I appreciate the many offers and references to technologies, tokens, protocols, and products.
I also feel I need to keep asking myself is I am starting from the tool, or from the living system?
Am I trying to fit a community into a protocol, or am I really listening to how care, labour, trust, memory, repair, production, and future commitments already move?
This work keeps reminding me to slow (the f*ck) down.
Before asking whether a technology can be integrated, I want to better understand the underlying patterns.
What is the economy here, in practice? What obligations already exist? What should be measured, and what should not be reduced? Where might a tool help? Where might it distort, extract, or capture attention?
I am much more interested in alliances than integrations.
And I need to hold that standard for my own work too.
The question I want to keep returning to is not:
Can this community use this protocol?
But:
Can I be of service to a living settlement system without making my tool, model, or theory the center?
I didn’t mention Holochain because the protocols are meant to be tech-agnostic and, in a sense, ancient.
The important layer is not one specific stack, but the capacity to curate, value, limit, exchange, relay, and repair commitments across pools. That can use blockchains, pool relays, peer-to-peer architectures, local ledgers, or witnessed agreements depending on context.
I’d be very happy to see these patterns implemented on
@Holochain . The point is not to make communities fit the technology, but to let the technology serve living settlement systems.
For now they work quite well on
@ethereum thank you!