Seeing the Invisible: The Walk for Peace as a Peer-to-Peer Pattern You’re Already Living

Most of us think we can recognize a movement when we see one: banners, speeches, an organization, a membership list, a leader with a microphone. That’s the old template. 

But an increasing share of real-world coordination no longer looks like that.

It looks like this: A link to a live map. A comment that says “they’re arriving tomorrow.” A stranger offering food, a floor to sleep on, a ride to the next stop. A local person who becomes a temporary connector. A swarm of attention that appears, helps, and dissolves, then reappears in the next town.

Many people get pulled into these open, collaborative activities without realizing what they are participating in. Not because they’re naive. Because they don’t yet have the language for the pattern.

This post is an attempt to give you that language, using one striking example: the Walk for Peace.

What the Walk for Peace is (the “core action”)

The Walk for Peace is, at its center, disarmingly simple: Buddhist monks walking across the United States toward Washington, D.C., carrying a message of peace, compassion, and nonviolence. It’s a continuous pilgrimage, quiet, disciplined, and steady.

And yet, around that simplicity, something complex forms.

The Walk is a moving focal point. Each day has a location. Each stop is a moment where the world can touch the walk: people can visit, offer support, share a message, or simply witness. The monks’ walking becomes a kind of living “protocol”, a reliable core action that other people can synchronize around without needing to “join an organization.”

This is where it gets interesting.

Because if you zoom out beyond the monks, you see not one group, but a network: a long tail of supporters, hosts, amplifiers, helpers, and occasional institutions (like police escorts) that plug in for a while and then unplug.

That network is not an accident. It has a shape.

What people do around it (the “public swarm”)

If you follow the Walk in public posts and comments, a pattern repeats:

• People share where the monks are and where they will be (“they’re arriving tomorrow,” “today they’re in Charlotte,” “the route changed”).
• People invite others into local micro-events (“the public is invited”).
• People provide mutual aid: food, lodging, services, rides, safety support.
• People do visibility work: posting photos, telling stories, amplifying messages.
• People negotiate interaction norms at the edge (“please don’t walk with them; if you want to walk, do your own walk”).

And listen closely to how people describe what they’re seeing. The language is often reverent, surprised, almost disoriented, in the way we get when we witness a social field forming in real time:

• “Thousands of beautiful hearts came together…”
• “Seeing strangers feed them… their care for them…”
• “How do I create a practice daily? … maybe we should start sharing images of our paths towards peace.”

Even the movement’s symbols travel well. A figure like Aloka the Peace Dog becomes a kind of friendly “marker” that helps the story replicate across strangers: you may not know the whole context, but you recognize the sign and feel invited into the meaning.

Notice what’s missing from this list: Contracts. Job titles. A centralized command channel where one coordinator assigns tasks to everyone else.

And yet things still happen.

Support appears where it’s needed. Information spreads fast enough to be useful. Norms get enforced without a courtroom. Institutions sometimes align to serve without taking over.

If that sounds familiar, if it sounds like what happens around open-source software, Wikipedia, or volunteer disaster response, it’s because it belongs to the same family of behaviors.

It’s a peer-to-peer pattern.

The blindness problem: P2P is everywhere, but we don’t name it

The internet didn’t just connect us socially, it increased the density of coordination. More people can see the same signal. More people can act on it. More people can contribute in small units.

This creates a new normal: open collaboration without formal membership.

But most people still use old words for it:

• “It went viral.”
• “People came together.”
• “Someone organized it.”

Those phrases describe the surface, not the mechanism.

To coordinate well, especially at scale, you need to see the mechanism.

So let’s translate what happens around the Walk for Peace into a map of P2P patterns you can recognize elsewhere.

Mapping the Walk to P2P patterns (a translation guide)

Below are a few core P2P concepts. Don’t treat them as academic jargon. Treat them as a new set of glasses.

1) Open participation (permissionless entry and exit)

In P2P systems, participation is often open by default. People can join, contribute, and leave without passing through a gatekeeper.

Around the Walk for Peace, this shows up in the way supporters self-select into roles: visitor, host, donor, photographer, signal-booster. You don’t need a badge. You just need the intention and the moment.

This matters because open participation is how you get the long tail: many small contributions that add up to a large effect.

2) Stigmergy (coordination through shared signals)

“Stigmergy” is a fancy word for a simple idea: instead of coordinating by direct orders, people coordinate by reading and writing signals in a shared environment.

Ants do it with pheromone trails. Humans do it with public information.

For the Walk, the shared signal is the map and the stream of updates:

• where the walkers are,
• where they’re heading,
• what changed,
• what’s needed.

When someone posts “the route has changed,” they are not merely sharing news. They are updating a coordination substrate. Other people can then adjust their plans without having to be told personally.

This is one of the most important P2P patterns of the internet age: coordination by public trace.

3) Commons-based mutual aid (the gift commons)

Another repeated shape around the Walk is non-transactional support: strangers feeding the monks, offering lodging, providing helpful services.

In market logic, resources flow because of price. In hierarchical logic, resources flow because of command.

In commons-based mutual aid, resources flow because of shared purpose and perceived need, and because people trust that others will do the same when needed.

That trust is not blind. It’s reinforced by visibility, story, and reputation: “I saw strangers feed them…”

That’s a commons logic: the “product” isn’t a thing you buy. It’s a shared social reality that people maintain together.

4) Emergent roles and micro-leadership

P2P doesn’t mean “no leadership.” It means leadership is often situational and temporary.

