The Logos Design[edit]

Vision and Scope Document[edit]

for Logos: A Sovereign Decentralized Technology Stack

Prepared by Jarrad Hope, 24-12-2024

1. Requirements[edit]

1.1 Background[edit]

"Everytime we witness an act that we feel to be unjust and do not act we become a party to injustice. Those who are repeatedly passive in the face of injustice soon find their character corroded into servility."
— Julian Assange

The advent of computer networking and the creation of the internet established a new kind of geography - cyberspace. This digital global multi-domain operational construct, this ‘geography’ has become subject to increasing territorialization and claims of sovereignty, particularly by nation-states. The United States military has formally recognized cyberspace as a fifth domain of conflict alongside land, sea, air, and space.

According to the US Military, Cyberspace consists of three distinct layers:

Physical Network Layer: The tangible infrastructure including computers, servers, cables, and physical network components that form the medium where data travels
Logical Network Layer: The abstract relationships between network elements, independent of specific physical paths or nodes
Cyber-Persona Layer: Digital representations of individuals or entities, which may relate to real people or be artificial, with the possibility of multiple personas per individual.

Like the historical emergence of piracy at sea, we’ve seen the rise of “pirate organizations” operating in the uncharted territories of cyberspace. These organizations, as defined by Durand and Vergne, are not mere criminals but organized actors that:

Challenge state control and norms of exchange in new territories
Operate from bases outside state control
Develop alternative norms of social interaction
Push the boundaries of known economic behavior and expand Capitalism

Early peer-to-peer file-sharing networks exemplified this pattern, challenging state sovereignty over cyberspace by enabling ungovernable information exchange. Following historical patterns, many of these services were later co-opted as “corsair organizations” - legitimate corporate alternatives operating with state approval (like Spotify replacing Napster). However, the underlying technology demonstrated the potential for autonomous digital territories, cypherspaces, within Cyberspace.

This territorialization of cyberspace intensified post-9/11, as the United States established what effectively became a virtual state through the convergence of cloud infrastructure and legal frameworks. The cloud, acting as an informational equivalent to container terminals, enabled a higher degree of standardization and centralization than the early internet. Through the Patriot Act, the US gained jurisdiction over all data stored by US companies (or their subsidiaries) in non-US data centers, including the entire US cloud - Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Dropbox, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others.

This “super-jurisdiction” meant that US law could be extended into and enacted in other nations through various forms of cooperation implied by server locations and network connections. Through initiatives like National Security Letters (NSLs), which can be issued directly by the FBI without judicial review, and by requiring global data centers to comply with surveillance demands and KYC/AML regulations, the US has effectively undermined the Westphalian sovereignty of other nations.

This infrastructure of control coincided with the rise of surveillance capitalism, now evolving into PsyOp capitalism - a system of complete economic capture fused with propaganda for shaping public opinion. The cloud’s centralized architecture, combined with informal relationships between private enterprise and government, has created a system where censorship and control can be enacted without explicit orders or legal justification, through shared interests and informal ties rather than strict separations by law.

This two and a half decade trend continues with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws, and with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) on the horizon - developments that threaten to complete the state’s capture of economic transactions by bringing all financial activity under centralized surveillance and control.

The concept of virtual states operating within and across traditional state boundaries is not mere speculation - it has historical precedent in institutions like the Jewish Kehillas and Qahals. These autonomous governance structures allowed the Jewish diaspora to maintain their own legal, economic, and social systems while dispersed across multiple host nations. They demonstrated how parallel institutions could provide essential services and maintain cultural cohesion without territorial sovereignty, offering a practical model for modern virtual states.

"There are only two types of power: there's organized people and organized money, and organized money only wins when people aren't organized."
— Saul Alinksy / Benjamin Todd Jealous

Civil society has attempted various forms of resistance: mass protest movements (Occupy Wall Street), whistleblowing to expose surveillance (Edward Snowden), elite graph partitioning attacks through information disclosure (WikiLeaks), and collective financial attacks by Activist Retail Investors against Wall Street (WallStreetBets). However, these efforts have failed to create meaningful change, demonstrating that traditional methods of resistance and reform are insufficient against modern state power.

