Participation Framework
Draft Participation Framework for Review [Dec 1, 15:41] Drafted by: Initial working group convened at COP30 and Global coordination sessions
This coalition consists of entities experimenting with protocols for voluntary coordination. The coalition proposes a re-engineering of how collective action and resource allocation can be coordinated.
A key insight is separating:
Publishing (what is, what I have/need)
Derivation (what we can infer collectively) a. Recognition (who/what contributes) b. Allocation (how we divide our capacities)
Implications & Significance:
Sovereignty and Interoperability: Participants retain full control over their own data, recognitions, and capacity allocations. The system enables collaboration without requiring surrender of autonomy.
Automation of Cooperation: The vision is to have a significant portion of capacity/resource allocation (funding, technical support) be automatically derived based on the state of network data, drastically reducing transaction costs and delays.
Participants may publish/derive data from local/network-data:: For example capacities, needs, recognitions, proportions, collective membership, environmental data, qualities, goals, estimates, sources for deriving, filters and their applications, or any other data.
Key derivations include:
Recognition (R): Acknowledgement of contributions to the realization of one’s priorities/values.
Relative-Recognition (RR): Recognition normalized over Total Recognition to obtain proportions of 100%. Each participant has a fixed "budget" of total-recognition to divide and attribute. This normalization forces prioritization and trade-offs. Recognition is non-transferable and dynamically adjustable. Each participant can allocate recognition to entities who contribute to achieving their goals/priorities.
Mutual-Recognition (MR): Calculated as the lower of relative-recognition percentages that two entities assign to each other: MR(X,Y) = min(X_rec_of_Y, Y_rec_of_X). This creates perfect reciprocity in proportion. A one-sided relationship where A recognizes B highly (ex: 50%), but B recognizes A little (ex: 1%) is valued at the lower amount (ex: 1%), discouraging free-riding and encouraging mutual engagement and support.
Relative Mutual-Recognition (RMR): Mutual-Recognition normalized over Total Mutual-Recognition to obtain proportions of 100%. When we recognize each other, we have mutual-recognition of mutual-value and can choose to allocate our capacities to each-other in precise proportion to how relatively mutually-fulfilling we are to each other.
Collective-Mutual-Recognition (CMR): For a recognized member set, each member's mutual-recognitions with other members summed and normalized over the Total Pool of all mutual-recognitions between all members: Share(Member) = Σ MR(Member, Others) / Σ MR(all pairs). Members with stronger network integration have proportionally more influence. Used when contribution should be weighted by relationship strength.
Collective-Relative-Mutual-Recognition (CRMR): For a recognized member set, each member's relative-mutual-recognitions (normalized to 100%) treated as equal votes, then aggregated: Share(Member) = Σ RMR_votes_for_Member / Total_Members. Each member has equal voting power regardless of network position. Used when equal voice is desired (governance, democratic contexts).
Mutual-Recognition-Density (MRD): Measures network integration depth by normalizing participant's total mutual-recognition against network average: MRD(i) = Σ MR(i, members) / Average_MRS. Can be used for membership determination (when MRD ≥ threshold, typically 0.5) enabling membership to emerge from relationship depth. Average can be calculated from current members (collective model: coherent, rising bar) or all participants (commons model: open, stable bar) — naturally resistant to Sybil attacks and collusion while providing transparent onboarding paths.
Note, distribution choice reflects: whose contribution-recognitions should be taken into account when formulating proportions to prioritize allocations? — individual control suggests relative-recognition/relative-mutual-recognition, cooperatively-realized capacities suggest collective-mutual-recognition (weighted by contribution) or collective-relative-mutual-recognition (equal voice).
Participants can publish/propose/offer/allocate with the help of protocols of their choosing.
For example: Multi-provider-need-satisfaction where providers allocate capacity proportionally (Provider_Capacity × Share) capped at declared needs (min(Raw_Allocation, Declared_Need)), with remaining needs updating across rounds (max(0, Declared_Need - Total_Received)) until equilibrium.
The system naturally promotes accurate recognition through mathematical necessity: Entities define their goals/priorities subjectively, but achieving them depends on objective access to capacities and partnerships.
↑
increase in
↓
decreases in
∴
therefore
FOR ANY PARTICIPANT: GIVEN: • Total Recognition = 100% • Capacities distributed ∝ Relative-(Mutual-)Recognition • Goals require access to specific capacities/partnerships THEN: ↑ Recognition allocated to non-beneficial partners ∴ ∝ ↓ Recognition available for beneficial partners [total-relative-recognition budget constraint] ∴ ↓ Mutual-Recognition with beneficial partners ∴ ↓ Access to needed capacities [proportional allocation] ∴ ↓ Goal Achievement ∴ RESULT: Natural incentive to correct recognition allocation
Key Implication: The system creates natural incentives for accurate recognition. Inflating or misattributing recognition only decreases connection to beneficial partners and capacities. Entities that maintain accurate recognition patterns receive better-aligned capacities and achieve better outcomes.
Agnostic to Institutionalized Intermediation
Traditional coordination operates via enforcement infrastructure (property, governance, currency, jurisdiction, markets) to force coordination flow through standardized interfaces.
This framework bypasses institutionalized intermediaries by asking: "Whose perspective should be taken into account in formulating the allocation of this capacity?"
Intermediaries become optional:
Property (who owns) → allocate via own/synthetic recognition
Governance (who decides) → each autonomously decides whose recognition to include
Currency (medium of exchange) → value flows directly as capacity based on recognition
Jurisdiction (which rules) → emerges from mutual recognition of protocols
Markets (price signals) → value directly expressed through recognition allocations
Why this works: Recognition is more fundamental than reified coordination layers. Direct protocol using mutual recognition as primitive enables coordination without building enforcement infrastructure first.
Key properties:
Interoperability: Worker cooperative ↔ sole proprietor ↔ state enterprise coordinate via same protocol
Minimal infrastructure: Recognition declaration + mathematical algorithms + communication protocol; everything else optional
Power as exit/voice: Cannot force others to include your perspective; can only choose whose recognition you include
Scale invariance: Individual → collective → organization → global; same mechanism, only computation scales
What remains:
Required agreement: Mathematics for distributions, protocol for communication
Local choice: How to determine recognition, generate capacity, organize internally, whether to use traditional intermediaries as convenience layers
Contested domain: Whose contribution recognized and how much — social/epistemic (learning) not structural/legal (enforcement)
The framework enables direct relational coordination at any scale without requiring agreement on intermediate structures.
Last updated