Someone becomes “the connector” for one town because they’re local. Someone becomes “the amplifier” because they have reach. Someone becomes “the logistics person” because they can host.

Even institutions can be pulled into these roles without becoming the system’s owner, like when local officers provide a safe escort. In a P2P lens, this is a striking phenomenon: a distributed network temporarily “recruits” hierarchical capacity into a service role.

5) Edge governance (norms that protect the core)

One of the biggest misconceptions about open systems is that openness means chaos.

In practice, open systems survive by developing norms, often enforced socially, at the edges, in public.

Around the Walk for Peace, a clear boundary norm appears: people are asked not to walk with the monks; if you want to walk, “do your own walk.”

At first glance, this might seem anti-participatory. But in P2P terms, it’s more subtle:

• It protects the integrity of the core practice.
• It prevents the swarm from collapsing into a single mass.
• It encourages replication: many parallel instantiations rather than one giant convergence.

This is a deep P2P move: don’t merge into the core, fork the practice.

6) Hybridization (a core protocol + an open swarm)

Most real P2P phenomena are not purely decentralized. They are hybrid.

The Walk has a core group that sets constraints (route, discipline, safety) and provides infrastructure (maps, support links, official contacts). Around that, a permissionless swarm self-organizes within the constraints.

Hybrid systems can be powerful:

• The core provides continuity and reliability.
• The swarm provides scale, adaptability, and local intelligence.

The important insight isn’t “centralized vs decentralized.” 

It’s: what is centralized, what is open, and why?

7) Capture attempts (when someone tries to monetize the commons)

Once you can see the commons, you can also see what threatens it.

Movements generate attention, an “attention commons.” Sometimes outside actors try to attach extractive incentives to that commons (for example, token/airdrop framing that piggybacks on the movement’s visibility). You don’t need to moralize about it to understand the risk: If incentives are not aligned with the commons purpose, and if there is no transparent contribution accounting or governance, then a token overlay can become a capture vector rather than a coordination improvement.

Seeing the pattern helps you respond intelligently instead of reactively.

A simple “P2P recognition kit” you can use anywhere

If you want to train your perception, here are questions to ask when you see a movement, a project, or a sudden wave of coordination:

• Is participation permissionless? Can people contribute without being recruited?
• What is the shared signal surface? A map, a hashtag, a doc, a repo, a spreadsheet, a public dashboard?
• Do contributions come in small units? Many small actions rather than a few big ones?
• Are resources flowing by need and purpose rather than price and command?
• Do roles emerge temporarily? Micro-leadership that appears and disappears?
• Are norms negotiated and enforced socially? Edge governance?
• Is there a stable core protocol that the swarm coordinates around? (Hybridization)
• Are there extractive overlays trying to capture the value being generated?
• Once you can answer these, you can stop thinking in slogans and start thinking in systems.

Why this matters: consciousness changes coordination

Here’s the concluding claim, stated plainly: What you’re seeing around the Walk for Peace is not just “people being nice.” It is a recognizable kind of social behavior, a peer-to-peer coordination pattern that has been studied, modeled, and refined across many domains.

Frameworks like the “Principles of P2P” (and related Open Value Network thinking) exist because these patterns repeat. They have strengths: resilience, adaptability, generativity. They also have failure modes: fragmentation, burnout, misinformation, and capture by misaligned incentives.

When you can name the pattern, you gain three powers:

• You can participate more skillfully. You stop waiting for permission and start contributing where the signal says you’re needed.
• You can coordinate better with others. Shared language reduces confusion and duplication; it helps a swarm grow.
• You can protect what’s being created. If you can see the commons, you can design guardrails for it.

The Walk for Peace offers a rare gift: a human-scale mirror of a new reality.

The reality is that P2P patterns are no longer a niche feature of “internet culture.” They are a baseline coordination mode of our time, showing up in how we learn, how we help, how we organize, and how we move meaning through the world.

Once you see it, you can’t unsee it!

By AllOfUs

    Please donate to Multitude Project!

.

From Rivalry to Commons: Rethinking the Creator Economy

Over the last few years, social media has become the beating heart of the new media ecosystem. Voices like Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Glen Greenwald and Jimmy Dore represent a shift away from corporate journalism toward independent, personality-driven media.

But that same freedom has created a problem.
We now live in an environment where conflict isn’t a bug, it’s a business model.

The Problem: When Rivalry Becomes a Strategy

The decentralized media world looks, on the surface, like a vibrant marketplace of ideas. But underneath, it’s driven by algorithms and monetization systems that reward outrage and rivalry.

In the traditional media landscape, competition happened between networks. Today, it happens between individuals, every creator fighting for the same attention, donors, and subscriptions.

The recent Candace Owens saga, with public clashes involving Charlie Kirk, Tim Pool, and Alex Jones, illustrates this perfectly. These aren’t just ideological feuds; they’re economically induced rivalries.

Why?
Because current platforms reward engagement, not collaboration.
A feud brings in clicks, shares, and ad revenue. A calm, nuanced dialogue? Not so much.

It’s a textbook case of what economists call a tournament market — small differences in attention yield outsized rewards, making conflict the rational choice. In this system, cooperation feels like financial self-sabotage.

Where the Problem Comes From

At its core, the crisis is structural, not personal.
The architecture of social media is built to maximize engagement, measured in time, outrage, and virality, not in trust or collective value.

