Stewarding the Digital Commons

Our digital world is built on a foundation of critical infrastructure that is largely invisible, often thankless, and dangerously precarious. As I wrote recently on my personal blog , the story of open-source projects like Reticulum is a stark reminder of this reality. We depend on the brilliance and dedication of a few individuals who often work for years with little to no financial support, only to face burnout and disillusionment.

This is not a sustainable model. It is a tragedy of the commons, where we all benefit from a shared resource but fail to collectively maintain it. The typical solutions offered are themselves part of the problem. We are told that for a project to be “serious,” it must attract venture capital, which, as my critique of the DePIN space shows, inevitably transforms a mission into an asset to be stripped for value. The goal shifts from utility to exit liquidity.

We need a third way. A post-corporate model for funding our future. We need to stop thinking like consumers or investors and start thinking like stewards.

The Stewardship Model

What does it mean to be a steward? It means recognising that some things are too important to be owned by any single entity. It means understanding that our role is not to extract value, but to ensure the long-term health and availability of a resource for generations to come.

Projects like Reticulum are not products; they are infrastructure. They are the digital roads and bridges of the 21st century. We don’t expect a bridge to generate 10x returns for venture capitalists. We understand it as a public good, funded and maintained for the benefit of all who use it. We must begin to see our most critical open-source software in the same light.

This requires a new set of funding and governance structures that are purpose-built for the commons.

Digital Commons Trusts: A Blueprint

Imagine a “Digital Commons Trust” for a project like Reticulum. This is not a corporation or a traditional non-profit. It is a legal and financial entity with one single purpose: to ensure the continued development and maintenance of the open-source project in alignment with its stated principles.

How would it work?

1. Multi-Stakeholder Governance: The Trust would be governed by a board composed of different classes of stakeholders. Not just developers, but also users, businesses that rely on the software, and even academic or non-profit partners. This prevents capture by any single interest group.
2. Diverse Funding Streams: A Trust can receive funding from a variety of sources without being beholden to any of them.
   • Direct Donations: Individuals who value the project can contribute, just as they do now.
   • Service-Level Agreements (SLAs): Businesses that use the software in commercial products can pay the Trust for priority support, security audits, or specific feature development, without compromising the open-source nature of the core code.
   • Grant Funding: The Trust can apply for grants from foundations that support open technology and digital rights.
   • Membership Dues: A consortium of users or businesses could pay annual dues to support the project’s roadmap.
3. Salaried, Mission-Aligned Development: The Trust would use these funds to pay salaries to the core developers. This is crucial. It turns a passion project sustained by heroic effort into a stable, professional career. It allows developers to focus on building good technology, not on chasing the next funding round or surviving on donations. It is the direct antidote to the burnout that plagues open source.

Reclaiming Our Systems from the Corporation

This model is a direct challenge to the corporate logic that has failed us. It rejects the idea that shareholder value is the only metric of success. It creates a space for patient, long-term development, free from the pressure to pivot, “monetise the user base,” or sell out.

It is a key strategy for what I have called “reclaiming our systems .” If we want a future where critical infrastructure is not controlled by a handful of mega-corporations, we must build and fund the alternatives ourselves. We cannot wait for the market to provide solutions, because the market is designed to create dependency, not freedom.

The choice is clear. We can continue down the path of extractive, venture-backed hype cycles that leave a trail of e-waste and broken promises. Or we can take responsibility for the digital commons we all depend on. We can become stewards of our own future.

It will require effort, coordination, and a shift in mindset. But the alternative—a world where every piece of our digital lives is owned and controlled by someone else—is far more costly. The time to start building these new institutions is now.