Gifting and Sharing Economy
What defines a Gifting and Sharing Economy and what elements are excluded from it?
When discussions involve credits or tracking systems, you're no longer examining a gifting economy - that's simply another method of discussing currency.
Here's how an authentic gifting economy functions:
Person A works as a barber and cuts Person B's hair. Person B exits, expressing gratitude to Person A.
Person B drives trucks, collecting food from Person C and transporting it to Person D at the market. Person D arranges the products, opens for business, and Person A enters to gather what he requires before departing.
Notice anything recognizable in this pattern? It functions similarly to our existing monetary economic structure, except there's no currency, no credits, no tracking systems, no bartering - this represents the genuine nature of a gifting and sharing economy. A gifting economy isn't like Christmas, which actually operates on exchange (I provide you a gift, you provide me one). A gifting economy centers on giving without anticipating returns, while sharing focuses on collective access to resources, both differing from exchange-based models where reciprocation is expected. You'll never contribute more than you gain in a gifting and sharing economy.
You might wonder, what happens if Person E only takes but never contributes? Excellent point.
This brings us to Person F, who works as a psychiatrist. Those who refuse to contribute while remaining purely consumptive and display antisocial behavior likely have underlying problems requiring attention. The disinterest we observe today regarding contribution stems from our current system of servitude. People desire freedom, not bondage, and eliminating this system of servitude will motivate people to contribute in fulfilling ways. It might require one generation for monetary system effects to fade, explaining why mental and emotional support will be necessary.
Transition Timeline: From Current System to Gifting and Sharing Economy
Moving from our current monetary system to a fully functioning gifting and sharing economy requires careful planning and gradual implementation. This transition could realistically occur over 15-25 years through distinct phases that help people adjust psychologically and socially to new economic models.
Phase 1: Universal Basic Income Implementation (Years 0-5)
Immediate Goals: Establish economic security and reduce survival anxiety
Implementation Steps:
Roll out Universal Basic Income covering basic necessities (food, housing, healthcare, education)
Maintain current monetary system for non-essential goods and services
Begin massive investment in public infrastructure, education, and healthcare
Start transitioning essential services (utilities, transportation, communication) to public ownership
Implement job retraining programs for workers in obsolete industries (banking, insurance, debt collection)
Expected Outcomes:
Reduced poverty and homelessness
Increased entrepreneurship and artistic pursuits as survival fears diminish
Growing sharing economy initiatives as people have more time and security
Initial resistance from wealthy interests and those psychologically attached to current system
Key Indicators of Success:
Measurable reduction in stress-related health issues
Increased volunteerism and community engagement
Growth of cooperative businesses and mutual aid networks
Decreased crime rates related to economic desperation
Phase 2: Expanded Public Services and Sharing Infrastructure (Years 3-8)
Primary Goals: Normalize shared ownership and public goods
Implementation Steps:
Expand public transportation to comprehensive regional networks
Create community tool libraries, makerspaces, and repair cafes in every neighborhood
Establish public banking and eliminate private financial institutions
Implement maximum wealth limits and progressive taxation
Begin transitioning major industries to worker cooperatives
Expand educational opportunities and eliminate student debt
Expected Outcomes:
Normalized sharing of resources becomes culturally accepted
Reduced material consumption as sharing networks meet needs
Strengthened community bonds through shared spaces and activities
Decreased importance of individual accumulation
Key Indicators of Success:
High utilization rates of shared community resources
Declining private ownership of seldom-used items
Growing cooperative sector of the economy
Increased civic participation and community decision-making
Phase 3: Barter and Local Exchange Networks (Years 6-12)
Primary Goals: Reduce dependence on centralized currency while maintaining tracking systems
Implementation Steps:
Encourage development of local exchange trading systems (LETS) and time banks
Support community currencies for local transactions
Gradually reduce UBI amounts as sharing systems and local exchange meet more needs
Implement community land trusts and cooperative housing
Begin phasing out private property ownership for productive assets
Expand worker ownership of businesses through mandatory employee stock ownership plans
Expected Outcomes:
Communities become increasingly self-reliant through local production and exchange
Reduced dependence on global supply chains for basic needs
Stronger local economies and social networks
Growing comfort with non-monetary forms of exchange
Key Indicators of Success:
Thriving local exchange networks in most communities
Significant portion of daily needs met through sharing and barter
Reduced inequality and increased community wealth
Higher levels of life satisfaction despite reduced monetary wealth for some
