Anticapture

Evaluation is informational in nature and does not itself impact shared resources, so participants may wield influence but not fundamental power. While a decentralized Evaluate phase is often valuable, it is not a strict requirement for effective capture-resistant governance.

Decentralized execution changes the game. Where centralized execution creates existential capture risk, decentralized execution acts as a strong backstop to other forms of capture. As long as executive power in a network remains distributed across a wide portion of the agents, the network has flexibility to experiment with various forms of decision... See more

Participation in the Decide phase spans from centralized to decentralized, describing the proportion of agents in the network having a voice in the decision-making process.  In the context of a network action that impacts a shared resource, bosses are indeed the final decision-makers, but more importantly they have the power to execute the act... See more

Participation in the Propose phase within a network spans from centralized to decentralized, describing how widely distributed the power to add options to the network’s agenda is.  In networks where the agenda is informal and doesn’t define which actions can be executed, the power to propose is influential rather than fundamental. Proposals do... See more

Actions are how agents put resources to work to achieve their goals. All governance over shared resources is conducted via actions.  In the Anticapture framework, actions have four phases.  Propose: delineate the options on the table.  Decide: select the preferred option.  Execute: put the selected option into action.  Eval... See more