Coordination Accelerationism
Sreeram Kannan, founder of EigenLayer, is the propagator behind the concept of “Coordination Accelerationism.” - basically the idea that coordination - the idea that humanity needs to work together to solve their shared problems - needs an accelerant.
While artificial intelligence accelerates individual intelligence, blockchain technology accelerates collective intelligence by enabling decentralized trust, enforceable commitments, and new forms of cooperation at scale. This perspective recognizes that our ability to coordinate effectively is the primary bottleneck to solving global challenges.
Coordination can be understood as the sum of communication plus commitment. The internet revolutionized our ability to communicate globally, but did not significantly improve our ability to make credible commitments without centralized intermediaries. Blockchain technologies bridge this gap by enabling programmable, self-enforcing commitments that reduce friction in large-scale coordination.
Through innovations like restaking and Autonomous Verifiable Services (AVS), platforms like EigenLayer expand the design space for decentralized systems, creating an open marketplace for security and verification. This makes it easier for communities to align around shared goals without being constrained by traditional institutional limitations.
The implications for capital allocation, governance, and problem-solving are profound. As technological power becomes more democratized, and billions of $$$ seeking yield are locked in systems like Eigenlayer, there is massive upside. Ensuring that our coordination mechanisms keep pace is essential to navigating toward a regenerative future rather than succumbing to chaos or top-down control.
Slide from Sreeram’s excellent “Coordination Accelerationism” talk at Schelling Point 2025
Transcending False Dichotomies
Our inherited epistemological frameworks often force us into false dichotomies that limit our capacity to address complex challenges.
Rather than remaining trapped in 20th-century debates between capitalism, socialism, and communism, a network-native transcends those categories.
A network native approach recognizes:
- Markets, commons, and state provisioning all have appropriate domains
- Network effects create fundamentally different economic dynamics than industrial production
- New technologies enable coordination mechanisms beyond traditional binaries of planned vs. market economies
- Property rights exist on a spectrum, which should be defined and negotiated, rather than as a binary
Individual versus collective, capitalism versus socialism, global versus local – these polarities fragment our understanding and inhibit coherent action.
A networked epistemology transcends these dichotomies by recognizing their interdependence rather than their opposition. Individual and collective thriving are mutually reinforcing. Markets and commons can complement rather than contradict each other. Global protocols can enable local sovereignty rather than undermining it.
This integrative approach is evident in concepts like “cosmo-localism” from Ethereum Localism – “what is heavy is local, what is light is global and shared.” Such frameworks don’t collapse complex realities into simplistic either/or propositions but recognize the both/and nature of complex adaptive systems.
Navigating Emerging Techno-Political Landscapes
As traditional institutions decay, new techno-political configurations are emerging:
RadXChange proposes that they are: AI technocracy, corporate libertarianism, and various forms of digital democracy. Each represents a different vision for how knowledge, power, and coordination should function in networked societies.
A networked epistemology provides critical tools for navigating these landscapes. It helps us assess how different technological infrastructures embed values and shape possibilities. It reveals how knowledge production itself is never neutral but always structured by the systems that enable it.
The blockchain space offers a unique opportunity to consciously design knowledge infrastructure that supports human flourishing rather than extraction or control. By making the values and mechanisms explicit, we can create systems that embody the principles we want to see in the world.
Network States, Societies, and Collaboration Monsters
New forms of association are emerging at the intersection of digital and physical reality. Network states as described by Balaji Srinivasan propose digitally-native communities that eventually acquire territory. Network societies focus on creating digital infrastructure for coordination without necessarily seeking geographic sovereignty. Invented by Primavera Di Fillippi, Collaborative entities like “collaboration monsters” (complex multi-stakeholder organizations) enable coordination across traditional boundaries.
Each of these forms embodies different epistemological assumptions about what constitutes legitimate knowledge, authority, and coordination. A networked epistemology helps us understand these forms not as competing alternatives but as diverse expressions of our evolving capacity for human organization.
Laws and Heuristics for Complex Systems
Several key heuristics help navigate the complexity of networked knowledge:
- Gall’s Law states that a complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.
- The Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 Rule, posits that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes.
- Parkinson’s Law states that “work expands so as to fill the time or budget available for its completion.”.
- Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
- Brooks’ Law: From Fred Brooks’ book “The Mythical Man-Month,” it states that “adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.” .
- Moore’s Law is the observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years, though the cost of computers is halved.
- Metcalfe’s Law posits that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n^2).
- Dunbar’s Number suggests that there is a cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.
- The Unix Philosophy represents a modular organizing principle. It states (1) Make each program do one thing well, (2) Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program, (3) Write programs to work together.
