Anticapture

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

The promise of capture-resistant governance is managing shared resources in a way that prevents capture of those resources by bad actors. In so doing, it also unlocks a new frontier of what is possible together. The amazing fluidity, flexibility, and adaptability exhibited by early web3-native communities is testament to what’s possible when our go... See more

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

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.

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