Taipei, summer 2015. Audrey Tang stands before a screen filled with coloured dots. Each dot is a person who entered their opinion on whether Uber should be permitted in Taiwan. The dots group themselves into clusters according to how similarly people think. Nobody shouts. Nobody prevails. Instead, statements that more than eighty percent of participants agree with rise to the top. Six months later the Taiwanese parliament passes an Uber regulation built on that consensus.
The platform is called vTaiwan. By 2024 it had contributed to more than twenty-six national laws. It uses a tool called Pol.is, built by Colin Megill in Seattle, that deliberately seeks consensus. It shows not who shouts loudest but which statements find the broadest agreement across all camps. This shift of focus changes how participants behave. You know that a statement only half the room agrees with will have less visibility. The incentive is not to polarise but to build bridges.
vTaiwan grew out of the Sunflower Movement of 2014, when students occupied the Taiwanese parliament for twenty-four days to protest a trade agreement being waved through without public debate. Audrey Tang, who helped coordinate the protest digitally, later became Taiwan’s first digital minister. What began as an occupation ended as an institution.
Around the same time, Barcelona launched Decidim, a platform that handles participatory budgets, petitions, citizens’ council procedures and legislative consultations in one open-source package. By 2024 it runs in over five hundred installations across more than thirty countries. More than three million people have taken part. Madrid developed Consul, its sister platform, deployed in over a hundred and forty cities from Buenos Aires to Reykjavík. Loomio came out of the New Zealand Occupy movement, focused on decision-making in cooperatives and small groups. A British organisation built the lottery software that draws the lots for citizens’ assemblies in Ireland, France and Wales.
This is not a single platform. It is an ecology. Different tools for different procedures, all open source, all reproducible, none dependent on a single organisation. Then there is Estonia.
In 1991, after the Soviet Union collapsed, Estonia was a country with almost no modern infrastructure. Instead of building it up the long way, it chose a leap: the Tiigrihüpe, Tiger Leap, into digital administration. By 2024, 99.9 percent of administrative services are available online. Tax returns take five minutes. Founding a company takes eighteen. Only three acts still require physical presence: marrying, divorcing, transferring property.
The architectural principle matters. Data are not stored centrally. They stay with the authorities that hold them. An interface called X-Road connects these distributed stores. When you show a document to the police, they verify your identity through X-Road against the civil registry, but they have no direct access to the civil registry database. Every query is logged. You can see at any time which authority accessed which of your data and when. X-Road is open source. Finland adopted it, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, several African countries.
The essay put the unifying principle in a sentence: it belongs to no one, and therefore to everyone. A commons is structurally different from state property. A state database belongs to the government of the day and can be privatised, closed, restricted at any time. A commons belongs to no one. Wikipedia has survived two decades because no one can close it. Linux has survived three because no one can switch off its development. Decidim will persist as long as somewhere in the world people use it, even if the original team in Barcelona stops.
From this the serial extracts the single design decision the whole coordination architecture follows: separate by what scales.
Linus Torvalds, twenty-one years old, posted to a newsgroup in 1991: just a hobby, won’t be big and professional. Today Linux runs on practically every server in the world, most smartphones, supercomputers, routers, cars. More Linux devices exist than people. Nobody planned this. Nobody had to agree on it. Nobody fought for a market share.
Wikipedia launched the same decade with the same property. Today sixty million articles in over three hundred languages. Accuracy in many fields comparable with Britannica. Carried by a non-profit with a small budget and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. Both Linux and Wikipedia are commons. Both scale planet-wide effortlessly. Both need no central command.
The difference that makes this possible is economic. A rival good is one whose use by one person restricts use by others: an apple, a piece of land, a theatre seat, status. Try to aggregate binding decisions about rival goods upward to large scales, and the coordination costs grow exponentially. Trust is replaced by contracts, contracts by bureaucracy, bureaucracy by corruption. The system collapses.
A non-rival good is one whose use by one person does not restrict use by others: a song, a thought, a set of building instructions, a mathematical formula. These goods actually become better the more people use them. A language grows richer with its speakers. A software tool grows more reliable with its users. Wikipedia grows more accurate with its editors. No one has to agree. Anyone can edit or fork.
And there is a third category often missed: anti-rival goods, which actively rise in value with the number of users. Language is the classic example. Linux is anti-rival: more developers make it more stable, safer, more versatile. A commons with three contributors withers. One with a hundred thousand grows.
The design decision follows directly. The binding stays in the near, in small groups where embodied relationship is at work. District assemblies, neighbourhood councils, participatory budgets. The non-rival circulates in the distant, in planetary commons. Wikipedia, Linux, Decidim, open standards, shared tools.
This separation is frequently violated today, always in the same direction. We try to aggregate binding decisions onto nation-states, the EU, the UN. We try to enclose non-rival goods through patents, copyrights, non-disclosure agreements. Both violations produce pathologies. When binding decisions are aggregated too high, they fall into the hands of elites no longer connected to those they govern. When non-rival goods are enclosed, innovation is choked and wealth disparities sharpen.
Elinor Ostrom documented hundreds of functioning physical commons in Governing the Commons: irrigation systems in Spain and the Philippines that have worked for centuries, alpine pasture management in Switzerland, fishery commons in Maine. She extracted eight principles: clear boundaries, local adaptation, collective choice, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict resolution, recognition of self-organisation, polycentric embedding. These eight principles, from the guild layer upward, carry heliogenic coordination.
to read the full series in English go to
um die ganze Serie auf Deutsch zu lesen:
