
SOPR #33j

*** Work in progress ***
Topics
We summarize topics in this issue, which were discussed in the last days:

Legal matter
Trust Mangement System [Non-Fungible Token (NFT)]
A Non-Fungible Token (hereafter abbreviated as NFT) is illegal, if said NFT

• illegal smart contract transaction protocol or method,
• illegal smart contract,
• illegal blockchain technique or method,
• illegal blockchain, illegal Byzantine resilience protocol or method
  • illegal Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocol or method,
• illegal digital ledger,
• illegal virtual ledger,
• illegal digital currency,
• illegal virtual currency,
• illegal cryptocurrency,
• illegal technology,
• illegal Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT),
  • illegal system
    • illegal operating system (os),
    • illegal Distributed System (DS),
    • illegal Distributed operating system (Dos),
    • illegal Virtual Machine (VM),
    • illegal Cyber-Physical System (CPS)
      • illegal Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) system,
      • illegal Internet of Things (IoT),
  • illegal platform, illegal framework,
• illegal good
  • illegal application,
  • illegal device,
• illegal service, or
• illegal thing other than the ones listed before,

respectively

One question is related to visual and audible respectively optical and acoustical 2D and 3D drawings, images, models, music, multimedia, and other works. Conceptually, these works already existed before our Ontologic System (OS) and do not need our OS for the creation of them and their NFTs.

Correspondingly, we get more aspects to classify an NFT and its handling as legal or illegal, such as the following ones:

Legal and not in the legal scope of our Ov

Legal and in the legal scope of our Ov

Illegal

But as we always explain in such a case, there is virtual no area or room outside of the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), because all relevant access places and access devices, but also the communications infrastructure are based on our OS.

Once again,

have no intrinsic value and are worthless. Specifically, all the Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are more or less valueless, if our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) does not accept them to be hooked into our Universal Ledger (UL).

A Non-Fungible Token (NFT) is more or less valueless, if the Trust Management System (TMS) of our SOPR does not accept it to be hooked into our Universal Ledger (UL).

Legal matter [Investment]
All investors, specifically venture capital investors, have to comply with the laws.
If that does not work immediately and retroactively as it should, which means in compliance with the

then our SOPR will withdraw and refuse the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS for all start-ups included in their investment funds and other financial vehicles.

Service providers and investors have been warned multiple times.
The companies do know very well what is legal and what is not.

The undeniable fact grounded on gravity is that our Ontologic System (OS)

• Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov), including the metaverse multiverse, and
• Resilient Distributed System (RDS), including a Virtual Machine (VM) or a Peer-to-Peer Computing System (P2PCS) based on or integrated with a
  • validated and verified, validating and verifying, and validateable and verifiable technology,
  • capability-based operating system,
  • smart contract transaction protocol,
  • blockchain technique,
  • Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocol, or
  • Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,
  • etc.,

and therefore is copyrighted, prohibited for fair use, and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. worldwide.

A Virtual World (VW), Virtual Environment (VE), or comparable computer-simulated space integrated with a

is an essential part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Caliber/Calibre and Ontoverse (Ov) anyway.

see the Clarification of the 13th of December 2021 (yesterday).

read the section Ontoverse [Digital and virtual land] of the issue SOPR #33h of the 5th of December 2021

A very simple implication is that a video game company is creating nothing related to our OS and Ov.
Another very simple implication is that there is no issue in this case with the giant Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies at all, because they just cannot claim for anything, that we do own and will never loose due to the moral right or copyright holder personal right of C.S., which demands by law

(see for example the section Legal matter of the issue SOPR #33f of the 19th of October 2021 and also the Clarification of the 5th of November 2021).

We also give the additional information that at least one highly suspicious user has purchased a 3D model of his house, which makes such a sandbox game or any other 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VE) at least a very simple mirror world as well, which already points to our field of Cyber-Physical System (CPS).

For example, investments in a video game and 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VE) company, which is based on an illegal crypto platform or an illegal cryptocurrency and an illegal payment service, which again also is based on illegal cryptocurrencies. Such investments show the general investment strategy of investors, specifically that they

indeed.

The situation of the illegal crypto VEs is the same like the situation of the illegal crypto platforms and also all other cryptotulip mania vehicles not only those of the venture capital investors.

But specifically in relation to some investors it seems to be that we have to be more clear, because that illegal VE and payment service were presented and introduced in the last past, when it was already crystal clear how it works in relation to the exclusve infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and our Universal Ledger (UL).

Since some months, our SOPR is also already considering to blacklist investors, specifically venture capital investment entities, and related activities, projects, and companies due to their permanent undermining of the business strategy, damaging of the goals and even threatening of the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR to end that even serious criminal mess finally.