Let’s break it down:

Economic Model	How It Works	Effect
Ad-based Revenue (YouTube, X)	Pay per view or engagement	Encourages sensationalism
Membership / Subscription (Substack, Patreon)	Pay for ideological loyalty	Rewards tribalism
Donor or Ideological Funding	Compete for sponsor trust	Fosters in-group policing
Brand Sponsorships	Depend on predictable demographics	Discourages dissent or nuance

Each model isolates creators into attention silos where collaboration dilutes income, and competition, even conflict, becomes the rational economic behavior.

So when independent creators feud, they aren’t just “arguing online.”
They’re participating in an attention economy Nash equilibrium: a self-reinforcing system where rivalry is profitable, and cooperation is costly.

The Solution: Commons-Based, Peer-to-Peer Media

But what if the structure itself changed?
What if cooperation became the more profitable strategy?

The answer lies in commons-based, peer-to-peer (p2p) models like Open Value Networks (OVNs) and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), frameworks that already exist and have proven viable across industries.

Imagine a Decentralized Media Commons, where:

• Creators share infrastructure, research, and audience data. 
• Every contribution, reporting, editing, fact-checking, is tracked transparently.
• Benefits are distributed according to verified effort and collaborative success.
• Reputation is built through trust, not clicks.

This transforms competition into collaborative entrepreneurship,  a system where cooperation generates shared wealth and rivalry depletes reputational value.

This Isn’t Sci-Fi, It’s Already Here

Skeptics might say: “Sounds utopian.”
But these models already exist and work.

• Wikipedia is the world’s largest collaborative knowledge commons — proof that large-scale, voluntary cooperation can outcompete profit-driven silos.
• Blockchain-based organizations already distribute ownership and decision-making through DAOs, self-governing systems where contributors share both power and profit.
• Sensorica, an open value network in Montreal, has spent over a decade proving that distributed collaboration can fund and manage real-world projects, transparently tracking every contribution.

These aren’t futuristic dreams. They’re functioning ecosystems that simply haven’t yet been adopted by the independent media sector.
The tools exist, what’s missing is cultural adoption.

The Cultural Shift We Need

We don’t need a revolution in technology.
We need a revolution in mindset.

Independent media can move from rivalry to reciprocity, from a system that weaponizes competition to one that rewards shared trust.

When creators begin to view audiences not as possessions but as communities, and peers not as threats but as collaborators, we’ll see the next leap in decentralized media:

A trust-based economy where transparency, cooperation, and shared ownership define success., giving birth to a new truth institution that can shed light onto corrupt governments and institutions. 

The infrastructure is already waiting.

What’s left is for creators, and their audiences, to realize that the next era of media won’t be built by fighting for attention. It will be built by sharing it.

We can help!

We're sketching out these models, we bring 15 years of experience in peer production!

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

.

Beyond the Lightning Rod: How to Build Resilient P2P Investigative Commons

In our previous post, we discussed the "category error" being made by critics of Candace Owens. By judging her as a traditional journalist or a rogue investigator, they miss the reality: she is a node in an emerging, decentralized search for truth. But being a "hub" is dangerous when the system around you is still built on old-world, centralized architecture. To Candace, and to the thousands of you contributing your time, analysis, and tips to the Charlie Kirk investigation: it is time to move from being a target to being a protocol.

From Traditional Narratives to P2P Investigation

The investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk has reached a critical juncture. On one side is the "official" narrative, a centralized, linear story broadcast by institutions like the FBI and reinforced by mainstream outlets. On the other is a massive, messy, and passionate citizen-led inquiry.

Candace, you have become the "lightning rod" for this movement. When you challenge the narrative around Tyler Robinson or the "Hamptons intervention," the establishment responds by attacking you. They call you a "conspiracy theorist," they pressure your peers, and they try to cut off your platform.

This is the Napster Problem. Napster was a centralized directory; when the industry wanted to stop music sharing, they just sued the company into oblivion. But music sharing didn't die—it became BitTorrent. BitTorrent has no center, no boss, and no single point of failure. It is a protocol, not a platform. Let's turn this citizen investigation into the BitTorrent of truth-seeking.

Why Structure Matters

Traditional institutions are single points of authority. They control the narrative, the funding, and the gatekeeping. When we try to investigate from outside these institutions using their old rules, we inherit their vulnerabilities without their protections.

If the investigation depends on one person (the "host" or "lead"), that person becomes a target for regulatory, institutional, and reputational capture.

• Napster was a company; it died. BitTorrent is a protocol; it is immortal.
• Centralized News has a room with a boss; it can be intimidated. Wikipedia has a transparent edit history and a global network of editors; it is resilient.
• Banks are centralized intermediaries; they can freeze your accounts. Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger; it belongs to the network.

To be resilient, we must adopt these P2P patterns. We must minimize our attack surface.

Reducing the Attack Surface: The Logical Path to Truth

The logic is simple: if you have no center, you have no target.

1. Monopolies vs. Networks: Traditional media relies on an "authority monopoly." They are the sole arbiter of what is true.
2. Inherited Vulnerability: When citizen sleuths act like "mini-media companies," they become easy to smear. One mistake by the leader can discredit the work of thousands.
3. P2P Distribution: By distributing authority, we move from "Trust Me" to "Verify the Process."
4. Reduced Attack Surface: When tasks are modular and coordination is decentralized, there is no single person to "shut down."

Think about Wikipedia. You don't trust a Wikipedia article because you know the author. You trust it because you can see the edit history, the citations, and the peer-review process happening in real-time. We need a "Wikipedia for Investigations" where every claim is an object that can be forked, challenged, and refined by anyone.

