Reimagining Power at All In For Sport

From NFT Project to Coordi-nation: How a DAO Discovered Its Purpose Through Patient Experimentation

A SuperBenefit Case Study in Decentralized Governance Transformation

Executive Summary

All In For Sport completed its transformation from an NFT-based funding project to a coordi-nation during its participation in the Reimagining Power Project from August 2024 to March 2025. The organization initially attempted to revolutionize grassroots sports funding through blockchain technology but evolved to become infrastructure that facilitates connections between Web3 innovation and community sports development.

This transformation aligned with emerging “coordi-nations” principles—organizational forms that create network sovereignty through voluntary association and mutual support rather than geographic boundaries or hierarchical control. Theorized by Primavera de Filippi and Jessy Kate Schingler, coordi-nations offer alternatives to both traditional hierarchies and libertarian “network state” concepts. This case study documents how All In For Sport discovered these principles through practice, providing empirical evidence for this theoretical framework.

The organization faced three primary challenges that catalyzed transformation. First, All In For Sport could not articulate a clear value proposition—traditional philanthropists viewed Web3 elements as unnecessary complexity while crypto-native funders saw the shift away from NFTs as abandoning innovation. Second, complete dependence on volunteer effort created unpredictable capacity and unfulfilled commitments. Third, significant knowledge gaps between Web3 developers and grassroots sports organizations prevented meaningful collaboration.

Through the Reimagining Power Project, All In For Sport implemented two parallel interventions. The Gatherings series brought together 111 participants across six sessions, creating structured spaces for cross-sector relationship building. Simultaneously, a governance transformation formalized through AIFSIP-04 established the organization’s evolution into a coordi-nation model with autonomous cells within a networked structure, implementing patterns of operational governance and community governance to separate execution from mission stewardship.

The experiment produced significant outcomes alongside persistent challenges. All In For Sport clarified its identity as coordination infrastructure and developed governance structures that enabled partnerships with organizations like Women Win and selection for the IOC Tech365 initiative supporting 25 organizations across 16 countries. However, sustainable funding for coordination work remains unresolved. The experiment also revealed an “inclusion paradox”—attempts to make sessions accessible to all participants sometimes excluded those seeking specialized engagement. These findings reflect broader systemic gaps in how both traditional philanthropy and Web3 ecosystems value infrastructure versus direct service delivery.

Background and Context

The Organization

All In For Sport emerged as a decentralized autonomous organization modeled after NounsDAO, with an ambitious vision to revolutionize grassroots sports funding through NFT sales. The founding model was straightforward: create and sell NFTs with proceeds flowing directly to community sports programs serving marginalized populations. This approach attracted a diverse coalition of contributors including Web3 facilitators interested in social impact applications, sports program managers seeking funding alternatives, and social entrepreneurs exploring new organizational models.

What distinguished All In For Sport from many early DAOs was its willingness to fundamentally revise its approach when evidence showed limited community benefit. While other organizations either maintained failing models or disbanded entirely, AIFS demonstrated organizational flexibility that would prove essential for its evolution. This adaptability, combined with the organization’s unique position bridging technology and social impact sectors, makes their transformation particularly instructive for understanding how decentralized coordination can serve community needs.

The Challenge

All In For Sport faced three interconnected operational challenges that reflected broader tensions in both Web3 and traditional nonprofit sectors. The organization’s value proposition confusion manifested in contradictory stakeholder perceptions—traditional philanthropists viewed Web3 elements as unnecessary complexity adding barriers to impact, while crypto-native funders interpreted the shift away from NFTs as abandoning innovation. This confusion permeated all organizational communications, from website content to social media presence, creating a feedback loop that further muddied the organization’s identity.

Resource constraints compounded these identity challenges. Operating entirely through volunteer contributions created unpredictable capacity that fluctuated with contributors’ availability and competing priorities. This instability led to unfulfilled commitments to community partners, damaging relationships and credibility. The organization found itself trapped in a negative cycle: limited resources prevented revenue-generating activities, which in turn maintained resource scarcity. Plans for contribution recognition systems remained unimplemented, further challenging volunteer retention.

The knowledge and cultural gaps between Web3 innovators and grassroots sports organizations represented perhaps the deepest challenge. Technical discussions about blockchain architecture and tokenomics excluded community partners who lacked Web3 context. Conversely, conversations about community development, local sports infrastructure, and social impact failed to engage developers seeking technical challenges. Previous strategic planning efforts had attempted to bridge these divides through education and translation but achieved limited success, indicating the need for more fundamental organizational transformation.

