Anti Krisis: Inviting Feedback & Coordination Plan for Protocol Launch

Regen Coordination Ideas & Intros
1

Greetings everyone! I trust the holidays have revitalized your spirits heading into 2026.

I’ve been working on an exciting project to add a new dimension to our ecosystem’s efforts. Anti Krisis is a bootstrapping mechanism for ReFi and a systemic response to metacrisis through a plurality of coordination games.

The aim of this post is to open an invitation for the community to validate assumptions, surface risks and align participation before launch dynamics kick in.

Why this exists

After a few years working in the regen / ReFi corner of web3, one thing has become increasingly clear to me:

We don’t suffer from a lack of good intentions.
We don’t suffer from a lack of smart people.

We suffer from a coordination problem across economic, cultural, social and intellectual domains.

Anti Krisis is an attempt to address that problem by starting where coordination tends to fail most often: the economic layer.

The idea is not that economics alone can solve everything, but that a well-designed economic primitive can act as an anchor around which cultural, social and intellectual coordination can emerge in an organic way.

A bit about me for context..

I’ve been active in the regen Web3 ecosystem for roughly the last four years, after transitioning out of a product role in climate tech for 3 years.

Long enough to experience the early optimism, the downturns and the ongoing tension between ideals and reality. Despite that, I remain hopeful that we can still live up to our original expectations.

I founded RegenBuild, which began as an effort to build digital commons in the form of MRV systems and impact credits for the built environment. It has since pivoted toward a real-estate safe-haven commune direction.

Along the way, I’ve been involved in various ReFi communities, including Let’s GROW and others. Some of you may have met me IRL and some connected on X or Linkedin.

Anti Krisis is the synthesis of all the experiences through my time in the space. This is possible thanks to a lucky raffle I won from Octant and I’m hoping to give back to the community for the optimism it’s brought me over the years.

I’m deeply grateful to the people and projects who laid the groundwork we’re building on: Regen Network, Giveth, Klima, Gitcoin, Celo, ReFi DAO, Greenpill, Regens Unite, CCN, Regen Coordination, Open Civics, Bloom Network, Atlantis, $Earth and many others.

The fact that people are still showing up despite cycles, burnouts and capital constraints is the main reason this ecosystem still exists at all.

The broader problem space from my POV

I believe regeneration is one of the few ideologies capable of reforming civilization at scale, if we survive long enough to apply it.

ReFi gives this ideology the technical and operational leverage. But in practice, we keep running into the same constraints:

  • Attention
    Our work struggles to escape its own bubble.

  • Capital
    There simply isn’t enough capital to operate at a meaningful scale. When capital dries up, builders leave and that’s already happening.

  • Demand & price action
    Many impact-aligned token projects lack sustained buy pressure. Whether we like it or not, price action affects attention, survival, and legitimacy.

  • Fragmentation
    Social and cultural coordination is improving with efforts like Regen Commons and Regen Coordination but economic coordination remains weak and often zero-sum.

  • The impact measurement trap
    Capital requires measurement.
    Measurement requires infrastructure and markets.
    Infrastructure and markets require capital.
    This circular dependency is extremely difficult to break.

  • Cultural positioning
    From the outside, although regen is considered noble, its also perceived as the “charity wing” of Web3.

Anti Krisis’s goal is to address them through a multitude of games, provided the core economic protocol / game works.

The question to be asking ourselves

Wearing a lunarpunk’s hat, the question pertinent in this context is:

Can we become financially sustainable and eventually go mainstream without relying on dominant structures like governments, corporations, foundations or VCs?

If the answer is “possibly,” then we need to coordinate around making that possibility real. Not in a way that’s zero-sum but in a way that lifts all boats and holds space for things to emerge.

The direction I believe we need to move in

To fulfill the ecosystem’s potential, a few things feel necessary:

  • Grow across financial, cultural, social, and human capital, so that natural and manufactured capital can actually scale.

  • Increase collective capacity using crypto-native tools in a peer-to-peer, permissionless way.

  • Make regenerative culture and regenerative economics dominant systems, rather than niche alternatives.

  • And importantly do all of this in a fun, gamified way, so the work is sustainable at a human level.

Because if we’re going to attempt a legitimate response to the metacrisis, we might as well design it in a way people can stay engaged with.

Introducing Anti Krisis

Before getting technical, it helps to ground the terminology:

  • Anti Krisis is a systemic response to the metacrisis through a plurality of coordination games.

  • Anti Krisis Protocol is the root economic game to create a $AKK using Proof-of-Burn (PoB) consensus mechanism.

  • $AKK (Anti Krisis Koin) is the scarce digital asset issued by the protocol, intended as a multi-capital store of value.

  • RegNets are networks, protocols, or projects enabling regeneration across different forms of capital, with tokens involved.

  • GRIT is a non-transferable, non-convertible mining fuel earned by burning RegNet tokens.

  • AK69.fun is the arena where coordination games are played.

  • AK69 is a soulbound meta-score reflecting achievements across those games.

What the protocol is trying to do

At launch, the Anti Krisis protocol intends to:

  • Create immediate demand and deflationary pressure for RegNet tokens.

  • Align incentives so participation across networks becomes mutually reinforcing.

  • Combine value from multiple regenerative efforts into a single scarce asset.

  • Function as a market-making demand layer, assuming $AKK accrues value over time.

The assumptions we’re operating from

  • Price action materially affects attention and builder retention.

  • Speculation cannot be avoided, only redirected.

  • Irreversible sacrifice can act as a credible coordination signal.

  • Memetic framing is necessary to escape the ReFi bubble.

What blind spots are you seeing here?

How the core protocol works

At a high level, the protocol borrows the best parts of Bitcoin mining, namely predictable issuance and real cost, while replacing energy expenditure with economic spend.

If you’d like to go deeper into the protocol, read the whitepaper or the TLDR doc for a concise version of the same.