Phase 4: Gradual Elimination of Money (Years 10-18)
Primary Goals: Transition to gifting while maintaining some tracking systems for complex coordination
Implementation Steps:
Begin eliminating money for essential goods and services
Maintain limited exchange systems for complex coordination and luxury items
Expand automation to handle most undesirable tasks
Implement sophisticated resource tracking and distribution systems
Establish global networks for sharing knowledge and resources
Complete transition to democratic workplace governance
Expected Outcomes:
Most daily transactions occur through gifting and sharing
Work becomes voluntary and meaningful rather than economically driven
Dramatic reduction in unnecessary production and consumption
Strengthened global cooperation and resource sharing
Key Indicators of Success:
High voluntary participation in community work
Efficient resource distribution without monetary incentives
Stable communities with low conflict over resources
Successful coordination of complex projects through collaboration
Phase 5: Full Gifting and Sharing Economy (Years 15-25)
Primary Goals: Complete elimination of currency and exchange systems
Implementation Steps:
Phase out remaining tracking systems and exchange mechanisms
Complete automation of undesirable tasks where possible
Establish mature democratic decision-making processes for resource allocation
Create global coordination networks for complex projects and resource sharing
Fully develop cultural norms supporting gifting and sharing behaviors
Expected Outcomes:
Sustainable, regenerative relationship with natural environment
High levels of human flourishing and creative expression
Strong, resilient communities with effective mutual support systems
Peaceful, cooperative global relationships
Key Indicators of Success:
Stable population and resource consumption within planetary boundaries
High levels of physical and mental health
Thriving arts, sciences, and cultural expression
Effective resolution of conflicts through community processes
Challenges and Mitigation Strategies
Psychological Resistance
Challenge: People accustomed to monetary systems may fear scarcity or loss of status
Mitigation: Gradual transition with safety nets, education programs, and demonstration projects showing benefits
Coordination Complexity
Challenge: Complex modern systems require sophisticated coordination
Mitigation: Develop advanced communication and coordination technologies, maintain democratic planning processes, start with smaller scale implementations
Global Integration
Challenge: Different regions may transition at different rates
Mitigation: Create flexible systems allowing interaction between different economic models, support knowledge sharing between transitioning communities
Resource Allocation
Challenge: Determining fair distribution without price mechanisms
Mitigation: Develop democratic decision-making processes, use technology to track actual need vs. availability, maintain small-scale community focus where possible
Work Incentives
Challenge: Ensuring necessary work gets done without monetary compensation
Mitigation: Redesign work to be meaningful and fulfilling, share unpleasant tasks, accelerate automation, create social recognition for valuable contributions
Critical Success Factors
Strong Democratic Institutions: Communities must develop effective ways to make collective decisions about resource allocation and work coordination.
Advanced Technology: Communication and coordination technologies are essential for managing complex systems without monetary mechanisms.
Cultural Shift: Social values must evolve to prioritize community welfare over individual accumulation.
Educational Reform: People need to learn cooperative skills, systems thinking, and collaborative problem-solving.
Mental Health Support: Addressing psychological damage from current economic system through therapy and community healing.
Environmental Integration: Economic transition must align with ecological restoration and sustainability goals.
Regional Variation
Different regions may transition at different speeds based on:
Existing cultural values and social structures
Level of economic development and technological infrastructure
Political systems and openness to change
Environmental conditions and resource availability
Population density and urbanization levels
Rural and smaller communities may transition more quickly due to existing traditions of mutual aid and simpler coordination requirements. Urban areas may require more sophisticated systems but can leverage technology and diversity of skills more effectively.
International Coordination
As some regions transition to gifting and sharing economies while others maintain monetary systems, international protocols will be needed for:
Resource sharing and trade between different economic systems
Migration and travel between regions with different economic models
Coordination on global challenges like climate change and technological development
Prevention of exploitation or resource extraction by monetary systems from gifting communities
Historical Precedents
This transition timeline draws inspiration from successful economic transformations in history:
Post-WWII Marshall Plan rapid economic restructuring
Nordic countries' transition to social democratic systems
Various societies' transitions from feudalism to capitalism
Indigenous communities' maintenance of gift economies alongside market participation
The key difference is that this transition moves toward greater cooperation and sustainability rather than increased exploitation and growth.
