SOS Systems · Shared governance
SOS Systems is the connective tissue of a Decentralized Autonomous Organism. Its rules are meant to help people coordinate, recognise what sustains a shared life and decide how the system grows.
These are founding principles and questions under development. They describe the direction of the governance; the mechanisms still have to earn trust through use, scrutiny and revision.
Personal space. Physical and mental protection. Basic needs. Privacy. Sovereignty. Freedom of choice and voice. Our founding direction places these with every person, regardless of their measured contribution.
Contribution and impact can shape responsibility and influence over shared systems. A person’s dignity and basic voice do not have to be earned through work. Umahn concerns distinct human participation; a contribution record concerns what someone has helped make possible.
Progress towards prosperity for all means needs met, continuing care funded, ecological responsibilities kept and power open to challenge. Review must include the people least well served and those bearing costs elsewhere. Participation and output are part of that picture; they cannot stand in for the whole.
Manifest can make needs and contributions visible. SideGigs can preserve evidence of work. Bloom can connect learning to what it enables. Those records inform judgment; deciding what they mean requires accountable people and rules. Financial backing through Koink.Fun also needs clear terms; a token purchase is not itself an impact assessment.
The World Observatory explores these trade-offs through a synthetic simulation. Its thresholds are assumptions to examine, not adopted governance rules or evidence of real-world outcomes.
Explore the World Observatory →A launch creates continuing responsibilities. The design calls for a named owner, the people and resources needed, and a funding source for each recurring duty. Deferred care and maintenance must stay visible until resolved.
Expansion should wait when it would deepen essential-service shortfalls, unfunded care or ecological harm. Communities need an accountable review: who can pause the work, how affected people can challenge that decision and what evidence would allow it to resume.
Explore care, renewal and expansion in the Tusita model →Otto can propose options and explain its reasoning. People affected by a decision need a human contact, independent review and a route to reconsideration or remedy. Reviewing an assessment and benefiting from it must be separate responsibilities.
These are design requirements. The appointment of reviewers, their funding, access to evidence and the handling of appeals still need to be developed and tested with people.
A shared goal is a starting point. These questions are part of making it workable, especially for people whose needs and contributions are easiest to miss.
The world model proposes institutions for rights, local decision making, recurring care, independent justice, shared evidence and ecological responsibilities. Its numerical relationships are assumptions to challenge, not a forecast of peace.
Contribute to this question →Progress towards prosperity for all includes needs met, sustained care, ecological health and accountable power. A useful assessment asks who benefits, who bears the cost and whether the effect lasts, including for the least-served people. Measures, independent assessors and appeal procedures remain to be defined.
Contribute to this question →A repaired tool, a steady carer and a prevented crisis can leave little visible evidence of what they made possible. The design requires time, pay and a funding source for continuing responsibilities, with deferred work kept visible. Accounts from people supported and review over time can help expose gaps. How that work informs impact judgments, and when a backlog should delay expansion, remain questions to resolve.
Contribute to this question →The founding direction includes personal space, physical and mental protection, basic needs, privacy, sovereignty, freedom of choice and a voice. These should belong to everyone regardless of measured contribution. Their practical scope, provision and means of redress still need to be defined.
Contribute to this question →Otto can help people examine evidence, test assumptions and simulate outcomes. Its design requires independent review, disclosed assumptions and a way for affected people to contest an assessment. Reviewers must be independent of those benefiting from their judgment. Their appointment, funding, access to evidence and route to a remedy remain to be worked out. A favorable simulation cannot approve its own use.
Contribute to this question →Purpose, dependency, necessity and urgency matter. So do consent, the people affected and the harm disclosure could cause. A route to emergency help and a request to train a shared model need different rules. The design needs to define what remains exclusively with the individual and how any exceptional access is limited, recorded and challenged. Collective usefulness alone is not a complete permission rule.
Contribute to this question →