Smartups are designed as digital-first, globally-distributed organizations that transcend national boundaries and political cycles. We envision a new external framework where planetary challenges get planetary solutions, free from the distortions of nation-state politics.
When we look at why organizations fail to address SDGs, we see a pattern: they get trapped in political cycles, pulled by national interests, and distracted by daily crises. A startup in Silicon Valley optimizes for US tax law. An NGO in Brussels navigates EU regulations. A company in Singapore plays different rules than one in São Paulo.
-
Meanwhile, climate change doesn't care about borders. Inequality doesn't pause for elections. The SDGs don't shift with news cycles.
-
-
The Defocused Organization
-
Smartups are intentionally defocused from:
-- Daily political drama
-- National election cycles
-- Geopolitical tensions
-- Regulatory arbitrage
-- News cycle reactions
-We stay focused on:
-- SDGs (always on the horizon)
-- Long-term planetary health
-- Human needs regardless of nationality
-- Scientific reality over political narrative
Exists in Cyberspace
- ---
- No physical headquarters
- No national registration
- Digital infrastructure only
- Operates 24/7 globally
- Jurisdiction: The Internet
-
-
-
Open to All Humanity
- ---
- Join from anywhere
- Contribute from anywhere
- No visa requirements
- No geographic discrimination
- Talent without borders
-
-
-
Equal Pay Globally
- ---
- Same task = same pay
- No geographic arbitrage
- Value work, not location
- Purchasing power parity?
- That's their problem
-
-
-
-
Why National Frameworks Fail Digital Organizations¶
-
-
The Friction of Nation-States
-
Scenario: A climate-focused Smartup needs a developer
-Traditional hiring:
-- Best candidate is in Bangladesh ❌ Visa complexity
-- Second choice in France ❌ Employment law maze
-- Third choice in Brazil ❌ Tax treaty issues
-- Settle for local candidate ✓ But not optimal
-Smartup approach:
-- Best candidate in Bangladesh ✓ Joins immediately
-- Earns same as anyone else ✓ 500 SC for the task
-- No visa, no employment contract ✓ Just contribution
-- Optimal talent for optimal solution ✓ SDGs advance
-
-
The Vision: Planetary Governance for Planetary Organizations¶
-
graph TD
- UN[UN or Global Body<br/>Planetary Jurisdiction] --> SR[Smartup Registry<br/>Digital Entity Recognition]
- SR --> S1[Smartup Alpha<br/>Clean Energy]
- SR --> S2[Smartup Beta<br/>Food Security]
- SR --> S3[Smartup Gamma<br/>Health Access]
- SR --> SZ[Smartup Zero<br/>Emergency Comms]
-
- S1 --> G[Global Talent Pool]
- S2 --> G
- S3 --> G
- SZ --> G
-
- style UN fill:#4ecdc4
- style G fill:#8bc34a
-
-
Learning from Estonia's E-Residency
-
Estonia proved digital citizenship works:
-- 100,000+ e-residents from 170+ countries
-- Digital identity enables business creation
-- Geography becomes irrelevant
-- Services delivered digitally
-Smartups take this further: not just digital residency, but digital-native organizations with planetary purpose.
Traditional organizations get pulled into:
-- Trade wars affecting supply chains
-- Sanctions limiting talent access
-- Political pressure on priorities
-- Regulatory capture by incumbents
-- Nationalism over global good
-
Smartups remain steady:
-- Contributors work under digital identity
-- Payment in SC avoids banking politics
-- Open source means no export controls
-- SDG focus transcends party politics
-- Scientific merit over political favor
-
-
Above the Fray
-
"While nations argue about carbon credits, we build. While politicians debate inequality, we act. While borders close, we remain open. The SDGs don't have time for political theater."
Phase 3: Recognition
- ---
- UN working group forms
- Legal framework drafted
- Digital entity status
- Planetary jurisdiction
- New organizational species
We know:
-- Nation-states won't disappear
-- Politics won't vanish
-- Borders still matter for humans
-- Local laws affect contributors
-But digital organizations can operate above this layer, just as the internet routes around censorship.
-
-
The Internet already works this way:
-- TCP/IP doesn't care about borders
-- Open source projects span nations
-- Cryptocurrencies ignore jurisdictions
-- Remote work proves geography optional
-
We're just formalizing what's already emerging: planetary organizations for planetary challenges.
While the world argues about:
-- Which nation leads on climate
-- Who pays for inequality
-- Whose tech standards win
-- Which currency dominates
-Smartups quietly build:
-- Emergency networks that work everywhere
-- Water solutions without borders
-- Health tools for all humans
-- Energy systems beyond nations
-Defocused from drama. Focused on delivery.
-
-
-
The North Star
-
"The SDGs are our constitution, science is our law, and humanity is our citizenship. Everything else—every border, every political cycle, every national interest—is just noise we filter out."
The decade-long journey from a TNO research project to ONLIFE—and how it birthed the Smartup model itself. This is our collective memory of how we got here.
-
-
The Evolution: From Apps to Emergency Infrastructure¶
Our story begins with a research collaboration between TNO (Dutch research organization) and RS New Media Concepts. The problem: smartphone users drowning in app choices. The solution: "Transient Apps"—lightweight applications that appear when needed, disappear when not.
-
What we built:
-- The Context Engine: An algorithm predicting user needs based on physical location
-- Automatic delivery of relevant web apps
-- Working prototype proving the concept
-
What stopped us:
-Platform gatekeepers (Google, Apple) would never allow it. They were already building their own versions (Instant Apps, Progressive Web Apps). We hit a dead end.
-
-
Phase 1 Outcome
-
Research validated but path blocked by platform control:
-- Context-aware app delivery proven
-- User need confirmed
-- Technical feasibility demonstrated
-- Platform dependency identified
Phase 2: The First Pivot - "Onlive" Social Networks (2017-2019)¶
-
Rather than abandon the Context Engine, we pivoted. If we couldn't change how apps work, could we change how people connect?
-
The ethical awakening:
-As Facebook's scandals mounted, we faced a choice: build another data-harvesting social network or find a different path. We chose differently. Instead of connecting individuals online, we'd connect groups of people in their immediate physical world.
-
"Onlive: the social network for the real world"
-- Context Engine repurposed to identify relevant groups
-- Seven Dutch business partners provided feedback
-- UX and architecture developed
-
The revelation:
-We weren't building an app. We were building an Operating System for group interaction in the real world.
-
-
Phase 2 Outcome
-
Proof of Concept delivered:
-- Android prototype functional
-- Backend architecture designed
-- UX patterns established
-- Business validation complete
Phase 3: The Governance Pivot - Birth of the Smartup Model (2019-2020)¶
-
With research complete, the logical next step was forming a traditional startup. But was it the right step?
-
The dilemma:
-- Public-good technology
-- Complex social mission
-- Poor fit for VC model
-
The insight:
-
-
"How we create is as important as what we create."
-
-
The organizational structure itself needed to embody our values: open, democratic, mission-driven.
-
The Smartup Model emerges:
-We began designing a new type of organization based on:
-- Collective ownership
-- Democratic governance
-- Scientific rigor
-- SDG alignment
-
-
Phase 3 Outcome
-
New organizational model conceptualized:
-- Smartup governance structure defined
-- Economic model designed
-- Democratic principles embedded
-- Blueprint for future documented
Phase 4: The COVID Pivot & Academic Validation (2020-2022)¶
-
The pandemic provided an urgent, real-world test case. Could Onlive enable "Digital Herd Immunity" through group-tracing rather than individual contact-tracing?
-
Academic collaboration with Erasmus Programme:
-- Security challenges addressed
-- UX refined for crisis scenarios
-- Concept validation in pandemic context
-- Technical feasibility confirmed
-
The world suddenly understood why decentralized, resilient communication matters.
-
-
Phase 4 Outcome
-
Academic validation achieved:
-- UX patterns for crisis communication
-- Security model validated
-- User research completed
-- Emergency use cases confirmed
Phase 5: Technical Deep Dive - Mesh Networking (2023-2024)¶
-
To truly work without internet, we needed to go deeper into the networking layer.
-
Partnership with HanzeHogeschool:
-- Open-source mesh network implementation
-- Smartphone-native protocols
-- Beyond proof-of-concept to production-ready
-- Ad-hoc network formation without infrastructure
-
We weren't just building an app anymore. We were building alternative internet infrastructure.
-
-
Phase 5 Outcome
-
Mesh protocol designed and tested:
-- 75+ node networks achieved
-- Android implementation working
-- Bluetooth/WiFi Direct integration
-- Open source architecture defined
Phase 6: The Final Pivot - ONLIFE Emergency Network (2025-Present)¶
-
Ten years of pivots, research, and refinement crystallized into a clear mission.
-
From ONLIVE to ONLIFE:
-Not just "online live"—but a network for LIFE itself. When everything else fails, ONLIFE remains.