The solution for Civil Society may lie in the strategy of parallel organizing, successfully demonstrated during Eastern Europe’s transition from communism. Rather than working within rigged systems, movements like Hungary’s Civic Circles and Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77 built parallel institutions outside official structures. They created independent societies within existing states, operating according to their own principles and earning legitimacy by actually improving people’s everyday lives.

However, while these historical parallel organizing efforts were local to their nations, today’s challenges are transnational in nature. The cypherpunk movement demonstrated how this approach could be globalized through technological means. Like the peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe, cypherpunks created parallel institutions that allowed people to opt out of poor governance. Bitcoin exemplified this by establishing a new transparent, auditable monetary system with clearly defined rules based on decentralized authority. The technology spread worldwide, gaining adoption particularly in Latin America where official financial institutions were unstable and inflation rampant.

"Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!"
— Timothy C. May

The cypherpunk movement recognized early on that technological solutions, rather than political reform, were necessary to preserve civil liberties in cyberspace. Projects like Tor, I2P, and Freenet created anonymous communication networks resistant to state surveillance, establishing “wilderness” territories in cyberspace. While these solutions demonstrated the potential for parallel digital institutions, they remain either too narrow in scope or vulnerable to censorship and control due to their public nature and exposed network operators.

The key insight that enabled digital parliamentary sovereignty is best illustrated in Leslie Lamport’s description of The Part-time Parliament of Paxos. Through a fictional account of an ancient Greek parliament, Lamport described a system where legislators could wander in and out of the Chamber while still maintaining consistent records of decrees through a rigorous consensus protocol. Each legislator maintained their own ledger of numbered decrees, and through careful mathematical rules, the parliament could continue functioning and making decisions even with unreliable communication and intermittent participation.

This parliamentary model provided the theoretical foundation for blockchain consensus. Bitcoin and subsequent blockchain systems effectively implement this “Lamportian Parliament” - a decentralized decision-making process that maintains order through algorithmic consensus rather than central authority. Like the Paxon legislators with their indelible ledgers, blockchain nodes maintain a near-immutable record of transactions agreed upon by the network.

By combining the “wilderness” of anonymous communication networks with this ordered parliamentary system, we can create autonomous territories in cyberspace with their own internal governance structures. The blockchain provides the sovereign order - a boundary within which rules can be defined and enforced through consensus rather than coercion.

This sovereign foundation enabled the next evolution in digital institutions through Nick Szabo’s concept of Smart Contracts. By implementing a virtual machine that could execute arbitrary code, platforms like Ethereum allowed counterparties to create and enforce agreements without relying on traditional legal systems. These programmable contracts formed the basis for establishing parallel institutions - from financial services to governance systems - built on decentralized consensus rather than state authority.

"When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
— John Perry Barlow

However, these first-generation systems proved vulnerable to state power in unexpected ways. While their internal consensus remained secure, the public nature of their networks made them susceptible to new forms of lawfare. Transaction censorship through sanctions and regulatory pressure on network operators effectively undermined their parliamentary sovereignty. The immutable ledger, meant to provide transparency and accountability, becomes a tool for surveillance and control.

There is now a clear need for a comprehensive, privacy-preserving technology stack that can support a wide range of decentralized applications and services - a “cypher-state” or “virtual state” that operates autonomously in cyberspace. More than just technology, this represents an experiment in competitive governance, where legitimacy is earned through providing real value rather than maintained through coercion. By combining minimal information disclosure, Byzantine fault tolerance, and self-organizing networks with smart contract-based institutions, we can create a parallel socio-economic system that extends civil liberties to anyone, anywhere on the planet.

To succeed, this system must address sovereign claims over each aspect of Cyberspace:

Physical Network Layer: Resilient infrastructure that survives network loss and censorship
Logical Network Layer: Self-organizing protocols that maintain order through consensus
Cyber-Persona Layer: Privacy-preserving identities with low-cost exit options

"We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."
- John Perry Barlow

The goal is not to create another centralized service provider, but rather a foundational order for “Governance as a Service” - where the system is capable of provisioning governing services to under-serviced citizens. Institutions compete based on the real value they provide to users. Through express consent manifested in voluntary transactions, these services can evolve to meet user needs while remaining resistant to capture and corruption.

