Legal matter [Ownership regulation]
The results of our observations, which we are conducting and documenting since more than 2 decades, show that certain entities ingnore every rule and take virtually everything what we have shown.
In general, this problem is not only related to already presented original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., but also to creations unpresented to date.
In particular, the problem with the interference of governments through their State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), as well as subsidy policies would remain unsolved without any dead pledge, as we already noted in the section Legal matter [Ownership regulation] of the issue #33b of the 31st of August 2021.

Therefore, we are not only acting against already conducted infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, but are also already preparing the next future situation, so that every entity does not take what it sees, but pays its fair share for what it takes, copies, or steels. :)
In the course of this, it might become necessary that the 51+% + 49-% ownership regulation of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), also known as OntoLand win-win policy, becomes the new norm.

Whenever we are thinking about the ownership regulation, we are asking the questions

besides other questions (see for example the section Legal matter [Ownership regulation] of the issue #33a of the 20th of August 2021 once again).

So far, we have the following definitions and regulations in relation to the ownership regulation (see also section Legal matter [State-Owned Enterprise (SOE)] of the issue #33y of the 3rd of August 2021):

• union of federal states (e.g. U.S.America and P.R.China),
• single sovereign state,
• federal state of a union of states, or
• economical zone of sovereign states (e.g. European Union).

• accelerated by payment or
• completed earlier by a final payment.

A potential general individual agreement could be the introduction of an intermediate regulative step before a transfer of ownership must take place. The ownership regulation would only become effective, if a clause of this intermediate regulative step is infringed.
A potential particular individual agreement could be that State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Private Enterprises (PEs) have to source goods and uses services from our corporation exclusively, specifically foundational components and modules included in the oeuvre of C.S., such as for example electric energy storage devices.
And because it makes no sense to build two different versions of exactly the same product, specifically when the other variant has less performance or even lacks important features and functionalities without our AWs and further IPs, we are sure that there will be not much need to convince related entities to enter into such an agreement as well.
In addition, artwork and technology licensing partners (licensees) of our SOPR enjoy further benefits, such as the eligibility to

• become as main contractor, supplier, and service provider,
• exchange and sharing of information, and
• establish joint ventures with our corporation.

We have already discussed in other contexts that a regulation like the 51% + 49% ownership regulation of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is not enforceable under antitrust law, because of the inevitable disturbance of the competition.
Even if put into practice, the following break-up of the resulting corporation structure by the market regulators would only be consequent.
Therefore, we have also estimated how high the value is of buying and then reselling again the voting shares to estimate how high the alternative royalties must be. This leads to the other problem already discussed by us that the royalties would be relatively high even under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions.
But we have to start the discussion and the process in this way to show the other side that their plans are not enforceable and practicable either.

A potential solution to these problems is to establish joint ventures under the 51+% + 49-% ownership regulation in jurisdictions, where the competition rules or anti-trust law is lax, tolerant, and lenient, or not present at all.
For example, Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs), which are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/Group of 20 (G20) agreement regarding the Inclusive Framework of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), seem to be particularly suited.

Please note that these considerations are not directed at purely Private Enterprises (PEs), because it is a political thing specifically regarding State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

Legal matter [Infrastructure]
In relation to the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, including the

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),

and

• facilities,
• technologies (e.g. systems and platforms),
• goods (e.g. applications, devices, and vehicles), and
• services,

we noted several problems.

One problem is that proprietary, privately owned internal networks are interconnected with the public Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) and utilized to provide related services to the public, and therefore said networks are in the legal scope of national and international telecommunications laws, regulations, and, acts, as well as agreements concerning the old Internet and old WWW, specifically the law of network neutrality.

The next problem is that these public and private

If said privately owned internal networks would not be interconnected with the old Internet and the old WWW, then there would only be a privately owned infrastructure in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse, aka. OntoLand, which is not in the scope of the law of network neutrality.
But eventually, the lawmakers and their market regulators worldwide would intervene and enforce the network neutrality in our Ontoverse one way or another respectively anyway.