In brief:

Participants acquire allow-listed RegNet tokens from a DEX or CEX. Those tokens are burned via the protocol.

Conversion is fixed: $1 burned → 1 billion GRIT. GRIT is then used to run one or more virtual miners.

Roughly every 11.5 minutes:

  • All GRIT spent is aggregated.

  • Miners receive proportional weights according to GRIT spend.

  • A verifiable randomness function (VRF) selects a winner.

  • The winning miner receives $AKK.

  • All GRIT spent is permanently consumed.

Key properties:

  • More GRIT spend increases probability of winning, not certainty.

  • Costs are irreversible.

  • Issuance is predictable.

The feedback loop

image
image1024×768 48 KB

Issuance parameters

  • Total $AKK supply: 21,000,000

  • Starting block reward: 150 $AKK

  • Halving: every 69,000 blocks (~18 months)

  • Miners per participant: unlimited, with a fee to create new miners

  • Current RegNet allow-list: $REGEN, $GIV, $KLIMA

Official onboarding of RegNets is imminent and additional RegNets are in consideration for launch with conversations underway.

Let us know of other qualifying projects that would fit the criteria detailed in the section below.

Genesis RegNet allow-list criteria

This is one of the most sensitive parts of the protocol and feedback here matters a lot. For a project to qualify as a RegNet, it should meet criteria such as:

  • Team – A core team actively stewarding the project with transparent governance.

  • Users – Minimum of 100 unique holders to indicate community traction.

  • Chain compatibility – EVM, BTC, SOL, and other chainfusion-compatible chains.

  • Market cap – At launch, a minimum of $0.5 million and maximum relative capitalisation up to 10x of the lowest cap RegNet. This is to establish a positive-sum flywheel between RegNets and AKK, while avoiding disproportionate advantage to established networks.

  • Liquidity – Sufficient depth to ensure trades up to $100 incur less than 2% slippage.

  • Price oracle – Must have reliable price feeds to support accurate smart contract execution.

  • Proof of Impact - Must demonstrate continual preservation or growth of at least one of the 5 forms of capital in a verifiable way contributing towards a regenerative future.

  • Token types – RegNet tokens must represent project market capitalisation or function as an index of multiple impact assets. They can also be governance tokens but stablecoins are excluded as their fixed value prevents price action and the feedback loops the protocol is designed to reinforce.

  • Project maturity – Projects must be beyond MVP stage, ideally approaching or already having product-market fit. Projects needing traction to bootstrap or scale into their next phase are also welcome.

The criteria will evolve as the protocol matures but does it make sense for launch RegNets? Where would you make adjustments if any?

Governance

RegNet allowlist and Protocol upgrades

AKK holders may propose additions or removal of RegNets from the burn mechanism through a token-weighted governance process. All proposals require a defined quorum and majority approval to be enacted, ensuring that allowlist changes reflect broad community agreement and legitimacy of the protocol.

There is always room for governance to evolve as the project grows. I think its better to start with a simple process that increases in complexity as things emerge, rather than having guardrails from the get go. The incentive to mine also is greater with this design.

Some possible considerations in the future could include introduction of “voting power” through staking, a steward council to balance “wisdom of crowds “with “informed” decision making, delegated voting with liquid democracy and futarchy.

Is this governance model sound enough or does it need any tweaks?

Demystifying AK69

AK69 exists on two levels at the same time. To me, they play perfectly to reinforce each other and confusing them creates unnecessary friction. So it helps to explain them clearly.

AK69 (the score) is a cumulative signal, achievements in the games we play.

  • It represents participation across a possible set of 69 coordination games within the Anti Krisis arena.
  • Each game captures a different way of scoring contributions such as effort, insight and outcomes. For example, Memetik (game to grow our cultural capital) scoring prioritizes for the quality of memes and curation vs Kosmic (game to grow spiritual capital via meditation), where time is valued.
  • The scores are normalized across games before adding into AK69. The score is soulbound and non-transferable. It’s not meant to be traded, but to tell a story about how someone has shown up.

AK69 (the meme) is where things become creative.

  • Dynamic - From the protocol perspective, it refers to the feedback loop between RegNets and the Anti Krisis Protocol.

    • 69 here is shorthand for reciprocity: RegNets feed the protocol through burn, the protocol feeds RegNets through demand, signalling and amplification.
    • Neither side dominates. Each strengthens the other. It’s a symbolic way to describe a system designed around mutual reinforcement rather than extraction.

  • Weapon - As a meme, AK69 is also a weapon against extractive systems and Molochian dynamics, but not a violent one.

    • It doesn’t shoot bullets. It shoots hearts of kindness, love and humour. It’s meant to be disarming rather than confrontational, contagious rather than coercive.

  • Symbol - The number 69 is intentionally reclaimed.

    • Beyond the obvious cultural reading, it’s used here as a symbol of love, infinity, balance and harmony. Two forces feeding each other in a continuous loop.
    • In that sense, AK69 is unlimited. Anyone can earn it by participating in coordination games. There is no cap on contribution.

image
image822×558 78.8 KB

Why lean into a meme at all?

Because we’ve already tried doing this seriously,

For years, regeneration and ReFi have shown up with whitepapers, moral clarity and good intentions but still struggled to break out of a narrow bubble. Attention is scarce. Capital follows culture. And culture, especially in web3, doesn’t move through seriousness alone.

Leaning into a meme is not about trivializing the problem. It’s about acknowledging psychological reality.

When dealing with metacrisis-scale issues, a purely grave tone can become paralyzing. People burn out. They disengage. They turn away. A playful spirit, one that’s ironic but sincere can actually increase emotional resilience. Some call this a metamodern posture: holding seriousness and play at the same time, without collapsing into cynicism or denial.