While our focus is in the provisioning of governing services to Civil Society, such a disinterested, disintermediated medium is equally, or even more applicable on the world stage - agreements between nations. It could serve as infrastructure for the United Nations and both secure and hold accountable to agreements between state and non-state actors while benefiting from the security of all nation-states, and even provide a world reserve currency

1.2 Opportunity[edit]

Logos represents an opportunity to create a new kind of sovereign digital infrastructure that enables parallel trans-national society on a inter-planetary scale:

A maximally privacy-preserving network that operates against hostile adversaries
An impartial medium for information exchange that secures civil liberties (Freedom of association, Freedom of expression, Right to privacy)
Competitive governance services that earn legitimacy by actually improving people’s everyday lives
A foundation for new forms of social and economic organization in cyberspace

The project addresses growing demands for:

Resistance to mass surveillance and economic capture
Censorship-resistant communication and storage solutions
Autonomous digital institutions with low exit costs
Systems based on express consent rather than coercion
Privacy-preserving financial services and marketplaces
Stable, corruption-resistant institutions that serve real needs
Community-driven governance with genuine popular legitimacy

1.3 Objectives and Success Criteria[edit]

Primary Objectives:

Create a maximally privacy-preserving decentralized technology stack
Enable the development of censorship-resistant applications and services
Foster an open-source community around the project
Establish a global network of users and developers
Demonstrate viable alternatives to centralized digital services

Success Criteria:

Physical Network Layer:

Network-level anonymity achieved for all participants
Demonstrated ability to bypass national firewalls
Resilient peer-to-peer infrastructure

Logical Network Layer:

Successful deployment of core services (storage, communication, computation)
Growing ecosystem of applications built on the platform
Demonstrated resistance to censorship and surveillance
Stable, corruption-resistant institutions in operation

Cyber-Persona Layer:

Unique Identity & Culture - the Logosian Netizen
Active community of developers and users
Genuine popular legitimacy through real-world value delivery
Demonstrated ability for users to opt out of poor governance
Community-driven parallel organizing initiatives

1.4 Customer or Market Needs[edit]

Table 1: Summary of Project Objectives and Customer Needs

Customer Needs	Project Objectives
Network Privacy	Implement network-level anonymity and mixnet routing
Data Privacy	Enable private data storage and retrieval
Identity Privacy	Provide privacy-preserving account management
Censorship Resistance	Create impartial medium for information exchange
Economic Freedom	Support private transactions and financial services
Community Governance	Enable creation of autonomous digital institutions
Real-World Impact	Deliver tangible improvements to users’ everyday lives

2. Vision of the Solution[edit]

2.1 Vision Statement[edit]

Logos is a sovereign decentralized technology stack that realizes the latent cypherpunk vision of autonomous digital territories, what has been referred to as a Temporary Autonomous Zone, a Virtual State, a Meta-haven, a Cyberstate, or more recently a Network State. While traditional cypherspaces like Tor and I2P created “wilderness” through anonymous communication networks, Logos adds an internal pluraity of orders through privacy-preserving blockchain consensus. This combination establishes a new kind of territory in cyberspace - a supra-jurisdictional “cypher-state” that can deploy stable, corruption-resistant institutions to anyone with internet access.

The system’s technical foundation is a hybrid microkernel-microservices architecture that initiallity combines three existing core protocols:

Waku: Anonymous communication networks for state-adversary resistant messaging
Codex: Decentralized storage for coercsion resistant, persistent data, filesharing and application distribution
Nomos: Privacy-preserving blockchain for sovereign order and governance

Applications communicate using self-describing RDF-star data formats, enabling nodes to dynamically discover and load modules while maintaining privacy. This plugin-based architecture allows the network to evolve and adapt, creating an impartial medium for agreements between parties - from individuals to civil society organizations to nation-states.