Just another problem is that our convergence in the field of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) also includes mobile or cell networks, which are more and more

as part of our Ontoverse.
This situation is the same like in the case of the old Internet and the old WWW described in more detail above.

One problem for the market regulators is the point that Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs) are migrating to our OS as well by running their services on the platforms of Cloud Service Providers (CSPs or CloudSPs) Space Service Providers (SSPs). For example, our standards for 5G NG and 6G mobile communications, and fields of Cybernetical Intelligence (CI) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS), which were created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), are already the technological standards being implemented and operated worldwide.

In this context, we would also like to note that one of the latest ruling by the highest court in the European Union (EU) demands that tethering is permitted due to network neutrality.

Legal matter [Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)]
We have the impression that some governments of sovereign territories are trying to repeat the Manhattan Company corruption trick.
We quote an online encyclopedia: "The Manhattan Company was formed in 1799 with the ostensible purpose of providing clean water to Lower Manhattan.[1 [Hamilton, Burr and the Great Waterworks Ruse]] However, the main interest of the company was not in the supply of water, but rather in becoming a part of the banking industry in New York. At that time, the banking industry was monopolized by Alexander Hamilton's Bank of New York and the New York branch of the First Bank of the United States. "To circumvent the opposition of Hamilton to the establishment of a bank,"[2] and following an epidemic of yellow fever in the city, Aaron Burr founded the company and successfully gained banking privileges through a clause in its charter granted to it by the state [in an act of usual corruption] that allowed it to use surplus capital for banking transactions.[1] The company raised $2 million, used one hundred thousand dollars for building a water supply system, and used the rest to start the bank.[3] The company apparently did a poor job of supplying water, using hollowed out tree trunks for pipes and digging wells in congested areas where there was the danger of raw sewage mixing with the water.[4] After a multitude of cholera epidemics, a water system was finally established with the construction between 1837 and 1842 of the Croton Aqueduct.[3]
On April 17, 1799, the Manhattan Company appointed a committee "to consider the most proper means of employing the capital of the Company" and elected to open an office of discount and deposit. The "Bank" of the Manhattan Company began business on September 1, 1799 [...]."

We also quote a report about illegal cryptocurrencies and crypto platforms: "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is reviewing conditional banking charters granted to crypto businesses shortly after an industry executive left the agency as acting comptroller."
A similar action has been done by other federal authorities (see the section Legal matter [Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)] of the issue #33a of the 20th of August 2021).

Obviously, exactly the same as in the case of the Manhattan Company is repeated with the crypto policy of federal states and their authorities by authorizing state-chartered trust companies, wealth management services, and crypto start-ups as

that are allowed to accept and custody fiat and digital asset deposits, including crypto asset deposits, so that they instantly develop into digital or virtual banks, as an attempt to

Needless to say, the already existing companies apparently do a poor job of providing trust, using hollowed business plans and strategies, and establishing platforms and services in uncontrolled areas, where there is the danger of raw crime and terrorism mixing with the ordered financial system.
The fact is, that there is

Even more important is the fact that this attempt is illegal on the basis of our Ontologic System (OS), because

• override our rights,
• ignore our will and decison, and
• take away the power of control over our properties respectively steal our properties from us

in the course of such a despotic and corrupt act (see once again the sections Legal matter [Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)] of the issue #33a of the 20th of August 2021 and Legal matter of the issue #33b of the 31st of August 2021).

Eventually, that state fraud has already been thwarted in our Ontoverse even before our SOPR was established.
Our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) with its

• Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
• Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
• Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and
• Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC or OntoBankFinIC),

is already here since 2006 and we definitely have no intention of giving up our power now that our time has come after working and waiting for this moment all these years.