It can feel daunting, even absurd, to attempt to uproot deeply entrenched systems and build alternatives. But refusing to try because it feels impossible only reinforces the very dynamics we’re trying to escape. So the choice here is to try anyway and to allow joy, humor and experimentation to coexist with rigor.

There’s also a strategic reason.

When attention is scarce, excessive seriousness often becomes a liability. It makes ideas harder to transmit, remix, and carry forward. In web3 culture especially, memes are not vanity. They are distribution infrastructure. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make systems purer; it makes them invisible.

AK69 exists at that intersection: serious mechanics underneath, playful expression on the surface.

The goal is to avoid playing directly into Moloch’s hands by making coordination feel heavy, joyless or inaccessible.

If regeneration is going to survive and scale, it needs room for both discipline and play.

What are your thoughts on leaning into this meme? Can we express our zeitgeist through it? Is it strong enough to gain mindshare on social media? Do you see potential?

image
image675×499 55.5 KB

What feedback is most useful right now

Surfacing the questions from the post here again, feel free to chime in wherever possible. I understand this can be overwhelming at once, it’s cool to let the mind wander and come back when something clicks.

High-priority (pre-launch):

  • Where does this feel fragile, under-specified or misaligned?

  • Which assumptions don’t hold in your experience?

  • Is the genesis RegNet list and criteria reasonable for launch?

  • What launch phase failure modes do you anticipate?

Coordination & participation:

  • If you’d like to help with early access beta testing, click this link.

  • From the marketing PoV what are the must do things for higher participation?

  • Any thoughts on messaging and launch sequencing so the whole community is aware and excited?

  • If there are any GTM wizards reading this, I’m definitely looking for help in getting the word out. This is one aspect where I could use more hands :slight_smile:

All feedback and ideas are welcome! Remember this is only the start, it would be best to focus on the more immediate concerns than what can be addressed later.

Key dates

  • Community feedback window: Jan 7–28

  • RegNet onboarding: Jan 10-31

  • Jan 15: AK69 Genesis NFT

  • Jan 30: AK69 Manifesto NFT

  • Feb 14: AK69.fun launch with $AKK mining app

If you’re interested in knowing more about the long term roadmap, hit this link.

A coordination plan to win: asymmetric memetic warfare

If Anti Krisis is going to work, coordination cannot be optional. There is no marketing budget, no VC-funded distribution machine and no institutional tailwinds waiting to carry this forward. What we do have is a network, a narrative and the ability to coordinate asymmetrically.

History is instructive here. Bitcoin did not win because it had better marketing. It won because a relatively small group of cypherpunks coordinated relentlessly around a clear narrative and repeated it until it became unavoidable.

They memed Bitcoin into existence long before institutions took it seriously. In many ways, the regen and ReFi ecosystem today is larger than that early Bitcoin community, but far less coordinated.

That gap is the opportunity.

This phase requires guerrilla coordination, not polished campaigns. We should assume:

  • No one is coming to save us.

  • Attention is adversarial.

  • Algorithms reward clarity, contrast and repetition.

Memes, creativity and cultural fluency are not side activities here; they are the distribution layer. We need to use the algorithm deliberately, without apology and be willing to challenge shallow or extractive crypto narratives head-on. Not by moralizing, but by offering a sharper, more compelling alternative.

The store-of-value (SoV) narrative is a particularly powerful wedge. A scarce asset with the same fixed supply as Bitcoin invites direct comparison. That comparison should be max leveraged. Framed correctly, AKK can be positioned as a SoV that doesn’t just preserve value but actively redirects it toward resilience / hedging against our crises.

None of this can be carried by a person or team. Asymmetric coordination only works when many independent actors repeat, remix and reinforce the same underlying story from different angles. Fragmented signaling will fail. Coherent signaling compounds.

Entropy is always the default outcome. Movements decay unless energy is continuously injected. Sustaining momentum requires conscious, repeated effort; especially in an environment that is indifferent or hostile. No one is laying out a red carpet for regenerative economics.

There is also a useful role differentiation here. Let Regen uphold the virtuous, principled and institution-facing side of the movement. Let Anti Krisis play the rebellious counterpart willing to engage culture where it actually lives.

If Regen is Solarpunk, Anti Krisis is Lunarpunk. If Regen is the Yang, Anti Krisis is the Yin. The tension between the two is not a weakness; it’s a feature. Playing only one side of the board is how you lose. Coordination means holding both.

Leveraging memetic potential is about recognizing that narrative, culture and coordination are real infrastructure and treating them with the same seriousness as code or economics.

If we want to play Game B, we have to coordinate like it.

image
image900×838 140 KB

Links to support

Closing

This post grew longer than I originally intended, but that felt unavoidable. There’s a lot of context behind Anti Krisis and compressing it too much would risk losing the reasoning that led here.

Even so, this is still a partial picture. Many details, trade-offs and open questions remain outside the scope of a single post.

I deeply care about the regenerative and ReFi ecosystem as a community of people trying to do meaningful work in a world under several converging crises.

It would be really sad if this movement simply fizzled out. We may not get everything right. We may not succeed in every way we hope. But we can choose to have fun while trying to fix it.

My hope is that this post gave you enough context to engage critically, sparked a few new ideas and maybe even shifted how you think about what’s possible.

I genuinely believe there’s an opportunity here to draw attention, experiment boldly and create positive externalities for the broader ecosystem using play on the surface and strong mechanics underneath.

Thanks for taking the time to read. Looking forward to the conversations and coordination ahead.