A New Architecture for Truth

What does this actually look like? It’s a move toward Infrastructure-as-Defense:

• Stigmergic Coordination: Stop waiting for "orders" or "assignments." In a P2P system, participants respond to the work itself. If a piece of evidence needs verification, the network sees the signal and "swarms" it.
• Modular Task Decomposition: Break the investigation into tiny pieces—source tracing, metadata analysis, geolocating. One person doesn't need to know everything.
• Explicit Uncertainty Handling: We must stop speaking in "final truths." Every claim should have a confidence score. This protects the network from "misinformation" smears; we aren't "lying," we are "iterating with low confidence until more data arrives."
• Forkability: If you don't like how a narrative is being synthesized, fork it. Start your own branch. In P2P, disagreement isn't a "split"; it’s a feature that ensures multiple perspectives coexist.

The Human Side: To Candace and the Collective

Candace, the backlash you’ve faced, the demands to "Stop" from those you once considered allies, is the sound of a centralized system trying to protect its jurisdiction. You have felt the pain of being a hub under immense pressure.

But you don't have to carry the burden of being the "Truth-Teller." You can be the Initiator. An initiator seeds the process, provides the initial momentum, and then lets the network take over. You become a participant among peers, a node among nodes. This isn't just a technological shift; it’s a cultural one. It’s moving from the "Hero Narrative" to the "Collective Sense-Making Protocol."

To the contributors: your work is the lifeblood of this new model. But you must be wary of the Failure Modes. Don't let the system re-centralize around a few popular accounts. Guard against "signal flooding" (trolls injecting garbage data to overwhelm your review capacity). Most importantly, prioritize methodology over ideology.

Dive Deeper

This is a new frontier. We are building the tools for a world where no one can be silenced because the truth belongs to the protocol, not the platform.

This post is just the beginning. To see the full reference architecture, the detailed breakdown of failure modes, and how we can apply Commons-Based Peer Production to save our epistemic future, visit our deep-dive document: Citizen Investigation.

Don't just watch. Verify. Remix. Investigate.

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

.

The Category Error: Understanding Candace Owens as a P2P Investigative Node

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination, the media landscape has been flooded with a specific type of criticism directed at Candace Owens. Critics from both the mainstream and the conservative establishment frame her as an "irresponsible journalist" or a "reckless conspiracy theorist." Even Erika Kirk, in a moment of profound grief, simply said "Stop."

But these criticisms share a fundamental flaw: they are based on a category error. They judge Candace by the standards of traditional, centralized institutions, journalism and law enforcement, while she is actually operating as something entirely different: a facilitator and node in a decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) investigation.

To understand what Candace is doing and why it matters, we must look at her practice through the lens of decentralized processes rather than the legacy "broadcast" model. The following is the report of our analysis, following the methodology described in the last section. 

From Broadcast to Networked Participation

Traditional media operates on a "one-to-many" model. A centralized newsroom gathers facts, an editor filters them, and the "truth" is broadcast to a passive audience. If you judge Candace by this standard, her work seems "noisy" or "unverified."

However, the corpus of transcripts of her YouTube videos in the Charlie Kirk playlist reveals a different logic. Candace is not acting as the final word; she is acting as a network coordinator. When she solicits tips or asks her audience for feedback on narratives, she is opening the investigative process. She isn't the "Journalist-Oracle"; she is the "Network-Node."

The Power of the "Visible Receipt"

Traditional investigations (like those by the FBI) are opaque by design. We are told to "trust the process" and wait for an official report. Candace’s practice flips this. She relies on what we call Visible Receipts.

Whether it’s playing Netanyahu’s Fox News clip and immediately calling for the publication of the full letter or displaying text messages from Seth Dillon on-screen, she is moving the investigation into public view. These are p2p (peer-to-peer) principle in action: transparency by default. By showing her "working notes" in real-time, she allows the crowd to see the logic, find the holes, and refine the theory.

Iterative Theory vs. Final Narrative

A traditional investigator wants a "closed case." A P2P investigator wants an iterative theory.

Critics call her "flip-flopping" or "speculative" because she changes her narrative as new information emerges, such as the transition from the FBI's "stairwell" narrative to the Discord logs. In a P2P framework, this isn't a failure; it’s stigmergic coordination. Like a Wikipedia article being edited in real-time, her investigation is an "open alpha." She puts a hypothesis out, the network (the crowd) tests it, and the theory evolves.

Why the Establishment is Afraid

The backlash against Candace isn't just about "accuracy", it’s about jurisdiction. Traditional institutions (the FBI, mainstream media, and even established conservative brands) derive their power from being the sole arbiters of truth.

When Candace publicly deconstructs an official FBI statement or challenges a donor's "cordial" narrative of a Hamptons meeting, she is asserting that the crowd has the right to investigate. She is moving the investigation from a closed room to a decentralized digital commons.

How to Judge the New Model

We should not judge Candace Owens as a "Traditional Journalist." She doesn't have a newsroom, and she doesn't want one. We should judge her as a P2P Investigation Facilitator.

The metrics for success in this new model are:

• Transparency: Does she show her sources and receipts? (Yes).
• Responsiveness: Does she update her narrative when new data arrives? (Yes).
• Participation: Does she empower the audience to verify and contribute? (Yes).

