Network States

I want to know what the sentiment on this topic is here.

Should cities be driven by the common good or by profit?

Only the followers of /network-states  channel can vote

I want to know what the sentiment on this topic is here.

Should cities be driven by the common good or by profit?

Only the followers of /network-states  channel can vote

https://frame.vote/mYLYXrwd

@vocdoni, prev. Bitcoin Magazine | Purple #203 | Cohost: /diy /anthropology /vote /biohacking /cooperatives

Founder Peerbase.
Producing the docuseries about network states and startup societies https://startupsociety.film.

I agree that cities should be more open, and we need to rethink them. 

However, regarding decentralized for-profit cities how would you prevent the city's first residents and the most successful ones, who accumulate most of the tokens (and perhaps even investment groups entering a some point to help expand the city), from acting against the interests of new citizens, immigrants and future generations who have few or no tokens, and therefore no say in the governance of the place where they live?

Both approaches will exist and be better than the establishment, like closed and open source.

But I think a decentralized strategy where "profit" is shared to token holders that invested or live in the city will prevail.

I completely support the idea of diversity of social arrangements, for me we need even more diversity in the world (or more freedom to experiment).

But it’s difficult to me to see profit-driven cities accountable to their inhabitants and not to profit margins. If the goal of a city shifts from public interest to maximizing shareholders and investors value, I can imagine that in the mid-long term there will be a big disconnection between the city’s leadership and the citizens real needs. Especially in moments of stress/change/crisis.

Universality is key and to me it’s hard to see how it can exist in a city controlled by shareholders rather than its citizens.  When governance is driven by those who have a speculative interest holding shares of the project (and lots of times the peoele with vision gets replced by investment groups) the interests of the broader community are typically in a second term.

Do you have any thoughts on how a for profit city could find this balance?

My main concern is how, specially over time, the interests of the shareholders (usually millionaries, investment groups, big corps,…) would start to be disaligned with the group of citizens without voice (as they don’t hold shares). Specially in moments of stress/crisis in which I can’t see the shareholders wanting to preserve the common good instead of their speculative interests.

Maybe at the begining there is a phase of growth and some founders with a vision, and this could yield some equilibrium and benefits.
But in the long term is difficult to me to see a for profit city not developing as a dystopia, if it doesn’t provide political universality and mechanisms of counterpower.

I extended it a bit here too:

let's build clank.fun. prev: web3 founder, improbable, github, amazon. ntik.me

My main concern is how, specially over time, the interests of the shareholders (usually millionaries, investment groups, big corps,…) would start to be disaligned with the group of citizens without voice (as they don’t hold shares). Specially in moments of stress/crisis in which I can’t see the shareholders wanting to preserve the common good instead of their speculative interests.

Maybe at the begining there is a phase of growth and some founders with a vision, and this could yield some equilibrium and benefits.
But in the long term is difficult to me to see a for profit city not developing as a dystopia, if it doesn’t provide political universality and mechanisms of counterpower.

I extended it a bit here too:
https://warpcast.com/ferran/0xcb526717

Difficult to cast a vote on this one. What matters is efficiency of funds invested into commons + political alignment. Many people argue that a capitalist approach will be more likely to yield both over today’s model. So… both?

No city in which non-ultra-rich libertarians want to live will be for-profit. 

Cities can plan business initiatives to generate revenue for public good. However, using public works to maximize profits takes away from citizen benefit by definition because public good becomes secondary to profit.

They can exist at the same time and have results that compliment each other.

chopping wood, carrying water onchain //

mirror.xyz/feven.eth

The shareholders on these projects that are usually billionaires, investment groups, private companies and so

Honestly feels like a false dichotomy to me

Hey, before jumping to accusations, you might want to approach this topic with a bit more humility. Because maybe you are also lacking knowledge and are being oversimplistic.

By making such a claim you’re doing in your cast, you’re falling into the same trap of oversimplification that you’re accusing others of.

I wonder if you studied what common goods is as a political economic theory (see Ostrom), it has really specific characteristics. It’s not socialist (even less State socialism) and is compatible with a free market.

I suggest engaging in a more constructive debate without oversimplifying the issue.

I replied to you in the other thread. I'd be glad to continue the discussion in the future if your arguments are more detailed and less emotional. It’s an interesting topic.

Born half Venezuelan/German. Moved to Germany early enough to assimilate a new culture, late enough to remain Venezuelan. Purpose entrepreneur.

I replied to you in the other thread. I'd be glad to continue the discussion in the future if your arguments are more detailed and less emotional. It’s an interesting topic.

https://warpcast.com/ferran/0x2661406e

wow. these results, to me, only demonstrate how many revisionist historians we have in the crypto communities in general and in this community in particular. already the framing of the question is so misguided. 

why juxtapose profit and common good when profits = common good!

Could you be more specific in the question - the city in what context??