4 Likes
2

GM GMAN!
Quite interesting read, I will go deeper on weekend to that, from what I’ve got so far, my token has to match the criteria mentioned to join RegNet, so I will start working on that meanwhile watching your grow.
Wishing you the success, seems a unique idea with great potential

4 Likes
3

Gm Gman

first off its great to see the paper up here for discussion after seeing you work on this over the past few quarters.

also heartwarming to see you cook up a protocol to keep the Refi fire burning during times like this

largely resonate with the premise being articulated here although past few yrs here has made me little skeptical on the movements ability to closely coordinate on a particular goal.

one of those instances where i would love to be proven wrong.

it would nice to see some response from the project tokens you intend to use to kickstart this

keen to see the protocol live, do some of that burning and minting to get the AK rolling

2 Likes
4

I’m cautiously optimistic about it because coordination is somewhat baked into the protocol.

There are win-win scenarios at multiple levels, potentially acting as forcing functions.

I believe we have enough skin in the game to play this collectively. Hope not to be proven wrong here :slight_smile:

2 Likes
5

It’d be nice to see that happen Lumina :slight_smile:

After all, we need to play many more games to solve our crises. Regens like you have kept the movement alive and thanks a ton for that :raising_hands:

6

Hi all, Drew from Klima Protocol here.

This was a cool to read through to get a better sense of the intentions of the Anti Krisis project and how it’s underlying mechanics work.

I don’t think we should ever discount the potential value of a meme – and I’m all for a meme gaining traction to create increased demand for tokens with positive effects (Regen, kVCM [$KLIMA], etc).

That said, I’m wondering how much BD work has gone into ensuring AKK has utility across the wider DeFi landscape. Will AKK serve as collateral on lending platforms, for example? What functionality is planned for the token so that others can build with it? Is there project documentation somewhere for builders to wield the token or interact with the ecosystem?

Additionally, what’s the planned governance structure for deciding which tokens are included in the Anti Krisis ecosystem? I think this will be important to ensure GRIT isn’t diluted by huge supply coming online from projects that can inflate their tokens.

I’m looking forward to learning more!

7

Thanks for chiming in Drew.

As AKK is mined at a fixed rate, I expect the utility to emerge organically. The main focus on utility front is protocol governance. At the beginning it will be to vote on tokens to be included or excluded from protocol. It’s a simple 51% majority vote with a defined quorum.

There are plans to introduce staking to determine the “Burn Weights” of RegNets to signal value and affect how a neutral 1$ gets allocated to burn the RegNets simultaneosly. Here’s the potential roadmap if you wanna dig in.

I like the idea of using it as collateral on lending platforms. I think there’s some way to go before the token gains trust and value to initiate those conversations.

Thanks for flagging concerns on GRIT dilution. Ultimately the holders will determine the integrity of tokens involved in the protocol. If a project inflates away their tokens, the governance is designed to handle those risks by delisting them.

Does the present criteria for RegNet selection suffice or do you have any suggestions for modification?

The docs are still in the works, I’ll be able to share more details as we get closer to launch. Hope this helps!

8

Thanks for sharing the vision for Anti-Krisis. I just spent about an hour talking with you and wanted to reflect a few thoughts back to the broader community.

My name is Christian Shearer and I’m one of the original founders of Regen Network.

I’ll start by saying that I’m generally skeptical of coordination layers. In practice, people are busy, attention is scarce, and even when coordination is clearly valuable, it often collapses under its own cognitive and social overhead.

What I see in AK69, though, is something meaningfully different: a voluntary, playful, and potentially viral coordination surface that can generate attention and token-economic benefit for participating RegNet communities without requiring their core teams to divert focus from shipping and stewardship. That distinction matters.

On a more personal note, I carry a bit of a jester / clown activist impulse myself, and I appreciate that this project explicitly makes room for play, mischief, and culture as legitimate tools for coordination. There’s something compelling about the idea of connecting people who want to work in the world not just through spreadsheets and governance calls, but through memes, humor, and eventually even embodied action that helps “jest” a bit more consciousness into the system.

From the Regen Network side: we’d be happy to be included as a RegNet. That said, it’s important to be clear about boundaries. Anti-Krisis and the AK69 community should be understood as independent and self-speaking, not as representatives of, or spokespeople for, the underlying RegNet projects. The style, tone, and memetic posture of AK69 aren’t a brand fit for how Regen Network shows up in the world—and that’s okay. In fact, that separation feels healthy, as it allows Anti-Krisis to experiment culturally while RegNets retain their own voice, values, and institutional posture.

As I shared on our call, I don’t expect many REGEN insiders to burn a large portion of their holdings—we have medium-term conviction in the network and the $REGEN token. But if Anti-Krisis succeeds in attracting new participants who buy and burn $REGEN in order to mine AKK, creating incremental demand and attention from outside our existing bubble, that feels like a net positive experiment from our perspective.

So yes—let’s try it.

Put on your clown noses and get serious.

3 Likes
9

Hey hey. First off, thanks for putting this out so openly and inviting real feedback. There’s a lot here, and I appreciate the ambition and care that’s gone into the thinking.

On the positives first:

  • I think the diagnosis of the problems facing the regen / ReFi space is spot on — particularly around coordination failures, capital scarcity, weak demand / price action for impact-aligned tokens, and the way attention and legitimacy are deeply entangled with economics.
  • I also really like the core instinct to try and create new sources of demand for various leading Regen tokens, and to do that in a way that is not purely extractive or zero-sum. The idea of a shared demand layer that could, in theory, lift multiple regenerative efforts together feels compelling.

That said, I wanted to raise a few questions and concerns that came up for me as I worked through the proposal more deeply.

1. RegNet incentives, demand creation & governance dynamics

I can clearly see the incentive for RegNets themselves to want to participate in Anti Krisis. Being included in the burn / mining mechanism has obvious upside: potential demand for their token, narrative lift, and inclusion in a shared coordination story rather than competing alone for scarce attention and capital. On that level, the RegNet incentive makes intuitive sense.

Where I find myself less clear is on the other side of that equation: who is realistically creating sufficient demand for AKK for this flywheel to work at scale? In other words, beyond RegNets wanting in, who is the sustained audience that is buying, burning, and engaging deeply enough to make AKK meaningfully valuable over time?

This uncertainty then connects directly to governance. If AKK does accrue value and AKK holders ultimately govern RegNet inclusion, there seems to be a strong structural incentive for exclusion rather than inclusion over time. Being a RegNet becomes a scarce and valuable position, and rational AKK holders may be incentivized to:

  • protect incumbent RegNets,
  • resist onboarding new ones,
  • and effectively cartelize access to the demand sink.

In that scenario, RegNets begin competing with one another for a fixed coordination surface, and governance dynamics may naturally drift toward gatekeeping rather than ecosystem expansion — especially if the pool of external demand for AKK is smaller or slower-growing than hoped.

I don’t think this is a minor edge case. It feels like a first-order risk that ties together adoption assumptions, incentive alignment, and governance design. I’d be curious how you’re thinking about:

  • who the realistic long-term demand-side participants are,
  • whether demand is expected primarily from within regen / ReFi or from wider crypto audiences,
  • and how governance is designed to avoid early capture or ossification if AKK becomes meaningfully valuable.

2. AK69, coordination games, governance capacity and operational complexity

I’m also trying to get clearer on the role of AK69 beyond narrative and signaling.

Conceptually, I understand and appreciate the intention: AK69 aggregates participation across multiple coordination games and creates a soulbound record of how someone has shown up across cultural, economic, and social dimensions of coordination. I like the instinct to recognize plural forms of contribution beyond capital alone.

That said, I see three related concerns here.

First, on governance capacity:
Participation in coordination games — whether memetic, cultural, time-based, or economic — does not necessarily correlate with strategic judgment, domain expertise, or the ability to make complex governance decisions. There’s a well-documented risk in DAOs of conflating activity with competence, and I’d be cautious about AK69 implicitly or explicitly becoming a proxy for governance legitimacy or decision-making authority. Clarifying whether AK69 is strictly reputational, or whether it might later influence governance or economic parameters, feels important.

Second, on system complexity and cost:
Launching, maintaining, and meaningfully operating multiple coordination games is not trivial. Each game potentially requires:

  • clear rules and action definitions,
  • scoring and normalization logic,
  • tracking infrastructure (on-chain, off-chain, or hybrid),
  • sybil-resistance or at least basic abuse mitigation,
  • ongoing moderation, iteration, and maintenance.

This introduces real coordination overhead, technical cost, and governance burden, especially in the early stages when attention, funding, and contributor capacity are already constrained. There’s a risk that AK69 becomes an ambitious but fragile subsystem that absorbs disproportionate energy relative to the value it delivers early on.

Third, on signal quality vs noise:
With multiple games and heterogeneous scoring mechanisms, there’s a possibility that AK69 becomes difficult to interpret. If participants and observers can’t easily understand what a given AK69 score actually represents, it risks losing credibility as a signal of trust, alignment, or contribution. Badges or per-game breakdowns may help, but they also add further complexity.

3. Target audience & adoption assumptions

I also wanted to probe the audience assumptions a bit more.

Even within the regen / ReFi ecosystem, this is a fairly complex system to understand and meaningfully engage with — PoB, GRIT, AKK, RegNets, AK69, games, governance, etc. My intuition is that even there, only a subset of people will have the time, energy, and cognitive bandwidth to really participate.

Beyond that, the assumption that this can break into the wider crypto degen / meme space feels potentially plausible but very unproven. My intuition is that that space is extremely noisy, highly competitive, and tends to reward radical simplicity and immediate upside. I’m not yet convinced that:

  • the regenerative framing,
  • the complexity of the mechanism,
  • or the longer-term coordination narrative

will reliably cut through, even with strong memes.

So I’m curious:

  • Has there been any testing or early signal that non-regen crypto audiences are actually pulled by this?
  • Is this being treated as a hypothesis to be tested, or as a fairly strong assumption baked into the design?

4. Complexity, sequencing, and scope

Finally, stepping back, it feels like Anti Krisis is trying to do a lot at once:

  • bootstrap a new scarce asset,
  • create a shared demand layer,
  • coordinate across multiple networks,
  • introduce a cultural / memetic layer,
  • and experiment with reputation and games.

Each of these is hard individually. Stacked together, the execution risk feels high — especially around adoption rather than technical correctness.

I wonder whether there’s an opportunity to be clearer about:

  • what is core and non-negotiable at launch,
  • what is intentionally experimental,
  • and what could be delayed or stripped back to reduce friction in the early phase.

Overall I really appreciate the intent and ambition behind this idea. My comments are very much initial thoughts and reactions as I read through the proposal, and the questions and tensions that surfaced for me in real time rather than fully settled positions. I’m sharing them in the spirit of being constructive and honest. Even where I’m skeptical or uncertain, that’s less about disagreement with the aim and more about wanting to pressure-test incentives, governance robustness, complexity, and adoption assumptions.

Appreciate you opening this up for discussion!

2 Likes
10

@christian_regen appreciate the support and understanding the upside for RegNets.

I think we all need a channel through which the jester in us can express. I hope we can tap into it via the project. It opens up cultural possibilities we can push boundaries with.

Coordination has failed in many cases as it usually requires cognitive effort to align and coordinate people based on goals or values, which can sometimes be labouring and unyielding. In this case, each pursuing their selfish goal leads to mutual benefit. Game theoretically speaking, coordination becomes the dominant strategy.

What would be interesting is if they choose to buy more and burn rather than use their current holdings because they see value in doing that :wink:

11

Thanks for taking the time to review this in detail Monty! Your questions are very thoughtful and I’ll address them one by one.

I expect RegNet token holders to bring early traction for the obvious benefits it brings them. On the other side, potential RegNets would also be keen to either mine or buy AKK to gain more influence in governance process so their projects can be added as RegNets.

Its important that we regens understand the implications so we act to prevent protocol capture by early RegNets. It’s the reason we need to publicise the launch and have the broadest possible participation from the core regen community.