Historical Examples of Gifting and Sharing Economies
Throughout history, numerous societies have successfully operated gifting and sharing economies that demonstrate these principles in action.
Native American Potlatch Ceremonies: Pacific Northwest tribes like the Haida, Tlingit, and Kwakwaka'wakw practiced elaborate gift-giving ceremonies where chiefs would give away vast amounts of food, blankets, and valuable items. Additionally, these communities shared hunting grounds, fishing spots, and seasonal camps collectively. Status came not from accumulating wealth but from how much one could give away and share with others. These events strengthened community bonds and redistributed resources.
Traditional Melanesian Communities: In Papua New Guinea, the Trobriand Islanders developed complex gift networks called the Kula Ring, where valuable items traveled between islands. Beyond ceremonial gifting, daily necessities were shared freely within communities through collective gardening, shared cooking facilities, and communal child-rearing arrangements based on kinship and social relationships.
Ancient Germanic and Celtic Societies: Before monetary systems dominated Europe, many tribal groups operated on gifting and sharing principles. Warriors gained prestige by distributing spoils of war, while communities shared common lands, tools, and livestock. Seasonal festivals involved both gift-giving and collective feasting from shared community resources.
Buddhist Monastic Communities: For over 2,500 years, Buddhist monasteries have functioned as gifting and sharing economies. Monastics receive food, clothing, and shelter from laypeople without payment, while offering teachings, ceremonies, and spiritual guidance. Within monasteries, everything from living spaces to meals is shared collectively, creating sustainable cycles of both giving and communal access.
Indigenous Australian Aboriginal Groups: Traditional Aboriginal societies operated sophisticated gifting and sharing economies for over 60,000 years. Resources, knowledge, and tools were shared based on kinship systems and seasonal availability, while sacred sites and hunting territories were collectively maintained and accessed according to traditional protocols, ensuring survival in challenging environments.
Medieval European Commons: Before enclosure movements, European villages maintained extensive commons - shared lands for grazing livestock, gathering firewood, and growing food. These systems combined individual gifting of labor with collective sharing of resources, supporting entire communities for centuries.
Modern Examples of Gifting and Sharing
Even within our monetary system, gifting and sharing economy principles continue to thrive in various forms.
Open Source Software: Millions of programmers worldwide contribute code, documentation, and support to projects like Linux, Wikipedia, and countless applications without expecting payment. Simultaneously, these resources are shared freely among billions of users. Their gifts of time and expertise, combined with shared access to powerful tools, power much of the internet and modern technology.
Burning Man Festival: This annual event operates on principles of decommodification, radical giving, and communal sharing. Participants contribute art, services, and resources without selling anything, while infrastructure like water, medical facilities, and transportation are shared collectively, creating temporary communities based on both gifting and sharing principles.
Community Gardens and Food Forests: Urban areas worldwide feature shared growing spaces where people contribute labor and expertise while freely taking produce. These demonstrate both gifting (volunteer work) and sharing (collective access to land and tools). Many also include tool libraries and seed exchanges, expanding the sharing aspect.
Time Banking Networks: Communities organize systems where people contribute hours of service and receive services from others. While these edge toward credit systems, they maintain gift-like qualities when tracking becomes minimal. Shared community centers and meeting spaces often host these networks, combining gifting with resource sharing.
Couch Surfing and Hospitality Networks: Platforms connecting travelers with hosts operate largely on gifting principles, where people open their homes to strangers, sharing space, meals, and local knowledge without monetary exchange. Home-sharing cooperatives take this further by creating networks of collectively maintained properties.
Maker Spaces and Tool Libraries: Shared workshops and lending libraries allow communities to access expensive tools and equipment. Members contribute skills, maintenance, and resources while accessing what they need for projects. These spaces perfectly embody both gifting (volunteer expertise) and sharing (collective ownership of resources).
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Farmers and community members share both risks and rewards of agricultural production. Members provide upfront support (gifting) and receive shares of the harvest (sharing), creating resilient local food systems based on mutual aid rather than market transactions.
Natural Disaster Response: When communities face emergencies, people spontaneously organize gifting and sharing economies. Neighbors share food, shelter, and labor without keeping track of who owes what, while community centers become shared resources for coordination and support, demonstrating how these principles emerge naturally during crises.
