加密飛行 Vol.7b | 黃孫權專訪：社區先於規模，合作社與DAO

訪談

治理的尺度：對比合作社與 DAO, 合作社是什麼，和 DAO 有什麼不同

黃孫權：不完全是這樣。合作社的確就是一個公司，但是它最高管理階層的工資跟最低工資之間不能超過十二倍，這是沒有任何一個公司可以做到的。蒙德拉貢合作社曾經考慮到中國設廠，唯一否定的原因，是他們的社員要求在中國設廠的工人工資要跟西班牙一樣，他們沒法做到。這種事情不可能發生在其他公司。

合作社不是一個顛覆或革命的方案，但它會在資本主義的情況下，讓我們可以活得稍微舒暢一點。它就是一個工人擁有公司的東西，並且所有的 Share holder，不管你持有股份的多少，都是一人一票的權利， Shareholder 與 Stakeholder 是一體的，這跟公司股份制完全不一樣。並且按照國際合作社的標準規定， 30%的收益必須拿出來做有益社區的事情。

這遠遠是 DAO 沒有的。 Web3 的所有的提案都是按照你擁有多少 Stake 來決定，這不就是公司股份嗎？ DAO 基本上就是一個公司，在互相不認識的基礎上相信數學機制的判斷，然後投票。這個提法一點都不新，為什麼倒變成年輕人的期望？我一直不懂這件事。

我原來和南塘合作社合作了很久，還為他們做了一個參與式設計的合作社經營中心，後來因為地方政府不支持他們而沒有蓋成。當時合作社的楊大哥欠了很多錢。 後來南塘 DAO 說想去幫忙，幫忙 1 年多就去了七個人，每天給 20 工分，相當於 2 塊人民幣，一個月大概給南塘 140 人民幣的收益。我覺得不要做這種沒有意義的事情。

南塘合作社就是非常激進的，因為四千多個村民都是南塘合作社的成員。南塘是很大的，有四十幾個村，每個村都有很多幹部出來開會，我參加過很多次：因為每個村種同一種作物會導致這個作物在市場上貶值，所以他們會商量，如果這個村今年種棗子，那隔壁村就不要種棗子。這是非常有機的，所有的東西都是投票投出來的，一人一票。而且楊大哥之前還給他們讀了一本叫《羅伯特議事規則》，讓農民學會說我要開會，我要先舉手，遵守規則。他們把它叫做《蘿蔔白菜規則》，這樣更容易記。他們是經過 20 年的磨鍊才變成合作社。

935：作為一個密切觀察 DAO3、 4 年的旁觀者和社群參與者，我大概知道讓一切協作自動化的想法目前還是不大可能。人們想要弄出很多量化的規範，最後發現無法窮盡，此外也有很多無法量化的東西。但在 DAO 的視角看來，之所以現在所有的實踐走到了死衚衕，是因為治理還沒有做到百分百完善，他們似乎有一種對治理的癡迷。我不知道我這種感覺是不是正確的。

黃孫權：是。 DAO 這個東西，討論所有的機制跟治理，大部分是為了讓它自己的幣有價值，持有幣才可以參與討論，這是一個由金錢驅動的假民主體制。 SeeDAO 雖然沒有發幣，但是他們拿了很多 Funding 來鼓勵這個 DAO。他們也做很多 NFT，當作成員去 Discord 討論的門檻。

讓 Web3 重回地方價值

所以我希望可以有一個加密貨幣或者 NFT 來當做保值的工具，並且賣這個 Token 的錢不是回到我身上，而是回到這些墨師，讓他們可以更好地做這些事情。但是我參考過非常多例子，比如 City DAO，日本的一些案例等等，都不太成功。因為購買那些項目的 Token 並不是真的想要支持一個公共的物品，他們就是為了要轉賣、收集。

935：我覺得重點是， NFT 一旦對外規模化地去發行之後，買 NFT 的人並沒有很強的 Incentive 讓花出去的錢能夠回饋到在地的社群。我之前去過比利時一個叫斯帕（ Spa）的小鎮，小鎮旁邊有一個 F1 賽道，每年都會有一場 F1 比賽在那邊舉行，全球各地的車迷過來看幾天比賽。這些車迷會有住宿，喫喝，交通的需求。所以斯帕小鎮上一個村的幾個老爺爺、老奶奶每年就自發組織起來，到比賽季的時候把村裡的幾塊場地空出來，讓車迷可以在那邊支帳篷或停房車。他們也在那邊提供食堂，提供來往的交通，提供一個小酒吧給大家喝酒。他們食堂裡都是自己村的人養的牛做成的漢堡，調酒也是自己村裡面發明的配方。每年村民們都自願集結起來做這件事情，他們不領工資。在這場活動裡賺到的錢，不管是收住宿費的錢，還是那些消費產生的錢，都留下來作為村裡面的公共基金，要麼拿去做一些村裡基建，要麼就是留起來給村裡的小孩上大學用。

所以，如果買 NFT 的人最後的目都是想繼續流通，他們沒有很強的 Incentive 讓買這個 NFT 的錢迴歸到在地的社群中去。而對這個小鎮的人來說，村子裡這樣的體系在代際和一個一個家庭中互惠，所以他們有很強的 Incentive 讓這些錢回到他的大集體上。