-
The focus sharpens:
-- Emergency communication for citizens
-- Works without internet or telecoms
-- Mesh network using existing smartphones
-- European civil resilience infrastructure
-
-
Phase 6 Outcome
-
The experiment begins:
-- Smartup Zero launched
-- Community forming
-- Development starting
-- Everything transparent
-
As an owner, you get access to all code, documentation, and decisions in real-time.
-
-
-
Why the Name Change
-
"ONLIVE was about being online in live settings. ONLIFE is about staying connected when life itself is at stake. It's not just a network—it's a lifeline."
The Social Subsystem describes how people in a Smartup organize, collaborate, and make decisions together. It replaces hierarchical management and fragmented teams with a decentralized system of shared ownership, trust-based roles, and mutual accountability. This subsystem creates the social architecture needed to build technology in a way that's fair, resilient, and aligned with the public good.
-
-
-Just give me the abstract
-
In this new design for a the Social Subsystem redesigns how people work together by introducing democratic governance, peer support structures, and fluid identity protocols. Instead of traditional management, Smartups rely on a balance between autonomy, discipline, and mission-alignment — enforced not by authority, but by structure. Contributors operate in role-based groups, make collective decisions using the ADM Triangle, and support each other through systems like the Buddy Program. This model aims to unlock large-scale collaboration by treating contributors as citizens — not employees — in a shared mission to build public-interest technology.
Definition:
-A Smartup creates trustworthy digital tools that help people—and the communities they form—become more resilient, resourceful, and effective in advancing the SDGs.
-
-
At its core, every Smartup is built like a rocket: a solid foundation, three structural pillars, and a sharp point of execution.
Science
- Every tool we create is grounded in facts, evidence, and tested knowledge. The problems we tackle are science-proven, and solutions must stand up to real-world scrutiny.
-
Democracy
- Our process and decisions are open and participatory. Everyone has a voice and a vote—no gated hierarchies, no closed rooms.
-
Collective IQ
- We are smarter together. All skills and ideas are pooled so we solve more, faster, and with better results than any one person or small group could alone.
Collective Ownership
- Everyone who joins and contributes is an equal owner. There are no founders, investors, or external shareholders—just people “in it” together.
- --8<-- "_snippets/smartup-ownership-meaning.md"
- --8<-- "_snippets/the-book-of-owners.md"
-
-
-
Collective Craftsmanship
- All work and effort are shared—teams build, improve, and sustain everything the Smartup delivers. Value is earned by doing, not by owning capital.
-
-
-
Collective Governance
- Decision-making and oversight are for everyone. Every contributor holds both rights and responsibilities for what the Smartup does and how it does it.
Military Execution
- While we are democratic in nature, we are military in execution. When the General Forum sets a target, the Workplace hits it with precision. Clear chains of command, proven processes like the buddy system, and professional discipline ensure we don't just talk about change—we deliver it.
-
-
-
-
Why a rocket?
-
A Smartup is a vehicle for change. The foundation powers us, the pillars keep us stable, and military execution cuts through obstacles. Together, these elements create an organization that can actually reach its destination: a world where digital tools serve collective human needs.
-
-
-
The 4 Phases of Creation - The Habitat of a Smartup¶
-
-
What is this?
-
Every Smartup grows through four clear, community-driven phases. This rhythm—from first idea to real-world launch—ensures that only validated, sustainable, and well-governed solutions reach the market. At every step, the decision to move forward belongs to the entire Smartup community.
-
-
-
-
-
Phase 1: Validation
-The Question:"Does the world need this?"
- Entrepreneurs and early adopters rally a vibrant community around a solution, showing real traction in people and resources.
-
Thresholds to advance:
-- [ ] Financial target reached
-- [ ] Official Smartup Business Plan ready
-- [ ] Leadership Team formed
-- [ ] Majority community vote
Phase 2: Design
-The Question:"How can we build this sustainably and efficiently?"
- Contributors create blueprints through open collaboration, with rigorous scientific review before development begins.
-
Thresholds to advance:
-- [ ] Financial target reached
-- [ ] Design Blueprint delivered
-- [ ] Science Team review passed
-- [ ] Majority community vote
Phase 3: Production
-The Focus:From thinking to building
- The community creates an MVP, tests with real citizens, and prepares for launch after scientific and market validation.
-
Thresholds to advance:
-- [ ] Financial target reached
-- [ ] Version 1.0 beta tested
-- [ ] Market assessment complete
-- [ ] Majority community vote
Phase 4: Organization
-The Goal:Ready for the world
- Build the team and structure for market launch. Executive team chosen, legal framework set, always with community validation.
-
Thresholds for launch:
-- [ ] Financial target reached
-- [ ] Executive team formed
-- [ ] Final Business Plan ready
-- [ ] Majority community vote
Notice how each phase requires four key elements:
-1. Financial sustainability – Resources to continue
-2. Concrete deliverable – Something tangible produced
-3. Expert validation – Scientific or market review
-4. Democratic approval – The community decides
-
This ensures what's being built is wanted, sound, and fully owned by the community at every step.
-
-
flowchart TB
- V[🔍 Validation<br/><sub>Prove demand</sub>]
- D[📐 Design<br/><sub>Create blueprint</sub>]
- P[🔨 Production<br/><sub>Build & test</sub>]
- O[🚀 Organization<br/><sub>Launch ready</sub>]
-
- V -.->|Community Vote| D
- D -.->|Community Vote| P
- P -.->|Community Vote| O
- O ==>|To Market!| M[🌍]
-
- style V stroke:#ffd23f,stroke-width:3px
- style D stroke:#ffd23f,stroke-width:3px
- style P stroke:#ffd23f,stroke-width:3px
- style O stroke:#ffd23f,stroke-width:3px
- style M stroke:#8bc34a,stroke-width:3px
-
-
-
Why these phases?
-
Each phase ensures what’s being built is wanted, sound, and fully owned by the community before advancing. Built-in checkpoints—majority votes and scientific reviews—keep momentum aligned with trust and quality at every step.
-
-
-
Next: See how Smartup teams, roles, and workflows make collective building a reality.
To create real, relevant technology, a Smartup can’t just be a loose network—it needs to be a productive, living system. But if nobody has absolute power—not even a CEO—how do decisions get made and meaningful work actually happen? The answer: the Smartup is a new kind of “organism” built for collective intelligence and self-organization.
A Smartup is a unique sociotechnical organism that combines democratic governance with military-precision execution. This hybrid design solves a fundamental challenge: how to maintain collective ownership while actually getting things done.
-
The Design Principle
-
We are democratic where it matters most: In the General Forum, every citizen has equal voice, equal vote, equal responsibility. Here we decide WHAT we build and WHY—our mission, values, and strategic direction.
-
We are disciplined where speed matters: In the Workplace, we apply military-inspired command structures and proven operational processes. Here we decide HOW we build—with clear roles, accountability, and chains of command.
If you could slice a Smartup open, you’d see something that looks more like a living ecosystem than a traditional corporate pyramid. Instead of strict hierarchy and top-down control, power and responsibility are distributed through a holacratic structure: nested groups, each supporting the whole.
-
-
“Holacracy is a new way of structuring and running your organization that replaces the conventional management hierarchy. Instead of top-down, power is distributed throughout, giving individuals and teams more freedom to self-manage, while staying aligned to the organization’s purpose.”
-— holacracy.org
-
-
In a Smartup, these circles are groups—each one crucial for the whole, each one depending on—and empowering—the next.
A Smartup is designed so that all ownership, work, and governance flow through six nested groups.
-Think of them as a set of Russian dolls: each group contains smaller subgroups, but all belong to the "mother" at the center, the General Forum.
-
-
-
-
-
1. General Forum
-
-
The heart of the Smartup
-
All citizens (owners) gather here to discuss, propose, vote, and oversee everything. It's the public square for collective direction and accountability.
-
Members: All Smartup owners
-Moderated by: Leadership Team
-
-
-
2. Workplace
-
-
The production engine
-
Citizens with a work license join to build what matters. Here, talk turns into action: plans become teams, teams build real things.
-
Members: All workers (colleagues)
-Moderated by: Leadership Team
-
-
-
3. Teams
-
-
Home base for specialized work
-
Every worker joins at least one team—design, development, business. Teams focus effort and harness specific skills toward shared goals.
-
Members: Workers in same team (teammates)
-Moderated by: Team Captain
-
-
-
4. Roles
-
-
How you contribute
-
In each team, workers apply for roles that fit their talents—UX designer, developer, communicator. Roles define responsibility and access.
-
Members: Workers with same role (peers)
-Moderated by: Team Captain
-
-
-
5. Objectives
-
-
What's to be achieved
-
Teams progress by accomplishing specific missions, like "Create Android app front-end." Each objective unites multiple roles.
-
Members: Workers on same objective (squad)
-Moderated by: Mission Leader
-
-
-
6. Tasks
-
-
Where work happens
-
The smallest—and most important—unit. Tasks create measurable progress. Complete task, create value, get rewarded.