Furthermore, we always say in this context, those companies in the field of cryptocurrencies have to become ordinary commercial banks in compliance with all

• "well capitalized" and
• "well managed".

and

• be registrated at our OntoBank and
• provide digital services, which are based on our OFinS, which again is based on our
  • Trust Management System (TMS or TrustMS),
  • IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS), and
  • Consent Management System (CMS or ConsMS)
  of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

As we also note in this context, our TMS, IDAMS, and CMS are already integrated in the basic properties of our OS. Therefore, no entity is required as pawnbroker, custodian, and trustee at all, because these roles are already automatic features and functionalities of our OS (see the Clarification of the 5th of June 2021 and the section Trust Management System (TMS) of the issue #33z of the 13th of August 2021).

As we also always explain in this context, in comparison to the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) system our centralized OFinS is managed and orchestrated, and operated by the SOPR and the joint ventures between the central banks, federal reserves, or other monetary authorities, and our OntoBank. Nevertheless, this management and orchestration, and operation use Distributed Computing (DC) technology, specifically Distributed Systems (DSs), wherever and whenever advantageous.
In this way, we can resolve and avoid all the deficitis and retain and provide all the benefits of the real and virtual worlds of finance and banking, as well as our Ontoverse, which is the representation of the fusion of all (information) spaces, environments, worlds, and universes respectively realities to the New Reality (NR), the manifestation of the New Reality (NR), or the New Reality Environment (NRE) of our Ontologic System (OS).

In this regard, we would also like to give the information that it will take around 6 months by our OFinS to substitute that uncontrolled mess with an ordered digital financial system, which retains all constructive innovations in the market and removes all deconstructive activities of those bad actors, while markets awash in those digital and virtual assets will have no other choice than to abandon illegal digital and virtual currencies and other counterfeit assets altogether for the official

(see also the issue #32x or #33y of the 14th of July 2021).

Please keep also in mind that our OS is the original and also note that our OFinS is another exclusive and mandatory part of our OS, like the

to keep the royalties as low as possible.
Because the societies gain an incredibly huge benefit through unclosing our OS, and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certian parts of our OS under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions, any grumbling and opposition is therefore totally misplaced.

Legal matter [Satellite constellations]
In general, members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to collaborate with blacklisted entities on the basis of our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs).

Furthermore, the situation with satellite-based networks is the same general situation and has the same general problems as with the

which are trying to make an essential part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse their proprietary, privately-owned subsystem of our OS.
Of course, our SOPR has anticipated and observed the development, recognized the situation, then discussed and rejected those illegal attempts, and eventually regulated the networks, platforms, and services as part of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies. In this relation, they have to collaborate with our SOPR.

Main Contract Model (MCM)
We noticed that some more companies are using Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV), or robotships or roboats to collect ocean data.
See the section Legal matter [Digital properties] of the issue #33y of the 3rd of August 2021.

We will give more detail informations about our revolution in this specific field after the main contractors for the subsystems and platforms

of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies have signed our set of agreements and contracts.

Ontonics OntoLab Vision Fund I # 6.5.1

We made significant progress with our Superunicorn #5.
In this relation, we got the information that our Superunicorn #5 is more connected with at least one more of our Superunicorns™ and at least one of our Superbolts™ of the Ontonics Blitz Fund I, which shows once again how matured and conclusive our overall business and investment plans truly are.

09.September.2021

Clarification

See the Original vs. Inspiration of the 14th of April 2013 of the website of iRaiment:
"7. row: OntoLab, Ontoscope, and iRaiment Sm@rtEyewear Interactive electronic (Laminated) Safety/Security Glass (eLSG) or electronic Plastic/Polymer Panes (ePP) with optional Tetradirectional Active Display (TAD), Multilingual Multimodal Multimedia User Interface (M³UI), and Ontoscope MultiGlasses Architecture iRaiment Rayfarer and Cyberskin, aka. MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer and MultiOakley Frogskin (199x)"

Please also note that the Multilingual Multimodal Multimedia User Interface (M³UI) includes voice-based and a touch-sensitive interfaces, for sure.
The Tetradirectional Active Display (TAD) is described in the projects

of the Innovation-Pipeline of Ontonics.