As discussed and announced, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to

:)

What investors, but somehow also governments and competitiors, are doing is basically nothing else then selling the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, but also said corporation of C.S..
But these still are our rights and properties and the C.S. GmbH still is our corporation.

Bad actors will face jail terms.

Artwork and technology licensing partners of our SOPR will face blacklisting, specifically Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs), that still support illegal crypto platforms, goods, assets, and services, including illegal Virtual Environments (VEs) with such illegal crypto things.

Read also the sections Ontoverse [Digital and virtual land] and Universal Ledger (UL) of the issue #33h of the 5th of December 2021 and the section Legal matter [NFT] above.

Legal matter [Media System (MS)]
For sure, commercial streaming and channel computing in our Ontoverse (Ov) is subject to licensing by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically if it is

Infrastructure [Data center]
Some months ago, we have already begun with the planning phase for the construction of the

of the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), and other Societies.

We begin with at least 2 facilities (1 general data center and 1 OX hub) for each country, followed by

in accordance with the

For example, in the initial step

Main Contractors (MCs), that are responsible for the manufacturing of our processors and server blades, will get our exclusive specification for our servers in time.
The same procedure as every year for all other companies and utilities relevant in this first phase.

Universal Ledger (UL) [Transaction fee]
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering and deciding about the service fee for our Universal Ledger (UL) and Quantum Ledger (QL).

For sure, we said that for members of our SOPR the use our Universal Ledger (UL) and Quantum Ledger (QL) is virtually for free respectively included in the membership fee respectively royalty. But hopefully, it was never a source of confusion that we meant this in relation to the UL and QL operated and used as the top digital and virtual ledgers, into which all other blockchain-based systems are hooked, but not in relation to the operation and use of all these other digital and virtual ledgers utilized for the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) of

which again require considerable amounts of computing and networking power.

One specific use case is the digital money supply of the joint ventures of the central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities, and our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), and the payment and repayment, and exchange (transaction) of official or legal fiat or real money, and official or legal digital and virtual moneys by our Ontologic Payment System (OntoPay) and Ontologic Exchange (OntoEx) of our OntoBank (see also the issue #32x or #33y of the 14th of July 2021).
In the section Digital currencies of the issue #196 of the 18th of June 2019 we recalled "that in the case a transaction is executed for free we will estimate our royalties on the basis of the overall transaction volume and the cost of executing the related transactions". This is the task of our .

Another use case is the storage of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) in the UL by our Trust Management System (TMS) and we have developed ways to handle Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), for sure.
In the Clarification or Investigations::Multimedia of the 24th of March 2021 we explained "that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) solves the problems of the environmental catastrophe and hyperinflated prices on a completely contrived market with our Universal Ledger (UL), and also our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) with its Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), OntoCoin and OntoTaler, and also Quantum Coin (Qoin), because an NFT or the store of value is virtually for free respectively included in the membership fee respectively royalty and service fee. In fact, C.S. has calculated and anticipated all these possibilities and problems around the year 2002 already.

Also, entities [...] have to pay

So royalties are still due and are calculated on the basis of the revenue generated with an NFT, obviously like in the case of the transaction of currencies.

Even better, in case of a transfer of a legal Non-Fungible Token (NFT) from an illegal digital or virtual ledger to the mandatory Universal Ledger (UL) of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), and our other managing, licensing, and collecting and managing Societies an additional transfer fee will not be charged by our SOPR, while in case of a transfer of an illegal NFT an extra fee is due due to the illegal performance and reproduction, omitted labelling as demanded by law in general and C.S. in particular, and lost momentum respectively lost chance of follow-up business, which amounts to triple damage compensation minus common royalty, which results in around 180% of the revenue respectively transaction volume.

But two points also become obvious:

At this point, we are not sure

It might become cheaper with our exclusive Quantum Ledger (QL), but this has to be decided after we gained more insight when it is in operation for some time.

Also note that NFTs are data after all and therefore have to be traded exclusively on the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of the infrastructures of our Societies (see the related section Marketplace for Everything (MfE) [Non-Fungible Token (NFT)]).

Howsoever, this also suggests that the 51% + 49% ownership regulation is not always required, because we can simply increase the transaction fee for the exchange of the official digital and virtual currencies of sovereign territories.

Marketplace for Everything (MfE) [Non-Fungible Token (NFT)]
Among other technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods, and services, our Marketplace for Everything (MfE) is mandatory for the trade of all raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, digital twins, and algorithms.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are data.

But indeed, the market for virtual goods purchased with official or legal fiat or real money, and official or legal digital and virtual moneys of sovereign territories and our OntoLand (OL) raises some more question regarding the regulation of our MfE.