- Conway’s Law posits that organizations design systems that mirror their own communication structure.
These principles aren’t mere curiosities but essential navigational tools for designing systems that can sustain knowledge integrity at scale. They remind us of the pitfalls and possibilities inherent in complex adaptive systems.
Tools for Implementation
Addressing these challenges requires metacognition – the capacity to think about our thinking itself. This includes recognizing the limitations of our mental models, the biases in our information systems, and the conditions that enable or inhibit effective sense-making.
This all isn’t merely theoretical—it’s enabled by concrete tools:
Ethereum
Ethereum is the canvas upon which 21st century control structures can be built upon.
Ethereum and related technologies offer possibilities for extending our metacognitive capacities through shared computational infrastructure. By externalizing certain cognitive functions into collective systems, we can potentially overcome limitations in individual cognition while creating more robust collective intelligence. Using Ethereum and other contremporaneous technology, system designs can become complex and optimal, while us mere mortals can just navigate them through simple user interfaces.
Tokenization
Tokenization represents a fundamental shift in how we represent and exchange value. By creating digital assets that can represent anything from financial capital to reputation to governance rights, we enable new forms of fluid, programmable economic relationships. These tokens can encode complex rules, rights, and responsibilities that extend beyond simple ownership, creating richer economic languages.
The epistemological implications are profound: tokenization makes previously invisible or informal relationships explicit and computationally legible. Social capital, contribution value, and impact can be recognized and rewarded through mechanisms that expand beyond traditional market valuations, bringing multiple forms of value into shared systems of exchange and recognition.
DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations)
DAOs represent experimental governance forms that distribute decision-making across stakeholder networks rather than concentrating it in hierarchical structures. Through various voting mechanisms, proposal systems, and treasury management tools, they enable collective intelligence to be applied to resource allocation and strategic direction.
From an epistemological perspective, DAOs create new ways of knowing collectively—surfacing and integrating diverse viewpoints through explicit governance processes rather than relying on centralized authority. They make governance itself more transparent and auditable, creating feedback loops that can potentially improve decision quality over time.
AI Integration
The integration of artificial intelligence with blockchain infrastructure creates powerful possibilities for extending human epistemic capacities. AI can help filter, analyze, and synthesize the vast information streams flowing through decentralized networks, making patterns visible that would otherwise exceed human cognitive bandwidth. These tools offer unprecedented capabilities to augment collective sense-making, potentially enabling us to navigate complexity more effectively than ever before.
However, the current trajectory of AI development presents serious risks to our epistemic sovereignty. As AI systems become increasingly centralized in the hands of a few powerful corporations, they threaten to become new gatekeepers of knowledge—proprietary black boxes optimizing for engagement and profit rather than truth or collective flourishing. These systems embed the values and biases of the closed source megacorps that deploy them (and those they have a fiduciary duty to) while obscuring their inner workings from public scrutiny. The concentration of such powerful epistemic tools could fundamentally undermine our capacity for independent thought and democratic governance, leading to what some have called “digital feudalism”—where a small technocratic elite controls the infrastructure of knowing itself.
A networked epistemology demands a different approach—sovereign AI systems that serve the needs of everyday people and communities rather than corporate or state interests. This requires AI that is transparent, accountable, and aligned with regenerative values. Cryptographically verifiable AI, where models and training processes can be publicly audited, represents one promising direction. Community-owned AI infrastructure, where the benefits of machine intelligence flow to users rather than shareholders, offers another. By combining blockchain’s credible neutrality with AI’s pattern recognition capabilities, we can potentially create knowledge systems that enhance rather than undermine human agency.
In combination with token systems and DAOs, sovereign AI can help bridge between individual and collective knowledge—translating between personal context and shared understanding while preserving privacy and autonomy. These integrations are already emerging in areas like predictive markets, governance dashboards, and community sensing tools. The challenge ahead lies not in developing more powerful AI, but in ensuring these systems enhance our collective wisdom rather than eroding our capacity for independent judgment.
Blockchain and Cryptographic Primitives
Blockchain and cryptographic primitives provide essential infrastructure for networked epistemology by enabling new forms of trust, verification, and coordination. Smart contracts create the possibility of credible commitments—binding agreements that execute automatically without relying on centralized enforcement or trust between parties. This dramatically reduces the friction involved in complex coordination, allowing communities to align around shared objectives with greater confidence.