7k：你提過 DAO 和合作社一個很大的區別就是利益相關。 DAO 是需要你不利益相關，但是合作社是需要你有利益相關。

黃孫權：有點像是我在今年年會開幕致辭裡說的：今年得到諾貝爾經濟學獎的 Daron Acemoglu 和 Simon Johnson，他們在著作《權力與進步》裡一個非常基本的看法是「技術不一定代表進步」。 技術要能夠造成進步，一定是跟社會變革力量有關，社會變革力量出現了，技術才會讓社會往好的方向去。這個看法我們其實已經很熟了，但是 Web3 的人不知道有沒有接收到這個訊息。

其實有很多這樣的例子，它們跟 Web3 一點關係都沒有。譬如，臺灣有一個地方叫司馬庫斯，是一個兩百多個人的原住民村落。它在新竹的山上，很偏遠，但那應該是我看過最牛的合作社了。這整個村都是合作社，因為他們原住民本來就有這種共享的精神。由於每天有非常多人去觀光，有些人家裡比較有錢，所以他們開民宿，開餐廳，但其他那些沒開民宿和餐廳的村民就覺得為什麼要讓別人來打擾我們的生活？他們後來規定每天進村的人數要有限制，並且他們有一個合作社式的組織委員會，將這些經營得賺的錢，提成到這個集體裡重新分配。因為這是村集體負擔的社會成本、外部成本，不能只是讓開餐廳或開民宿的賺錢。我看過太多中國鄉建，就是開民宿的賺錢，開飯店賺錢，一般村民跟它根本沒關係。

他們（司馬庫斯）甚至做到有一種非常完整的機制，給要到新竹或臺北市去唸大學的小朋友補助。因為山上沒有高中，他們的學生高中就要下山了，所以他們在山下買一棟房子，所有的高中生可以住在那裡，只有一個要求：每個月請你回家鄉看一下爸媽跟環境。

這是合作社。根本不用什麼新的技術，他們就可以完成這個事情。他們是可以自負盈虧的村落，村子裡完全不搞任何別的東西。這不就是最好的夢想麼？這些東西都有了，根本不用 Web3 就已經有了。

基本上所有加密貨幣，唯一能夠解決的問題是在流通過程中遇到的困難，但其他事情並沒有被解決。而你越解決流通問題，資本越容易流動，資本主義就越興盛，有錢人就越容易逃稅，對窮人來說根本沒有任何幫助。所以我們整個加密貨幣行業在幹嘛呢？如果就是解決資本主義的積累困難，這不是一個非常反諷的結局嗎？一開始不就是因為資本主義遇到大災難，所以我們才開始搞加密貨幣嗎？

Web3 作為 Web2 的替代： ownership 到 property

黃孫權： 一方面來說，我覺得 Web3 的發展可能有點機會，是因為現在互聯網已經不互聯了。特別是中國，一個平臺跟其他其他平臺都不互聯。所以 Web3 有穿透這些不互聯的東西的可能性。但是，為什麼我要覺得在網上發的東西有價值，而且我應該擁有它們？

回到 2000 年，我寫東西就是覺得，全世界都沒人報道，我寫出來就是讓更多人看到。因為我的目的是要讓大家知道這個事實，我怎麼會想到看我的東西需要你付我錢？大家根本不會想這個事。可是當我想這個事兒的時候意味着什麼？ Ownership 的背後並不是你要擁有所有權，而是所有權可以輔助於資本積累，通過某種機制讓我的所有權或財產（ property/ownership）有價值。現在 Web3 上很多的開發都是基於開源。最後你在上面寫一篇稿子，你說你要 ownership。我也沒有覺得不行，但是它有點好笑。

7k：但是另外一方面，我也不希望這個 ownership 是平臺的。

黃孫權：那你就不要在平臺上寫東西不就行了，回到 2003 年那個 Blog 時代， why not？

我不是質問你，我只是通過非常簡單的問題問我自己：這些東西其實並沒有幫助我，起碼沒有讓我看到 2000 年的Indymedia，或者 2002 年左右那個 Blogsphere 的力量。 Web3 對我來說有點虛幻了。

Coop——一種中心化的小社區 Social Token 嘗試

Social token 的概念比較像我們現在正在做的事。因為它是小規模的，一開始其實為了滿足藝術學院學生的需要。比如說我在做作品的時候，我去問學弟學妹，他們都會來幫忙。其實每個地方都有這種非常密切需要彼此幫忙的事，那我們就需要一個計價系統或記帳系統，把貢獻記得就好了。以前有一陣子我在上課，我們在 Discord 上有公開，但是你要有一個 COOP 才能聽。後來 Discord 有幾十號人會聽我這個課，雖然他完全看不到我的 PPT，但只要是我講的，他們也願意來聽。這就是小規模的社群反而會有點意思的地方。

大的規模我絕對不敢想象，但小規模我覺得可以做到。譬如說，我今天公佈一個硬性的要求，要求以後所有要考網研所的學生都要有 Coop。每年幾百個人來考我研究生，我們上的課，我們做的東西都要 COOP。所以你就要慢慢想辦法，獲得 COOP，比如來幫我們做義工，翻譯等等。透過這個互惠的方式，讓大家知道這個 Token 有一種特定的社會責任存在。那我就可以 one by one 地產生影響。