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital money supply]
First of all, we would like to recall that all the truly relevant innovations in the fields of digital and virtual currencies, and also digital money supply are parts of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

We also would like to recall once again that the regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR

all pro bono publico==for the public good.

Furthermore, we would even call the development in commerce and finance the continuous digitalization and modernization of the old commercial and financial systems, specifically by our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS).

Main Contract Model (MCM) [Logistic System (LS)]
We thought about the matter and then noted that we have overlooked that transportation is part of (business logistics).
The problem is that we have proposed a company as the interlocutor Main Contractor (iMC) for the Logistic System (LS) and later also proposed another company as the iMC for the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Smart Transport of our infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
The solution is discussed in the section Main Contract Model (MCM) [Health System (HS)].

Main Contract Model (MCM) [Health System (HS)]
We suggested a company for the interlocutor Main Contractor (iMC) for the Health System or Healthcare System (HS) of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) after we conclude that is an interesting suggestion and we have no objection to change its role of the iMC for the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) or Smart Transport.
The company is already performing and reproducing our Ontologic System (OS), specifically in relation to Electronic Health Record (EHR), Cloud Computing Space and Time Computing and Networking (STCN) or simply Space Computing, Healthcare 4.0 (e.g. SoftBionic (SB) health platform with cognitive capabilities, including predictive modeling), and more.

In this relation, we have to note several points:

have been suggested as MCs already and we would like to add as MCs

for just rounding up, but not for creating tensions

Especially interesting for us is the combination and integration of the fields of Qualified Self and HS.

Please note that Main Contractors (MCs) are working in the scope of the 1st undertaking option for our SOPR and are responsible for the infrastructures with their set of fundamental

of our SOPR and our other Societies, which are common to all members, and artwork and technology licensing partners.
We do comply with national and international competition rules or antitrust laws, and the acts in the digital and virtual sector, which means that we

Outside of the scope of the 1st undertaking option (main contractors, suppliers, and service providers of our SOPR) of the Main Contract Model (MCM) respectively in the scope of the 2nd undertaking option (joint venture partner) and the 3rd undertaking option (independent technology, good, and service provider) they compete as usual (see also section Legal matter [3 undertaking options] of the issue SOPR #314 of the 7th of January 2021).

25.December.2021

02:26 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - merging notes, explanations, ... ***
In relation to the field of Cyber-Physical System (CPS) we also shifted our focus on the following question:

Indeed, the answer is a lot and at least as much as an

For example, the Intelligent Agent-Based System (IABS) wrongly called Cognitive Agent Architecture (Cougaar) already is a blackboard-based middleware for "large-scale distributed agent-based applications" in general and Space-Based technologies (SBx) in particular.

But Cougaar is also related to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and even based on it in part, so that our transformation from an Intelligent Agent-Based System (IABS) to a Cognitive Agent System (CAS) respectively a Cognitive Robotic System (CRS) with Evoos is becoming more and more decisive once again in relation to works of prior art and also has consequences for other works, like for example the

• model-based reasoning and planning, and learning and inferencing system, engine, or machine (see the chapter 4 Piaget und künstliche Intelligenz==Piaget and Artificial Intelligence of The Proposal), and
• software agent, which can be specified entirely using an ontology (see the chapter 5 Zusammenfassung==Summary of The Proposal) for example as a logic or declarative specification,
• cognitive OBABS, and
• Ontologic Agent (OntoAgent) and Ontologic roBot (OntoBot),

• is an
  • OBABS or OBAS,
  • Ontology-Based CAS (OBCAS) or Cognitive OBAS (COBAS), and
  • Ontologic Agent (OntoAgent) and Ontologic roBot (OntoBot),
• is the
  • foundation of microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA),

  and also

• integrates
  • TUNES OS and Aperios (Apertos (Muse)), which already are Distributed operating systems (Doss) for the use with Ultra Large Distributed Systems (ULDSs), or being more precise, Ultra-Large scale, Massively Distributed operating systems (ULMDoss),
  • softbot, which already is for the use with the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) as its digital or virtual environment, and
  • immobot, which already is a Massively Distributed Agent-Based System (MDABS) for the use with massively distributed and highly coupled objects,

which implies that our Evoos also has the

Howsoever, our Evoos is based on the fields of

We quote the document about immobot once again: "[... T]he information-gathering capabilities of the Internet, corporate intranets, and smaller networked computational systems supply additional test beds for autonomous agents of a different sort. These test beds, which we call immobile robots (or immobots), have the richness that comes from interacting with physical environments yet promise the ready availability associated with the networked software environment of softbots."
"We are only now becoming aware of the rapid construction of a ubiquitous, immobile robot infrastructure that rivals the construction of the World Wide Web and has the potential for profound social, economic, and environmental change."