By the way:

10.September.2021

Comment of the Day

"Success is not illegal.", [Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Epic Games vs. Apple, Today]

12.September.2021

Ontonics Blitz Fund II #4

Some of our technologies, goods, and services have matured so far, that we added them as the next three Superbolts to our investment program Blitz Fund II.
These new Superbolts are connected with at least two of our Superbolts of our investment program Blitz Fund I, which gives them the decisive advantage to occupy the related market in a relatively short period of time.

We estimate the potential of safed or transfered, and newly created jobs in the double digit million range or higher.
Their business plans already developed further.

Even better, a short review showed that another one of our technologies, goods, and services has also matured so far, that we made it a Superbolt of our investment program Blitz Fund II as well.
This new Superbolt is connected with at least one of our Superunicorns of our investment program OntoLab Vision Fund I.

It will be interesting to see which of our other works will fill the last slots of our Blitz Fund II.

Superunicorns - Superbolts - Superpowers

14.September.2021

Ontonics Further steps

We improved a technology by adapting another technology, which should result in an extremely high-performance next generation.

Ontoscope Further steps

We designed a new Ontoscope model, which exploits 2 far advanced technologies. Honestly, only recently we brought to mind that we are able to bring all requirements together.

We also worked on the next generation of an older Ontoscope model, which is a major leap, because its outstanding functionality crosses a certain limit.

Furthermore, we developed a new Ontologic core (Oc or Ontocore), which allows the realization and utilization of more Ontoscope variants and should not be confused with the software-related Ontologic Core (OC or OntoCore).

16.September.2021

Comment of the Day

"You can't always get what you want" [Rolling Stones, Let It Bleed, 1969]

We quote an online encyclopedia about its lyrics: "The three verses (and the varied theme of the fourth verse) address major topics of the 1960s: love, politics, and drugs. Each verse captures the essence of the initial optimism and eventual disillusion, followed by the resigned pragmatism of the chorus."

Ontonics OntoLab Vision Fund I #7.6.1

A short review showed that another one of our technologies, goods, and services has also matured so far, that we made it a Superunicorn of our investment program OntoLab Vision Fund I.

It will be interesting to see which of our other works will fill the last 3 slots of our OntoLab Vision Fund I.

Superunicorns - Superbolts - Superpowers

17.September.2021

Comment of the Day

"Ingenuity or insanity? Power is Power and business is business.", [C.S., Today]

18.September.2021

Comment of the Day

Superscope™
Smartscope™
Hyperscope™

Ontonics Further steps

We improved a technology by adapting another technology, which should result in an extremely high-performance next generation.

09:21, 09:27, 20:10, and 23:11 UTC+2
Ontoscope Further steps

We worked on our new Ontoscope model, which is optimized for our upcoming Superstructure and correspondingly called Ontoscope Super or simply Superscope™ (see the Further steps of the of the 14th of September 2021). Specifically, we added the latest improvements and finished the exterior design, which has a classic style, but is thinner and more elegant than the Ontoscope variants of other companies.

The Superscope will be operated with the Ontologic Core (OC or OntoCore) One (see the section common Computing and Networking System (CNS) of the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021 and the section Infrastructure of the issue SOPR #328 of the 3rd of July 2021), which should not to be confused with the hardware-related Ontologic core (Oc or Ontocore).
We have planned 2 × 2 basic versions:

and

The first generation of the Superscope will be manufactured by the main contractors, suppliers, and service providers of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) on the basis of certain components sourced from us (named companies must be eligible and are suggestions)

and

The subsequent generations of it are then free for competition, with the exception of our forerunner models.

We also worked on the next generation of an older Ontoscope model, which is a major leap and will surprise the public once again, because its outstanding functionality crosses a certain limit.

21.September.2021

Clarification

Of course, we do not claim authorship for the "global brain hypothesis[, which] claim[s] that the Internet increasingly ties its users together into a single information processing system that functions as part of the collective nervous system of the planet", and older related or similar ideas and concepts.
But for sure, we do claim for virtually all of the rest, because until the end of the year 1999 none of the proponents really knew how to design, model, extend, simulate, implement, and operate the so-called Global Brain, and with the exception of some very view activities around the year 2000 they even neglected the idea until around the year 2011. Only after the presentation of our Ontologic System (OS) with its OS Architecture (OSA), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evoos Architecture (EosA) described in The Proposal as part of our fields of

they suddenly knew how it goes and what it can do, as is the case with virtually every other entity in the related fields.
But that was too late, as the timeline and dates of activities and publications prove beyond doubt.

