Insights
Research findings, theoretical analysis, and empirical observations about co-goods.
In strongly antirival systems, passive consumption becomes active contribution
empiricalhigh
Editor: pontus-karlsson • 2025-11-27T13:28
Implications:
- Design systems where participation is 'a side effect of something else they're doing'
- Make contribution effortless rather than demanding active engagement
Antirivalness is orthogonal to nonrivalness
theoreticalhigh
Editor: pontus-karlsson • 2025-11-27T13:26
Implications:
- Simply making something 'open' doesn't automatically create network effects
- System architecture determines whether sharing generates increasing returns
Collective goods require high includability, not merely non-excludability
theoreticalhigh
Editor: pontus-karlsson • 2025-11-27T13:30
Implications:
- Opening access is necessary but not sufficient
- Must design participation mechanisms, community norms, and reward structures
Nonrivalness lowers the cost of sharing; antirivalness raises the benefits of sharing
theoreticalhigh
Editor: pontus-karlsson • 2025-11-27T13:28
Implications:
- Nonrival goods without antirival systems remain niche despite low sharing costs
- Antirival systems with high sharing costs remain exclusive despite network benefits
Nonrivalness is a property of units; antirivalness is a property of systems
theoreticalhigh
Editor: pontus-karlsson • 2025-11-27T13:27
Implications:
- Opening up content/designs is necessary but not sufficient for network effects
- Must design systems that reward participation and create feedback loops