The stack derives legitimacy through three key principles that improve upon traditional liberal democratic systems:

Express consent through voluntary transactions, rather than implied consent through citizenship
Low exit costs through non-participation, forking and modularity, rather than high costs of physical migration
Real value delivery required for existence, rather than coercive taxation and monopoly services

This architecture enables competitive governance where institutions must earn support by actually improving people’s lives. By combining maximal privacy preservation with runtime composability, it provides a foundation for parallel institutions that remain resistant to capture and corruption - whether deployed bottom-up by civil society or top-down between state actors.

2.2 Major Features[edit]

Core Framework[edit]

Microkernel Core - Plugin-based modular architecture for runtime evolution
1. Self-bootstrapping system using core modules
2. Adaptable to different hardware capabilities
3. Protection against political capture through runtime composability

Network Modules
1. libp2p-mix for network-level anonymity
2. Multiple network topologies (small-world, semantic, isotonic)
3. NAT traversal and connection management
4. Anonymous DHT for coercion-resistant discovery

Security Modules
1. Account management
2. Authentication protocols for trust minimization
3. Access control for selective disclosure
4. Privacy protection against surveillance

Core Service Modules[edit]

Nomos: Privacy-preserving Blockchain
1. Heterogeneous multi-chain network for pluralistic orders
2. Native cross-chain communication for interoperability
3. Private transactions and staking for economic autonomy
Codex: Privacy-preserving Decentralized Storage
1. Coercion-resistant data persistence
2. Fast content delivery for application distribution
3. Privacy-preserving queries and retrieval
4. Incentivized bandwidth sharing
Waku: Privacy-preserving Communication Layer
1. End-to-end encrypted messaging
2. Pub/sub for real-time coordination
3. Anonymous routing against censorship
4. State-adversary resistant messaging
Light Client Modules
1. Resource-optimized implementations
2. Mobile and browser adaptations
3. Selective protocol participation
4. Hardware-specific optimizations
P2P Data Management Module
1. Alternative to centralized APIs (Such as JSON-RPC Blockchain endpoints) through semantic queries
2. RDF-star for self-describing application data and protocols
3. Dynamic module discovery and composition
4. Cross-chain data access through RML adapters
5. Semantic search and discovery
6. Query caching and optimization
Module Registry
1. Decentralized package management
2. Secure module distribution
3. Runtime dependency resolution
4. Version control and updates
Status: User Interface
1. Mini “operating system” / shell / window manager / browser
2. Account management
3. Dynamic module loading for extensibility
4. Window/notification management
5. Search and filtering for discovery

Downstream Applications[edit]

Financial Services
1. Sound Money
  1. Privacy-preserving cryptocurrency
  2. Stable store of value
  3. Inflation resistance
2. Market Infrastructure
  1. Automated market makers
  2. Order book exchanges
  3. Liquidity pools
  4. Yield protocols
3. Economic Tools
  1. Crypto-fiat bridges
  2. Cross-chain swaps
  3. Payment channels
Legal Infrastructure
1. Auto-centric Law
  1. Voluntary jurisdiction selection
  2. Algorithmic dispute resolution
  3. Reputation-based enforcement
2. Polycentric Legal Systems
  1. Multiple competing frameworks
  2. Cross-jurisdiction coordination
  3. Emergent common law
Smart Contract Infrastructure
1. Automated agreement execution
2. Multi-party arbitration
3. Evidence preservation
Organizational Tools
1. On-chain Entities
  1. DAOs and Companies
  2. Trusts and Foundations
  3. Multi-signature accounts
Governance Systems
1. Participatory decision making
  1. Resource allocation
  2. Incentive alignment
2. Coordination Tools
  1. Reputation systems
  2. Contribution tracking
  3. Dispute resolution
Market Infrastructure
1. Automated service markets
2. Transportation (rideshare, delivery)
3. Housing and accommodation
4. Labor and freelancing
5. Resource sharing
Decentralized commerce
1. P2P marketplaces
2. Supply chain tracking
3. Reputation systems
4. Payment networks

