Many thanks for your comments. You help us a lot, since we're having exactly this discussion in our working group on how much centrality does such a system need (in the beginning?) to actually work. In the logic of the system, we try to replace centrality in structures by rules of interaction in favour of the defined purpose.

Concerning bookkeeping and communication on working group progress we'll certainly need some basic transparency rules, e.g. a bi-weekly report on money been spent and progress in impact/output achieved. These reports would be published publicly on the blockchain, so that in case something doesn't seem OK, everybody has the possibility to step up and say so. Maybe even a (temporary) working circle emerges, checking these reports.

Concerning your question about identical working circles, a rule could be: "If you set up a new working circle, you have to explain how this serves the purpose of the foundation in term of additional benefit in comparison to existing working circles." This would avoid a definition of the phrase "identical" and help to orient thinking towards the purpose.

For communication amongst working circles I would prefer not to set up a rule but to trust them to do so if necessary. One task of the advisors could be to nudge people into communicating with related working circles.

@guiltyparties Could you explain a little bit more, what your thoughts are about one working circle dominating the other?