Somehow, these statements are only about the test beds, the difference between the fields of softbot and immobot, and the construction of such an infrastructure for the fields of Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), but they are not Teaching, Suggesting, and Motivating (TSM) another Internet or World Wide Web (WWW) of the next generation in the sense of the Web 2.0 and our Web 3.0 based on the immobot and the integration of both fields, the

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Semantic Web: "The Semantic Web (sometimes known as Web 3.0) is an extension of the World Wide Web through standards [...]. The goal of the Semantic Web is to make Internet data machine-readable.
[...]
[A fraudulent dreamer] originally expressed his vision of the Semantic Web in 1999 as follows: "I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web - the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A "Semantic Web", which makes this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The "intelligent agents" people have touted for ages will finally materialize."
[...] In 2006, [that fraudulent dreamer] and colleagues stated that: "This simple idea ... remains largely unrealized". [...]
[...]

Background
The concept of the semantic network model was formed in the early 1960s by researchers such as the cognitive scientist [...] as a form to represent semantically structured knowledge. When applied in the context of the modern internet, it extends the network of hyperlinked human-readable web pages by inserting machine-readable metadata about pages and how they are related to each other. This enables automated agents to access the Web more intelligently and perform more tasks on behalf of users. [... that fraudulent dreamer] is "a web of data that can be processed directly and indirectly by machines"."

We quote the slides 4, 13, and 16 of the presentation titled "Semantic Web on XML", which was publicated by that fraudulent dreamer on the 6th of December 2000: "Philosophy - "Semantic"

• not natural language, human inference

Logic layer

Killer App for the SWeb
Too general to be aimed at any specific application

[...]

We quote the slides 7 and 8 of a presentation titled "Representing Knowledge in the Semantic Web", which was publicated around the 27th to 29th of June 2005: "The Semantic Web stack
Semantic Web is ...

What are Metadata?

We quote a report, which is about the SWWW and that variant of the Web 3.0, which again is not our Web 3.0, and was publicated on the 23rd of May 2006: "Just when the ideas behind "Web 2.0" are starting to enter into the mainstream, the mass of brains behind the World Wide Web is introducing pieces of what may end up being called Web 3.0.
[...]
In this version of the Web, sites, links, media and databases are "smarter" and able to automatically convey more meaning than those of today.
For example, [that fraudulent dreamer] said, a Web site that announces a conference would also contain programming with a lot of related information embedded within it.
A user could click on a link and immediately transfer the time and date of the conference to his or her electronic calendar. The location - address, latitude, longitude, perhaps even altitude - could be sent to his or her GPS device, and the names and biographies of others invited could be sent to an instant messenger list.
In other words, the "mark-up" language behind each Web page would be cross-referenced into countless other databases, once developers agreed on a common set of definitions.
[...]
For instance, some early experiments in highlighting new relationships from existing Web data have come out of [...] a photo-sharing site that members categorize themselves, and FOAF, which stands for "friend of a friend," a research project to describe the various links between people.
Both add "meaning" where such context did not exist before, just by changing the underlying programming to reflect links between databases, [someone] said.
[...]
[...] aims to use semantic programming to manage personal information online [...] focuses on message-driven trading communities.
[...]
[...] the Web of data, which will be the result of the semantic programming languages.
"People keep asking what Web 3.0 is," [that fraudulent dreamer] said. "I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics - everything rippling and folding and looking misty - on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource.""

We also quote a document, which is about the SWWW, security challenges in implementing SWWW-unifying logic, and that variant of the Web 3.0, which again is not our variant of the Web 3.0, and also our variant of the Web 3.0, and was publicated in December 2014: "The Web 3.0, is likely to be a pre-cursor of the real semantic web, is going to make our computers more intelligent by making them capable of processing web data by themselves. [...]
There are actually several major technology trends that are about to reach a new level of maturity at the same time. The simultaneous maturity of these trends is mutually reinforcing, and collectively they will drive the third-generation Web. From this broader perspective, Web 3.0 might be defined as a third-generation of the Web enabled by the convergence of several key emerging technology trends:

Web 3.0 will be more connected, open, and intelligent, with semantic Web technologies, distributed databases, natural language processing, machine learning, machine reasoning, and autonomous agents."

Comment
First of all, we note that by the original definitons of the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) and its so-called Semantic Web stack, the descriptions in other publications, and the given examples the SWWW is about machine-readable data for the use with the field of software robot (software bot or softbot) only, but not with the fields of Mobile Robotic System (MRS), Autonomous Robotic System (ARS), and Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), and also Intelligent Agent System (IAS), and Cognitive Agent System (CAS).
Please do not be confused about designations like cognitive agent and cognitive robot, and note that the

The true reason why the SWWW is still not realized is that they have espionaged and cheated one of the true inventors and the leading figure in this field all the time, who is C.S., so that we were blocked by everybody to realize our SWWW.
Therefore, we moved on with our Evoos and ontology to our OS and Ov presented in 2006 when they still tried to steal our SWWW and our Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) respectively what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEDC).