2.3 Assumptions and Dependencies[edit]

Assumptions: - Continued availability of internet infrastructure - Existence of sufficient decentralized network participants - Ongoing development of privacy-preserving cryptographic techniques - Growing demand for privacy-preserving alternatives

Dependencies: - libp2p networking stack - Cryptographic primitives and protocols

3. Scope and Limitations[edit]

3.1 Scope of Initial Release[edit]

The initial release focuses on integrating existing components that were historically developed as separate projects:

Core Infrastructure
- Microkernel implementation for plugin (module) management
- Basic module system for runtime composition
- Self-bootstrapping using core modules
- Integration layer for existing components
Core Services (as monolithic modules)
- Waku: Privacy-preserving communication protocol
- Codex: Decentralized storage and file sharing
- Nomos: Multi-chain privacy blockchain

3.2 Scope of Subsequent Releases[edit]

Future releases will focus on refactoring aspects of the monolithic components into microservices:

Protocol Evolution
- Break down Waku into modular communication services
- Refactor Codex into composable storage layers
- Split Nomos into specialized consensus modules
- Extract common functionality into shared services
Core Services
- PDMS: Data management and querying
- Module Registry: Package management
User Interface
- Rewrite the Status application back to its original vision as a mini operating system
- Basic module loading and management
- Essential privacy features and controls
- Minimal viable interface
Framework Improvements
- Enhanced plugin system with dynamic loading
- Improved module dependency management
- Extended network topology options
- Advanced security and privacy features
Application Support
- SDK for application development
- Documentation and examples
- Testing frameworks
- Development tools

3.3 Limitations and Exclusions[edit]

Technical Limitations:

Performance overhead from privacy-preserving features
Dependency on underlying internet infrastructure
Resource requirements for full node operation
Network effects needed for system resilience
Latency from anonymity and encryption

Integration Limitations:

No direct integration with legacy systems
Limited interoperability with centralized services
Trade-offs between privacy and performance
Complexity of system design

Social Limitations:

Learning curve for users and developers
Need for community adoption and participation
Challenge of building parallel institutions
Coordination overhead in decentralized governance

Exclusions:

Traditional centralized services and APIs, except through modules
Real-time applications requiring low latency
Services requiring trusted third parties, except through modules
Applications incompatible with privacy requirements
Features that compromise sovereign autonomy

4. Business Context[edit]

4.1 Stakeholder Profiles[edit]

Table 2: Stakeholder Profiles

Stakeholder	Major Value	Attitudes	Major Interests	Constraints
Dissidents & Activists	Personal liberty	Protective	Censorship resistance	Physical security
Journalists	Press freedom	Investigative	Secure communications	Source protection
High Net Worth Individuals	Financial privacy	Cautious	Economic autonomy	Regulatory compliance
Civil Society Members	Community building	Supportive	Alternative institutions	Learning curve
Marginalized Groups	Group autonomy	Collaborative	Self-governance	Resource access
Developers	Technical innovation	Experimental	Building applications	Development skills
Node Operators	Infrastructure	Technical	Network resilience	Resource costs
Community Organizers	Parallel organizing	Engaged	Local chapter building	Time commitment
Service Providers	Value delivery	Entrepreneurial	Real-world solutions	Market adoption

4.2 Project Priorities[edit]

The following priorities are listed in order of importance, with higher priorities taking precedence over lower ones when trade-offs are necessary:

Free Software Implementation
- Essential freedoms preserved
- Source code transparency
- Community auditability
Minimal Information Disclosure
- User control over data sharing
- Selective disclosure mechanisms
- Privacy by default
Byzantine Fault Tolerance
- Decentralized operation
- Survival under hostile conditions
- Graceful security degradation
Explicit Trust Relationships
- Clear security boundaries
- Trust minimization
- Transparent dependencies
Compartmentalization
- Isolation of sensitive data
- Modular security domains
- Failure containment
Network Openness
- Permissionless participation
- Protocol extensibility
- Interoperability standards
Self-Organization
- No central administration
- Autonomous operation
- Emergent coordination
Application Diversity
- Multiple use cases
- Protocol flexibility
- Hardware adaptability
System Scalability
- Resource efficiency
- Performance optimization
- Cost-effectiveness
Contribution Incentives
- Resource sharing rewards
- Network effects
- Economic sustainability