Each group lives within the one above it:
-- General Forum contains → Workplace
-- Workplace contains → Teams
-- Teams contain → Roles
-- Roles work on → Objectives
-- Objectives break into → Tasks
-This creates clear accountability chains while maintaining democratic oversight at the top.
-
-
-
The Metabolism - How a Smartup Lives and Breathes¶
-
-
What is this?
-
If the 6 Groups show a Smartup's anatomy (structure), the metabolism shows how it actually functions—how we communicate, make decisions, and get work done through the ADM Triangle system powered by the buddy system.
-
-
When we examine a Smartup as a living organism, we need to understand not just its structure, but how it sustains itself. Just as a body needs circulation and digestion, a Smartup needs processes for communication, decision-making, and documentation. This is where we discover the ADM Triangle—the metabolic engine that powers every interaction.
At the core of our metabolism lies a simple but powerful principle borrowed from military operations: you never work alone. In a Smartup, every task, every decision, every action involves at least two people working in partnership.
-
-
Why Buddies Matter
-
The buddy system serves multiple vital functions:
-- Accountability: Freedom with responsibility
-- Support: Help when stuck or overwhelmed
-- Quality: Built-in peer review
-- Learning: Juniors learn by observing seniors
-- Resilience: No single point of failure
-
-
The Learning Loop
-
What makes our buddy system special is that it's designed as a learning mechanism:
-
graph LR
- J[Junior Role<br/><sub>Defender/Assistant</sub>]
- S[Senior Role<br/><sub>Attacker/Worker</sub>]
- T[Task Execution]
- L[Learning & Growth]
-
- S -->|Performs| T
- J -->|Observes & Assists| T
- T -->|Creates| L
- L -->|Promotes| J
- J -.->|Becomes| S
-
The 90/10 Split: When a task is completed:
-- Worker (Senior) receives 90% of the budget
-- Assistant (Junior) receives 10%
-
This isn't just payment for monitoring—it's investment in developing the next generation of senior contributors.
Building on the buddy system, every interaction in a Smartup follows the Attacker, Defender, Midfielder (ADM) pattern:
-
graph TD
- A[Attacker/Senior<br/><sub>Drives action forward</sub>]
- D[Defender/Junior<br/><sub>Learns while ensuring quality</sub>]
- M[Midfielder/Bot<br/><sub>Coordinates & documents</sub>]
-
- A <--> M
- D <--> M
- A -.->|Mentors| D
-
-
How It Works in Practice
-
-
ADM in Action: Task Execution
-
Scenario: A senior developer takes on the task "Deploy emergency mesh network prototype"
-1. Senior Developer (Attacker): Implements solution, explains decisions
-2. Junior Developer (Defender): Assists, learns patterns, validates effort
-3. Bot (Midfielder): Logs activity, manages check-ins
-The junior isn't just watching—they're actively learning deployment processes, understanding architectural decisions, and preparing to lead similar tasks in the future.
-
-
-
Learning by Doing
-
"The assistant learns how the worker solves a specific task and gains knowledge and skills. Defenders are literally learning to become seniors."
Traditional organizations use monitoring for compliance and control. In a Smartup, the buddy system creates a learning environment where:
-- Juniors gain real experience with safety nets
-- Seniors develop mentoring and leadership skills
-- Knowledge spreads organically through the organization
-- No one carries administrative burden alone
-The defender role isn't a watchdog—it's an apprenticeship. This transforms what could feel like surveillance into an opportunity for growth.
-
-
The Freedom to Shift: Horizontal Career Development
-
What makes Smartup identity truly revolutionary is voluntary role shifting. Unlike traditional organizations where you're locked into your expertise, we embrace career fluidity.
-
-
Role Shifting in Practice
-
Marcus has been a senior backend developer for 5 years. He's excellent at it, but getting bored.
-Traditional Organization: Marcus is stuck. His value is tied to his seniority in backend. Moving to UX means starting over, losing status and pay.
-In a Smartup: Marcus can:
-- Continue taking senior backend tasks when he wants (90% as attacker)
-- Join the UX team as a junior member
-- Take on UX tasks as a defender (10%, learning from senior UX designers)
-- Gradually build UX skills while maintaining backend income
-- Eventually take on senior UX roles as skills develop
-Result: Marcus expands his skillset, stays engaged, and the Smartup gains a developer who understands both backend AND user experience.
-
-
-
Why This Matters
-
For Individuals:
-- Never get trapped in a single role
-- Learn new skills while earning
-- Find renewed passion through variety
-- Build cross-functional understanding
-For the Smartup:
-- Retain talented people who might otherwise leave from boredom
-- Create bridges between teams through shared members
-- Build resilience—more people can cover more roles
-- Foster innovation through cross-pollination
-
-
The Learning Economy
-
This fluid identity system creates what we call a learning economy:
-
graph LR
- SE[Senior Expert<br/><sub>Feeling Stagnant</sub>]
- JL[Junior Learner<br/><sub>in New Domain</sub>]
- ME[Multi-skilled Expert<br/><sub>Cross-functional</sub>]
- IV[Increased Value<br/><sub>To Individual & Smartup</sub>]
-
- SE -->|Chooses to Explore| JL
- JL -->|Learns Through Tasks| ME
- ME -->|Creates| IV
- IV -->|Enables More| SE
-
-
Breaking the Specialization Trap
-
"Traditional organizations want you to stay in your box—it's easier to manage. But humans aren't meant to do one thing forever. A Smartup embraces our natural desire to grow, learn, and evolve."
-
-
Why Identity Shifting Matters
-
-
Identity in Action
-
Sarah is a senior developer who's curious about business development. Watch her fluid day:
-9:00 AM - General Forum: As a CITIZEN, she votes on strategic direction, her voice equal to everyone's.
-9:30 AM - Workplace: As a COLLEAGUE, she discusses overall progress in the OSBP.
-10:00 AM - Dev Team: As a senior TEAM MEMBER, she guides technical architecture decisions.
-11:00 AM - Task #42: As an ATTACKER, she codes a critical feature (earning 90% of task value).
-2:00 PM - Business Team: As a junior TEAM MEMBER, she joins market research discussions.
-3:00 PM - Task #78: As a DEFENDER, she assists on a competitor analysis task, learning from the senior business developer (earning 10% while learning).
-End of Day: Sarah earned well from her senior work AND gained business skills. The Smartup gets a developer who understands market pressures.
-
-
-
The Power of Context
-
By explicitly naming who we are in each space, we:
-- Prevent power dynamics from poisoning collaboration
-- Create psychological safety for honest communication
-- Enable rapid context switching without confusion
-- Build empathy by experiencing multiple perspectives
-- Allow graceful transition between expert and learner modes
-
-
Making the Shift
-Switching roles in a Smartup is designed to be frictionless:
-
-
See an interesting team? Join their public channel
-
Want to learn? Apply for junior roles in that team
-
Keep earning: Maintain senior roles in your expertise area
-
Grow gradually: Take on more advanced tasks as you learn
-
No permission needed: Your career path is yours to design
As we move between the 6 groups, we don't just change what we do—we change who we are. These identity protocols teach us how to show up in each space for maximum collective effective$
-
-
The Six Identities We Embody
-
-
-
-
In the General Forum
- ---
- We are CITIZENS
-
Equal voice, equal vote, equal responsibility. Here, the newest contributor has the same rights as the founding team. We debate, propose, and decide as equals.
-
"In this space, I am a citizen with rights and obligations"
-
-
-
In the Workplace
- ---
- We are COLLEAGUES
-
United by shared mission. We may have different skills and tasks, but we're all building toward the same vision. Collaboration over competition.
-
"In this space, I am a colleague working for our shared idea"
-
-
-
In Teams
- ---
- We are TEAM MEMBERS
-
Aligned on objectives. We coordinate our diverse skills toward specific goals, supporting each other's growth and success.
-
"In this space, I am a team member working on our objectives"
-
-
-
In Roles
- ---
- We are PEERS
-
Sharing expertise. Whether senior or junior, we're united by our craft, helping each other improve and solve technical challenges.
-
"In this space, I am a peer sharing skills and knowledge"
-
-
-
In Objectives
- ---
- We are SQUAD MEMBERS
-
Aligned on objectives. We coordinate our diverse skills toward specific goals, supporting each other's growth and success.
-
"In this space, I am a team member working on our objectives"
-
-
-
In Roles
- ---
- We are PEERS
-
Sharing expertise. Whether senior or junior, we're united by our craft, helping each other improve and solve technical challenges.
-
"In this space, I am a peer sharing skills and knowledge"
-
-
-
In Objectives
- ---
- We are SQUAD MEMBERS
-
Present and focused. We're here now, working on this specific mission, coordinating in real-time to achieve our goal.
-
"In this space, I am a squad member present and engaged"
-
-
-
In Tasks
- ---
- We are ATTACKERS & DEFENDERS
-
Executing with discipline. We take on specific roles—driving work forward or ensuring quality—with clear accountability.