Proof of Work, as invented by Satoshi Nakamoto, offers a particularly elegant example of how cryptographic primitives can solve previously intractable coordination problems. By tying consensus to computational work, this mechanism transformed the abstract concept of distributed trust into a tangible, operational system. What appears deceptively simple—miners competing to solve arbitrary puzzles—actually creates a robust security foundation that has sustained a trillion-dollar network without central authority. This innovation demonstrates how fundamental cryptographic principles can bootstrap entirely new forms of economic and social organization, transforming theoretical possibilities into practical realities. The genius lies in how it aligns individual economic incentives (mining rewards) with the collective need for security, solving the Byzantine Generals Problem that had stumped computer scientists for decades.
Bittensor is a network that expands on Bitcoin’s proof-of-work by shifting the focus from solving arbitrary puzzles to contributing useful machine learning tasks. Instead of expending energy on hash calculations, participants provide valuable AI models and computations, which the network verifies and rewards with tokens—mirroring Bitcoin’s incentive structure while directly advancing machine learning capabilities.
Beyond simple transactions, these primitives enable novel approaches to public goods funding. Mechanisms like quadratic funding mathematically align individual preferences with collective value, creating more effective ways to support commons infrastructure than either markets or states alone can provide. Similarly, blockchain-based governance experiments—from simple token voting to sophisticated conviction voting and futarchy—create laboratories for testing novel decision-making structures that can potentially overcome limitations in traditional governance.
These technological capabilities aren’t merely incremental improvements—they fundamentally expand what’s possible in human coordination. By reducing transaction costs, enabling credible commitments, and creating transparent shared ledgers, blockchain infrastructure makes previously theoretical coordination mechanisms practical at scale.
Collective Intelligence Systems
Collective intelligence systems leverage the distributed knowledge, skills, and perspectives of many participants to create insights beyond what any individual or small group could generate. Prediction markets provide a powerful example—by aggregating the information held by diverse participants through betting mechanisms, they can produce forecasts that outperform individual experts in many domains. These markets create economic incentives that reward accuracy and punish overconfidence, leading to increasingly refined collective judgment.
Similarly, deliberative platforms enable structured conversations that promote understanding across differences. Unlike social media’s tendency to amplify division, these systems are designed to surface areas of agreement, clarify genuine disagreements, and help participants recognize shared values even amid differing perspectives. This helps overcome the polarization that plagues contemporary discourse.
Sense-making communities take this further by creating shared knowledge repositories that evolve through collective contribution. Unlike static information sources, these living documents capture the evolving understanding of a community, incorporating new evidence and perspective as they emerge. Projects like GitHub for code and Roam Research for knowledge graphs exemplify this approach, creating dynamic representations of collective intelligence that no individual could produce alone.
Swarms
A Swarm, as articulated by rnDAO, is a specific manifestation of collective intelligence - formulated as collaborative network of aligned startups, individuals, and agents that share resources, opportunities, and relationships to accelerate growth and enhance success.
In this model, each startup maintains independence while benefiting from collective support, akin to assembling modular components to address complex challenges. Incentive alignment, such as mutual ownership stakes, fosters deep collaboration beyond traditional startup ecosystems.
Swarms have manifested in various contexts:
-
Grassroots Disaster Response: After Hurricane Maria, local volunteers formed ad-hoc teams to distribute aid, effectively combining resources more efficiently than traditional relief organizations.
-
Haier’s Small Teams Model: Haier, a leading IoT company, employs self-directed teams within its structure, allowing agility despite its large size.
-
Valve’s Mobility: At Valve, employees have the freedom to move their desks to projects needing their skills, promoting organic collaboration and swift adaptability.
Swarm Art (img credit rndao)
Operating as a Swarm offers several advantages:
- Speed to Market: Leveraging collective experience enables new ventures to halve their time-to-market feedback.
Built-in Customer Network: Access to established customer pipelines through warm introductions. - Funding Advantages: Pooling investor networks reduces fundraising time, allowing founders to focus on development.
- Autonomy and Guidance: Founders retain control while accessing mentors and resources, ensuring entrepreneurial drive.
- Founder Wellbeing and Community: A supportive network reduces isolation and mental health strain common in traditional startups.
- Cross-Ownership and Collaboration: Mutual ownership stakes among ventures incentivize collaboration, contributing to the growth of the entire network.
Swarms operate on three key principles:
- Zero Distance to Customers: Market feedback directly influences decisions without hierarchical delays.
- Autonomy: Each startup functions independently, enabling rapid execution.
- Shared Rewards: Collective success benefits all members of the Swarm.
By embracing these principles, Swarms facilitate a collaborative environment where ventures can thrive collectively, leveraging shared resources and expertise to achieve greater success than they would individually.
Memetic Engineering
Memetic engineering recognizes that ideas spread and evolve in ways similar to genes—through variation, selection, and replication.