4.3 Operating Environment[edit]

Network Environment:

Hostile state-level adversaries with surveillance capabilities
National firewalls and censorship infrastructure
Varying network conditions and connectivity
Diverse hardware platforms (servers, desktops, mobile devices)

Institutional Environment:

Competing sovereign claims over cyberspace
Informal relationships between states and cloud providers
Extra-legal enforcement through private companies
Increasing economic capture through CBDCs and Global Financial Integration initiatives
Transnational nature of modern challenges

Social Environment:

Need for genuine popular legitimacy
Importance of real-world value delivery
Community-driven parallel organizing
Cultural and linguistic diversity
Varying levels of technical literacy

Security Environment:

State-level surveillance and monitoring
Legal and extra-legal censorship attempts
Network-level attacks and interference
Infrastructure vulnerabilities
Identity and privacy risks

5. References[edit]

5.1 Concepts & Issues[edit]

5.2 Personas[edit]

This analysis creates 11 meta-personas out of 187 subreddit communities.

The analysis was created by traversing related subreddits from an initial core identified by Jarrad Hope, this process generated 393 candidate subreddits, from there the subreddit sidebar information and top 200 all time posts were scraped, along with all the respective comments. Posts and comments were filtered to contain more than 1 upvote, resulting in 187 subreddits with more than 90KB of data each.

This data was aggregated for each subreddit and psychometric questions were asked to GPT-4o on the data, generating personas for each subreddit community.

The resulting 187 personas were then clustered using BERTopic with dunzhang/stella_en_400M_v5, chosen from the MTEB leaderboard for being an open sentence transformer, sub-1billion parameter model with highest Clustering Benchmark score and large embedding dimensions and max tokens.

This snapshot was taken at 2025-01-11

Ordered by raw subscriber counts, the topic hierarchy was then manually split at the following branch points:

75 The Crypto Enthusiasts, 29.9M
67 The Meme-Driven Financial Revolutionaries, 27.5M
81 The Eco-Resilient Visionaries, 24.1M
74 The Cybersecurity Altruists, 4.7M
79 The Digital Freedom Seekers, 4.1M
88 The Privacy-Focused Technologists, 4M
85 The Truth Seekers, 3.9M
84 The Digital Preservationists and Data Custodians, 2M
82 The Guardians of Liberty, 1.8M
69 The Blockchain Innovators and Decentralization Advocates, 1.2M
13 The Crypto Miners, 293K

In addition to these personas, I manually created:

0 The Developers of Freedom, 277K

The topic clusters were then summarised by GPT-4o to create meta-personas and the subscriber counts were added to estimate the total addressable market for each meta-persona. Ideally clustering happened directly on the raw data, but already the raw data had to be truncated and prioritized by upvotes for persona creation, due to models current maximum context length (128,000 tokens)

Since this is a non-deterministic process, these meta-personas are subject to change.

Based on subreddit subscribers the Estimated Total Addressable Market:
Conservative (90% overlap): 10.4M
Moderate (30% overlap): 72.5M
Optimistic (10% overlap): 93.2M

5.2.1 Topic Tree[edit]

This Topic Tree shows the conceptual relationship between the meta-personas.