Repair Cafes and Skill Shares: Communities organize events where people gift their repair skills and knowledge while sharing tools and workspace. Participants bring broken items to be fixed collectively, learning skills they can share with others in the future.
Moving to the advantages, which are substantial.
Debt doesn't exist since nothing gets tracked. No more stress about "covering expenses".
All positions related to currency, record-keeping, or serving others (unless someone chooses that work) get eliminated, reducing total jobs by fifty percent. Work weeks become shorter when everyone participates, creating more time for relaxation, family, friendships, learning new abilities and interests.
Job automation becomes welcomed rather than feared, particularly for undesirable tasks.
Products get manufactured using superior materials for maximum durability, reducing long-term labor requirements. They'll also be designed for near-complete recyclability, upgradeability, or reusability to protect natural resources.
Sharing systems dramatically reduce resource consumption - instead of everyone owning seldom-used items, communities maintain shared pools of tools, vehicles, and equipment.
Additional Benefits of Gifting and Sharing Economies
Enhanced Mental Health: Without the constant pressure of earning money and paying bills, stress-related mental health issues would dramatically decrease. People could pursue work that aligns with their passions and natural abilities rather than whatever pays the bills. Shared community spaces would provide social connection and support networks.
Environmental Restoration: When profit motives disappear, the drive to extract maximum resources at minimum cost ends. Communities would focus on sustainable practices that preserve ecosystems for future generations. Sharing systems mean producing fewer items overall since resources get utilized more efficiently.
Innovation and Creativity: Freed from the need to monetize every idea, inventors and artists could focus on creating genuinely useful or beautiful things rather than whatever sells best. Shared makerspaces and laboratories would provide access to expensive equipment and collaborative opportunities.
Social Cohesion: Gifting and sharing economies naturally strengthen community bonds. When survival depends on mutual support rather than individual accumulation, cooperation becomes the dominant social pattern. Shared spaces become gathering points that build relationships and trust.
Education Revolution: Learning could focus on developing human potential rather than job training. People would study subjects that fascinate them and develop skills based on community needs and personal interests. Knowledge would be shared freely rather than locked behind paywalls or patents.
Resource Efficiency: Sharing systems maximize utility from existing resources. Car-sharing reduces the need for individual vehicle ownership. Tool libraries mean fewer manufactured tools sitting unused. Shared community kitchens reduce individual appliance needs while enabling collaborative cooking and eating.
Understanding the Sharing Component
I want to elaborate on the sharing aspect of this economic model, which complements gifting by focusing on collective access rather than individual transfers.
Types of Sharing in the Economy
Resource Sharing: Physical items like tools, vehicles, equipment, and spaces are maintained collectively and accessed by community members as needed. This reduces waste, manufacturing demands, and individual storage requirements.
Knowledge Sharing: Information, skills, and expertise flow freely throughout communities. Educational resources, research findings, and practical knowledge become common heritage rather than private property.
Infrastructure Sharing: Large systems like transportation networks, communication systems, energy grids, and waste management operate as shared community resources rather than profit-generating businesses.
Space Sharing: Land, buildings, and facilities serve multiple purposes and users. Community centers host various activities, shared workspaces accommodate different projects, and common areas provide gathering places for social interaction.
A new VacTrain gets produced and presented to society collectively, not to individuals like food or clothes since many people will use it. Everyone riding that VacTrain shares that gift, and it can serve multiple users repeatedly. This exemplifies how sharing amplifies the value of gifts - one contribution benefits many people over extended periods.
Examples of Modern Sharing Economy Elements
Public Transportation Systems: Buses, trains, and subways represent shared gifts to communities. While currently funded through taxes and fares, these systems demonstrate how transportation can serve everyone rather than requiring individual ownership. Future systems could operate purely through gifted labor and shared community resources.
Public Parks and Recreation: National parks, playgrounds, hiking trails, and beaches operate as shared gifts. Communities collectively maintain these spaces for everyone's enjoyment and benefit, demonstrating successful resource sharing on massive scales.
Libraries: Perhaps the most successful example of gifting and sharing economy principles in modern society. Libraries provide books, internet access, meeting spaces, and educational programs freely to all community members. Librarians gift their expertise while community members share collective resources.
Community Land Trusts: These organizations hold land collectively, preventing speculation while providing affordable access to housing and community spaces. Members contribute to maintenance and decision-making while sharing access to valuable urban land.