因為我們都互相認識，我們試圖在這種小範圍裡收集全世界非常好的藝術創作跟紀錄片，或者是 Nathan Schneider 在科羅拉多州搞媒體實驗室和民主機制，或者是邱林川在新加坡，我們這次遇到的那個 Cheryll 在菲律賓等地（以上均為歷屆網絡社會研究所年會的發言者）——你每個地方都可以這樣做，如果越多像 COOP 這種形式，它就越 Make sense。然後最後我們就可以互相談對價。

這可以回到一個非常古典的討論：蒲魯東在巴黎左岸搞工人運動時，希望工人的薪資不要用國家的貨幣，而是自己發行貨幣。馬克思就罵了他，因為這個貨幣是沒有辦法流通的。現在可能有一種新的技術，可以做到對價和流通（雖然對價的方式有很多種）。以前對價是不可能實現的，所有的社區貨幣最後倒閉的原因都是因為它們沒有辦法流通，出了這個社區就沒用了。但現在可以有不同的社區貨幣同時發行，然後相互之間對價。

真心話來說，我還是希望可以把 Coop 變成像淘寶一樣。我想要實現一個很簡單的例子，就是在這個網站裡我可以用 Coop 買賣東西，這是歷史上第一個這樣的網站。像加密貨幣搞那麼多（項目），沒有一個可以做到像淘寶一樣。比如用 Coop，我可以賣我的勞力，賣我的東西。你看中本聰寫的那個第一份白皮書裡頭，它談的是個人對個人的支付系統，它沒有那麼偉大，它就是解決我們日常生活的支付。可是這麼簡單的事情為什麼大家現在還沒有沒有辦法實現呢？我其實不太知道為什麼。

解法的探討和 Web3 批評

社區先於規模

黃孫權：蒙德拉貢合作社（ Mondragon）有幾十萬人，你要說 Scalability，這算不算大？我覺得這些問題都非常好，你在逼問我一直想不通的事。但是假設我們不要 Web3 這個概念，我們看世界上已經成立的這種共治模式，最好的就是巴西的阿雷格里港，他們用公共投票來決定城市預算的，但一旦這個城市超過三十萬人就有點難操作了。所以其實已經有成功的例子，根本沒有 Web3 也可以這樣幹。所以你希望有多大的 Scalability 呢？

我認為，要先有 Community 的就建立， Community 之內的 Circulation 成立以後，我再在外頭討論它的 Scalability。如果最基本的做不起來，你剛剛想的那一步就沒有用了。譬如說，如果你是個勞動合作社，我們的 Coop 只能看書、買書，勞動合作社他們不需要書，他為什麼跟我們交換？這時候才有 Scalability 的問題。但這種對價是最難的，因為每個社區都會有真實的需要。

韓國的合作社是在亞洲最進步的，因為有三個人就可以成立合作社。他們有非常多的媽媽、託兒所，我們三個婦女我們就可以搞一個合作社，韓國政府會補助。比如我是全職媽媽，工作會很辛苦，我跟我周圍的人說來幫我帶小孩，我去工作。一開始是三個媽媽，後來是有幾百人，然後真的是可以輪流照顧我的孩子。這是從小就開始慢慢找到的，我覺得很 make sense。合作社其實也不那麼去中心化，因為合作社從小到大有很多，在臺灣七個人就可以搞合作社。我在臺灣搞了一個合作社，一開始就七個人，我們是有政府頒發的執照的正式藝術家合作社，是全世界第一個。七個人中每個人既是 Shareholder 也是 Stakeholder。所以我覺得這個基礎其實是很重要的。

935： 您之前在文章裡提到一個觀點，在馬克思分析整個生產與消費過程整個四個步驟：生產（ Production），分配（ Distribution），交換（ Exchange）和消費（ Consumption）當中，你是覺得現在 Web3 只解決了中間的交換步驟裡的問題，但是沒有改變兩端的生產和消費。

Michel Bauwens 也提到，過去我們在地的生產模式，用他的話說叫共享資源（ Commons），這種生產模式是資源保護型的，它是滋養型的。它不像資本主義那樣把一個地方的資源經濟意義最大化並且消耗掉。滋養型的生產，其實更符合長期的整體利益。他也提到像合作社本身，正是因為他比較小，他可以有更多的在地性的關注。但是這這種小型的 Commons 又可能只侷限在一小片的區域，某一種單一的文化裡面。所以在面對跨國的、大型的，或者說是非常強大的集權，現代化政府的時候，它很容易被吞噬掉，被異化。所以 Michel 的一個思路是，結合剛剛說的 Scalability，他覺得我需要要建立一個 Global Commons。

