Parasovereign Litmus Test
Note: This is not an ethical or utilitarian judgment. A system may be highly useful, innovative, or ethical and still not qualify as parasovereign. This framework is purely classificatory.
⸻
Step 1 — Ownership
• Does a company, foundation, board, or identifiable group own or legally steward the system?
• Yes → Not Parasovereign
• No → Step 2
⸻
Step 2 — Protocol Authority
• Can a single actor or small group decide or dictate changes to the rules or parameters?
• Yes → Not Parasovereign
• No → Step 3
⸻
Step 3 — Permission to Participate
• Can anyone run a node, validate, transact, or publish without needing approval, licensing, or gatekeeping?
• No → Not Parasovereign
• Yes → Step 4
⸻
Step 4 — Suppression Resilience
• If suppressed in one place, can the system reappear elsewhere by redeploying code or reviving the idea, without institutional permission?
• No → Not Parasovereign
• Yes → Step 5
⸻
Step 5 — Persistence as Idea
• If all instances vanished, could the system be reconstructed from the concept alone (like language, proof of work, public–private key pairs)?
• No → Not Parasovereign
• Yes → ✅ Parasovereign