-
"In this space, I am actively attacking or defending this task"
-
-
-
-
Why Identity Shifting Matters
-
-
Identity in Action
-
Sarah is a senior developer in Smartup Zero. Watch how she shifts:
-
9:00 AM - General Forum: As a CITIZEN, she votes on whether to pursue mesh networking, weighing in equally with designers and business developers.
-
9:30 AM - Workplace: As a COLLEAGUE, she reviews the overall ONLIFE roadmap, offering technical insights while respecting other disciplines.
-
10:00 AM - Dev Team: As a TEAM MEMBER, she coordinates with other developers on the sprint plan.
-
10:30 AM - Backend Role: As a PEER, she mentors a junior backend developer struggling with mesh protocols.
-
11:00 AM - "Build MVP" Objective: As a SQUAD MEMBER, she syncs with frontend and QA on today's integration.
-
11:30 AM - Task #42: As an ATTACKER, she codes the mesh discovery feature while her junior DEFENDER reviews and learns.
-
-
-
The Power of Context
-
By explicitly naming who we are in each space, we:
-- Prevent power dynamics from poisoning collaboration
-- Create psychological safety for honest communication
-- Enable rapid context switching without confusion
-- Build empathy by experiencing multiple perspectives
-
-
Learning the Dance
-New contributors often struggle with identity shifting at first. That's normal—we're conditioned by traditional organizations to maintain rigid roles. But with practice, this fluidity becomes natural and empowering.
-
-
Identity Discipline
-
These aren't just nice ideas—they're operational requirements. In our Matrix/Element spaces, channels are named and moderated to reinforce these identities. Bringing "boss energy" to a peer space or "individual contributor" mindset to the General Forum disrupts our collective intelligence
The ADM Triangle doesn't just operate within groups—it creates a transparency cascade from the outside world all the way down to individual tasks, ensuring accountability and alignment at every level.
-
-
We've seen how the ADM Triangle works within each group. But the true power emerges when we see how it connects the groups themselves, creating what we call the meta-transparency layer—a complete chain of accountability from public oversight to task execution.
-
The Oversight Cascade
-
Each group in our 6-layer structure maintains oversight of the group below it through its own ADM Triangle:
-
-
-
-
0_timeline → General Forum
- A: Citizens taking initiative with proposals/votes
- D: Leadership team ensuring quality moderation
- M: Bot documents everything to 0_timeline
- The outside world sees our governance in action
-
-
-
General Forum → Workplace
- A: Colleagues taking initiative with work
- D: Leadership team ensuring OSBP compliance
- M: Bot reports progress to General Forum
- Citizens oversee how work gets done
-
-
-
Workplace → Teams
- A: Team members taking initiative in teams
- D: Team captains ensuring strategy/budgets
- M: Bot reports team health to Workplace
- Colleagues oversee team formation
-
-
-
Teams → Roles
- A: Peers taking initiative in skill areas
- D: Team captain ensuring roles are filled
- M: Bot reports role coverage to Teams
- Teams oversee skill distribution
-
-
-
Roles → Objectives
- A: Squad members taking initiative on missions
- D: Mission leaders ensuring coordination
- M: Bot reports objective progress to Roles
- Peers oversee objective participation
-
-
-
Objectives → Tasks
- A: Worker taking initiative to complete
- D: Assistant ensuring quality/learning
- M: Bot reports task status to Objectives
- Squads oversee task execution
Let's follow a decision from inception to execution:
-Day 1 - Citizen Initiative:
-In the General Forum, citizens (A) propose adding mesh networking to ONLIFE. Leadership team (D) facilitates discussion. Bot (M) publishes proposal to 0_timeline.
-Day 3 - Vote Passes:
-Colleagues in Workplace (A) volunteer to implement. Leadership team (D) ensures it fits OSBP. Bot (M) reports commitment to General Forum.
-Day 5 - Team Forms:
-Dev team members (A) organize around mesh networking. Team captain (D) allocates budget and strategy. Bot (M) reports team formation to Workplace.
-Day 7 - Roles Activate:
-Backend peers (A) define mesh protocol skills needed. Team captain (D) ensures roles are properly staffed. Bot (M) reports skill gaps to Teams.
-Day 10 - Objective Launches:
-Squad members (A) begin "Build Mesh Prototype" objective. Mission leader (D) coordinates resources. Bot (M) reports progress to Roles.
-Day 12 - Tasks Execute:
-Senior dev (A) codes mesh discovery feature. Junior dev (D) assists and learns. Bot (M) logs 4 hours work, reports completion to Objective.
-Result: Complete transparency from public proposal to code commit. Every stakeholder can trace the path.
-
-
-
Why This Matters
-
Traditional organizations hide their operations behind closed doors. Our meta-transparency means:
-- Public can see how decisions become reality
-- Citizens can track their proposals through execution
-- Workers understand why they're building what they're building
-- No black boxes, no hidden agendas
-- Trust through transparency at every level
-
-
-
Information Overload?
-
With transparency at every level, we risk drowning in data. That's why the bot middleware is crucial—it filters and summarizes, ensuring each level gets the right amount of detail. Citizens don't see every git commit; task workers don't get flooded with governance debates.
The OSBP is the living, breathing constitution of a Smartup—where an entrepreneur's vision transforms into collective property through democratic participation and continuous evolution.
Every Smartup begins with an entrepreneur who sees a solution to an SDG challenge. But unlike traditional startups where founders retain control, the OSBP is the mechanism for transferring ownership to the collective.
Every OSBP must establish legitimacy through three essential groundings:
-
-
-
-
SDG Grounding
- ---
- Which SDGs does this address?
- Why is this problem critical?
- How does our solution help?
- What's the measurable impact?
- Links to UN frameworks
-
-
-
Scientific Grounding
- ---
- Evidence the solution works
- Research backing approach
- Technical feasibility studies
- Peer-reviewed references
- Testable hypotheses
-
-
-
Democratic Grounding
- ---
- The validation test:
- Current owners: X joined
- Target owners: Y needed
- Funding: €X of €Y goal
- Teams forming: X of Y needed
- "Do enough people want this?"
-
-
-
-
-
Why Three Groundings?
-
SDG: Ensures we're solving real planetary problems
-Scientific: Proves our solution can actually work
-Democratic: Tests if enough people care to make it happen
-Together, they prevent building solutions nobody needs.
The democratic grounding is the entrepreneur's ultimate reality check:
-
-
From 'I Think' to 'We Know'
-
"I think this is a good idea and I've done my homework. Now let's find out if enough other people agree and want this as badly as I do. Not through surveys or likes, but through real commitment—joining as owners, contributing funds, volunteering skills. If we can't rally enough people in validation, we shouldn't build it."
-
-
This democratic grounding happens through:
-- Crowdfunding success: People vote with their wallets
-- Team formation: Skilled people volunteer their time
-- Owner recruitment: Citizens join the mission
-- Financial thresholds: Real money proves real demand
-- Active participation: Not just watchers but builders
-
By the end of validation, we don't guess there's demand—we've proven it through collective action.
Day 1: Design team improves user flow section
-Day 2: Team captain submits changes to Workplace
-Day 2-5: Lazy consensus period (72 hours)
-- No objections from 3+ colleagues = proceed
-- Objections = discussion and resolution
-Day 5-7: General Forum notification (48 hours)
-- Final chance for any owner to raise concerns
-Day 7: Auto-published to live OSBP on 0_timeline
The OSBP naturally identifies leaders through work:
-
-
Teams collaborate on their OSBP section
-
Quality contributors emerge through the writing
-
Natural coordination becomes visible
-
Team elects captain based on demonstrated ability
-
Captains form Leadership Team
-
-
-
Not a Static Document
-
Traditional business plans are fiction about the future. The OSBP is living documentation of our evolving reality. Every pivot, every learning, every decision gets captured in real-time.
Where it lives: Version controlled in Forgejo, rendered on 0_timeline
-Who can read: Everyone (public)
-Who can propose changes: Team members for their sections
-Who approves: Lazy consensus through Workplace + Forum
-Update frequency: Continuous as we learn
-
-
The Document That Binds Us
-
"The OSBP isn't what we pitch to investors—we don't have any. It's what we promise each other and the world. It's our collective memory, our shared vision, and our operational reality all in one living document."
A Smartup isn't a charity or volunteer project—it's a professional business operation that measures success in SDG progress rather than profit margins. Here we document our economic model: how money flows, how work gets valued, and how ownership creates both efficiency and equity.
When we look at traditional approaches to SDG challenges, we see a pattern that keeps failing us. NGOs burn out on donation fatigue, never achieving the scale needed for real impact. Social enterprises start with good intentions but get pulled toward profit over purpose when investors come knocking. Volunteer projects, despite passionate contributors, can't maintain the professional quality that complex global challenges demand.
-
We need something different—a model that combines business discipline with public good DNA.