黃孫權： 對，我認為 Web3 沒有辦法解決生產（ Production）和消費（ Consumption）的問題。很多人都在想做這件事（ Global Commons），就像比特幣一開始要讓全世界人都可以點對點交易一樣。但是最終的目的地離你很遠，你用這種目的地不見得可以號召什麼事情，因為能夠被號召的人其實都是對這種技術跟這種 Scalability 有一點想象的。最在地的（ Local），更需要幫助的人根本不會想這事兒。我今天日子都過不了了，你明天要告訴我，跟全球人連結，這不好笑麼？因為我是搞運動出身的，所以我不會那麼樂觀。這其實是你們下一代要做的事，我只是在旁邊嘮叨你們。

歐洲發行的 Faircoin 就是做的這個事情，它想把所有的平臺和社區容納進來，用 Faircoin 做通貨。但是不成功，原因就是因為太難對價了。比如說一個生產稻米的生產合作社，和一個勞動合作社，以及一個開摩的的公共運輸工會，這三個社區要怎麼對價的？最後還是要兌換成法幣。在地的事情（ Locality）基本上就是跟國家（ Nation State）更有關聯。但哪一個加密貨幣不是跟主權國家玩呢？現在整個加密貨幣在幻想自己不受主權國家的控制，但根本沒有嘛，在每一個國家裡都受控制。

我覺得最最可惜的事情是，這些東西都沒有脫離資本主義對貨幣的想象。比如說比特幣一開始是金本位，就是一個老套的貨幣系統。 POS 就是股票制。這些技術其實做的都是非常舊的事情，包含所有舊有的意識形態在裡頭。所有的價值體系並沒有被改變，只是流通（ Circulation）的技術變了而已。那我們為什麼要這樣幹？資本主義的核心概念是 Circulation,因為它不流動就死掉了。加密貨幣也是一樣，所以這兩個東西對我來說沒什麼兩樣。但問題是在流動過程中怎麼 Build community 和 Commons，這才是關鍵。為什麼這麼多人在討論 community，但我根本看不到你們的 Community 到底長什麼樣子。

我們也曾經邀請 Michel 來臺灣，他其實很可愛。也不能說他不對，但感覺他的想法裡有很多歐洲人搞 Commons 的想象。其實我們自己整個東南亞社群，我們有非常強的不同於北方中心的東西。比如說，大陸很多的原住民社群，像是侗族，還是有那種很強的 Commune*的感覺，它就是一個生活集體。臺灣的衆多原住民也有。我們有很多東西，但我們從未看過他們。我們一直在看別處的社會，這是奇怪的。

我可以講另一個從原住民身上學到的東西。我們有一個叫邵族，他們在日據時期被屠殺過，現在全臺灣只有一百多個人是純邵族，其他都是混血。他們過年有大年跟小年，小年三天，大年七天。七天裡每家每戶都開門，一直喝酒喝到死，他們有七大家族，每一年都要開會，決定要辦小年還是大年。有一次開會允許我朋友去旁觀，七個族長在那邊開始喝酒，一直笑。我朋友想他們什麼時候開始討論，因為根本沒有討論。也不討論，也不投票，怎麼決定？然後突然有個人說：「我們今年，小年吧。「然後說所有人都說好，那就小年。

你知道為什麼沒有投票麼？因為這七個族長完全知道這個村裡頭每家每戶發生了什麼事，經濟狀況好不好，他們有非常好的信任感，所以覺得今年大家都不是太豐盛，辦大年大家會會花太多錢。所以一個人說小年，然後每個人都笑一笑，喝酒，小年吧，然後就結束。我朋友整個就看呆了。我一個這麼相信民主跟投票的人，我覺得這種才是......我不能說它很棒，但有一種非常自然的：因為我們的信任在那兒，以至於我們可以做這個事情而不覺得有任何不對。

*注： Commune 在英文中普遍指社區式的生活，不侷限於中文中的公社。

網研所的研究歷史變遷和自己的目標：合作社與 UBI

黃孫權：是的。我們一開始做年會，是因為我覺得中國擁有世界上最多的網民，但我們沒有比較好的理論化自己的能力，所以前三屆，是把那些非常尖銳的，網絡社會該有的東西都討論到了，從最哲學的（概念），到（最實際的）能源、物流等等。每一屆選擇的主題都是非常 Local 的，在中國當時發生的一些事，一直到第五屆年會。疫情之前我們開始搞 Crypto，這就進入了第六、第七屆比較混亂的時候：我們開始考慮有 crypto 到底和我們之前關心的合作社有什麼差別。第八屆因為我們開始做舊金山和深圳（的紀錄片），所以就開始談反文化。

其實簡單講，在我短期有限的能力範圍裡，我一直只有兩個目標，其中一個是做合作社，不管是數字的還是其他形式的合作社都可以。另外一個就是 UBI。 UBI 有很多種彈性， Coop 其實基本上就是一個 UBI 系統，而 UBI 是一個把我所有享受的利益給社會外部化的過程。這兩個是我最想做的。

所以我們年會是一直都在處理這個事情。第一個是我們要面對在中國和在東南亞非常真實的社會條件，第二個是我還是希望把這個事情推到一個比較可見的實踐範圍內，讓我們知道我們下一步可以幹嘛。