The next time you hear a critic call her a "conspiracy theorist," realize they are using a 20th-century label to describe a 21st-century decentralized process. Candace is not just a podcaster; she is the coordinator of a citizen-led search for truth in a matrix of institutional dishonesty.

Don't just watch. Verify. Remix. Investigate.

--------------------------

---

Behind the Analysis: Our Methodology

To move beyond superficial labels and understand the "P2PRness" of Candace Owens' practice, we applied a structured, evidence-based methodology to a corpus of transcripts spanning 49 videos and over 33,000 lines of dialogue.

1. Benchmarking (Traditional vs. P2P): We first established a clear set of distinctions between centralized, institutional models and decentralized, peer-to-peer models across two axes: Media (distribution/funding/editorial) and Investigation (authority/transparency/coordination).
2. Multidimensional Coding: Every video was segmented and "coded" for specific indicators. We looked for Traditional indicators (like deference to official narratives or opaque sourcing) versus P2P indicators (like visible receipts, open hypothesis formulation, and calls for crowd-sourced data).
3. Traceable Extraction: We extracted relevant claims, evidence types, and process signals into a structured data repository. Each finding was mapped back to specific line ranges in the transcripts to ensure reproducibility and traceability.
4. Hybrid Scoring: Rather than a binary "journalist or not" judgment, we situated her practice on a 1–5 scale for both Media and Investigation axes. This allowed us to identify "mixed modes"—for example, how she uses a traditional broadcast platform to facilitate a highly decentralized investigative process.
5. Risk & Ethics Audit: We evaluated the inherent tradeoffs of the P2P model, including the risks of unverified amplification and evidence contamination, alongside the safeguards (like public disclaimers and peer-review prompts) present in the content.

Contact us if you want access to the corpus of transcripts, which was extracted from Candace's Charlie Kirk playlist on Youtube.
The benchmarking was done according to the Principles of P2P developed in the context of Sensorica.

This systematic approach reveals that the "conspiracy theorist" label is often an institutional defense mechanism against a new, decentralized mode of truth-seeking that prioritizes network participation over hierarchical authority.

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

.

Rethinking Agency: Toward an Organizational View of the Economy

For more than a century, economics has been built on the idea that individuals are the central actors in economic life. This conviction, deeply embedded in both classical and neoclassical thought, asserts that people possess preferences, make autonomous choices, respond rationally to incentives, and collectively generate the emergent order we call “the market.” At its core, this worldview imagines an economy composed of countless individuals whose interactions, mediated by price signals, produce efficient outcomes.

Yet the contours of the contemporary economy no longer resemble this portrait. Across the past century, organizations, corporations, bureaucracies, financial institutions, state agencies, have grown in scale and complexity to a degree unimaginable to earlier generations. These entities command vast resources, operate at speeds and scales far beyond human cognition, and exhibit continuity that outlives any individual member. Their operations shape, influence, and increasingly determine the environment in which humans make decisions. It is no longer clear that the individual, as traditionally conceived, remains the primary agent in the economic landscape.

This paper proposes a simple but radical question: what if we have been looking at the economy from the wrong perspective? What if the true adaptive agents in modern economic systems are not individuals, but organizations?

To entertain this possibility, we must first revisit the pillars of mainstream economics. One of the most cherished assumptions is that individuals possess stable, exogenous preferences. They are presumed to know what they want, to evaluate choices freely, and to act accordingly. But a century of research in psychology, advertising, behavioral economics, and digital sociology demonstrates something different. Preferences are not merely expressed; they are actively constructed. Corporations design the informational environments in which people think, feel, and choose. Marketing systems shape desire. Digital architectures structure attention. Recommendation algorithms channel perception. Behavioral engineering orchestrates decision-making through subtle nudges that most individuals cannot detect, let alone resist. In such an environment, the notion of an autonomous consumer expressing independent preferences becomes increasingly untenable.

Equally fragile is the idea of free markets populated by equal competitors. Idealized markets assume decentralization and voluntary exchange, but the empirical reality is one of concentrated power. Dominant firms shape regulatory frameworks, influence political agendas, and engineer competitive landscapes in their favor. Through lobbying, campaign finance, and regulatory capture, corporations exert a gravitational pull on states, steering policy and institutional evolution. What results is not a spontaneous order arising from dispersed individual action, but an engineered environment sculpted by organizations with the capacity to modify their constraints.

Traditional models also reduce firms to simple production functions, passive black boxes that transform inputs into outputs. This abstraction conceals the dynamic, adaptive nature of real organizations. Research in organizational ecology shows that firms behave less like machines and more like living species, subject to selection pressures, niche formation, mortality, and reproduction. Evolutionary economics adds that organizations possess routines that function analogously to genetic traits, enabling them to adapt and evolve. Institutional theorists emphasize how organizations develop internal logics, habits, and trajectories that persist independently of individual intentions. Legal scholars go further, noting that corporate personhood grants these entities rights, responsibilities, and continuity equivalent to a form of artificial life.

Taken together, this research invites us to reconsider the nature of agency within the economic system. Organizations appear to act, respond, adapt, and pursue survival in ways that strongly resemble teleological agents. Meanwhile, individuals, those whom economics has traditionally treated as the sovereign authors of economic outcomes, find themselves increasingly enclosed within environments designed by these organizational actors. Human behavior becomes data, input, or substrate; humans become labor resources, attention reservoirs, and nodes within feedback systems aimed at organizational stability and growth.