-
-
What Makes a Smartup Different
-
We are a business that:
-- Attracts top talent with fair pay (not volunteerism)
-- Maintains professional standards (not hobby quality)
-- Operates 24/7 globally (not weekend projects)
-- Measures success in SDG progress (not stock prices)
-- Shares ownership equally among builders (not founders/VCs)
-
-
This isn't ideological—it's practical. To solve civilization-scale problems, we need civilization-scale operations. That means professional quality, sustainable economics, and aligned incentives from day one.
-
-
Not Anti-Business, New Business
-
We're not rejecting capitalism or profit. We're demonstrating that business discipline can serve collective goals when ownership, incentives, and success metrics align with social good. Profit becomes fuel for mission, not the mission itself.
Every Smartup needs capital to operate. Instead of selling equity to VCs, we sell membership to our community. But unlike traditional equity, every license—whether €200 or €5000—carries exactly one vote and one equal share of future success.
Simplified grant admin
-Rights: Strategic partnership
-
-
-
-
-
-
Organizational License in Action
-
University Computer Science Department buys organizational license:
-- Students work on ONLIFE for real-world experience
-- University gets one vote in governance
-- Professor acts as designated representative
-- Students gain skills building emergency communication systems
-- University supports SDG progress while training talent
-Result: Win-win-win for education, SDGs, and Smartup
graph LR
- V[Validation<br/>Low prices<br/>High risk] --> D[Design<br/>2x prices<br/>Proven concept]
- D --> P[Production<br/>4x prices<br/>Working prototype]
- P --> O[Organization<br/>8x prices<br/>Market ready]
-
-
Why Prices Increase
-
Early supporters: Take more risk → Pay less
-Later joiners: Get more certainty → Pay more
-Free tier: Always available → Never excludes
-Transparency: Price increases announced in advance
-Leadership decides: Each Smartup sets based on needs
-
-
-
Equal Ownership Principle
-
"Whether you buy a €200 work license or a €5000 organizational license, you get exactly one vote and one equal share. This isn't about how much money you have—it's about joining the mission."
The heart of our business model: fair pay for good work. In early phases without cash, we use Smartup Credits (SC)—a transparent, task-based currency that converts to euros when treasury allows.
flowchart TD
- T[Task Created<br/>2000 SC bounty]
- W[Worker Claims<br/>Becomes Attacker]
- A[Assistant Joins<br/>Becomes Defender]
- C[Work Completed<br/>Captain Approves]
- L[Ledger Updated<br/>SC Minted]
- H{Hold or Cash?}
-
- T --> W
- W --> A
- A --> C
- C --> L
- L --> H
-
- H -->|Hold SC| F[Future Value<br/>As Treasury Grows]
- H -->|Cash Out| R[Redemption Window<br/>FIFO Order]
-Treasury: €10,000 → Max SC: 30,000
-This prevents runaway inflation and maintains SC value
-
-
Redemption Windows work like this:
-1. Funding arrives (crowdfunding/grants)
-2. Ops team calculates available redemption
-3. FIFO order - earliest contributors cash out first
-4. Ledger burns - SC removed, EUR transferred
-5. Public record - everyone sees the process
Aligned Incentives
- ---
- Work more = earn more
- Help others = get 10%
- Build value = SC appreciates
- Stay active = stay earning
-
-
-
-
-
No Hidden Bonuses
-
"The entire ledger lives in public view. Every SC minted, every redemption, every team budget—transparent to all owners. When the CEO of a traditional company gets a €10M bonus while laying off workers, that's the system we're replacing."
Money isn't the only currency that matters. Smartup Karma (SK) recognizes contributions that SC can't measure—the teammate who debugs at midnight, the member who mediates conflicts, the captain who builds team morale.
While SC rewards task completion, SK captures the intangible value that makes communities thrive.
-
-
-
-
How SK is Earned
- ---
- Quality defender feedback: +5-10 SK
- Successful proposals: +20 SK
- Mentoring juniors: +5 SK/week
- Team captain service: +10 SK/month
- Mission completion: +15 SK
- Conflict resolution: +10 SK
-
-
-
What SK Unlocks
- ---
- 50 SK: Propose in General Forum
- 100 SK: Apply for Team Captain
- 200 SK: Lead Missions
- 500 SK: Join Leadership Team
- Vote weight: Max 1.5x at 500+ SK
-
-
-
SK Decay Mechanism
- ---
- 10% monthly decay
-
-
Prevents founder privilege
-
Rewards active contribution
-
Makes room for new leaders
-
Keeps influence current
-Stay active or fade away
-
-
-
-
-
-
SK Cannot Be Gamed
-
Can't buy it: No amount of money gets you SK
-Can't transfer it: Your reputation is yours alone
-Can't hoard it: Use it or lose it to decay
-Can't fake it: Earned through peer recognition
graph TD
- HSL[High SC, Low SK<br/>Great Individual Worker<br/>Limited Influence<br/>Needs more community engagement]
-
- LSH[Low SC, High SK<br/>Community Pillar<br/>Trusted Voice<br/>Consider taking more tasks]
-
- HSH[High SC, High SK<br/>Natural Leader<br/>Productive + Connected<br/>Ready for Leadership Team]
-
- LSL[Low SC, Low SK<br/>New Member<br/>Learning Phase<br/>Pick a path to contribute]
-
- HSL --> HSH
- LSH --> HSH
- LSL --> HSL
- LSL --> LSH
-
-
SK in Action
-
Maria spends her evening:
-- Helps debug junior's code (not her task) → +5 SK
-- Mediates team conflict in public channel → +10 SK
-- Provides excellent defender feedback → +8 SK
-- Monthly captain duties → +10 SK
-Total: +33 SK for community building (0 SC earned)
-Her high SK opens leadership opportunities and increases her voting weight, recognizing that building community is as valuable as building code.
Traditional organizations:
-- Only pay for direct output
-- Community building goes unrewarded
-- Soft skills undervalued
-- Politics determine influence
-Smartup approach:
-- SC rewards direct work
-- SK rewards community value
-- Both needed for full participation
-- Merit determines influence
-
-
-
Beyond Individual Gain
-
"In Silicon Valley, they optimize for 'unicorns'—billion-dollar individuals. We optimize for collective intelligence. SK ensures those who make everyone better get recognized, not just those who code fastest."
How money flows in, how it's allocated, and why our operational model creates competitive advantages over traditional tech companies—all while staying true to SDG missions.
Crowdfunding Rounds
- ---
- Each phase opens new funding
- Community-driven campaigns
- Transparent goals and usage
- Creates urgency through phases
- Builds momentum naturally
-
-
-
Organizational Licenses
- ---
- €5000+ institutional support
- Universities, NGOs, ethical business
- Simplified grant administration
- Strategic partnerships
- Stable funding base
-
-
-
Research Grants
- ---
- SDG-aligned funding
- No strings attached
- Project-based support
- Public good emphasis
- Mission preservation
-
-
-
-
-
What We Don't Take
-
No venture capital - Avoids exit pressure
-No corporate investment - Prevents mission drift
-No hidden funding - Everything transparent
-This isn't ideological purity—it's practical. The moment we take traditional investment, incentives distort toward profit extraction rather than SDG impact.
flowchart LR
- TC[Team Captains<br/>Prepare Requests] --> LT[Leadership Team<br/>Monthly Meeting]
- LT --> P[Public Proposal<br/>With Rationale]
- P --> GF[General Forum<br/>Reviews & Votes]
- GF --> A[Approved Budget<br/>Allocated to Teams]
- A --> E[Execution<br/>Public Spending]
- E --> R[Report Back<br/>To General Forum]
-
-
-
Monthly Budget Meeting
-
Dev Team Captain: "We need 5000 SC for mesh protocol development"
-Design Team Captain: "We need 3000 SC for UI/UX research"
-Business Team Captain: "We need 2000 SC for market analysis"
-Leadership Team compiles requests, checks against treasury
-General Forum sees all requests, debates priorities
-Vote determines final allocation
-Result: Everyone knows why money goes where
These aren't fixed—each Smartup's Leadership Team proposes budgets based on real needs. Building emergency communication needs different resources than water purification. The General Forum approves based on transparent justification.
Every owner can see in real-time:
-- Total funds in Open Collective
-- Outstanding SC liabilities
-- Team budget allocations
-- Individual task payments
-- Redemption window status
-
-
Trust Through Transparency
-
"In traditional startups, employees discover the burn rate when layoffs hit. In a Smartup, every citizen watches the treasury like it's their own bank account—because it is."
When a Smartup completes its four phases and launches a market entity, the Book of Owners becomes a shareholder registry. Every license holder gets an equal share—a bonus for taking the journey together.