---

在對加密技術的批判與期許方面，受訪者多次強調"社會運動的力量先於技術的應用"。從歷史上美國黑客運動能與公民運動結合，到臺灣社會運動成功撼動公共政策，再到原住民族群與合作社的實踐經驗，受訪者都展示了"只有立足在地需求與公共利益的技術，才真正會帶來進步"。這與不少 DAO 與 Web3 項目在實踐中遇到的困境形成對照：若只強調技術機制（例如治理投票、代幣激勵），卻缺乏真正紮根社群的互信、協作與公共討論，那麼"去中心化"往往流於形式。訪談並不否定加密技術的潛力，而是指出了它更深層的前提：在地社會文化力量、合作組織以及紮實的社群互動，才可能把新工具用來推動有意義的改變。對那些希望以加密技術抵抗巨型平臺壟斷或市場極端化的人來說，訪談提供了重要的反思：究竟應該如何重新定位"自由"與"社群"的意義？如何在落實民主、降低不平等的同時，保持技術的開放創新？這些問題都需要更多從地方經驗、社會運動實踐層面出發的回應，而不只是依賴技術自身的"去中心化"想象。

整體而言，本文最具啓發之處在於把"技術哲學與社會運動"緊密相連。它既提醒我們反思互聯網與加密文化背後的歷史與意識形態，也啓迪了更深層的想象：若缺乏真實的公共意義與地方價值，任何技術都不會自動帶來進步；而當技術能與社群互惠、與社會運動相結合，才有機會催化真正有意義的社會變革。此外，在一個文明娛樂至死近乎瘋癲，民衆分離分裂攻訐謾罵，暴力機器和自我對人類理性和良知雙重審查嚴格限制的時代，這篇訪談依然在堅守着一件在過去世代稀鬆平常但現在比黃金還珍貴，以至於很多 Gen Z 乃至 Gen Alpha 聞所未聞的事情："發自內心真誠地進行有效的批評"。僅此一點，我就願對本文給出滿分的評價。

受文章篇幅所限，對黃孫權老師的訪談被拆為上下兩部分。本文系下篇，上篇地址：

👇Re

• 《南塘合作社的民主方法論》 三聯生活週刊 https://www.lifeweek.com.cn/article/26247
• 文化與技術三部曲｜個人計算機與反文化篇：互聯網檔案館創始人 Brewster Kahle 訪談影片
• 個人計算機與反文化篇（二）：專訪斯坦福傳播學教授 Fred Turner
• 個人計算機與反文化篇（三）：專訪紐約時報記者與作家 John Markoff

---

English

March 02, 2025

Crypto Flight Vol.7｜Community Precedes Scalability—Cooperative and DAOInterview with Huang Sunquan
Abstract: Progress requires social movements, and social movements direct technology to a better place.

"Crypto Flight" is a series of interviews by Uncommons, focusing on pioneers active in the Ethereum and crypto world. It documents the reality of the crypto space and produces diverse perspectives, using conversation and everyday language as methods to distill distant and far-off truths. Inspired by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Vol de Nuit (Night Flight), it symbolizes the challenge and exploratory spirit of cypherpunks and crypto citizens as they venture to the ends of the world.

The Scalability of Governance: Cooperative vs. DAO

What Are Cooperatives, and How Do They Differ from DAOs?

935: Cooperatives have long been central to your work, but how do they resist network effects? Rosa Luxemburg, in Reform or Revolution, argued that without overthrowing capitalist market logic, cooperatives are merely temporary fixes. For example, worker cooperatives competing in markets inevitably replicate capitalist hierarchies—like Spain’s Mondragon, which some say became just another corporation.

Huang Sunquan: Not entirely. Cooperatives are companies, but their wage gaps between the top and bottom tiers are capped at 12:1—unthinkable in companies. Mondragon once considered expanding to China but rejected it because members demanded equal pay for Chinese workers as in Spain. No company would do that.

Cooperatives aren’t revolutionary solution, but under capitalism, they let us live slightly better. Workers own the company, and each member has one vote, regardless of shares. That is to say a shareholder is a stakeholder, unlike corporations where shareholders dominate. Also, by international standards, 30% of profits must be used for the community's benefit.

You can’t see this in DAOs. Web3 governance is stake-weighted—isn’t it identical to corporate shares? DAOs are just companies, with people not knowing each other and voting on the trust for math over people. Why is this seen as revolutionary? I don’t get it.

I worked with Nantang Cooperative for a longtime, and even once did a participatory-designed cooperative center for them, yet local government opposition killed it. The leader, Brother Yang, was deep in debt by then. Later, Nantang DAO offered help: seven people worked for a year, earning 20 workpoints daily (worth ¥2), totaling ¥140/month. I think that’s a little pointless.

Nantang Cooperative is very radical—4,000 villagers are members across 40 villages. They coordinate crops to avoid market saturation: if one village grows dates, neighbors don’t. Everything is voted on, one person, one vote. Brother Yang taught farmers Robert’s Rules of Order, which they renamed “Radish-Cabbage Rules” for simplicity. It took 20 years to build such a cooperative.

935: As a DAO observer for 3-4years, I know fully automatic cooperation is still impossible. You have to make many quantifiable metrics, but they are endless, let alone many things that cannot be quantified in the first place. However, DAOs seem to obsess over perfect governance, but maybe this perfectionism is a trap.