Three exampmles of memetic engineering:
Pattern languages provide one approach to memetic engineering by creating modular, composable design principles that can be adapted across contexts. Developed initially for architecture by Christopher Alexander, pattern languages have been applied to fields from software design to community building, creating shared vocabularies for complex design challenges.
Conceptual interoperability extends this approach by developing frameworks that enable collaboration across disciplines. When different fields use incompatible terminology and models, coordination becomes difficult or impossible. Shared conceptual frameworks that translate between domains enable cross-disciplinary collaboration on complex challenges that no single perspective can adequately address.
Regenerative memes represent ideas that become more rather than less nuanced as they spread. Unlike the typical pattern where ideas lose complexity as they propagate through social networks, regenerative memes are designed to invite deeper engagement and understanding with each transmission. This creates information patterns that enhance rather than degrade collective sense-making as they scale.
Onchain Capital Allocation
New mechanisms for allocating capital—from quadratic funding to impact certificates to retroactive public goods funding—are creating more nuanced ways to direct resources toward value creation. Unlike traditional funding models that rely on centralized gatekeepers or simple market mechanisms, these approaches can better account for externalities, public goods, and long-term value.
These capital allocation innovations represent epistemic advances in how we collectively determine what’s valuable and worth investing in. They create more sophisticated feedback loops between resource deployment and outcome measurement, potentially enabling more regenerative economic patterns.
Credible Commitments
A crucial innovation in this space is the concept of credible commitments – binding oneself to future actions in a way that others can reliably verify. Traditional institutions like contracts, constitutions, and international agreements all attempt to create credible commitments, but often suffer from enforcement problems and opacity.
Blockchain protocols offer a new paradigm for credible commitments through immutable, transparent, and automatically enforcing smart contracts. This enables new coordination possibilities by dramatically reducing the trust requirements for collective action. When commitments are credibly encoded in shared infrastructure, cooperation becomes less risky and more sustainable.
Conclusion: Toward a New Collective Intelligence
The epistemology + the ways to achieve it outlined here isn’t merely an academic exercise—it’s a practical necessity for addressing the complex challenges of our time.
We are doing it. This post is itself a hyperstition. By practicing network dynamics, game theory, systems thinking, and positive sum games, we create frameworks capable of navigating unprecedented complexity while remaining fundamentally human.
This new epistemology enables us to:
- Transcend false dichotomies between individual and collective flourishing
- Create institutions that evolve and adapt rather than calcify
- Harness technology to expand rather than constrain human potential
- Build coordination mechanisms at scales previously impossible
- Navigate uncertainty with humility while maintaining the capacity for decisive action
The path forward isn’t about choosing between competing ideologies or surrendering to technological determinism. It’s about creating the conceptual and practical tools for collective thriving in a world of unprecedented complexity and possibility.
As we stand at this juncture between worlds, our epistemic frameworks—how we know what we know and how we make decisions together—may be the most important determinant of which branch of the multiverse we collectively choose to inhabit.
This new epistemology doesn’t reject individual knowledge or agency – it contextualizes it within the larger systems that make it possible. It doesn’t dismiss objective reality – it recognizes how our understanding of reality emerges through interaction rather than isolated perception. It doesn’t abandon the pursuit of truth – it expands our conception of how truth manifests in complex adaptive systems.
By recognizing knowledge as an emergent property of networks rather than merely an individual possession, we open new possibilities for addressing our most pressing challenges. Climate change, economic inequality, democratic decay – these aren’t simply policy problems but manifestations of coordination failures rooted in outdated epistemological frameworks.
The path forward involves consciously developing and implementing this networked epistemology through both conceptual work and practical experimentation. The thousand projects blooming in the Ethereum ecosystem – from Gitcoin’s capital allocation mechanisms to Protocol Guild’s contributor support system to the bioregional organizing networks emerging through Ethereum Localism, to countless others we’ve not yet mapped – are all laboratories for this new way of knowing and deciding together.
As Antonio Gramsci noted, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” Our epistemological moment is precisely this interregnum – between outdated frameworks that no longer serve us and emerging ones not yet fully formed. By consciously engaging with the conceptual foundations of our networked reality, we can shape the emergence of systems that enable both individual and collective thriving in the complex century ahead.
In this networked epistemology, knowledge isn’t something we merely possess but something we participate in. And through this participation – conscious, ethical, and intentional – we can collectively navigate toward futures of genuine human flourishing in harmony with the living systems that sustain us.
Civilizational decision-making infrastructure is under strain. Let’s fix it.
This is part 2 of a 3-part series:
- Our Choices, Our World: Collective Thriving in an Uncertain Future
- A New Epistemology: Individual & Collective Thriving in the 21st century ⇐ you are here
- Groundswell: Networked Foundations for a Networked World