19th Century
Nikola Tesla presented some ideas about a global intelligent structure

1982
Peter Russell term Global Brain

1983
Peter Russell "The Global Brain: Speculations on the Evolutionary Leap to Planetary Consciousness" (1st of January 1983).
We quote the abstract and index of it: "The Global Brain

These are just some of the thought-provoking and sociologiy, physics and philosophy, mathematics, and mysticism, Russel takes us on an exploration of humanity's role and potential as it might be seen through the eyes of the planet. In an elegant, convincing tapestry of science and speculation, The Global Brain leads us to understand how genuine, worldwide transformation - initially of individual consciousness and then of the entire society - is not only possible, but probable. Moreover, Russell shows why this massive shift of the psyche is a historically consisten next step in the evolutionary trends that have been unfolding for billions of years.

Contents
[...]
Epilogue
14. Beyond Gaia [...]"

Comment
The work is a speculative metaphysical and scienc-fictional treatise in the context of evolution, human evolution, biosphere, Transcendental Meditation (TM) and finding inner peace, vision, and wisdom, creativity, stress reduction, untapped potentials of the brain, etc..

C.S. has not read this book and only found it around 2 years ago, but has seen a lot of such works, while creating our Evoos and our OS. But nobody was able to design, build, implement, operate, and manage something truly working in contrast to us and the plagiarists of said original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

1986
Information routeing groups - Towards the global superbrain: or how to find out what you need to know rather than what you think you need to know

1995
Gottfried Mayer-Kress "The global brain as an emergent structure from the Worldwide Computing Network, and its implications for modeling", first peer-reviewed article on the subject

1996
Francis Heylighen and Johan Bollen "Algorithms for the self-organization of distributed, multi-user networks. Possible application to the future world wide web", first algorithms, that could turn the World Wide Web (WWW) into a collectively intelligent network
Francis Heylighen and Johan Bollen "The World-Wide Web as a Super-Brain: from metaphor to model"

1999
Evolutionary operationg system (Evoos), original and unique work of art at least distinguishes 4 perspectives:

2007
Ontologic System (OS)

2011
Francis Heylighen "Conceptions of a Global Brain: an historical review", plagiarism distinguishes 4 perspectives:

He asserts that these fields have developed in relative independence, but are now converging in his own scientific re-formulation. (e.g. OS)
Indeed, F. Heylighen is also the author of other documents (see above). But obviously, the content of this document respectively this historical review is a bold lie by an (socially) incompetent individual and a typical action of a plagiarist and bandwagon jumper, as we have documented it multiple times already.

And as usual, the initial ideas related to the Global Brain have so many deficits, like the initial ideas related to the Metaverse, and also the fields of Computational Physics (CP, ComP, or CPhy), Physical Computing System (PCS or PhyCS), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Soft Computing (SC) and Computational Intelligence (CI), and many others, that we should view them as history and legacy in relation to our OS with its Caliber/Calibre, OntoBase, OntoFS, OntoBot, OntoScope, OntoNet, OntoWeb, and OntoVerse, as well as overall Ontoverse (Ov), including our metaverse multiverse, Ontoscope (Os), and much more.
Eventually, the Global Brain 2.0 is based on our Evoos and therefore included in our OS, specifically in our Ontologic Web (OW).

Now, one can also see why we began with a brain-like ontologic cybernetic holonic reflective virtualized networked embedded real-time operating system. :)

23.September.2021

06:08 UTC+2
SOPR #33d

*** Work in progress - 2 more quotes missing ***
Topics
This issue summarizes various notes, statements, and comments made to the following subject areas since the last issue:

Legal matter
Governments refuse to do theirselves a big favour by stopping the support of the problems and instead beginning the support of the solutions.