Huang Sunquan: Exactly. Most of the debates over a DAO’s governance exist to boost its token value. Participation requires holding tokens—a money-driven pseudo-democracy. Even SeeDAO” which avoids tokens, relies on grants and NFTs as Discord entry tickets.

Reconnecting Web3 to Local Values

Huang Sunquan: We are now helping Huanggang Village, where the drum tower tradition is beautiful: When a child is born, a tree is planted. At marriage, the tree becomes furniture; at death, a coffin. But these traditions fade and they are hard to preserve. Local carpenters, using vernacular methods to design drum towers, face unemployment as modern buildings replace wood.

I want to issue a crypto or NFT to fund these artisans, instead of arbitrage for its owners’ benefit. Similar projects like City DAO fail because buyers just flip tokens or collect, not support communities and commons.

935: I think the point is when NFTs are issued at scale, buyers are not incentivized to repay local communities. I was in Spa, Belgium, where villagers host F1 fans annually. They provide campsites, food, and transport, reinvesting profits into community funds. Their incentive to repay the community is passed family by family, generation by generation. However, NFT buyers are just aiming to circulate their possession.

7k: You once mentioned that DAOs demand disinterestedness while cooperatives require interestedness.

Huang Sunquan: As I mentioned in the opening speech at the conference of Network Society this year: Nobel laureates Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson’s basic argument in Power and Progress is “Technology doesn’t equal to progress.” Progress requires social movements, and social movements direct technology to a better place. I don’t know whether the Web3 community has grasped this.

Take Taiwan’s Smangus (司馬庫斯) as an example, an Indigenous cooperative village with around 200 people. It’s located in the mountains of Hsinchu, a remote area, but it’s probably the most impressive cooperative I’ve ever seen. The entire village operates as a cooperative, rooted in the Indigenous community’s inherent spirit of sharing. Due to the influx of tourists, some families running guesthouses or restaurants profited more. But why should outsiders disrupt their lives? They eventually imposed daily visitor limits and established a cooperative committee to pool a portion of earnings from these businesses for collective redistribution. This addressed the social and external costs borne by the village, ensuring profits weren’t monopolized by a few. I’ve seen too many rural development projects in China where guesthouses and restaurants profit while ordinary villagers gain nothing.

The Smangus community even developed a comprehensive support system for youth attending university in Hsinchu or Taipei. Since there are no high schools in the mountains, students must move downhill for education. The village purchased a building in the lowlands to house these students, with one condition: Please return home monthly, to visit your parents and the village.

This is cooperative. They don’t need any new technology to make it work. The village is self-sustaining, financially independent, and free from unnecessary complications. Isn’t this the ultimate dream? All these things already exist—no Web3 required.

Fundamentally, the only problem cryptocurrencies solve is friction in circulation. Nothing else. And the more you streamline circulation, the easier capital flows, the stronger capitalism grows, the richer evade taxes, and the poorer gain nothing. So what is the entire crypto industry really doing? If it’s just easing capital accumulation for capitalism, isn’t that a bitterly ironic outcome? Wasn’t crypto born from capitalism’s crises in the first place?

Web3作爲Web2的替代：ownership到property

Web3 as a Replacement for Web2: From Ownership to Property

7k: We just discussed many examples of material production, but Web3 was originally conceived as a replacement for Web2 internet platforms. It aims to provide an open-source, information-ownership-enabled platform—at least as an opt-out alternative—using blockchain to transfer data ownership to users and establish new internet production relations. What’s your take on this view? For a long time, you’ve also been practicing platform cooperativism.

Huang Sunquan: On one hand, I think Web3 might have some potential precisely because the internet is no longer interconnected. Especially in China, platforms are siloed from one another. Web3 could potentially penetrate these isolated systems. But why should I believe that what I post online has value, and that I should own it?

Back in 2000, when I wrote things, it was because no one else was reporting on them. I wrote to reach more people. My goal was to inform people of the facts—why would I expect anyone to pay to read my work? No one even considered that back then. But when I start thinking about ownership, what does that imply? Ownership isn’t just about claiming rights—it’s about how ownership facilitates capital accumulation, creating value for my property through certain mechanisms(property/ownership). Much of Web3’s development is built on open-source principles. Yet when you write an article on such a platform and demand ownership, I don’t necessarily oppose it, but it feels a bit absurd.

7k: On the other hand, I also don’t want this ownership to belong to platforms.

Huang Sunquan: Then just stop writing on platforms. Return to the blogging era of 2003—why not?

I’m not interrogating you—I’m asking myself through these simple questions: These things haven’t helped me, at least not in the way Indymedia in 2000 or the blogosphere around 2002 did. Web3 feels illusory to me.

COOP——A Centralized Small-Scale Social Token Experiment

Huang Sunquan: Although we’ve also issued Coop: If you have Coop tokens, you can access all papers published by the Institute of Network Society. With a few more Coop, you can read our journals. And you can earn Coop through Ordering from us or volunteering for us—it’s a small internal circular system. I don’t want to scale it up or trade it on markets. You know who I am, I know who you are, and we exchange labor. It’s a mutual aid system, reciprocal and small-scale. That’s fine. Currently, only about 500 people hold Coop.

