During AraCon, a French guy approached me and introduced himself.

He said he was helping an activist group in Paris. He asked more about Aragon, and if it could be used for activism.

Apparently, these groups organize around total trust, by using paper ledgers and cash.

That may work for 2 or 3 people, but once we switch from a friends group to a movement, it doesn't work anymore.

When he asked me if Aragon could be used for those activist groups to organize... a huge smile flooded my face. Of course!

I told him that activism was one of the use cases that Aragon was created for. When I was 15, my dad and I were involved with the largest activism movement in Spain in the last decade.

Something that struck me about activism is the leadership paradox.

On the one hand, the movement must be leaderless for it to persist. Leaders are weak links, and they can be kidnapped, corrupted, or mysteriously disappear.

On the other hand, a leaderless organization becomes slow and struggles to make decisions.

But why do they struggle to make decisions? I don't think the core reason is that there is no leader to inspire. There are always leaders and people who inspire others in activism. It's just a different kind of leader. It's not just one CEO who has binding power to make decisions. Instead, it's a network of leaders who have the power to inspire others to make decisions.

So if movements are effective in inspiring people, why do they struggle to make decisions and move fast?

Because they lack consensus.

Say someone owns the movement's Twitter account. They want to post a tweet about a demonstration they are planning. But there is a small vocal minority who are opposed to the group doing that demonstration. What will the owner of the Twitter account do? Probably not post anything. Because even if a small minority is opposing, it's all subjective. There is no measurable consensus, it's all ethereal.

Same with spending funds. Eventually, there's someone in the group who buys stuff with the funds. Yet the donors probably don't know where their money is going to. The group has to rely on someone to spend the funds since it cannot reach a quick consensus on where to spend it. Cash-based systems make this especially difficult.

Lack of consensus makes the group weak because even members end up being unsure about what the group truly wants.

Enter Aragon activism

Thanks to Aragon, an activist group could raise funds from anyone in the world. Donors could remain totally anonymous to avoid oppression.

Since finances are transparent, donors would have total trust in how the funds are being spent.

Finally, the most challenging part is reaching a consensus. This could be done by manually inviting new members into the movement. That would be done by issuing new membership tokens.

In the beginning, we may have 5 people who decide to start an activist group. They know each other, and issue 5 tokens, one per person.

For each new member, they would make sure the member meets their criteria, and issue a new token. If this becomes too cumbersome, members could nominate a smaller committee to do that.

There could be membership criteria, like having contributed with time, money... That would be up to the members to decide.

If reaching consensus is needed, any member can open a new survey and let other members vote.

Aragon has the potential to unleash a new wave of activism.

These groups have never touched the legal system before, and that's why Aragon is such a great fit for them.

This was just a summary of something that would be possible with Aragon, today. As I said, these use cases were one of my favorite ones in the early beginnings, and I cannot wait to see them live.