There will be no alternative Ontologic System (OS).

We would like to make crystal clear that we are agnostic of any external policy. Our company does not belong to any clique and does not depend on export and therefore does not depend on any political ideology and related industrial policy.
We do not speak for any sovereign territory and its government, but only for C.S. and our corporation, so to say for OntoLand.
Governments that are inconvincible will face a wall of bits, which is harder than any wall of earth, stone, or steel, because software is harder than hardware, as every truly competent entity knows.

We remain independent and neutral, and also open and trusted, which has become a much more complex and trickier task, because suddenly the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are declared by governments as objectives of

• national,
• cybernetical,
• economical, and
• technological

sovereingty and security.
(see also the section Legal matter [Ownership regulation])

{potentially} Legal matter [Ownership regulation]
In wise forsight regarding the effort for sovereingty and security of governments (see also the section Legal matter and the issue #33c of the 8th of September 2021), we developed and discussed the 51+% + 49-% ownership regulation over the last months, so that all major sovereign territories do know what is on stake, if they reject the invitation to become a member and licensee of our SOPR in accordance with the

• same rule-based order and rules, including
  • national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, and also
  • regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR,

  and

• same application of said rules regarding the activities of every union of state, country, and state of a union of states.

Please keep in mind that we do not pay for our own original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically in all those cases where governments and companies have stolen them. :) We concluded that the lower one of the

for 51% would be correct and fair, but other factors must also be taken into account and eventually every case has to be treated induvidually.

Data protection and security
In the case of data retention politicians either

to understand the basic properties respectively foundational features and functionalities of our Ontologic System with its Ontoverse, Ontoscope, and other elements, as in the cases of

and also

First of all, we would like to share our opinion that data retention is the wrong term.
Once again, the problem is not new in the fields of informatics and computer sciences, has been solved around 2 decades already, and is included in our Ontologic System (OS) by design of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Specifically the verifiable or verified computing, homomorphic cryptosystem, and so on, which are inherent in the OS with its OSA, allow to store and also process raw signals and data, informations, and so on on the basis of the same crypthographically and mathematically proven techniques, which are already utilized for other applications such as

without any infringement of data protection and security since decades.
One could also describe it as a middle course and balance between no data storage and data storage, which has only the advantages of both approaches.

Furthermore, the working of these basic technologies and techniques inherent in the OS has been shown in pratice successfully with

The procedures to get access and handle the stored and processed data is always the same and equals the way

of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) (see the paragraph beginning with "Data protection or privacy" of the section Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital money supply] of the issue SOPR #32x or #33y of the 14th of July 2021).

Another topic with significant impact on data protection and security now becoming a standard is Emotion Intelligence (EI) and emotion-detecting Artificial Intelligence (AI) included in SoftBionics (SB) and therefore also included in our OS by design.
For sure, raw signals and data gathered by the recognition and connection of an individual's emotions, sentiments, and personality with a specific person are viewed in the same way like biometric data and hence Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), also called personal data.
Consequently, consent of users is required (see also the section Consent Management System (CMS or ConsMS)).

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [OntoBank]
The next scandal in the financial system, this time manipulated statistics of the World Bank, shows once again why our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) of our Ontoverse is in charge and keeps its thumb on this.

Consent Management System (CMS or ConsMS)
Emotion Intelligence requires the consent of users
(see also the section Data protection and security)
According to statements of Ontoscope Component (OsC) manufacturers car manufacturers decide

Eventually, with our mandatory

data protection and security are supported.

We would like to give the reminder of some mandatory regulations in OS

Once again, we would like to point some mandatory regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) out to

By the way, patents that claim the ability to pinpoint the gender, age, accent, emotional state, and numerous other characterizations of an individual for making recommendations based on its analysis of those factors are void, because a Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (POSITA) would have come to this solution based on the basic features and functionalities of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, also called OS, with its Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Service (OAOS) without any problems.
We already

Social credit system
"Facilitated by technology, financial companies' expansion into our private lives threatens to herd individuals into a de facto social credit system that punishes them for making choices - and even voicing opinions - that the people at the controls don't like."