The concept of a social token aligns with what we’re doing. It’s small-scale, initially designed to meet the needs of art school students. For example, when I’m working on a project, I ask juniors for help, and they come. Every community has these close-knit mutual aid dynamics—we just need a valuation or accounting system to track contributions. Once, when I taught a class on Discord, it was public but required Coop to join. Yet dozens of people attended by Discord, even though they couldn’t see my slides—they came just to listen. That’s the charm of small communities.

I can’t imagine scaling this up, but in small-scale? Absolutely. For instance, I could mandate that all applicants to our institute’s graduate program must hold Coop. Hundreds apply yearly—our courses and projects would require Coop. They’d have to earn it through volunteering, translation work, etc. This reciprocity would embed the token with a sense of social responsibility, creating impact one by one.

Since we’re all connected, we’re gathering exceptional global art, documentaries, and projects like Nathan Schneider’s media lab and democratic experiments in Colorado, Jack Qiu’s work in Singapore, or Cheryll in the Philippines (all past speakers at Network Society Annual Conferences). The more communities adopt systems like Coop, the more feasible it becomes. Eventually, we could do price consideration between communities.

This circles back to a classic debate: During the anarchism movement, Proudhon advocated paying workers with community-issued currency instead of state money. Marx criticized this, arguing such currency couldn’t circulate. Today, new technologies might enable valuation and circulation (though consideration methods vary). Historically, community currencies failed because they couldn’t circulate beyond their niche. Now, multiple community tokens could coexist and exchange.

Honestly, I still hope to make Coop as functional as Taobao. I want to create a simple example—the first website where people buy and sell goods using crypto. Despite countless crypto projects, none have achieved something as practical as Taobao. With Coop, I could sell my labor or goods. Look at Satoshi’s original whitepaper—it proposed a peer-to-peer payment system, nothing grandiose, just solving daily transactions. Why hasn’t anyone realized this simple vision yet? I truly don’t know.

Explorations of Solutions and Critiques of Web3

Community Precedes Scalability

7k: Monetary systems already connect worldwide, giving us a vision of "global". When we’re not using DAOs or governance models for voting, we’re still voting through purchases using fiat currency. Personally, I hope Web3 can offer governance models at a global scale to counter global capitalism. Many emphasize Web3’s potential for scalability. Isn’t the circulation between community tokens via Web3’s exchange systems precisely scalability in action? DAOs also aim to provide scalable governance, though many currently resemble small communities.

Huang Sunquan: The Mondragon Corporation has hundreds of thousands of members—is that a scale large enough? These are excellent questions, pushing me to confront unresolved issues. But if we set aside the Web3 label, look at existing co-governance models: Porto Alegre in Brazil uses participatory budgeting via public voting, though it struggles once the city exceeds 300,000 people. Nonetheless, successful examples already exist without Web3. So how much scalability do you really want?

I believe we must first build communities and establish internal circulation before discussing external scalability. Without foundational success, grand visions are useless. For example, if our Coop tokens only allow access to books, but a labor cooperative has no need for books, why would they trade with us? That’s where scalability challenges arise—inter-community valuation is hardest, as each has unique needs.

South Korea has Asia’s most progressive cooperatives, as it only needs three people to form one. They have countless mom-and-child or daycare cooperatives subsidized by the government. A full-time mom might say, “Help me care for my kids so I can work,” starting with three mothers and growing to hundreds, rotating childcare duties. This organic growth, started when the kids are very young, makes perfect sense for me. Cooperatives aren’t inherently decentralized, and they can be large or small—Taiwan allows seven people to form one. I co-founded the world’s first licensed artist cooperative with seven members in Taiwan, each of them is both shareholder and stakeholder. This foundation matters.

935: In your earlier writings, you noted that within Marx’s four stages of production/consumption—production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. You said that Web3 only addresses issues in exchange, not in production or consumption.

Michel Bauwens also argues that localized production models, or "commons," are resource-nurturing, unlike capitalism’s extractive approach. Small cooperatives can focus on local needs but risk being swallowed by transnational powers or centralized governments. His solution is a "Global Commons" combined with scalability.

Huang Sunquan: Right. Web3 can’t solve issues in production or consumption. Many aim to build global commons, like Bitcoin’s original vision of a peer-to-peer global transaction tool. But distant ideals struggle to mobilize grassroots communities. If you’re struggling to survive today, why care about global connectivity? As an activist, I’m pragmatic and pessimistic—but this is your generation’s task, I’m just a person rabbiting on aside.

Europe’s Faircoin tried to unite platforms and communities under one currency but failed due to valuation hurdles. Let’s say, how would a rice cooperative, a labor cooperative, and a motorcycle taxi union exchange value? They’d eventually default to fiat. Locality ties more closely to nation-states—even cryptocurrencies, while imagining themselves free from nation control, play by sovereign rules in every country.

The real tragedy is that nothing escapes the monetary image of capitalism. Bitcoin mimics gold standards; Proof-of-Stake replicates stock systems. These are old ideologies repackaged. Value systems remain unchanged—only circulation tech evolves. Capitalism and crypto both depend on circulation, so they are similar for me. The key is building communities and commons within circulation. Why talk endlessly about "community" without showing me a real one?

