A RRRR (read as "four R"), is the architecture/infrastructure to relate a firm, with any other firm/people. A RRRR is a framework for having a firmaze-and-infirmaze, together -- for a risk-minimizer firm-model, in a free-market.
Although, in a firmaze, a firm is there for a relatively ephemeral existence, the firmer-people are anchored, with their (achieved) firmer-rating, and with each friendly-relation, too. Any firm, when first framed, must/should inform each potential investor and customer, about what is planned -- whether that firm is with a RRRR, does favor-RRRR (afresh vs. inherited), ring-relay, etc.
A fair is a location (a room, or a web-page, etc) where people are informed, for a remote order-placement -- as opposed to a shop, where people mostly buy what is already in the inventory. After the buyer has formulated his/her informed wish, that fair is to relay that order to/from the finest-fit firm -- shipped to the buyer. A fair, with this remote-market model, is affine for
A RRRR is a remedy, ...
A firm that is relayed for that order through that fair, inferrably, does respond to many (from that fair, or many), at a time. That is, the difference is the fine-level of response (with made-to-order), not the volume. Therefore, the finance (the economic basis) for a favor-ripple is all right for that firm, too.
If a firm/fair must sell 20 units (to exceed the set-up cost), the first favor-RRRR may follow after that 20th. transaction. That is a policy, to minimize risk.
For a buyer, that is fine. Those who buy the first few, if the policy of that firm/fair is to favor retro, they know that after that firm/fair would exceed the set-up cost, they also get extra. If the policy is to favor randomly, or after only that point in time (not retro-active), those who bought first may not receive a favor, though. Even in that case, many people would buy the first, as we already know today in the non-RRRR market model, when people buy the most recent invented/marketed gadget, although that is most often, the most expensive, at first.
A ring-relay is reminiscent of the Ahi-guild, siftah-favor. Different, though, in the arrangement. The resemblence is that, those who warrant/monitor the quality of each other, also warrant/help each other, against market-fluctuation, for example, when each customer, that day, bought from the neighbor, although the other cheese-merchant was not visited, at all. Here, for R-world, a ring-relay is affine, to iron out the random market, at the lowest-range (at only that range, that would not count as a trust/monopoly. That is even the vice versa, as when the firm is warranted the feasible range of order-receipt, no need to widen the profit-margin, to keep in business). A ring-relay is affine, at the highest-range, too. For example, if five electricity-authorities ring-relay, when the capacity of any of them is not enough, that may immediately invoke any of the other four.
A ring-relay may help for your employee-living-standard arrangement, too. If we would exemplify that with what the worker has, as the American-Dream was (a vehicle, a home, a holiday, TV, washing-machine, etc.), then a few of those may arrange a ring-relay (a barter, in this case), to arrange for each other, the high-quality of themselves. Otherwise, inferrably, there would exist no way, to warrant a "high-living standard" if that were to mean that, the worker who lives in some countries earn more than those in other countries. (Businesses would/do migrate to the cheaper-labor countries, while the highly-paid jobs in the expensive-labor countries, would see more and more of the visitor/immigrant people.) For the World Dream, if not the economic-war. That is, if a worker, out there, is committed to work for a cup of rice, a day, do not even bother to learn what that vehicle would cost to your worker, forget the money, first arrange for your standard, among yourselves.
In a free-market, a firm is to face a few risk-varieties. e.g:
A relational-risk is the risk of loss, in a free-market, mainly due to human-relation failures. e.g:
A relation, the way I think, is not what tyranny is. Instead, we rather avoid the tyranny. Normally, hire your armaze to fight bullies, or if the threat is too large in that region, think of not living there (or, at least, not keeping your valued wealth, there). e.g:
A tyranny is easier to avoid, totally. The case is not so easy with the inherent relational-risk of a market. (A free-market and a totalitarian order, each have their varieties of relational risk. That is, to go totalitarian, is no exemption from risk. e.g: The USA posperred with a free-market, while the USSR had to leave the totalitarian grip. In a race/war, only to control within, may not pay enough to sustain your system. If in need, must win/earn.) In a free-market, a risk may pay. Rarely wise to increase that risk a lot, though -- other than for fun, with a few percent of your fund. To reduce the inherent relational-risk of a free-market,
Not each point of RRRR is on this page, yet. I am pleased, though, as I have finally posted this page, at www -- and in a reasonably readable form. Inshaellah, the finest is to follow, yet.