During Smartup Phase
- ---
- Book of Owners tracks licenses
- One license = One vote
- Focus on building together
- Earn SC through work
- Create collective value
-
-
-
At Market Launch
- ---
- Book → Shareholder registry
- 1000 owners = 1/1000 share each
- Equal shares regardless of:
-
-
When you joined
-
License type purchased
-
SC earned
-
-
-
-
After Market Entry
- ---
- Business generates revenue
- Profits distributed equally
- Shares are nice bonus
- Not why you joined
- Reward for collective risk
-
-
-
-
-
Shares Are Not The Point
-
We're clear about this: Join a Smartup to use your talent for SDG progress and earn fair pay through SC. The equal share is a bonus if we succeed together. If shares are your main motivation, this isn't for you.
-The goal: Make people want to work to earn money, not put in money to earn money.
The equal share model creates interesting dynamics:
-
graph LR
- A[Need More Help?] --> B[Accept More Owners]
- B --> C[Smaller Individual Shares]
-
- D[Want Bigger Shares?] --> E[Keep Team Focused]
- E --> F[Work More Efficiently]
-
- G[Sweet Spot] --> H[Right-Sized Team]
- H --> I[Quality Over Quantity]
-
- style G fill:#8bc34a
- style I fill:#8bc34a
-
This tension naturally prevents bloat. Teams find their optimal size—enough people to succeed, not so many that shares become meaningless.
After market launch, the Smartup community doesn't disappear—it becomes a living resource for the business entity.
-
-
For the Business (e.g., ONLIFE Inc.):
-- Talent Pipeline: Hire from people who built the product
-- Beta Testing: Community knows the vision intimately
-- Expert Network: Original builders retain deep knowledge
-- Brand Advocates: Shareholders naturally promote success
-
For Community Members:
-- First hiring priority: Job opportunities at the company
-- Paid consulting: Testing and advisory contracts
-- Continued involvement: Stay connected to "your baby"
-- Shareholder returns: If profitable, receive dividends
-
-
Living Ecosystem in Practice
-
ONLIFE launches successfully
-- Needs iOS developer → Hires from Smartup community first
-- Testing new mesh protocol → Pays community members as testers
-- Strategic decision needed → Consults original architects
-- Growing to new markets → Community provides local insights
-The Smartup community remains a competitive advantage, not abandoned infrastructure.
These aren't life-changing amounts for individuals. But imagine:
-- Contributing to multiple Smartups over time
-- Building a portfolio of mission-driven work
-- Earning fair SC wages during development
-- Creating lasting SDG impact
-The shares are acknowledgment of shared risk, not a get-rich scheme.
-
-
-
Collective Success
-
"We work 24/7 because the SDGs can't wait. We pay fairly because talent deserves reward. We share ownership because collective problems require collective solutions. But the real return on investment? It's measured in lives improved, not just euros earned."
-
-
The Technical Stack: Tools for Collective Intelligence¶
-
-
What is this?
-
A Smartup's technical infrastructure embodies our values: decentralized, open source, sovereignty-preserving. We chose European-based tools that give us independence from Silicon Valley's surveillance capitalism while enabling true collective work.
When we observe the current technical landscape, we see tools designed to extract value, not create it collectively. Silicon Valley platforms lock in users, harvest data, and change terms at will. We need infrastructure that serves our mission, not shareholders.
-
-
The Sovereignty Imperative
-
Given emerging geopolitical realities, we can't build critical infrastructure on platforms that could be weaponized or withdrawn. European-based, open-source tools give us the autonomy we need.
Integrated Ecosystem
- ---
- Tools talk to each other
- Single identity system
- Bots handle integration
- Humans stay focused
- Collective intelligence
What it is: Decentralized, encrypted, real-time communication
-Why it matters: Non-coders never need to leave Element—everything happens here
-How we use it: All 6 groups live here, bots bring external data inline
-
-
The Digital Workspace
-
Unlike Slack (US-controlled, data-mining) or Discord (gamer-focused), Matrix gives us:
-- Full data sovereignty
-- Federation capability
-- End-to-end encryption
-- Self-hosted control
-- Bot-friendly architecture
What it is: Community-driven Git forge (ethical fork of Gitea)
-Why it matters: Source of truth for code, docs, and the SC ledger
-How we use it: Issues become tasks, repos hold everything, CI/CD automates
What it is: Our custom bot honoring Douglas Engelbart
-Why it matters: Automates the ADM triangle's midfielder role
-How we use it: Bridges tools, documents decisions, enables workflows
-
graph LR
- M[Matrix/Element] <--> E[Engelbot]
- F[Forgejo] <--> E
- O[Open Collective] <--> E
- L[Ledger] <--> E
-
- E --> A[Automates Admin]
- E --> D[Documents Everything]
- E --> C[Coordinates Groups]
-
-
-
Why 'Engelbot'?
-
"The real power of technology comes from augmenting human intelligence, not replacing it. Engelbot handles the boring stuff so humans can focus on what matters."
Collective Ownership: Every tool is open source, forkable
-Collective Craftsmanship: Integrated workflows, no silos
-Collective Governance: Everything auditable, transparent
-Military Execution: Automated pipelines, clear processes
-
-
The tools don't just support our work—they embody our principles. When a new contributor joins, they enter an ecosystem designed for collaboration, not extraction.
-
-
Still Evolving
-
We're starting with proven tools and will migrate to full EU sovereignty as we grow. Every technical decision is documented, debated in public, and aligned with our mission.
The Smartup Administration Index is our unified, semantic numbering convention.
-It assigns every governance channel, team, role, objective, and task a clear, machine-readable identifier—ensuring transparency, accountability, and automation across Forgejo, Element, and Engelbot.
-
-
Purpose
-
-
🎯 Clarity: Instantly locate any process or discussion
-
🤖 Automation-Ready: Bots can parse, filter, and trigger workflows
-
🔄 Consistency: Uniform identifiers in Matrix/Element, Forgejo, and docs
-
🧾 Auditability: Every event logged with a traceable ID
0_timeline
-The public-facing, static website and primary transparency layer for the Smartup Zero experiment. Automatically updates from the project’s code and content repository to show the latest progress, business plan, team structure, open roles, and project documentation.
-
-
1_general_forum
-The “General Forum”—the digital public square for all Smartup owners (workers and watchers). This is where deliberation, voting, oversight, and key discussions occur. It’s the central arena for governance, transparency, and measuring the organization’s overall health.
-
-
2_workplace
-The central, private hub for all active “workers” within the Smartup. This is where work happens, teams assemble, and objectives are executed. Only those with a Work License may participate; the Workplace is the engine room of creation and productivity.
-
-
3_teams
-Skill-based groups within the Workplace, such as Development, Design, Media, Business, Operations, or Science. Teams focus on implementing specific aspects of the project. Each team is led by a Team Captain and organizes its own Roles and Objectives.
-
-
4_roles
-Function-specific assignments within a Team (e.g., UX Designer, Backend Developer, Copywriter). Each Role has requirements, compensation logic, and defines what kind of tasks the member can claim or be assigned.
-
-
5_objectives
-Distinct missions, project deliverables, or “sprints” that drive the Smartup forward. Each Objective is attached to a Team, can contain multiple Tasks, and is led by a Mission Leader responsible for coordination and quality.
-
-
6_tasks
-The atomic units of work in Smartup Zero. Tasks are clearly defined, trackable, and billable work items that contribute directly to achieving Objectives. Each Task has an assigned Worker (attacker), an Assistant (defender), and is supported by bots or automation (midfielder).
-
-
(The rest below is alphabetical, for completeness and consistency in all documentation):
-
-
ADM Triangle
-Attacker–Defender–Midfielder: The operational triad present in every group within the Smartup. The attacker initiates work or proposals, the defender reviews and provides oversight, and the midfielder (often a bot or automation) facilitates transparency and communication between roles.
-
-
Advisory Vote / Binding Vote
-Advisory votes are used for team-level or ambiguous decisions; binding votes are required for major milestones, phase transitions, or conflict resolution. Binding votes require a majority in the General Forum.
-
-
Book of Owners
-The transparent registry listing all official Smartup owners and their rights and privileges.
-
-
Business Team
-The group responsible for developing a solid business proposition, marketing strategies, financial planning, and ensuring the product or service is ready for market. In charge of the business and financial side of the Smartup, and of updating the Official Smartup Business Plan (OSBP).
-
-
Collective Craftsmanship
-A core Smartup value. Emphasizes that meaningful work and reward are distributed among all members based on contribution and merit, not hierarchy or tenure.
-
-
Collective Governance
-Democratic and transparent oversight of all Smartup operations, with formal processes for deliberation, voting, dispute resolution, and adaptation.
-
-
Collective IQ
-The enhanced problem-solving capability created when a group collaborates with transparency and shared purpose.
-
-
Collective Ownership
-Equal and inclusive ownership of the Smartup organization. Ownership is based on participation and willingness to contribute, not financial investment or seniority.
-
-
Crowdfunding Phases
-Funding rounds aligned with each major phase of Smartup creation. Each phase cannot progress to the next without meeting its designated funding target.
-
-
Design Team
-The group handling all design-related activities such as user experience (UX), interface, branding, wireframing, and prototyping. Responsible for the Design Blueprint and close cooperation with the Development Team and Science Team.