We once invited Michel Bauwens to Taiwan—he’s earnest, but his Commons vision feels Eurocentric. Southeast Asian communities, like China’s Dong ethnic group or Taiwan’s indigenous tribes, have lived in communal systems for centuries. Yet we ignore these local models while chasing foreign ones.

Let me share a lesson from Taiwan’s Thao people. Nearly wiped out during Japanese rule, only 100 pure-blooded Thao remain. During their New Year, seven clan leaders gather to decide whether to celebrate a "major" (7-day) or "minor" (3-day) festival. Once, my friend observed their meeting: the leaders drank, laughed, and never formally discussed or voted. As my friend was wondering how they were going to decide, suddenly, one leader said, “This year, minor?” and all agreed.

Why no vote? Because their trust and intimate knowledge of each household’s circumstances—This year hasn’t been particularly prosperous, and holding a major festival would cost too much. So everyone smiled and drank, decided to do a minor festival, and ended the meeting, leaving my friend stunned. As a democracy advocate, I don’t think this is perfect, yet this natural consensus, rooted in trust, made formal processes unnecessary.

The Evolution of the Institute of Network Society’s Research and Its Goals: Cooperatives and UBI

7k: Your research over the past decade seems to follow a trajectory reflected in the themes of Network Society Annual Conferences, shifting between keywords like networks, cooperatives, space, and culture.

Huang Sunquan: Yes. Initially, we organized the conferences because I felt China, with the world’s largest internet user base, lacked robust theoretical frameworks to articulate its own experiences. For the first three conferences, we tackled the most urgent issues of network society—from philosophical concepts to practical matters like energy and logistics. Each theme was deeply local, rooted in China’s contemporary realities, up until the fifth conference. Before the pandemic, we began exploring crypto, leading to the more chaotic sixth and seventh conferences, where we questioned how crypto differed from our earlier focus on cooperatives. The eighth conference shifted to counterculture as we started documenting San Francisco and Shenzhen.

To put it simply, within my limited capacity, I’ve always had two goals: advancing cooperatives—digital or otherwise—and promoting Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is flexible, and Coop essentially functions as a UBI system, externalizing shared benefits into society. These are my primary focuses.

Our conferences have consistently addressed these aims. First, we confront the real social conditions in China and Southeast Asia. Second, I hope to push these ideas into visible, actionable realms, clarifying our next steps.

Review/Kurt Pan

This interview outlines how internet culture and crypto technology have evolved from the Cold War era to the present—entwined in the grand currents of history, social movements, and ideological struggles. It offers a concrete and profound perspective on the notion that “technology lacks an inherent ideology yet is easily permeated by libertarian ideas,” highlighting the inherent tensions within the crypto movement: on one hand, it carries a vision of anti-establishment values that emphasize individual freedom and privacy; on the other, it often falls into a California-style logic of globalization and capital accumulation, overlooking local needs and the realities of grassroots communities.

Regarding the critique and expectations of crypto technology, the interviewee repeatedly stressed that “the power of social movements comes before the application of technology.” From the historical fusion of American hacker movements with civic activism, to the successful impact of Taiwanese social movements on public policy, and even to the practical experiences of indigenous communities and cooperatives, the interviewee demonstrated that only technology anchored in local needs and public interest can truly foster progress. This stands in stark contrast to the difficulties encountered by many DAO and Web3 projects in practice: if the focus is solely on technical mechanisms (such as governance voting and token incentives) without genuine community trust, collaboration, and public discourse, then “decentralization” often becomes merely a formality. The interview does not deny the potential of crypto technology; rather, it points out a deeper prerequisite—that only through local socio-cultural forces, cooperative organizations, and robust community interactions can new tools be harnessed to drive meaningful change. For those hoping to use crypto technology to resist the monopolies of giant platforms or extreme market forces, the interview provides important food for thought: How should we redefine the meanings of “freedom” and “community”? How can we maintain technological open innovation while implementing democracy and reducing inequality? These questions demand responses grounded in local experiences and the practices of social movements, not merely the abstract ideal of “decentralization” inherent in technology.

Overall, the most inspiring aspect of this article is its close interweaving of “technology philosophy and social movements.” It reminds us to reflect on the history and ideology behind internet and crypto cultures while inspiring a deeper vision: without genuine public significance and local value, no technology will automatically bring progress; only when technology works in mutual benefit with communities and aligns with social movements can it catalyze truly meaningful societal change. Moreover, in an era when our civilization is nearly driven mad by endless entertainment, marked by public fragmentation, divisiveness, and rampant personal attacks—with violent mechanisms and self-imposed censorship severely restricting human reason and conscience—this interview steadfastly upholds something that was once commonplace in previous generations yet is now more precious than gold (so much so that many in Gen Z and even Gen Alpha have never heard of it): “to engage in sincere and effective criticism from the heart.” For that alone, I would award this article a full score.

✨ Tip

• Limited by the length of the article, the interview with Mr. Huang Sunquan was divided into two parts. This article is the B-side. A- Side:
• COOP白皮書https://github.com/CAAINS/COOP/blob/main/Chinese_whitepaper.md

Who we are 👇

Uncommons

Join us: t.me/theuncommons
Join Uncommons

Discussion