Yes, thank you! The video, but also most of the conception, deals inside an “open-access-scenario” and the free-riding-problems has its roots in open-access. This scenario is not a realistic one. The resources are ‘ruled’ in anyway, mostly with the rules of ‘private property’ beneath some state-settled constitutional rules etc. At the moment I mainly work on an introduction to Elinor Ostroms work, with the focus on a practical approach and how software-tools have to function to deal with commons-dilemma. I think, most questions of borders, protections, openness, fairness etc. of resource-systems and communities are questions of self-organized rules. As a software project we cannot (and should not) shape this rules, but we can support the process of people creating rules to deal with (their) commons.
I’m not quite sure if I understand it right. Did you have the feeling, the video sounds like people are “put into a giant machinery” or did you not have this feeling?
But I also think, that it’s not always about language. The strenght of ValueFlows, in my opinion, is, that it can be used to descripe very different economic models. So you can use the vocabulary to describe a dictatorship, but you can also describe the opposite. But of course, it is not that simple – Silke Helfrich for example, had huge problems with the word ‘resource’, as it gives for example ‘nature’ the purpose to be used.
There is a common misunderstanding (I try hard to avoid it in newer versions of this presentation), that the ‘Global Commoning System’ is a model. Like a model for society and persons have to act in a specific way. It is neither such a model nor it shall be “the way people have to do commoning”. We are aiming to build tools, that support commoning, that people can use to solve specific problems, but if they don’t need them, they should not use them. We cannot “prove” that it will be used and I don’t think, it is necessary. Building tools is independent from this. Hopefully it will be good tools and if they won’t be used, we have to question ourselfes why, but we don’t need calculations before - in my opinion.
Wenn es dich wirklich näher interessiert: in der Konzeption ab Seite 27 
This is interesting, I like the idea. broken_pipe (I think he is only on our Matrix-Channel right now and not in the forum), also mentioned once, that there are more solutions for the same problems then the ones we are working with. And that’s definitly true. I will have a deeper look.
Good question! I struggle with the complexity of basic interactions since years, but the solutions are not scalable. Elinor Ostrom often speaks about polycentric structures - I have some hope, they could be an answer, but I cannot say more right now, because I don’t understand it further.
Sorry for the long text. Feel free to skip some topics.