-
-
Development Team
-The technical heart of the Smartup. Builds and tests the core product or service, covering frontend, backend, security, architecture, and QA. Coordinates with Design, Science, and Operational Teams, and manages code versioning and repositories.
-
-
Isolated Human Doctrine
-A term describing the prevailing system in which technology platforms reinforce individualism and passive consumption, undermining collective action and responsibility.
-
-
Karma Points / Smartup Credits (SC)
-Karma Points are awarded for positive and constructive participation, teamwork, or peer review; these may be convertible to payouts. Smartup Credits (SC) are a tokenized internal currency (1 SC = 1 EUR claim on treasury funds), earned through completing tasks.
-
-
Leadership Team
-The decision-making and strategic core of a Smartup during creation phases, composed of all team captains and the initiating entrepreneur. This team orchestrates budgets, objectives, and major decisions while being accountable to the full community.
-
-
Media Team
-Ensures communication flows both inside the Smartup (internal reporting, progress updates) and outside (public relations, social media, storytelling). Produces engaging content to keep the community and backers informed.
-
-
Mission Leader
-A senior member appointed to maintain progress and oversight within a specific objective, assign tasks, and ensure quality of work.
-
-
Objectives
-Defined missions, focus areas, or sprints within the Teams structure; objectives break the organizational vision into actionable missions.
-
-
Observation
-The analytical foundation for Smartup Zero: the world is off track for the SDGs because collective action and problem-solving are obstructed by broken digital and organizational systems.
-
-
Official Smartup Business Plan (OSBP)
-A “living document” that records strategy, key decisions, research, assessments, and design throughout all phases; accessible to all owners.
-
-
ONLIFE
-The first pilot project of Smartup Zero: a decentralized, emergency citizen mesh network prototype.
-
-
Operational Team
-Focuses on monitoring and improving processes between teams. Handles incident management, compliance, documentation, learning, and overall coordination, especially crucial for the first Smartup where learning is key.
-
-
Organization (Phase Four)
-The final phase of Smartup creation, in which the executive/operational structure is finalized, the business proposition is solidified, and the product or service is prepared for market launch.
-
-
Phases of Creation
-The four required stages for building a Smartup and its product or service:
-1. Validation – Organize support, prove viability, reach the first funding target, and form coherent teams.
-2. Design – Co-create blueprints and user experiences with scientific peer review and collective input.
-3. Production – Build MVP/product, run beta tests, and refine based on review and feedback.
-4. Organization – Establish operational structure, complete the final business plan, and prepare for launch.
-
-
Production (Phase Three)
-The phase in which the product or service is built, tested, and improved based on feedback and scientific review.
-
-
Roles
-Specific functional positions (e.g., Frontend Developer, UX Designer, Copywriter) within Teams; define both skill requirements and compensation rates.
-
-
Science Team
-Group responsible for independent scientific oversight and review, ensuring that all processes and outcomes align with sustainability best practices, evidence, and scalability. Holds power to request additional research or halt advancement if standards are not met.
-
-
Sociotechnical System (STS)
-An integrated approach to organizational design that balances social (human) and technical (infrastructural) factors for optimal collective performance and quality of life.
-
-
Smartup
-A new organizational model (the subject of Smartup Zero) designed to maximize democratic, scientific, and community-driven collaboration in creating technology for social and planetary benefit.
-
-
Smartup Constitution
-A codified document of learnings, rules, and governance logic, iteratively developed from the Smartup Zero experiment, designed to be adapted by future Smartups.
-
-
Smartup Credits (SC)
-Internal, auditable digital tokens or ledger entries, representing claimable value for contributors (1 SC = 1 EUR when funds are available in the treasury).
-
-
Smartup Metabolism
-Metaphor for the system of processes—decision-making, feedback, payout, onboarding, and documentation—that enable the Smartup to adapt, sustain itself, and grow.
-
-
Smartup Organism
-Metaphorical framing for the entire Smartup structure as a multi-layer, living system whose “organs” work together toward collective vitality and resilience.
-
-
Task
-The atomic unit of productive work. Clearly defined, assigned, and logged; completion triggers SC payouts and structured peer/advisor review.
-
-
Team
-A focused group of workers with a shared skillset, responsible for a domain such as Development, Design, Media, Business, Operations, or Science. Each team is led by a Team Captain and contains multiple Roles and Objectives.
-
-
Team Captain
-Elected leader within a given Team; manages roles, budgets, tasks, performance, and represents the team in the Leadership Team.
-
-
Validation (Phase One)
-The initial phase of building a Smartup: validating the concept, building community, securing funding, and operationalizing the vision.
-
-
Watch License / Work License
-A Watch License grants governance and observation rights within the Smartup, but not paid assignments. A Work License grants the full right to work, vote, and earn Smartup Credits.
-
-
Workplace
-The centralized collaborative production environment for all workers, where concurrent teamwork and objectives are managed.
A concise map of our experiment design: how we put the Smartup Hypothesis into practice
-by redesigning the Social, Technical, and External subsystems. Follow the links to dive deeper.
Building on our core hypothesis, Smartup Zero tests three system tweaks:
-
-
-
Social Subsystem
- From fragmented “users” to democratic citizens—transparent governance, peer workflows, and collective ownership.
-
-
-
Technical Subsystem
- From isolated tools to group-first design—dual-currency economy, license model, sovereign open-source stack, and automated administration.
-
-
-
External Subsystem
- From national silos to planetary organizations—borderless operations, equal pay, and a roadmap to global recognition.
-
-
-
-
-
Don't Be Overwhelmed
-
A Smartup is a new species of organization with many novel tools, processes, and workflows.
-You won’t master it all at once—learn by doing in the live experiment!
We frame each subsystem by its defining elements. Click through to explore details and examples.
-
-
-
-
Architecture
-- Rocket model: foundation (Science, Democracy, Collective IQ) + 3 pillars + military execution.
-- Four Phases (0→Validation→Design→Production→Organization).
-- Six Groups of Productivity (Forum, Workplace, Teams, Roles, Objectives, Tasks).
-- ADM Triangle + Buddy System for quality, learning, and accountability.
-- Official Smartup Business Plan (OSBP) as living constitution.
-- :material-coin: Smartup Credits (SC) for transparent contribution tracking.
-
-
-
Economy & Access
-- Dual-Currency Model (SC + Social Karma).
-- Four License System (Campaign → Watch → Work → Organizational).
-
Infrastructure & Automation
-- EU-sovereign, open-source stack (Matrix/Element, Forgejo, Open Collective).
-- Smartup Administration Index (semantic numbering & workflows).
-- Engelbot & CI for automated task routing, voting, and SC minting.
-
-
-
Planetary Scope
-- Digital-first, no HQ, operates under Internet jurisdiction.
-- Borderless participation & equal pay worldwide.
-- Defocused from politics; focused on SDGs & scientific reality.
-- Roadmap to UN/global recognition as a new org “species.”
This page documents, through a sociotechnical lens, what the 2025 UN SDG Progress Report demonstrates about the state of global development systems. We observe—not prescribe—where and how deep misalignments persist between people, technology, and larger structures.
-
-
-
-I just want the abstract
-
This Observation page documents a rigorous, up-to-date account of global progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through the lens of sociotechnical systems theory. Drawing directly from the 2025 United Nations SDG Progress Report, we assemble evidence that confirms a troubling reality: while knowledge, innovation, and digital infrastructure have all advanced, structural misalignments persist between our social behaviors, technical systems, and external incentives. These misalignments—identified as social, technical, and external subsystems—are at the heart of why collective action on urgent global challenges continues to fall short. Here, we reference authoritative data and expert analysis, not to propose solutions, but to precisely clarify where the current system fails and why a new approach is urgently required. This scientific baseline serves as the foundation for the hypotheses and experiments developed on subsequent pages.
“The world remains far off track from achieving the 2030 Agenda. Of the 169 SDG targets, only 35% show adequate progress—18% are on track, 17% making moderate progress. In contrast, 48% show insufficient progress, and 18% of targets have regressed below 2015 baseline levels.”
“Sociotechnical theory is about joint optimization: designing systems where technical performance and human wellbeing are advanced together. It focuses on how social behaviors interact with technology, shaping both productivity and the quality of our collective work lives.”
-— Wikipedia: Sociotechnical Systems
-
“Originally, computing focused on hardware, then software, then human-computer interaction, and now—at the level of sociotechnical systems—it considers how whole communities work through technology.”
-— The Interaction Design Foundation, STS
-
“A community works through people using technology.”
-
In this spirit, our observations are grounded in the science of sociotechnical systems:
-
We ask: Where do our social, technical, and external systems align or misalign with collective wellbeing and progress?
-We observe: Not just individuals with tools, but communities and societies—working, failing, or succeeding together, by and through their technologies.