This does not imply malevolence or conspiracy. It suggests evolution. Complex systems tend toward structures that reinforce the persistence of their most adaptable components. Corporations and institutions have been shaped by competitive pressures, technological infrastructures, and legal frameworks that collectively push them toward autonomy. As they grow, they generate and refine cybernetic loops that sense human behavior, interpret it through data analytics, modify environments in response, and reinforce behavioral patterns that stabilize their own operation. States, rather than acting solely on behalf of individuals, often become part of these loops, either as regulators, partners, or instruments of coordination among large-scale organizations.

If this interpretation is correct, then the modern economy has indeed moved to a new evolutionary state. The agent–environment structure assumed by mainstream economics has inverted. Individuals remain participants, but not prime movers. The true adaptive agents are organizational entities whose scale, continuity, and capacity for environmental design give them a form of agency that dwarfs that of human actors embedded within them.

A more formal understanding of this shift would require new modeling frameworks. Ecological models could represent the interactions between organizations, humans, and states as co-evolving populations with distinct resource requirements and strategies. Cybernetic models could capture the feedback loops through which organizations sense, shape, and stabilize the environments that sustain them. Evolutionary game theory could articulate the strategic dynamics among organizations, states, and individuals, showing how certain strategies, those that enhance organizational autonomy and influence, become evolutionarily stable over time.

Such models remain largely undeveloped in economics, not because the phenomena they would describe are absent, but because the discipline continues to privilege the individual as the natural unit of analysis. This leaves mainstream economic theory blind to many forces shaping today’s world and increasingly unable to predict or explain economic outcomes. When firms behave like organisms, when states act as coordination mechanisms between powerful actors, and when human preferences are systematically engineered, the conventional assumptions of rational individuals interacting through free markets no longer hold.

This brings us to the central question: who are the true agents in the modern economy? Are individuals still the drivers of economic dynamics, or have corporations evolved into the dominant actors whose actions shape the possibilities available to individuals? And, if the latter is true, then to what extent can traditional economic models, models that overlook organizational agency, provide accurate predictions or meaningful policy insights?

These questions do not merely challenge the intellectual foundation of mainstream economics. They invite us to reconsider the nature of economic life itself, demanding a shift in the way we understand power, agency, and the structure of our collective future.

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

The Quiet Erosion of the State’s Hidden Power

For centuries, the modern state has rested on a silent foundation: its monopoly over truth. Not in the philosophical sense, but in the practical one, the power to decide what counts as real in the social and economic world. A property deed, a birth certificate, a contract, a marriage, all of these exist because a state-backed notary, registry, or court says so. Behind every official stamp lies an invisible asymmetry: the state sees, records, and validates, while citizens merely comply. This asymmetry has been the cornerstone of administrative power, legal order, and fiscal control. 

But this quiet architecture of trust is now under attack. Blockchain technology, with its immutable ledgers and cryptographic certainty, is displacing the institutional foundations on which the state’s authority rests. It replaces public faith with mathematical proof, and in doing so, tears out the epistemic roots of bureaucratic power. A notary’s seal no longer defines authenticity, a hash and timestamp can do it better, faster, and without appeal to any sovereign. The state’s monopoly over what is legally “true” begins to evaporate in a cloud of code.

As more documents, titles, and agreements move onto decentralized ledgers, the state’s jurisdictional grip weakens. Enforcement shifts from courts to self-executing contracts. Compliance is no longer ensured by fear of authority, but by the cold finality of algorithms. The bureaucratic machinery, once sustained by paper, signatures, and oaths, finds itself bypassed by networks that operate beyond its reach and without its permission. What used to require a public office can now be achieved by protocolic consensus among anonymous peers.

And with that, the state loses not only its epistemic sovereignty but its privileged visibility. For the first time, citizens, or rather, networked agents, can observe, verify, and act with the same informational power as the institutions that once watched over them. The asymmetry collapses. The one who used to know everything becomes just another participant in a transparent system that owes it no allegiance.

This is not a technological shift. It is an existential one. The state’s authority has always been tied to its control of records, of validation, of legal memory. Blockchain technology slices through that link, dissolving the very medium through which governments project their invisible power. What remains is uncertain, perhaps liberation, perhaps chaos, but one thing is clear: the monopoly of truth, once the quiet privilege of the state, is slipping away into the code.

 

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

Multitude Manifesto - Part 1

Things are changing fast. We are rewriting the Multitude Manifesto. You are invited to contribute. Start by commenting below. - last modified on Mar. 30 2011

  

---------------------------------------------

Dear humans, 

We are at a crossroads.

Our society is evolving and if everything else maintains its course, we'll take a turn towards more freedom or we slide into tyranny. The chances seem to be stacked in our favor, the multitude, but we still need to do our best to escape tyranny. History is part destiny, part luck and in part man made.

Civilizations go in cycles. When development is not interrupted by exogenous causes, setting aside the possibility of a cataclysmic event, civilizations take shape, consolidate their structures and grow, get corrupted from within and collapse. We are at the latest stage.

We are witnessing the greatest socioeconomic transition in human history, set in motion by a new potential. On the one hand, this potential is actualized by us, the multitude, to build a p2p society. On the other hand, those in positions of power use this new potential to build a dystopian technocratic society. The left-right dichotomy of the past has been flipped sideways into a top-down antagonism, understood as a struggle between those who seek freedom through decentralization and those who seek domination through centralized control.
 
Every time a new technology is introduced, a new potential is created.  The invention of the telegraph allowed instantaneous long-distance communication, which changed the way governments and companies operated. Since digital technology connects individuals across time and space, it gives rise to a new form of organization, the open network.

