Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Anarcasper's avatar

This is a wildly ambitious and generative proposal, and honestly, I think it carries a lot of resonance with some of the key ideas I've been working on around coordination as power. The emphasis on decentralization, swarm intelligence, transparency, and shared economic infrastructure definitely feels like a real attempt to shift from centralized, coercive structures toward more participatory, emergent forms of collective agency. I really appreciate how it sees trust not just as a soft virtue but as a concrete infrastructure that can be cultivated, protected, and rewarded. That’s very aligned with how I think about Power With and Power Through emerging from sustained patterns of coordination.

However, I also found myself sitting with some structural questions. The first one is about the substrate of coordination. Even though the game decentralizes control, it still seems to treat capital (the $25 monthly contribution) as the fundamental unit of participation. I wonder what happens to people who can’t contribute financially (because that $25 might be the only thing keeping them from being homeless, or starving, or having enough medication to last the month), or whose contributions come in the form of care, insight, emotional labor, or cultural grounding. Does the system have room to recognize those as real threads of power, or does it risk reinforcing the same logic of capital but with a more democratic interface?

Another thing I’m curious about is how much weight the system places on metrics, tokens, and scores. While these can provide accountability and gamified engagement, they might also lead to something I think of as constraint inversion: where the metric ends up shaping the coordination more than the other way around. Is there space for ambiguity, for intuition, for slow trust-building that doesn’t register on a leaderboard?

I also wonder how disagreement is handled. Swarm intelligence is powerful, but what happens when there are deep, unresolvable value differences? Does the system encourage branching and divergence, or does it lean toward consensus as the default? I’d love to hear how you imagine pluralism operating in a game that still needs coherence to function.

And finally, there’s a question of internal transformation. So much of what enables lasting coordination, in my view, comes from how people align their desires, motivations, and actions (what I call volitional clarity). Does the game support that kind of inner work? Are there ways people can grow in trust and influence not just by performing tasks, but by deepening their presence, emotional grounding, or capacity to hold complexity?

I really love the spirit of this project. It feels like something that could reshape the way people relate to power, responsibility, and shared infrastructure. At the same time, I’d love to see it stretch even further toward a model that centers threads of care, designs for divergence, and includes the unseen dimensions of coordination that emerge through resonance, healing, and shared sense-making.

Expand full comment
Rick  Batross's avatar

Should we consider buying or controlling interest in an electrical power center, as security so that we cannot be ( de- netted)? Also, can we purchase interests in organic gardens and whole raw milk enterprises?

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts