Salt b18 — ResearchCity Institutional Design

This crystal collects all adversarial exchanges about the practical design of ResearchCity — the proposed institution for implementing the framework. This is the largest crystal, reflecting the breadth of institutional design challenges.

Status summary: One-person-one-room design avoids megaproject curse (PRO b37). Knowledge stays local by design via ReRaft (PRO b38). Seven safeguards address power concentration (PRO b39). Stage 0 dissolves bootstrapping paradox (PRO b40). Paradigm diversity enforced three ways (PRO b41). Credibility builds incrementally (PRO b42). Succession plan is built into the design (PRO b43).

Related crystals: Salt b16 — Wealth Concentration, History, and Voluntariness (voluntariness and game theory affect institutional design), Salt b13 — Existential Risk and Causal Linking (existential risk motivates the institution).

Con/Pro Pairs in this Crystal

• Con-C.3.1 — Megaproject Curse: ResearchCity Will Fail at Scale (Flyvbjerg)
• Pro-C.3.1 — Response to Con-C.3.1 (Megaproject Curse)
• Con-C.3.2 — Hayek’s Knowledge Problem: Centralized Coordination Cannot Access Local Knowledge
• Pro-C.3.2 — Response to Con-C.3.2 (Hayek’s Knowledge Problem)
• Con-C.3.3 — Power Concentration: ResearchCity Becomes the Threat It Aims to Prevent
• Pro-D.3.3 — Response to Con-C.3.3 (Power Concentration)
• Con-D.3.4 — Bootstrapping Paradox: Funding Requires Solving the Problem ResearchCity Aims to Solve
• Pro-D.3.4 — Response to Con-D.3.4 (Bootstrapping Paradox)
• Con-D.3.5 — Single-Paradigm Risk: Unified Mission Suppresses Paradigm Diversity (Kuhn)
• Pro-D.3.5 — Response to Con-D.3.5 (Single-Paradigm Risk)
• Con-E.3.6 — Game-Theoretic Barriers to “Put Earth in Escrow” Diplomacy (Schelling/Fearon)
• Pro-F.3.6 — Response to Con-E.3.6 (Game-Theoretic Barriers)
• Con-E.3.7 — Founder Dependence: Single Point of Failure in LLoL’s Vision
• Pro-E.3.7 — Response to Con-E.3.7 (Founder Dependence)