The governance is kept intentionally simple. Adding layers now increases unnecessary friction and complexity that can get tricky to get rid of later.

Beyond these two groups, the general DeFi community could see value if the mining process is profitable and they see potential to meme this to the moon because of its scarcity, story and the impact it could have.

Yes AK69 is purely reputational and a soul-bound score. I don’t know if at some point it might make sense to leverage that for ecosystem level governance. But I don’t think it should influence governance in individual games or the AKK mining protocol. Imo, each game should have a distinct governance process based participants’ skin-in-the-game.

These are valid concerns. I believe we’re on the cusp of a productivity unlock due to AI and not far away from seeing one person unicorns. The overheads required to build and operate are eased significantly. These are not theoretic, I have built two full feature apps (Mindspace and Memetik) with vibe coding tools myself to know its possible. The constraint that remains is mainly marketing and BD but those should become easier with network effects kicking in.

Regens need to be positioned to take advantage of this paradigm so we don’t just build ReFi apps, but also infinite games for societal change at large. There’s a bit of a learning curve for gamification but we can have examples and templates to work from. Moreover, there will be a governance process to determine whether the games are good enough to be added into the AK69 score.

All this is expected to emerge over time and grow on the community. Also only the curious nerds will want to understand how it works under the hood. Most people would just play games because they want to have fun and compete with others.

Tbh, as of now, more degens have been engaging on social media than regens. But how that translates to real users is still a question. There’s no way to predict this until it’s live.

We’ve seen variations of this mechanism in Bitcoin, Bittensor, Bob.fun and Ore work at varying levels of success. I think we have all the ingredients to make it happen - strong community, narrative, impact. It offers a way for people to capture the value we’re creating by rewiring scarcity. The mechanism feels solid and not leveraging the memetic potential only reduces the chance of success imo.

For the launch part, the focus is strictly on the AKK mining protocol, starting with 3 RegNets to bring enough demand and prove the mechanism works.

At present, AK69 is the score baked into the leaderboard, combining GRIT + AKK. Users are not expected to do anything extra. We will introduce more games and add their normalized scores to AK69 as we mature and grow in numbers.

If it has to be simplified, AKK is the token and AK69 is the meme. Overall, Anti Krisis is the game to subvert Metacrisis.

Hope I answered most questions, if you’d like me to go deeper into any topic, feel free to ask!

12

GM!!!

Cotabe from Giveth here. I read the proposal and the links, and I’m glad we got on a call to better understand the idea and the product. I really appreciate that we turned the call into a Figma demo, which btw looks awesome. My comments here represent my own thoughts and not necessarily Giveth’s view overall, though I will be the main point of contact coordinating our support.

But before going into detail, let’s do a TL;DR:

I think there is a lot of energy and effort put into this project. I am concerned about the demand side and who the potential buyers are based on previous similar experiences in the space, including meme tokens (more on this below). However, I think this is a noble attempt worth supporting, especially now that it has come this far. I’m confident we can support it from the Giveth side, and we appreciate becoming a RegNet.

  • Like most have explicitly said, I appreciate the thought, effort, and energy invested here. There is a deep thought process (prone to potential incorrect assumptions, but that’s the status quo for startups). I also loved the Figma (again) and I get a good vibe about your intentions

  • In general, I agree with @montymerlin and you on the diagnosis of the problem and the intention of aggregating projects so that a rising tide lifts all boats in a positive-sum game, although I’m not sure yet how the dynamics will play out.

  • I agree with both @montymerlin and @christian_regen regarding attention scarcity, cognitive overhead, the importance of a target audience, and the risk of adoption assumptions.

  • On the other hand, I was also worried about complexity, but seeing the UI, it feels like that complexity is abstracted by design.

However, I will be real and share what I’ve seen in the space recently:

  1. Decreasing attention: Rallying support has become increasingly complicated. To give a few examples: last year some Gitcoin experiments really struggled to get attention. The same happened to Giveth Causes. It’s real that gaining mindshare and the user willingness to experiment in ReFi is getting harder.

  2. Burnout: Most of us have experimented with tokens and have been burned, memes or not.

  3. Market struggles: Most ReFi tokens have struggled despite lots of good efforts. This includes governance tokens like $GIV and $GTC, aggregated tokens like $WATER, and ReFi meme tokens like $REGEN.

I’m not suggesting you throw in the towel, but these are ugly realities. I think lessons should be drawn from them to create a different Go-to-Market strategy. In my opinion, organic growth and relying on our existing communities doesn’t seem to be enough anymore. It hasn’t been enough for our projects individually, nor for previous collective experiments. If we really want to do something different, I think we should start with how we go to market.

I’m personally not the biggest meme or gaming person hahaha, so I might be a bit biased or harsh here, but I say it with the best intentions. The proof is that we want to support this from the Giveth side, and of course, we want this to succeed so we all win.

I appreciate the playfulness of the experiment and the willingness to try something different, and I hope it goes even better than expected. I discussed this with team members; Giveth will also subscribe to what @christian_regen is mentioning regarding project boundaries.

But we want to support Anti Krisis in this novel approach, and we welcome the freshness of the experiment.

3 Likes
13

A regenerative mechanism creates qualitative growth that stays life-centric by restoring interdependencies, reciprocity, and evolutionary coherence, so the system learns with its environment through real feedback loops.

Anti Krisis currently reads like a mechanistic growth pattern: a scarcity game with its own internal indicators and rewards, easily decoupled from the feedback of living systems. That configuration matches common “systemic thrivability barriers”, reciprocity with living systems gets blocked, informational loops get distorted, and the incentive field drifts toward win-lose dynamics once value concentrates.

If the goal is thrivability, the design needs boundaries that keep the protocol in flow with real-world interdependencies, so boundaries stay developmental and do not become barriers.

