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 | A 28-member General Council (half elected by parish, half by national list) elects the head of government; the co-princes sanction laws with countersignature. | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | Veto periods with appeal and resubmission; Foundation moderation and Code of Conduct enforcement; suspension of suspected Sybil citizens. | A four-member Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the co-princes and the General Council; ordinary courts. | |
| How are public goods funded? | Retro Funding and grants financed by a treasury that receives a share of Superchain revenue. | Health, education and infrastructure funded by indirect, corporate and personal taxes; parishes run local services. | |
| 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 specific role for AI. | |
| 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. | Clash between the episcopal co-prince and legislation such as abortion; exclusion of non-citizens; dependence on France, Spain and the EU. |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.