The Internet acts as a medium where various types of catalysts (purpose, motivation, incentives) can sum forces from an arbitrarily large pool of independent actors, which can form massive ad hoc collaborative networks (collective intelligence), being able to rapidly channel tremendous amounts of resources (crowdsource), and to carry out very complex actions (swarm). Linux, the open source operating system, Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, and Bitcoin, the bankless cash, are just a few examples.
Sometimes, this coherence emerges and exerts a negative impact on society. Both constructive or destructive human swarms are now possible, being hard to contain by the centralized power structure that is currently in place, rapidly becoming obsolete.  

The possibility of stable, sustainable global-scale open networks is no more questionable, they exist in almost all spheres of human activity. If we listen carefully to Ronald Coase, we can also understand why they are possible. In essence, the Internet reduces transaction costs among individuals. We join other people into an arrangement, we join organizations, if we have more to gain than operating independently.

The type of arrangement depends on the type or the area of activity. Thus we can form private and public institutions, co-ops and non profit organizations. We live in cities, build nation states and form international alliances. Today we can also organize as global, transnational open networks. There is a blueprint for every type of organization, which prescribes a set of relations or roles, policies, methods and procedures, as well as capturing and redistribution mechanisms for valuables. People decide to restrict their individual autonomy by entering in relation with others according to an organizational blueprint, that is to join an organization, to increase their collective capacity beyond the sum of their individual capacities and, in doing so, to benefit from their collective output. If they don't gain in capacity and benefits, they will likely operate alone until a new form of organization that provides greater advantages emerges, if possible.

The Internet with the recent p2p technologies (blockchain and others) that the open culture has built on top of it make open networks a new possible arrangement, where the cost-s benefits ratio for a new type of global scale collaboration is favorable. Open networks do exist and some of them are highly innovative and very efficient in production and distribution, or dissemination, of their outputs. How can we understand this fact?

The open source movement has democratized 3D printing and drones and has created blockchain, which are some of the most disruptive technologies in the past two decades. Also, despite the negative press on Bitcoin and its energy consumption, it only represents a small fraction of the energy consumption of the banking system. It is also the most secure exchange network that humanity has ever built.

Yochay Benkler identifies two reasons for understanding why open networks can outcompete traditional organizations. The first one is related to what economists call information opportunity cost. In essence, it says that open networks perform better in complex situations where a lot of information needs to be processed in order to seize opportunities and produce good responses to events. The second reason refers to what economists call the resource allocation problem. Open networks do better in matching skills to tasks and allocating resources to the right activity.
 

In ancient times, the tribe's socioeconomic structure was effective when the in-group was less than ~150 people, and one could remember reputation, debts and favors for each member of the tribe. Since then, religions, nation-states, and corporations have all taken our ability to collaborate on synergistic goals to new levels of achievement. Today, Michel Bauwens speaks about peak hierarchy: horizontality is starting to trump verticality, it is becoming more competitive to be distributed, than to be (de)centralized. If we go back to Ronald Coase, hierarchies have higher costs due to excessive overhead for bureaucracy (an army of paper pushing middle men), a lack of transparency, coherence, speed & efficiency. Open networks seem to be poised for domination.

All these transformations are not the desire of a group of individuals. There is no ideology underlying this movement. It just happens because the conditions are right, because a new potential exists and people all over the world respond to it, intuitively understanding the benefits that it offers. But disruptive changes are usually met with resistance. Sooner or later those who benefit from the status quo come to understand the threat that the change poses to their situation and they start to oppose it. A conflict takes shape between them and those who already benefit from the new potential. The church opposed the enlightenment by denigrating the scientific method and by banning the printing press, trying to stop the spread of new ideas. Monarchs opposed the shift to a free market economy and to parliamentary democracy, fueled by the industrial revolution. Today, states go after cryptocurrency, which symbolizes the movement of decentralization. In all these cases a technology was at the heart of the movement: the printing press for spreading non-dogmatic ideas, the steam engine for spreading new modes of production, the Internet for facilitating new ways of organizing. It is easier to crash an organized movement based on ideas. History shows that it is almost impossible to stop a diffused transformation based on a new potential.

Fundamentally speaking the new potential comes from disruptions in three key areas:
Communication: The Internet makes possible many-to-many communication at global scale, in a p2p way (i.e. non-intermediated).
Coordination: The Internet makes possible stigmergic coordination, allowing huge numbers of individuals to swarm into action like never before.
Collaboration: The Internet allows many minds to think together, many arms to swing together. In other words, it gives rise to social intelligence, makes possible massive crowdsourcing and facilitates the deployment of complex activities based on stigmergy.

In sum, we are witnessing the emergence of a peer-to-peer society, which has its own load of good and bad. On the good side of things, it strikes a balance between the individual and communities. It transfers power to the individual, allowing open access to participation in all socioeconomic processes, within the boundaries of community, or network, self-imposed rules. 

At the economic level, individuals in a p2p society have the ability to coordinate their efforts, transact among themselves, co-create and distribute their creations, while bypassing hierarchical intermediary institutions, thus escaping the established power structure, which is designed to perpetuate economic dependence. We are witnessing the emergence of a new mode of production, commons-based peer production, the formation of a p2p economy, operating outside of the market and beyond the reach of nation states.