[94] members_privacy_discussions_include_individuals (187 communities)
├─ [89] financial_market_blockchain_crypto_potential (42 communities)
│  ├─ [67] meme_humor_memes_creativity_content (6 communities)
│  │  ├─ [34] meme_humor_memes_creativity_content (2 communities)
│  │  └─ [35] dogecoin_humor_meme_market_coins (4 communities)
│  └─ [83] financial_blockchain_market_crypto_potential (36 communities)
│     ├─ [78] financial_market_crypto_mining_cryptocurrency (25 communities)
│     │  ├─ [13] mining_hardware_profitability_cryptocurrency_operations (3 communities)
│     │  └─ [75] financial_crypto_market_investment_cryptocurrencies (22 communities)
│     │     ├─ [63] crypto_market_financial_cryptocurrencies_cryptocurrency (19 communities)
│     │     │  ├─ [60] crypto_moons_blockchain_governance_projects (1 communities)
│     │     │  │  ├─ [38] moons_governance_crypto_fairness_cryptocurrency (1 communities)
│     │     │  │  └─ [37] crypto_blockchain_projects_finance_technical (0 communities)
│     │     │  └─ [53] crypto_market_financial_cryptocurrencies_bitcoin (18 communities)
│     │     │     ├─ [51] crypto_cryptocurrencies_market_financial_investment (6 communities)
│     │     │     │  ├─ [19] market_cryptocurrencies_trading_binance_financial (5 communities)
│     │     │     │  └─ [24] crypto_cryptocurrencies_financial_scams_investments (1 communities)
│     │     │     └─ [21] bitcoin_litecoin_crypto_financial_altcoin (12 communities)
│     │     └─ [12] financial_investing_investment_investors_market (3 communities)
│     └─ [69] blockchain_cardano_ecosystem_technology_projects (11 communities)
│        ├─ [56] blockchain_ecosystem_ethereum_polkadot_network (7 communities)
│        │  ├─ [31] web3_airdrops_cosmos_ecosystem_blockchain (3 communities)
│        │  └─ [7] blockchain_polkadot_ethereum_iota_network (4 communities)
│        └─ [10] cardano_blockchain_nft_staking_development (4 communities)
└─ [93] members_privacy_digital_discussions_include (145 communities)
   ├─ [92] privacy_digital_members_security_open (84 communities)
   │  ├─ [88] privacy_monero_surveillance_data_tools (27 communities)
   │  │  ├─ [48] monero_privacy_financial_transactions_features (6 communities)
   │  │  │  ├─ [44] monero_privacy_financial_transactions_features (1 communities)
   │  │  │  └─ [16] monero_financial_privacy_transactions_cryptocurrency (5 communities)
   │  │  └─ [65] privacy_data_tools_digital_surveillance (21 communities)
   │  │     ├─ [30] privacy_freedom_silk_road_transactions (1 communities)
   │  │     └─ [59] privacy_data_tools_surveillance_digital (20 communities)
   │  │        ├─ [55] privacy_data_tools_surveillance_digital (18 communities)
   │  │        │  ├─ [29] tor_privacy_tools_anonymity_i2p (10 communities)
   │  │        │  └─ [49] privacy_data_telegram_digital_surveillance (8 communities)
   │  │        │     ├─ [5] privacy_telegram_data_digital_vpn (6 communities)
   │  │        │     └─ [42] privacy_data_surveillance_rights_personal (2 communities)
   │  │        └─ [40] encryption_grapheneos_privacy_security_source (2 communities)
   │  └─ [90] members_digital_open_security_knowledge (57 communities)
   │     ├─ [87] digital_open_security_members_source (44 communities)
   │     │  ├─ [86] security_cybersecurity_usenet_knowledge_members (26 communities)
   │     │  │  ├─ [84] usenet_storage_preservation_data_music (9 communities)
   │     │  │  │  ├─ [36] usenet_platform_history_nostalgia_users (2 communities)
   │     │  │  │  └─ [73] storage_data_music_preservation_archiving (7 communities)
   │     │  │  │     ├─ [14] music_preservation_archiving_data_archivists (4 communities)
   │     │  │  │     └─ [17] storage_server_homelab_performance_setups (3 communities)
   │     │  │  └─[74] cybersecurity_security_knowledge_learning_field (17 communities)
   │     │  │     ├─ [70] cybersecurity_security_knowledge_learning_hacking (14 communities)
   │     │  │     │  ├─ [39] cryptographic_cryptography_research_encryption_field (2 communities)
   │     │  │     │  └─ [0] cybersecurity_security_knowledge_learning_hacking (12 communities)