Indeed, we also have discussed a social credit system in relation to our Ontoverse, but only for rewarding and not for punishing people. Our SOPR even prohibits to use our OS for punishing people on the basis of a social credit system (see the section Social credit system in the issue #185 of the 4th of June 2019).

There are only the

• central banks, federal reserves, or other monetary authorities,
• commercial banks, and
• more ordinary financial service providers,

and our

in our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) in our Ontoverse in our Ontologic System (OS).

In more detail: If one goes the way of

then exactly this dystopian social credit system will be established, or correctly said, because it is not going to happen, would be established.
The fact is, that uncontrolled illegal cryptocurrency earns the caricatures, because it can be turned against its best use by its very own design, or said in other words, it is a (wanted) feature of uncontrolled illegal cryptocurrency. Therefore, federal regulations were always required and will be introduced.

Furthermore, the upcoming federal regulations are merely a transfer of laws regarding for example the

to the digital financial system respectively our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS).
Nobody is talking about a connection with the social media in this context at all with the exceptions of those dirty fellows of the uncontrolled press and the usual fraudulent self-exposers.
In fact, the total opposite is the case, because we were the one and the first, who explained the public, specifically the governments, that a large social media platform cannot be allowed to introduce its own cryptocurrency, which was relatively quickly understood by the responsible financial ministers and central bank executives, and even by reporters of the uncontrolled press.
But we also offered this social media platform to become the main contractor, supplier, and service provider for the Social and Societal System (S³) of our SOPR.

Moreover, our SOPR has introduced regulations regarding

In all these cases, the report is just lying to confuse and mislead the public.

Besides this, C.S. is the creator and architect of our OS with its OFinS and the monitoring simply comes with the foundational design of digital and virtual currencies to be unforgeable and hence trustworthy. Even those illegal cryptocurrencies are monitored for this reason.

Last but not least, all those illegal technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications and devices), and services get no license from our SOPR, which has the power of control of this environment included in our Ontoverse.
Eventually, there will be no dystopian social credit system in Ontoverse.
And if one likes the Ontoscope variants of very well known mobile device manufacturers, then one likes our OFinS as well.

Main Contract Model (MCM) [Ontoscope]
We noticed a certain interest of a large Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Provider (OAOSP) in our iRaiment variants based on our wearable Ontoscope, specifically our Rayfarer, also known as MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer.
We also noticed this interest of other large OAOSPs as well.

But we cannot suggest or even award a main contract, because our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has to balance the matter with the interests of many equally large entities.

We worked on our new handheld Ontoscope model, which is optimized for our upcoming Superstructure and correspondingly called Ontoscope Super or simply Superscope (see the Ontoscope Further steps of the of the 14th and 18th of September 2021).

The Superscope will be operated with the Ontologic Core (OC or OntoCore) One (see the section common Computing and Networking System (CNS) of the issue #327 of the 7th of June 2021 and the section Infrastructure of the issue #328 of the 3rd of July 2021), which should not to be confused with the hardware-related Ontologic core (Oc or Ontocore).
We have planned 2 × 2 basic versions:

and

The first generation of the Superscope will be manufactured by the main contractors, suppliers, and service providers of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) on the basis of certain components sourced from us (named companies must be eligible and are suggestions)

and

The subsequent generations of it are then free for competition, with the exception of our forerunner models.

We already suggested and still prefer the takeover of subsidiaries and companies by Ontonics.

26.September.2021

King Smiley Further steps

Since some few years we already wanted to show our designs of the CC B and CC K chest rigs.
The following doodles show the idea.

© :(, :(, and King Smiley

In case of the CC B the shoulder straps could converge to the middle and their mountings could be more in the middle to reflect the design of the original bag.
Needless to say, the CC B and CC K chest rigs can also be made in all other sizes, with all other types of leather, and in all other colours.