And if we remember correctly, then we added some parts to the SWWW with our Evoos and our OS. For example,

• Natural Language Processing (NLP) and
• Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Visual Language Understanding (VLU), and other types of language understanding,

And if we remember correctly, then we added some parts to the so-called Semantic Web Stack with our OS. For example,

• one prior art is about combining ontology and rule languages and compares a first-order function-free language with signature A, and a DL knowledge base with signature subset of A as part of the research for a unified logical framework and was publicated on the 6th of September 2004, but it is only in relation to any DL based system, and
• one proposal for a SW unifying logic was publicated in 2013, and seems to be based on stable models and well-founded semantics, which is our OntoBot,

Since some years, the same fraudsters are trying to steal the parts of our OS, which are wrongly called

and since at least 2014 even our whole OS and Ov by explaining that the part of our Web 3.0 called Ontologic Web (OW) is their real semantic web, which merely has the Semantic Web as a feature (see once again the last quoted document).

No, not that way anymore. Respect the rights and properties (e.g. copyrights, raw signals and data) of C.S. and our corporation.

As usual for our ontonic and ontologic approach, we integrated all the webs and their variants Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 2.5, and Web 3.0. For example, Evoos added ontology and hence the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) to the robotic Web and even the cognitive web.

We made crystal clear once again the scope of this part of our Web 3.0 and Ontoverse (Ov), which also shows that CPS [3.0] is us and we are already beyond all these other web variants with our Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, and Ov.

We remembered again that some months before our presentation of our Ontologic System (OS) at the end of October 2006 one or more other entities have already used the term Web 3.0 as synonym for the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) and we do not object any copyright claim in this relation, if such a claim is existing and justified at all.
But we also used the term Web 3.0 for what we have created as the next generation of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 2006, so to say as the correction of the designation Web 3.0, for the SWWW as the next generation of the World Wide Web (WWW), because the Semantic Web was just the SWWW and also always only viewed as a piece of what we created as our Web 3.0, which some very well known and unknown entities tried to steal at that time once again by also talking about an embryonic period and an evolutionary process of the WWW in relation to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) described in The Proposal. But obviously, they did not know what we had really in mind at that time and C.S. really created around the years 1998 to 2006 with our OS.
See also the Clarification of the 6th of May 2008, where we already made this point of view of us crystal clear even some few months before the word bitcoin was used in a white paper in October 2008 and many years before anybody else began to steal other essential parts of our OS, which are wrongly called Web3©™.

Howsoever, the term Web3 was definitely not created by one of those fraudulent developers of the illegal crypto platform and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) Ethereum, which is all the more true for the term Web 3.0, because he merely copied the term Web 3.0 from the website of OntoLinux and used it for the related part of our Ontologic System (OS), which

He also wanted to jump on the bandwagons of the Web 3.0 designation and the 3³ Theme of C.S., which is also related to 3D in general and 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VE) in particular, and in the sense of Web³©™.
The latter and the differentiation between the

are also the reasons why we still claim for the copyright and also the trademark Web3©™ for this part of our OS and refer to our explanation in the note 1000s of cryptotulips but no better world of the 22nd of December 2021 and our definition of the Web 3.0™ in this note.
As correctly said, our vision and definition of the Web 3.0 integrates both, the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) and the Web3, and also our eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or eXtended Reality (XR), and much more, which results in our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov).

And by our clever countermeasures we pushed our definition of the Web 3.0 through, established our creation as the new standard Web 3.0, and fulfilled our vision in this case in this way as well. :)

For sure, we do apologize for this little confusion, because we have not remembered our disappointment and disput about that interference in our activities related to our OS at that time. But it does not change our explanations regarding our definition of the Web 3.0, which should be viewed as the correct one, because we were already gone much, much further with the creation of our OS at the beginning of the year 2006, and our claims in relation to cryptographic technologies, Web3, and our Metaverse Ontoverse (Ov).
Indeed, we do not own the field of operating system (os), the smart contract transaction protocol, the blockchain technique, and so on. But we do own the Ontologic System (OS) with its

including what is wrongly designated as Web 3.0, Web3, and Metaverse or metaverse.

And of course, this additional damage caused to this work of art created by C.S. and the oeuvre of C.S. by espionage and other fraudulent activities only confirms the decision of our SOPR in this field, specifically in relation to the scope of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, digital and virtual ledger technologies, digital money supply (digital and virtual currencies and demand deposits), and also Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs).