Open Access Research: Scientists and academics increasingly share research findings freely rather than hiding them behind paywalls. This accelerates discovery and ensures knowledge benefits humanity rather than just those who can afford it. University resources are also increasingly shared through online platforms and collaboration networks.
Collective Ownership Models: Worker cooperatives, housing cooperatives, and community-supported businesses demonstrate how sharing ownership can create more equitable and sustainable enterprises. Members share both responsibilities and benefits while maintaining democratic control.
No system lacks challenges, including the Gifting and Sharing Economy. There will always be tasks nobody desires, and until complete automation arrives, we must all shoulder these responsibilities. However, sharing the burden of unpleasant work makes it more manageable, while sharing the benefits of automated systems ensures everyone gains from technological progress.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What about people who refuse to contribute?
A: Historical gifting and sharing economies rarely experienced this problem because social status came from giving rather than taking, and everyone had access to what they needed through sharing systems. In our current system, people avoid work because it often feels meaningless or exploitative. When people can contribute their genuine talents to help their community while having guaranteed access to shared resources, motivation increases dramatically. For those with genuine psychological barriers, therapeutic support would be available without the stigma and costs that prevent treatment today.
Q: How would complex projects get organized without money?
A: Open source software development shows how complex projects can coordinate through gifting and sharing principles. Wikipedia, created by volunteers using shared infrastructure, became more comprehensive than any paid encyclopedia. Large infrastructure projects would be organized through democratic decision-making processes and voluntary coordination, with shared resource pools supporting the work, similar to how communities organize disaster relief or barn-raising events.
Q: What about innovation and research?
A: Most breakthrough innovations come from publicly funded research at universities and government labs, not private companies seeking profit. When researchers don't need to worry about funding or monetizing discoveries, and when they have access to shared laboratory facilities and equipment, they can focus on solving actual problems rather than creating artificial scarcity or planned obsolescence.
Q: How would we handle scarce resources?
A: Gifting and sharing economies naturally encourage conservation because waste hurts the whole community. Without profit incentives driving overproduction and planned obsolescence, we would need fewer resources overall. Sharing systems mean fewer items sitting unused - instead of everyone owning a drill they use twice per year, communities would share tools. Collaborative consumption reduces total resource demands while improving access for everyone.
Q: Wouldn't society collapse without competition?
A: Competition for survival creates stress and conflict. Competition for excellence and achievement would still exist - people would compete to create the most beautiful art, solve the most challenging problems, or contribute most meaningfully to their communities. Sports and games would continue providing healthy competitive outlets. Sharing resources levels the playing field, making competition more about skill and creativity rather than access to capital.
Q: How would sharing work for personal items?
A: Not everything needs to be shared. Personal items like clothing, toiletries, and private spaces would still belong to individuals. The distinction lies between items that benefit from sharing (tools, vehicles, equipment) and those better suited for individual ownership (personal effects, private spaces). Communities would naturally develop norms about what makes sense to share versus what remains personal.
Q: How realistic is this 15-25 year timeline?
A: The timeline assumes favorable political conditions and broad public support for change. Historical precedents like the rapid economic transformations after WWII or the Nordic countries' development of social democratic systems demonstrate that major economic restructuring can occur within a generation when there's sufficient political will. However, resistance from vested interests could extend the timeline significantly. Starting with pilot programs and gradually expanding successful models would help demonstrate feasibility.
Q: What if some regions don't want to transition?
A: Different regions may transition at different speeds or choose different models. The key is developing systems that allow interaction between different economic models while protecting gifting and sharing communities from exploitation. Some regions might maintain modified market systems indefinitely, while others embrace full gifting economies. International coordination protocols would help manage these differences peacefully.
Common Arguments and Rebuttals
"Human nature is selfish - people won't work without payment"
Rebuttal: This assumes human nature in our current system reflects fundamental human nature. Anthropological evidence shows that cooperation, not competition, enabled human survival for millennia. Even today, people volunteer billions of hours annually for causes they care about. The internet was built largely by volunteers sharing knowledge freely. When work becomes meaningful rather than just a means to survive, and when everyone has access to shared resources, motivation actually increases. Sharing systems reduce anxiety about scarcity, making people more generous rather than more selfish.
