We had discussed a bit about Eve yesterday, and HERE is an article I wrote about it (from a layman’s view) a while back for the Society of Problem Solvers blog.
1 Like
Love the emphasis on self-sovereignty and invite-only trust networks. The reputation-linking system — where vouching for someone puts your own standing on the line — is exactly the kind of skin-in-the-game mechanism these spaces need.
One thing I’d push on: the interview mentions communities can add governance tools, task management, shared docs, custom-built tools — but getting people aligned on a shared toolkit is itself the hard first step. Before any of this scales, someone needs to get groups on video, agree on common tools (office suite, mindmapping, annotation), and actually onboard people. That’s the unsexy Chapter 0 work that makes everything else possible.
Bigger picture: decentralization isn’t the same as distribution. Sovereign communities are great — but they still need ways to coordinate across boundaries without re-centralizing. That federation layer is where the real developmental edge is. Writing something on this — will share when it’s ready.
1 Like
Really good points Roni. Decentralization plus coordnation = results. We are advocates for collective swarm intelligence systems for coordination. Are you familiar with this term? This is the 101 basics if you are not: Collective "Swarm" Intelligence 101: How To Fix The World
Yes absolutely. And also a requirement, imo. Also, this is likely redundant for you, still i’ll point: the “as it happens” is important because nobodies going to have the perfect systems - actually they are already articulated in theory, imo. But we have to just develop and work out kinks as it happens. I notice people on here and substack et al, branches have already anticipated scale, problems and workarounds. So that’s good to see.
i haven’t tested or been involved with swarm dynamics in action though. I would certainly like to get involved somehow. Orientation, navigating chaos , language maps, that’s kind of my jam.
one more thing that might be an add as i have been paying attention to some critics - with valid points to be fair. A fairy simple enough applicability that current public discourse can’t seem to grasp: rules for me and for thee. Any moral model can’t apply nuance and exceptions for their own tribe, elites, or the architect of said model. verification isn’t beyond reach either: flip the script! always be flippin the script. As well as of course functional transparency and consent to subjectification.
The first point is easy on paper. But difficult in real life. The radical transparency, imo also requires radical acceptance , compassion stuff like that. We can’t pick and choose our sympathies. And we require to be aware of global proportions, squeeky wheels get the grease problems. point is chaos is beautiful in its all inclusivity - we need a place before order then develop too contexts so when there are real problems of prejudice we can deal with them in-situ not apply accross the globe - i hope and assume people see how that can happen.
anyways i’m following this group as i believe y’all are carrying the torch on the group and mass decision making process. Please reach out if there is something in particular or video-conferencing, etc. I’m interested in the prototype beta work or test cases.
Also - i get that i can come out ranty and discursive… imo there is a time and space for that and actually a good starting point. But it’s also can overwhelm some people - point here is - please let me know, if there is a communicative style or etiquette prefered - i can adapt as it happens - i appreciate swarm academy holding this space. in the meantime i’ll continue trying to “read the room” 
1 Like
Not ranty at all! Really great incites and I agree with all of them. We need a place to talk that isn’t totally owned by Wall Street, and old school forums like this avoid bad alogrithims.
Really great point about “as it happens”…. We cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
Thanks!
Josh
1 Like