Capture resistant

Refers to the inability of an inside or outside agents to benefit from a resource or a process in an unintended or undesired way, or to instrumentalize or use a resource or a process for one's personal and non-intended goals / gains.

The term hijacking a resource or a process is also used

Within organizations (including networks), Governance is used to avoid capture (capture resistant governance), by implementing principles and rules to block the usurpation of shared assets.

Higher authorities, such as the state, can create a legal framework (lows) to regulate access to resource, by legally framing property regimes. These laws make reference to punishment (a cost) for agents that break the rules. Thus, a state becomes a capture resistant environment, conducive to various socioeconomic activities. This also relates to trust in the environment and the processes within.

The blockchain technology has introduced new capture resistant mechanisms mainly implemented through smart contracts and by implementing the nondominium form of property.

While an agent can capture a shared resource by accumulating either fundamental (over the resource itself) or soft (over the agents that have fundamental) power over it, the biggest risk is associated with fundamental power. Networks are most susceptible to capture during action phases where fundamental power is wielded, and therefore those phases are where capture-resistant mechanisms are most crucial.

True commons

Proposed by Tibi.

It is a shared by default digital asset that no one in particular can unilaterally control (ex. no one owns), anyone has access to it under a given set of rules (to modify, improve, expand and even fork, in some circumstances).

From a post on Discord by Tibi

I see the possibility of forking as in making a copy of the data as a problem, in today's open source ecosystem, even if you're able to link to the original data and be able to trace back. This leads to the fractioning of development efforts and creates a lot of confusion, creates a lot of noise in the system. Sometimes there are hundreds copies (or slightly different versions) of the same electronic design or 3D model, stored in different places, and that generates a lot of work to figure out which is good, safe, which has been tested, etc. Moreover, having different digital assets representing essentially the same design makes it more difficult for interested agents to find each other and collaborate. It is much better to have one unenclosable digital asset representing a design (or family of designs) shared by everyone interested in it, with clear rules of engagement. A fork would mean creating something very different, a different specie, not another member of the same specie. The problem with the current Internet is that is makes it easy to copy. That's a great feature, but applied in our context is a bad feature. We need to find a balance between the ease of forking and the necessity to keep things together. What I call true commons in my text, is a digital asset (resource) that no one owns and that no one can capture (close, control). There should be no point in duplicating that. Often people make a copy because someone else controls the asset (individual or platform), just to make sure to have it, in case it gets deleted. Often people make a copy because they want to control future development, impose new rules.

See also nondominium - a concept applied to material assets in the OVN jargon.