In this relation, we would also like to comment some statements
is not quite right with reflecting our explanations about the hope placed in the Decentralized Web (DWeb), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce), crypto, and Co., also wrongly called Web3.
The facts are that the end users or consumers, and other customers do own their digital rights and digital and virtual properties or assets, and eventually have the option to

Insofar, this ownership is true and the entire promise of what is wrongly called Web3 is not a lie, but they

The owners of the truly relevant and interesting parts are C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, which is exclusively managing and exploiting our OS with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. (see again the related explanations and clarifications).

Furthermore, there will be a digital Dollar or electronic Dollar in around 2 years, but no illegal cryptocurrencies anymore (see the section Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital money supply] of the issue SOPR #33h of the 5th of December 2021).

Let us correct certain statements about our Ontoverse (Ov), including the metaverse multiverse, Web 3.0, and Web3, as the creator and holder of the related moral rights respectively trademarks, and copyrights.
In general, what is wrongly called metaverse is not the future iteration of the Internet, but our

• transformation of the Internet into the Universal Space and a Wide Area Network (WAN) supercomputer or Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup) and
• integration of the fields of Cybernetics, Hard- and SoftBionics, and Robotics with the Universal Space and the Intersup

as (the architecture for) the Resilient, Cybernetic, Bionic, Robotic, Autonomic Space and Time Computer and Network (RCBRASTCN), or better said Ontologic High Safety and High Security Computer and Network (OHS²CN),

• transformation of the WWW into the Universal Brain Space and a Wide Area Network (WAN) High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (HP²CN) and
• integration of the Ontologic Net (ON) with the Universal Brain Space and the HP²CN

as (the architecture for) the Semantic and Cognitive High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (SCHP²CN), or better said Ontologic High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (OHP²CN), and

• fusion of all real and physical, virtual and digital, cybernetical and cyber-physical, and ontological and metaphysical (information) spaces, environments, worlds, and universes respectively realities into the New Reality Environment (NRE) and
• integration of the Ontologic Net (ON) and the Ontologic Web (OW) with (the realities and) the NRE

as (the architecture for) the Space and Time Computer or Network (STCN), or better said Ontologic Computer and Network (OCN),
which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov), which again is the manifestation of the New Reality (NR) spacetime fabric of our Ontologic System (OS), which again is something entirely or totally new, or being more precise, and is including our metaverse multiverse, Web 3.0 according to our definition, and Web3. The latter seems to be the reason why it is also wrongly and illegally called Web 3.0 Metaverse.

Furthermore, the terms of the form Web x.0 do not designate specific parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov), but stages of its realization.
First of all, we refer to the Feature-List Ontoverse and also recall the following inclusions from the Feature-List #1 of our OS:

Please note that the feature-lists are merely explicit explanations or enumerations of exemplary prominent features of our Ontologic System (OS), which our OS has by creation and design, and therefore the relevant publication dates begin with the start of our OS variants OntoLix and OntoLinux on the 29th of October 2006 and not with the publication dates of the individual feature-lists.

Web 3.0 has as its major characteristic elements

• SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, CV, Soft Computing (SC), Autonomic Computing (AC), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or CogS, CAS, CAPS, Swarm Computing (SC) or SI, etc.), and
• HardBionics (HB) (e.g. SB processors, Robotic System (RS), etc.),

• 3D over 4D to nD eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or eXtended Reality (XR), including
  • Reality (R),
  • Augmented Reality (AR),
  • Augmented Virtuality (AV), and
  • Virtual Reality (VR),

  and

• Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR) already, though SR is a could but not a must,

• capability-based system,
• smart contract transaction protocol,
• blockchain technique,
• Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), and
• what else is wrongly called Web3

on the basis of and together with the basic properties and the Caliber/Calibre of our OS, which shows that it is not one or the other original and unique, copyrighted part of our OS, but already all these 4.
Therefore, it is not made up of only permanent, shared, 3D virtual spaces linked into a perceived virtual universe, but also made up of permanent, shared, n-dimensional real and augmented spaces linked into the observable real universe and the Ontoverse (Ov) respectively New Reality (NR) (spacetime fabric) with its New Reality Environment (NRE), which is the fusion of all (information) spaces, environments, worlds, and universes respectively realities.

It includes for example

Web 4.0 has as its major characteristic elements

It includes for example

Web 5.0 has as its major characteristic elements and events the following

Web 6.0 was not listed anymore in 2006, because

so no one needs a web anyway anymore and hence there is no reason for its existence at all.