   │     │  │     └─ [20] mathematical_mathematics_computing_distributed_solving (3 communities)
   │     │  └─ [79] digital_open_internet_software_rights (18 communities)
   │     │     ├─ [77] digital_open_software_rights_access (10 communities)
   │     │     │  ├─ [15] net_neutrality_internet_swartz_access (4 communities)
   │     │     │  └─ [61] digital_software_source_open_piracy (6 communities)
   │     │     │     ├─ [1] digital_piracy_content_rights_p2p (4 communities)
   │     │     │     └─ [8] source_software_open_free_gaming (2 communities)
   │     │     └─ [58] decentralized_namecoin_internet_decentralization_mesh (8 communities)
   │     │        ├─ [25] decentralized_mesh_internet_meshnet_technical (2 communities)
   │     │        └─ [45] namecoin_decentralized_decentralization_internet_centralized (6 communities)
   │     └─ [81] collapse_environmental_preparedness_sustainable_sustainability (13 communities)
   │        ├─ [68] collapse_environmental_preparedness_sustainable_sustainability (11 communities)
   │        │  ├─ [64] collapse_preparedness_environmental_self_resilience (9 communities)
   │        │  │  ├─ [2] collapse_preparedness_resilience_environmental_societal (7 communities)
   │        │  │  └─ [46] living_self_grid_sufficiency_sustainability (2 communities)
   │        │  └─ [32] waste_sustainable_environmental_zero_sustainability (2 communities)
   │        └─ [33] amazon_labor_tech_ethical_fang (2 communities)
   └─ [91] government_libertarian_economic_members_political (61 communities)
      ├─ [82] libertarian_economic_political_government_principles (37 communities)
      │  ├─ [76] libertarian_political_government_state_individual (33 communities)
      │  │  ├─ [28] political_unacracy_simulation_governance_democracy (3 communities)
      │  │  └─ [62] libertarian_government_state_voluntary_principles (30 communities)
      │  │     ├─ [57] libertarian_government_political_individual_personal (15 communities)
      │  │     │  ├─ [50] libertarian_government_political_individual_liberty (15 communities)
      │  │     │  │  ├─ [18] classical_libertarian_political_liberal_individual (1 communities)
      │  │     │  │  └─ [9] libertarian_government_liberty_political_personal (14 communities)
      │  │     │  └─ [43] minimal_government_state_voluntary_libertarian (0 communities)
      │  │     └─ [3] anarcho_state_voluntary_society_gaming (15 communities)
      │  └─ [71] economic_austrian_economics_inequality_systemic (4 communities)
      │     ├─ [23] economic_austrian_economics_lvt_principles (3 communities)
      │     └─ [11] economic_systemic_inequality_justice_social (1 communities)
      └─ [85] intelligence_speech_transparency_censorship_narratives (24 communities)
         ├─ [52] speech_censorship_free_media_dialogue (5 communities)
         │  ├─ [41] speech_free_censorship_amendment_legal (2 communities)
         │  └─ [22] censorship_speech_free_media_transparency (3 communities)
         └─ [80] intelligence_transparency_narratives_members_whistleblowers (19 communities)
            ├─ [72] narratives_whistleblowers_transparency_truth_surveillance (15 communities)
            │  ├─ [54] surveillance_liberties_civil_corporate_government (5 communities)
            │  │  ├─ [26] tsa_surveillance_privacy_civil_liberties (3 communities)
            │  │  └─ [6] corporate_liberties_activism_civil_government (2 communities)
            │  └─ [66] truth_narratives_truths_mainstream_whistleblowers (10 communities)
            │     ├─ [4] narratives_truth_theories_mainstream_thinking (8 communities)
            │     └─ [47] whistleblowers_whistleblowing_accountability_legal_truths (2 communities)
            └─ [27] intelligence_operations_osint_geopolitical_investigations (4 communities)

6. Software Requirements Specifications (SRS)[edit]

6.1 Core Microkernel[edit]

P2P systems constantly evolve and have different deployment configurations depending on system resources, as such the core of the system should be minimal, using a hybrid microkernel architecture that runs microservices - the microkernel should not be a bottle neck for communication.