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.

We can make a distinction between ability to copy a file and making a file recognizable for being the genuine copy. Look into NFT - web3 creature, unique digital asset. This is the distinction between a perfect clone and something that tell you that one copy is special.

The requirement here is that if you decide to work on a clone (not the genuine one) you essentially take yourself outside of the group / network. But we can model a digital asset in many other ways. Take for example my social graph on Facebook. It is an asset, I can nurture it, augment it, leverage it. But my social graph is not the file containing the content storing all my conections and all my interactions with them. It's the totality of live connections that I have with all the other people on Facebook. I can copy all my data from Facebook and put it somewhere else, but in doing that I don't copy my social graph as a living asset. I cannot take my Facebook friends with me, the interaction stops, that asset collapses (ceases to exist) if I clone the data. So perhaps a digital asset is not modeled by a file. A complex of things can make up a digital asset

On Holochain, perhaps a digital asset is a hApp, not a file. In that case, can we make it shared by default and unenclosable, and even make it less prone to be cloned to prevent unnecessary redundancy? That would not exclude private digital assets, but that's a different use case.

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

Non-registered association

The non-registeres association is the legal form that Sensorica exploits from Canada. This has concrete historical roots in Sensporica, see Sensorica spring 2014 Crisis. In short, a few individuals wanted to dramatically change the orientation of the OVN and use the brand in doing so. It turned out that the non-registered association legal status allowed OVN affiliates to hold on to their assets, including their brand, much better than if the brand name and physical or digital assets were held into a legal entity, a Custodian.