The statement that various blockchain-based and cryptocurrency technologies have collectively become known as web3 or Web3 tech stack is not legal and requires further commentary. In fact, there are also other bandwagon jumpers, who gave other illegal definitions of our Web 3.0, but the only correct one is our definition for the Web 3.0 (see above and also the Clarification of the 19th of December 2021 and our other explanations related to these topics).
Eventually, there is no legal loophole or economically viable niche in practice. Every attempt to circumvent the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), is totally senseless and a waste of time, space, and money.

31.December.2021

09:09 UTC+1
SOPR #33k

*** Work in progress - OTwS or OTrustS, and OntoNotary not written out in full ***
Topics
This issue continues the discussions about the following topics:

Legal matter [Framework]
Since quite some time, we are uploading again the former issues and correcting them where necessary.

In the following we sketch the legal framework and contractual framework.

An issue is final if it is not anymore in one of the mode

Everything, that has been publicated in the final issues of our SOPR and our other Societies, is part of the set of legal documents, including any contract and any agreement between

The latest regulation is always binding, or said in other words, if contents of two or more issues of our SOPR are contradictory, then the newer content is legally binding.
In the course of the ongoing business activities, all the latest regulations will be collected and publicated as the Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM), the Transaction Fee Model (TFM), and the Main Contract Model (MCM) at one designated place (see also the Ontonics Further steps of the 18th of December 2021).

The SOPR has the right to

after consultation, discussion, and announcement of an update or a change on the basis of the feedback by the members of our SOPR.

A member of our SOPR has the right to terminate the contract with our SOPR after consultation and discussion with our SOPR, and announcement of an end.

A member of our SOPR has to inform our SOPR about any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or incomprehensibility in the set of legal documents.

The AoA is related to the Societies and the membership in our Societies.

The ToS is related to the use of the infrastructures of our Societies.

Ontologic Trustworthy System (OTwS or OTrustS)
For the realization, management, and utilization of digital and virtual properties or assets various technologies based on cryptography are utilized, including

as also utilized for and with the

• Ontologic IDentity Broker (OntoID),
• Ontologic Notary (OntoNotary)
  • Ontologic Transaction System (OTS or OntoTrans) (see the related section below),
  • Ontologic Transaction Processing System (OTPS),
  • Ontologic Notary Trustworthy Information and Communications (ONTwIC or OntoNTwIC or OntoNotaryTrustIC), and
  • other subsystems and platforms

of the infrastructures of our SOPR.
Our Ontologic Trustworthy System (OTwS or OTrustS)

The Trust Management System (TMS) manages the Universal Ledger (UL) and Quantum Ledger (QL), into which all other blockchains are hooked in relation to transaction and custody/safekeeping, including

on the basis of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) respectively records in a digital and virtual ledger .
The Consent Management System (CMS) manages the consent of the members or users in relation to their digital rights and digital properties.
The Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) manages the Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) with its

which are responsible for the digital money supply (digital and virtual currencies and demand deposits) and the exchange of real, digital and virtual currencies and demand deposits.
The Marketplace for Everything (MfE) manages the trade of raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, digital twins, and algorithms in accordance with the CMS and other mandatory subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

In accordance with a proposed societal compromise, which many sovereign territories have reject despite that we are the copyright holder and are unclosing our Ontologic System (OS) for the benefit of the public without any other reason to do so, we also suggested that our OntoBank has no direct connection with private end users or consumers, and other customers of commercial banks and Financial Technology service providers (FinTechs) (see also the section Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital money supply] of the issue SOPR #32x or #33y of the 14th of July 2021 and the Ontonics Further steps of the 18th of July 2021). Howsoever, the TMS and OFinS do the transactions and some other services exclusively.

We already examined and discussed the SOPR Trustee and SOPR Public Trustee in December 2020 and the following months after the European Commission (EC) publicated its Proposal for a Data Governance Act (PfDGA). But eventually, we had to dismiss certain parts of the PfDGA, because they touch one of the essential expressions of ideas created, presented, performed, and discussed with our Ontologic System (OS), which is trust besides existence and identity, and also limit our freedom of expression and other basic rights to an extent, that we do not have to accept and cannot accept.

Our considerations about the PfDGA resulted in the following:

For sure, this includes the handling of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). In this case our OTwS is the central authority or trustee, our OntoNotary is , and our mandatory Trust Management System (TMS) is responsible for management of our mandatory Universal Ledger (UL) and Quantum Ledger (QL).
This regulation and asignment of tasks is trustworthy, because our SOPR has

so that no conflict of interest arises.