Pragmatic upgrades:

  1. GRIT issuance tied to verified regeneration receipts (restoration, stewardship, measurable ecological/social outcomes), with token-burning as a minor path.

  2. AKK emissions split, with a fixed rail funding RegNet public goods that restore interdependencies.

  3. Governance guardrails that prevent capture and keep learning loops open (transparent feedback, participation constraints, adaptive iteration).

Daniel

1 Like
14

I completely agree that we should be innovating on GTM. I also think that efforts like this to build mechanisms between groups that should be incentive aligned is important so I appreciate and support the innovation.

4 Likes
15

Appreciate your support and sharing insights from your experiences @Cotabe. Collective sensemaking and adopting lessons from previous attempts is how we improve our chances.

Though I generally agree that relying on our existing communities will not be enough, the core community has a critical role to play at least in the GTM phase, until we generate enough traction before it becomes interesting to the out-group.

If you think about it, it’s better to have the core community mine majority of $AKK until the first halving (when ~50% supply will be out) so people in the know can steward the growth and be best positioned to profit from potential price gains. It’s the only way we all win. If the out-group control majority tokens, even though the price action could be great, it’ll lack the care and quickly lose meaning without regens at the heart of it.

That being said, 100-150 dedicated people should be enough to build a solid foundation while we attract attention from the broader crypto space. My guess is we have the numbers but attention is scattered and each of us have to ensure aligned people are informed and onboarded.

16

Hi Daniel, this is exactly the kind of critique the protocol needs, thanks for engaging substantively.

There’s an internal tension in your critique worth surfacing. You emphasize that regeneration is about “qualitative growth” and “real feedback loops with living systems”, the properties that resist standardization. But your proposed solution requires “verified regeneration receipts” and “measurable outcomes,” which demand exactly the kind of mechanistic quantification you’re critiquing.

Verification isn’t absent here, it’s delegated to governance where it belongs. RegNets must demonstrate on-chain “continual preservation or growth of at least one of the 5 forms of capital” to qualify. The governance layer approach allows qualitative assessment through community’s judgement.

This has merit but risks undermining the scarcity economics that make the mechanism work. It is already a consideration as stated in the whitepaper, it would make sense when the protocol evolves to a capital allocation mechanism. Imo, this would be premature to do in the capital formation phase.

Current design includes restricting “mining rate” between 1-10 bn GRIT/day and having a miner creation fee. The whitepaper already includes ideas for future considerations like - miner limits per account, sybil resistance, quadratic throttling, and demurrage.

What additional mechanisms would you recommend? And who are we trying to prevent capture from? Concrete ideas here would be valuable. The most effective way to prevent capture imo is by ensuring a diverse group of people are mining $AKK from the start.

Overall, I think you’re worried that launching without tight verification creates path dependency toward extractive dynamics. I’m worried that waiting for perfect verification means we never launch at all, and the coordination failures we care about solving continue to compound.

Both risks are real. The question is: which do we prioritize today?

The protocol is betting that financial coordination can bootstrap regenerative coordination, not replace it. That might be wrong. But it’s a testable bet with clear upgrade paths if reality proves otherwise.

17

STATUS UPDATE

We have some developments to share since the first post.

First, we’re delaying the launch by about 2 weeks to address a security fix. The exact date will be announced via our socials and TG when

Some RegNets related updates:

  1. We’re adding Treegens ($TGN) as the 4th Genesis RegNet.
  2. Klima support is going to take more time as they prefer burning $kVCM via their native protocol retirement process.

Pre Launch Quest

We’re currently running a quest to onboard core community for protocol launch. All miners are required to own 2 NFTs to participate in the first month.

RegNet community members (those who hold ~$20 of any RegNet token) qualify to get a free airdrops via a raffle once they complete the required actions.

One can also mint the NFTs directly to get guaranteed access without the uncertainty of a raffle. The NFTs will become about 6x more expensive after the protocol launches.

Get yours soon, we have extended the time until 21st to complete the quest. Link - https://zealy.io/cw/antikrisis/questboard

I’d like to reiterate that the success of this project depends on how our community shows up. So if you’re reading this, grab those NFTs and be prepared to enter the arena. Also invite your frens do do the same, the more the merrier :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

Let’s slay!

18

I hear you on GTM and I agree the out-group matters, and that a core cohort can seed early distribution. The part I will not let slide is the implicit assumption that “regen at the heart of it” emerges from who holds tokens. Distribution does not create care! Integrity constraints create care!!!

There is no contradiction between qualitative growth and measurable evidence, the way you point it… living systems are complex, and they still leave traceable signals in ecological and social capital. The tension you are pointing at is real, and your framing is useful, but the real enemy is proxy gaming. If the protocol rewards shallow indicators, it trains the ecosystem to optimize narratives, and “Proof of Impact” becomes a vibe. This is a huge red flag for me…

That is why I care less about token scarcity and more about INTEGRITY SCARCITY! If trust in regenerative claims is diluted early, tightening later becomes politically difficult. Genesis sets the path!!! If you start loose, you lock in regen-washing risk and you will not claw it back without a civil war…

Which brings me to governance…. delegating verification to governance only works if governance has enforcement power!!! Without teeth, governance becomes advisory and the market prices in storytelling…. so I want to see the concrete accountability surface area, in plain terms, what happens when a RegNet’s impact claims degrade, or are misrepresented, or were always noise? What are the clawback, slashing, suspension, or retroactive adjustment mechanisms? What are the evidentiary thresholds, the dispute process, and who can actually execute the outcome on-chain?