"Complex modern society requires money for coordination"
Rebuttal: Modern technology makes coordination easier than ever before. We can track resource flows, coordinate production, and connect people with needs to those with abilities more efficiently than markets ever could. Large corporations already operate internally without market transactions between departments - they use planning and coordination instead. Sharing platforms like Wikipedia and Linux demonstrate how millions of people can coordinate complex projects without monetary exchange.
"Without price signals, we can't allocate resources efficiently"
Rebuttal: Prices often provide distorted signals based on purchasing power rather than actual need. A billionaire's demand for a luxury yacht gets prioritized over a poor family's need for clean water. Gifting and sharing economies can use modern communication and data analysis to understand actual community needs and coordinate responses more effectively than price signals. Shared resource pools and democratic decision-making ensure allocation based on community priorities rather than individual wealth.
"Innovation requires profit incentives"
Rebuttal: Most fundamental innovations come from publicly funded research or people following their curiosity, not profit-seeking companies. The internet, GPS, touchscreen technology, and many other breakthrough technologies originated in government-funded research. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research, and often focus on profitable treatments rather than cures. Sharing research facilities and resources would accelerate innovation by giving more people access to advanced equipment and collaborative opportunities.
"Who would do unpleasant but necessary jobs?"
Rebuttal: Many unpleasant jobs exist only because of our current system - telemarketing, debt collection, insurance claim denial, and much of the financial industry. Remaining unpleasant tasks could be shared among community members, automated, or redesigned to be less objectionable. When survival doesn't depend on keeping a bad job, and when unpleasant work is shared rather than dumped on the most desperate, people have more power to demand better working conditions or develop better solutions.
"What about lazy people who just want to consume?"
Rebuttal: Most perceived "laziness" stems from depression, meaningless work, or lack of opportunity to contribute meaningfully. When people can pursue their genuine interests and see how their work helps their community, while having guaranteed access to shared resources, motivation naturally emerges. Those with genuine psychological barriers would receive support rather than punishment. Sharing systems also mean that even people contributing less still have access to basic necessities.
"Gifting and sharing economies only work in small communities"
Rebuttal: Modern communication technology enables gifting and sharing principles at unprecedented scales. Open source software projects involve thousands of contributors worldwide sharing code and resources. During natural disasters, these principles naturally emerge even in large cities. The key is organizing larger systems as networks of interconnected smaller communities rather than top-down hierarchies. Global sharing networks for knowledge, resources, and coordination can connect local gifting and sharing communities worldwide.
"People need ownership incentives to take care of things"
Rebuttal: Shared ownership often leads to better maintenance than individual ownership. Community gardens are often better maintained than private yards because multiple people care for them. Libraries preserve books for decades while privately owned books often get damaged or lost. When people feel collective responsibility for shared resources, and when they depend on those resources remaining functional, they naturally maintain them well. Poor maintenance typically results from alienation, not lack of ownership.
"Sharing leads to tragedy of the commons"
Rebuttal: The "tragedy of the commons" occurs when people can profit privately while externalizing costs to the community - exactly what our current economic system encourages. In true gifting and sharing economies, community members live with the consequences of their actions and have democratic input into resource management. Historical commons systems worked successfully for centuries when communities had actual control over their shared resources. Modern sharing systems like Wikipedia demonstrate how digital commons can thrive with proper community governance.
"This transition timeline is too ambitious"
Rebuttal: The timeline reflects what's possible under favorable conditions, but implementation could be faster or slower depending on circumstances. Economic crises, environmental disasters, or technological breakthroughs could accelerate change, while entrenched interests could slow it down. The important point is having a roadmap for transformation rather than the exact timeline. Starting with pilot programs and gradual implementation reduces risks while building experience.
"UBI will make people lazy during the transition"
Rebuttal: Studies of UBI pilots consistently show that people use the security to pursue education, start businesses, care for family members, and engage in community activities. Only small percentages reduce work hours, usually new mothers and students. People generally want to contribute meaningfully when survival anxiety is removed. UBI during transition would enable people to take risks starting cooperatives, learning new skills, and experimenting with gifting and sharing systems.
For information about organization and decision-making in a Gifting and Sharing Economy, visit my Direct Democracy post here (https://directdemocracyandgifteconomy.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-direct-democracy-works.html).
This document remains active and gets updated when new information emerges, so return frequently for revisions.
Version 2.01