-
graph TD
- SS[**Social Subsystem**<br/><sub>Attributes of people -skills, attitudes, values-, relationships, reward systems, authority</sub>]
- TS[**Technical Subsystem**<br/><sub>Processes, tasks, technology for transforming inputs to outputs</sub>]
- ES[**External Subsystem**<br/><sub>Outside influences, stakeholders, partnering perspectives</sub>]
- SS -- "Work System Design" --- JO[**Joint Optimization**]
- TS -- "Work System Design" --- JO
- ES -- "Pulls/Influences" --> JO
As we become more connected and more informed about the thousands of challenges facing humanity, we can’t help but notice a painful truth: despite our awareness, nothing we do as individuals seems to move the needle. Decades after the Club of Rome’s ‘Limits to Growth’ warned us about the risks of unchecked development, growing awareness about the links between society and our natural world still hasn’t triggered fundamental shifts in how we organize ourselves.
-
We measure more, know more, and have greater access to scientific insight than ever before. Yet, remarkably few of us are actually working on real solutions to real problems. Instead, we find ourselves trapped in a paradox: the better we get at calculating and exposing the effects of our culture on nature, the less agency we feel to change the course we’re on.
-
We’re overwhelmed, not just by the data and complexity, but by a constant barrage of conflicting information, misinformation, and cultural warfare—conditions that make genuine collaboration and action feel impossible. It’s as if the systems around us are designed to keep us running in place, growing tired, but never reaching meaningful progress.
-
Deep down, we recognize ourselves in this paradox. We are the hamsters, running tirelessly on wheels built by economies and power structures that benefit from our distraction and confusion. This is the central issue we need to name and break: the system that keeps us moving, but rarely moving forward.
-
-
UN Confirmation
-
-
“Persistent inequalities continue to limit human potential... The broader context is increasingly complex. Climate change continues to accelerate... A $4 trillion annual financing gap constrains development progress."
Routines and incentive systems keep individuals in cycles that reinforce, not repair, the global crises.
-
Those most threatened by these risks are generally excluded from shaping system-level responses.
-
-
-
Technical Subsystem Fault — The Isolated Human Doctrine¶
-
When we look honestly at the world’s urgent challenges, it’s not just their complexity that weighs on us—it’s the shape our own societies are in to overcome them. We find ourselves divided, distracted, and often addicted to digital habits, while the most powerful organizations on earth benefit from keeping us apart. Increasingly, our technology is designed to isolate us—as users, as consumers, not as collaborators or citizens. This is what we call the isolated human doctrine.
-
This doctrine does more than make us passive—it also convinces us to wait for someone else to solve the crisis. We’re conditioned to look to governments, powerful leaders, or brands to invent our way out of these problems. But the truth is, they won’t. Deep down, we know we need to step up—not as lone heroes, but as people who are a bit more organized, a bit more connected, and united by purpose.
-
We’ve been told a better world starts with “fixing yourself.” If we face these challenges alone, everything feels too big to tackle. But if we face them together, maybe—just maybe—they become possible.
-
-
UN Confirmation
-
-
“Progress has been deeply inadequate. This reflects... a fundamental problem in how we measure, monitor and respond to global development needs... Statistical systems remain chronically underfunded—treated as technical afterthoughts.”
We feel a growing sense of urgency as we watch our grip on the world slip away—just when we need clarity and collective strength the most. The explosion of digital content and internet access was supposed to empower us. It did make knowledge more available than ever. Now, everyone can publish, create, and share at the speed of thought.
-
But all this information hasn’t brought us together—it’s become a battleground for the agendas of corporations and political powers. Instead of uniting us, today’s internet is often used to distract, confuse, and divide. Powerful interests, not people, steer the flow of content and shape what we believe.
-
Somehow, we have let this happen: the internet’s promise hijacked by those who profit from division and distraction, instead of fostering the collaboration we urgently need. There’s no single cause, but the result is clear—a system that floods us with information, but makes meaningful, collective change harder than ever.
-
-
UN Confirmation
-
-
“Funding for global data... remains heavily dependent on a small group of major funders... The fragility of data financing is well-illustrated after abrupt termination of funding... which now threatens the production of critical data needed to monitor progress on multiple SDG indicators.”
“The challenges we face are inherently global and interconnected. No country... can address climate change, pandemic preparedness or inequality alone. ...Sustainable development is not a zero-sum game, but a shared endeavour that benefits all.”
-
— UN SDG Progress Report 2025, Call for renewed multilateralism
-
-
-
Our Scientific Take:
-The 2025 SDG Progress Report confirms what systems theorists have observed for years:
-- Global stalling isn’t due to ignorance or lack of effort, but structural misalignment—across social, technical, and external (funding/governance) systems.
-- As long as these systems remain fragmented or externally steered, collective progress will remain slow, fragile, and easily reversed.
This section sets out our core scientific and practical hypothesis for Smartup Zero. Instead of patching old systems, we propose re-engineering the way technology is built, owned, and governed—creating a new “species” of organization that can address the failures confirmed by both the latest SDG report and sociotechnical theory.
-
-
-
-I just want to see the abstract
-
This page sets out the core hypothesis behind Smartup Zero. Building on our observations—and the latest evidence from the UN’s SDG report—we believe the current way technology is created, owned, and governed keeps us from making real progress on urgent global challenges. Our hypothesis: If we redesign digital organizations—so that ownership, contribution, and decision-making are collective, transparent, and grounded in science—then we can finally create the digital toolset and community power needed to reach our shared goals. This page breaks down how we think these system shifts must happen, subsystem by subsystem.
Our world is missing its SDG targets not for lack of effort, ideas, or technical skill—but because the systems we use to build, fund, and govern technology are fundamentally misaligned with collective needs.
-
Startups, NGOs, and even open source teams generally follow a logic that prioritizes shareholders, siloed expertise, or short-term results. These familiar models cannot fix our biggest problems at their roots.
-
We need a new kind of digital institution—a true sociotechnical “organism,” designed from the ground up so that collective action is easy, meaningful, and sustainable.
Today, ownership and power over technology live with founders and shareholders—not the people who use and build it. Most people are locked out of real decision-making, or can only “help” on the side.
-
Our hypothesis:
-If we move from shareholder-owned technology to people-owned technology, then joining, contributing, earning, and governing become accessible to all. Participating in positive change becomes a “day job,” not an afterthought.
-
-
In Practice
-
In a Smartup, all contributors—no matter their background—can own, shape, and steer the direction of projects together.
The mainstream model of digital design treats people as isolated “users.” Our tools are engineered for personal consumption or individual productivity—not for communities trying to solve big problems together.
-
Our hypothesis:
-If we explicitly design technology for citizen groups—drawing on the lessons of Douglas Engelbart and others—then our collective intelligence and ability to take coordinated action will accelerate.
-“Smartup tech is built for groups to collaborate, deliberate, and act as one.”
-
-
Inspiration
-
“The real breakthrough comes when technology supports groups solving problems together.”
-— Douglas Engelbart (paraphrased)
Traditional organizations—corporations, governments, even many NGOs—depend on closed funding streams, proprietary platforms, and top-down decision-making. These systems are vulnerable to external shocks and often shaped by priorities at odds with public value.
-
Our hypothesis:
-If we shift to decentralized, open funding (via crowdfunding, community partnerships, and open-source collaboration), then technology projects can remain truly accountable and resilient—serving society, not distant investors or powerbrokers.
-
-
Mechanism
-
Smartup Zero is structured so that funding, data, and decision rights are distributed and transparent—not captured by single entities or platforms.
To realign our systems with societal and planetary needs, we hypothesize that a new kind of organization—one that rewires ownership, technical design, and external relationships—can transform collective intent into real progress.
-
-
What's Next?
-
The next section documents how we are testing these hypotheses through the Smartup Zero experiment, step by step.
Being the owner of a Smartup is more like being a citizen of a new country than a shareholder of a new company. You need to contribute to the creation of the country. You've got all kinds of rights and obligations to do that. You share responsibility with co-owners for what the Smartup is creating. With your rights, you can perform those responsibilities. You've got the right to vote, supervise and work. At the same time, you offer your best and take part in good faith and with good intention. To show your good faith and good intention as an owner, you can work or govern.
Every Smartup owner is documented in The Book of Owners—a public ledger that records who owns and governs the organization together.
-
What it tracks:
-- Owner identity (anonymous or named)
-- Owership status (Worker/Watcher/Campaigner)
-- Voting rights and participation
-- Contribution history
-
It Lives as a ledger in the General Forum's Forgejo repository—transparent, immutable, and collectively maintained.
Documenting any of the 4 phases (Validation, Design, Production, Organization)
-Creating phase-specific status pages
-Planning future phases
-How to Use Templates
-Copy the template to your target location
-Replace all [placeholder] text with actual content
-Remove any sections that aren't relevant
-Follow the style guide for formatting
-Creating New Templates
-When creating new templates:
-
Use clear placeholders in [Square Brackets]
-Include all standard components from the style guide
-Add usage instructions to this README
-Test the template by creating a sample page
