How each model solves the same problems
Instead of “democracy versus anarchism”, compare the concrete ways collective problems get solved.
| Question | + Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| How are decisions made? | Token House votes by OP holdings (30% quorum; 51% or 76% thresholds); Citizens' House votes one member one vote; both can veto protocol upgrades reviewed by a Developer Advisory Board.Digital identity | Communes and elected councils at neighbourhood, district, canton and inter-region levels; co-chairs and a 40% minimum quota for either sex (Rojava Information Center).Popular assembly | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | Veto periods with appeal and resubmission; Foundation moderation and Code of Conduct enforcement; suspension of suspected Sybil citizens. | Commune reconciliation committees; regional Justice Councils administer tribunals and coordinate sentencing guidelines (Rojava Information Center). | |
| How are public goods funded? | Retro Funding and grants financed by a treasury that receives a share of Superchain revenue. | Regional offices and commissions for health, economy and natural resources; the administration controlled the area's oil extraction until integration (Crisis Group). | |
| How is AI used? | None in decision-making; Retro Funding moved towards metrics-based allocation computed by software, and AI assistants for voters have been proposed by community members. | No documented AI role. | |
| What are the main risks? | Low tokenholder engagement, Foundation discretion over citizenship and treasury, difficulty measuring impact, and token-price dependence of public-goods budgets. | Turkish military action; reliance on external security partners; documented displacement abuses; contested terms of integration with Damascus.CLM-0279CLM-0280 |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.