Receipts do not need to be mechanistic reduction!!! they can be multi-dimensional, contextual, and governance-validated, and yet they do need to expose economic risk for false claims!!! If there is limited downside to making claims, the protocol will select for claim-makers… which makes this protocol look the inversion of what regeneration is…

Finally, the “core community mines until the first halving so we all win” line reads like farming regens for liquidity, legitimacy, and attention, which is the exact status quo that burned most people out in the movement. If this is different, it has to be different by design!!! What value flows back to RegNets and real-world stewardship independent of price appreciation? If the only durable return is hoped-for price action on their tokens, then we are repeating the loop with better memes……………………. excuse my French, but fuck that!

If you can answer those accountability questions cleanly, you will have something durable. If you cannot, this becomes a scarcity game with regen branding, and the community will pay the cost… again…

1 Like
19

Daniel, I’d like to first clarify the scope so you don’t conflate with things outside its purpose. The scope of the protocol is to come up with a criteria to evaluate RegNets and have the community govern on their legitamacy. Consensus is the hardest thing to build and the point is to make it simple, plural and credibly neutral. Current design allows RegNets the flexibility to come up with contextual metrics across multiple capitals.

I’m afraid you may be misunderstanding how governance works. Governance power in the protocol is only earned by having skin in the game viz. possessing the token (by mining or buying). Distribution absolutely matters in a one token, one vote system. The mindset of the token holders is essential to uphold the project’s integrity and steward its direction. If groups who don’t know a lot about regeneration happen to take control, good luck moral policing your way out of that.

How is it rewarding shallow indicators if it’s recognising plurality of impact in contextual ways the projects deem fit for their use case, without imposing a reductionist standard? The RegNets are required to prove their claims on-chain without a centralised authority dictating rules.

I get that we can be more nuanced in the RegNet impact criteria. This post is an invitation to refine that criteria. If you have concrete suggestions on that, please share. I know you’ve been working on a framework to evaluate projects on “regenerative” impact, which I thought was cool. It’d be nice to have that available so we could assess it’s applicability here if you think it helps.

I’m more leaning on social and cultural consensus than scientific. The problem is science has a long way to catch up and there are costs associated with MRV. Imagine what it would take to account for all kinds of impact projects create but can’t prove them because “science” hasn’t caught up or it’s expensive to do so? That’s a major bottleneck to our efforts, although projects like Regen Network are doing tremendous work in that direction.

We’ve been brainwashed and forced into the paradigm of “prove impact” in order to attribute value. That’s not the paradigm I’m interested to play along and perpetuate. Crypto gives us tools to create a different paradigm where consensus can be achieved in other ways than corpo slop. I know its ironic that proving impact is yet a requirement for RegNets.

The intention is to ensure legitimacy while also allowing flexibility with how they report. I think we should assume legitimacy until proven otherwise, something like how optimistic rollups work. The burden of proof shifts to challengers, not applicants. This inverts the gatekeeping dynamic.

Meanwhile, most movements start as a cultural phenomena than a scientific one. “We understand reality not by gathering facts, but by imagining bold “stories” (theories) and then trying our hardest to prove them wrong. A theory is "true” only if it is a good explanation: a specific, logical structure that is hard to vary without losing its power to explain the world when tested against evidence.” This isn’t me making things up, it’s how David Deutsch - the father of quantum computing puts it.

This is a different epistemic framework and I don’t see the harm in applying the same philosophy to regeneration. “Science” is weaponised to control society if you’ve not caught up to that reality yet. The objective and subjective were never separate but it’s useful to those who want see us squabble over it. If you categorize this as vibes, so be it.

Instead of having sophisticated gatekeeping systems from the get go, I prefer to follow Gall’s law that states: “A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. Conversely, a complex system designed from scratch, without evolving from a simpler, working version, never works and cannot be patched up to function.”

It is easier to add guardrails when attack vectors emerge than play out all scenarios beforehand and build a fortress nobody is interested in attacking in the first place. The only way to attack the protocol is through sustained large burns controlling >51% of mining. This costs real money and increases demand for RegNet tokens in the process. The attack vector inadvertently funds the thing it’s trying to undermine.

The governance allows for expulsion of RegNets from the protocol if they do fraudulant things or are no longer active. I’m relying on the collective intelligence of the community to surface those instances and govern the consequences. I’m not sure how to come up with thresholds for all possibilities, please enlighten us.

The governance currently only allows adding or removing RegNets. The execution happens automatically upon vote ratification. Maybe adding a pause function while claims are ratified would make sense.

As the saying goes - “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”, I can’t help if that’s how you interpret it.

What moved people out is not farming, it’s the lack of capital in the first place. If we managed to attract enough capital for people to make a living out of this, we’d have a much bigger ecosystem than the status quo.

This is an attempt to fix that by growing our collective wealth, so we can have more capital to deploy and influence the world according to our worldview. We can have an unfair advantage by being early and acting with conviction, collectively. This is a PvE game, where we are in the business of moving capital from an extractive system to a regenerative system. If we don’t play as a team, there’s no way to win given the magnitude of what we’re dealing with.

Everything is downstream of price. Every RegNet’s survival is price-dependent. To brush it away is ignoring the fact that price determines a project’s agency and ability to commission more work. If what we’re doing is not valuable; reflected via price and market cap, regeneration will remain wishful thinking.

Anti Krisis isn’t meant to do everything, it’s only amplifying the efforts of those already doing regenerative work in positive sum ways. It’s aiming to solve a coordination problem, not a MRV problem. Capital formation for the ecosystem is the biggest thing to address right now and price is the biggest lever to pull.

I appreciate your passion and concern for the movement. I’m sure you have ideas about how best to solve some of the pain points you see. I know you lean heavily on compliance and measurement side of things. I’m not against it, if you’d like to build something on those lines, I’d fully support you. I even have an equally brilliant idea I’d love to share and see it come to fuition. I’m neither smart or resourceful or patient enough to pursue that path.

For all intents and purposes, we should treat this as a meme / cultural game. I intend to keep things fun and light. Know that the war is psycho-spiritual, the arena is culture, the game is economic and the tool is technology.