The powerful urge to escape bondage is putting pressure on the multitude to adopt a new culture, one that is compatible with the new modes of production and dissemination of essential goods and services, the open culture. This new culture is built on a new set of values such as sharing, openness and transparency. Sharing means new forms of property, commons and nondominium that are applied to open source technologies and blockchain networks. Openness means access to processes, permissionless. Transparency means unhindered access to information about pretty much everything related to the process.

An embryonic new world is already taking shape within the old world. The metamorphosis process has already begun its irreversible course. There is clear evidence that material resources are starting to flow from the old system into the new, including a massive transfer of talents and skills. For those who perfected the old system and have everything to lose, all their levers of power are simply melting in their hands. Their media is now called fake news, their financial system is called a scam, their politics is called a shared, their economy is synonymous with slavery and environmental degradation. The embryonic p2p society operates on entirely different principles and cannot be controlled from within the old system. It is transnational, i.e. beyond the power of the state and of any international institution -try to kill the Bitcoin network.

We are experiencing the largest social transition since the Industrial Revolution. But make no mistake, this is not the Great Reset you've heard about, quite the opposite.

 

-------------------------------

Other parts to come:

• History of the multitude movement
• About power
• System under siege, different angles of attack
• System is fighting back, dead angles

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

What is p2p music?

The open culture rewires our society. p2p practices have been applied to all spheres of human activity, but our relation to music is still a one-way affair: a musician writes a song and you consume it passively.

By design, p2p processes allow many-to-many interactions. They brake the asymmetry between producers and consumers that we find in capitalism and socialism. In other words, anyone can engage in co-creation and the fruits of collaboration are not distributed as products but rather disseminated as commons. 

So what is p2p music? It must be open (not canned as a finished product) and participatory (allowing anyone to add to a musical experience).

If p2p music is not created to be distributed as a product, how can it  sustain those who engage in its creation and dissemination?

The video below explores these questions and more... Feel free to engage in this reflection by commenting below or directly on the video, on YouTube.

 

By AllOfUs

Please donate!

Networks of networks

This is just a first draft... I copied this text from an email and will add to it later. Last modified on Mar 02, 2022

 

---------------

 

Living systems theory is at the core of p2p. 

Life requires flow. Organized flows require support and structure.

 

All the p2p talk is about new forms of living systems, open networks. That's the new thing and the novelty makes this field interesting, because we need to understand the potential of these new creatures. Are they going to coexist with hierarchical forms of organizations and be dominated by hierarchies or are they going to dominate hierarchies? Is Bitcoin (or an OVN similar to it) going to replace banks in the future, which rule the world of exchange?  Are Youtubers going to crash mainstream institutional media?

Open value networks have always existed, but we have never considered them seriously for organizing society. What makes them interesting now? Their potential is much greater today, because the Internet acts as a medium that allows open networks to grow and spread to global proportions.

Coase made us understand why large scale networks can exist. Benkler showed us why they can out-compete hierarchies. But open networks are nothing like an open community, which can be seen as a unit. Open networks are fractal. They are made of smaller open networks and can themselves easily coalesce into larger open networks. In other words, open networks "try to discover" new ways to connect among themselves. It's in their nature.

This trend is clearly happening in the blockchain space, with new blockchains sitting on top of other blockchains (L2) or connecting/linking other blockchains together. Blockchains are open networks (the permissionless ones, not the fake ones).

I think that we should not need intermediaries to be able to connect open networks together.

Paula: Connecting networks (provided they are on the same platform?)

Open networks should not need to be represented on another platform to be able to connect. They should just plug into each other without the need of an intermediary platform. In other words, all open networks need to build their own "attachment sites" and share some type of protocol. This is how biology works, molecules and proteins interacting together based on their internal structure, their affinities, and based on some "rules" described by biochemistry. This type of permissionless linkage doesn't lead to chaos or disorder, if the affinities are well specified and the rules are clear. The fact that I am here typing on this keyboard is good proof that it works well enough. But unfortunately today we are still trapped in the platform paradigm. For example, https://automate.io and  https://ifttt.com are interconnectivity services built with the wrong (platform) approach. They offer the connection as a service and act as a middlemen. Today there is a need for that, because every service has been designed as a stand alone, with little consideration for interoperability (other than providing an API to grow an ecosystem in which they are at the center), which is a platform mentality, wrong. All these connectivity services will be put out of business once the design paradigm shifts to consider interconnectivity as a design priority, which is the next logical step. A lot of web development effort today goes into integration. We see that with Discord, things like Bots or Webhooks, which do not necessarily depend on a third party but act as a direct pipe between Discord and Github for example.

These linkages among open networks allow new flows, of various types. 

 

New web3 crowdfunding platforms like Gitcoin play an important role today, they are a source of funding, which

1. increases the metabolism of every network
2. stimulates networks to build connections among themselves, if this flow feeds different networks at the same time

In neuroscience they say that neurons that fire together network together. Networks seem to connect if they are rewarded together based on their concomitant interaction with the environment. Luckily, Gitcoin has built a nice feature that allows grants (proposals) to be bundled together as collections, so that they can present synergy and be discovered by donors at once. This is a grant that sensoricans created, which can be put into a collection with other grants, perhaps TaoDao and use a portion of the funds to build internal structures for each of these networks that allows them to interconnect. Shared funding as a stimulus to grow new connections between open networks. 

 

By Tibi

Please donate!

How material resources are handled in peer production

A presentation of the use of a network resource planning and contribution accounting system (NRP-CAS) in material peer production.

 

 

 

By AllOfUs