In relation to digital and virtual currencies it was always clear for us and the reason why we have not realized and issued a cryptocurrency at all that governments of sovereign territories will not give up the control over their money and money supply of their central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities.
For sure, this was always reserved for a deal respectively as part of the proposed societal compromise, because the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are not for free for the sovereign territories. Just a reminder for politicians worldwide why it is called a societal compromise or agreement.
Therefore, our decision for a clear cut in relation to digital and virtual ledgers and related trusted data intermediaries, data trustees, data fiduciaries, and data notaries is only straightforward.

As we explained all the years, an expression of idea was to create a universal and resilient (e.g. fault-tolerant and trustworthy (reliable, available, safe, Quality of Service (QoS), etc.)) system based on ontology and identity, which resulted in some kind of a believe system, which was titled Ontologic System (OS) correspondingly.
Our SOPR has already begun to take back more and more of our Trust Management System (TMS), which is based on for example the smart contract transaction protocol and the blockchain technique, also known as crypto, and also wrongly called as Web3©™ or web3©™ or Web 3.0™, in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as the OntoLand (OL), and including our Web 3.0 and metaverse multiverse, and also wrongly called Web 3.0 Metaverse, because our goodwill and reputation were exploited in this case as well and exactly in the same way as in the cases of

or better said, in the case of our whole Ontologic System (OS).

Howosever, there is a huge interest for such Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which would have to be regulated like all the other OAOS. We view notary's offices and Trust Technology service providers (TrustTechs) in the same way as commercial banks and Financial Technology service providers (FinTechs), which implies that

So no transaction and transfer OAOS of TrustTechs, but OAOS of TrustTechs that are based on transaction and transfer OAOS of SOPR, which is our Trust MS with the Universal Ledger (UL) and Quantum Ledger (QL), also wrongly called The Blockchain.
As we said in the past in general and in the case of exchanges for digital and virtual currencies in general, that is our OntoEx, we also said in the case of crypto platforms that is our TMS.

This means that notary's offices and TrustTechs are not managing and orchestrating, and operating a blockchain-based system, digital and virtual ledger, and so on, but use the mandatory OntoTrans and Trust MS.

Qualified as Trust Technology service provider (TrustTech) is any entity and member of our SOPR, that is a

to guarantee that there is no conflict of interest.
A notary's office and TrustTech must be registered at our SOPR.

"We have already worked out a foundational framework and some details how to get this done on the already existing foundations of our Trust Management System (TMS), including

of our SOPR." March 2021

Ontologic Notary (OntoNotary)
The Electronic or digital Notarization (ENot) System (ENotS)

The notary is an impartial witness, who identifies signers and makes sure they have entered into agreements knowingly and willingly.

The process of notarization comprises a series of activities by a notary, such as the following ones:

Very common documents needing notarization include

It requires consumers to pass an identity verification process to authenticate the user's identity in compliance with the notary's state law, which is based on our IDAMS.

Customers upload the document or other data they need notarized, allowing the customer and notary to see the item being notarized.
licensed notary public

Transaction Fee Model (TFM)
Because we have different general billing models, the

different requirements for the duration of archievation respectively limit of custody/safekeeping, like for example

and also different use cases of NFTs, like for example in relation to

a Transaction Fee Model (TFM) is required.

A minimal transaction fee avoids that every nonsense is stored as an NFT creating unnecessary waste of time and cost of operation.

A digital or multimedia artist is classified as a licensee providing a BasicOAOS in the licensee class 3 non-industrial sectors with ICT.
An analog artist with NFT is classified as a digital or multimedia artist.
All other terms and conditions do apply.

Our SOPR has introduced 4 fee classes of its Transaction Fee Model (TFM) for the transaction and custody/safekeeping of NFTs in our digital and virtual ledgers:

All TFM classes are

• authorization of the participating entities and
• content of the object of safekeeping,

and

• records,
• raw signals and data,
• data, and
• works of art

by our OS.

Class	billing basis	first year	following year	minimal fee
1	transaction volume	0.25%	0.25%	0.25 USD	+0.00
2	64 KiloByte (KB)	0.01 USD	0.01 USD	0.16 USD	+0.00
3	64 KiloByte (KB)	0.01 USD	0.01 USD	0.16 USD	+0.00
4	licensee class 3 BasicOAOS	6.80%	0.25%	6.80 USD	+0.00

All percent values With All Discounts Granted (WADG) if not said otherwise

We have the impression that no further discussion and consideration is required. Obviously, there was not much to explain or add.

Infrastructure [Data center]
To set many more synergies free and provide many more benefits for the public the data centers of our

could or even should

Ontoverse (Ov)
The broader Intellectual Property (IP) issue is our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., which guarantees that our original and unique, one and only utopic, iconic, and unclosed Ontoverse (Ov) solves all societal, legal, technological, environmental, and economical problems, that no other entity is able to solve.
Such a unification and standardization sets enourmous synergies free and provides many benefits for the public.