How each model solves the same problems
Instead of “democracy versus anarchism”, compare the concrete ways collective problems get solved.
| Question | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Unknown | Each listed body sets its own well-being objectives and steps; the Welsh Ministers publish national indicators and a future trends report after each election. | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | Veto periods with appeal and resubmission; Foundation moderation and Code of Conduct enforcement; suspension of suspected Sybil citizens. | Unknown | The Commissioner may review a body and recommend; the body must take reasonable steps to follow or publish reasons (s 22). The Auditor General examines application of the principle. | |
| How are public goods funded? | Retro Funding and grants financed by a treasury that receives a share of Superchain revenue. | Unknown | Covers the Welsh Ministers, local authorities, health boards, national park authorities and other listed bodies; public services boards plan locally. | |
| 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. | Unknown | 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. | Unknown | Soft 'follow or explain' enforcement; procedural compliance; difficulty measuring long-term and preventative benefits. |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.