Theoretical Context: From DAO to Coordi-nation

All In For Sport’s transformation journey aligned with an emerging organizational form called “coordi-nations,” theorized by Primavera de Filippi and Jessy Kate Schingler. Coordi-nations represent network sovereignties operating through voluntary association, participatory governance, and mutualism—offering a progressive alternative to both traditional hierarchies and libertarian concepts that prioritize exit over solidarity.

The coordi-nations framework operates through principles of voluntary association, fractal replication, and mutualization, which manifest as organizations develop. Communities build kinship through shared values rather than geographic proximity. They identify other communities with similar approaches to organizing and decision-making. These communities develop mutual support mechanisms. Collective identity emerges through shared practices and values. Resources are pooled and collectively managed through participatory processes. The network organizes for collective action beyond internal coordination. Finally, communities increase interdependence through various forms of interweaving, from shared resources to cross-ownership structures.

This framework contrasts sharply with approaches that seek to replace existing institutions through technological exit strategies. Coordi-nations instead emphasize working symbiotically alongside traditional structures while creating new layers of sovereignty. This approach—prioritizing mutualism over extraction and solidarity over exit—would prove central to All In For Sport’s evolution from a product-focused DAO to coordination infrastructure.

Catalyst for Change

The Reimagining Power Project provided both the context and resources necessary for All In For Sport’s systematic transformation. RPP’s mission to explore how Web3 technologies could redistribute rather than replicate existing power structures aligned perfectly with AIFS’s emerging questions about its role in the ecosystem. Participation revealed that other organizations faced remarkably similar challenges around identity clarification, sustainable funding models, and cross-sector communication gaps. This recognition reframed All In For Sport’s struggles from organizational failures to systemic patterns requiring collective solutions.

The transformation unfolded across two distinct phases that built upon each other. From August to October 2024, Community Experience meetings served as preparatory stakeholder engagement, establishing relationships and gathering input that would shape the formal intervention design. These preliminary sessions revealed stakeholder needs and tested engagement approaches. The formal Gatherings series then ran from November 2024 to February 2025, implementing insights from the preparatory phase into structured interventions.

Key participants brought complementary expertise essential for bridging different communities. Shannon Lanigan, an All In For Sport stakeholder with experience in both grassroots organizing and DAO governance, served as a critical bridge between technical and community perspectives. The SuperBenefit team provided governance frameworks drawn from their work on DAOs, cells, roles, and tasks patterns, along with facilitation expertise for managing multi-stakeholder processes. Perhaps most importantly, the broader contributor community maintained involvement despite organizational uncertainty, demonstrating commitment to the transformation vision.

Available resources extended beyond financial support to include crucial knowledge and relational assets. The Reimagining Power Project provided governance transformation support and documentation infrastructure. Separately secured funding from Jumpstart and the Ontario Trillium Foundation enabled the Gatherings series, including participant compensation. Existing relationships across Web3 and sports communities proved invaluable for attracting diverse participants and maintaining engagement throughout the extended transformation process.

Approach

Discovery Findings and Strategic Response

The Discovery phase revealed that All In For Sport’s surface-level challenges stemmed from deeper systemic misalignments. The organization’s unclear value proposition wasn’t simply a messaging problem—it reflected attempts to fulfill a role the ecosystem didn’t actually need. Similarly, sustainability challenges arose not from poor fundraising but from fundamental confusion about organizational identity. The knowledge gaps between communities highlighted the absence of appropriate bridging infrastructure rather than deficiencies in either group.

These insights led to a strategic approach that addressed root causes rather than symptoms. Instead of refining marketing messages, the strategy focused on demonstrating value through action. Rather than pursuing traditional program funding that would perpetuate existing constraints, the approach allowed sustainable models to emerge organically. Most importantly, instead of attempting one-way education where one community would teach the other, the intervention created spaces for mutual learning and co-creation.

Stakeholder Needs Assessment

Systematic consultation with different stakeholder groups revealed distinct but complementary needs that would shape intervention design. Blockchain developers expressed frustration with the speculative focus of most Web3 projects and sought meaningful applications that could demonstrate technology’s social value. They wanted concrete problems to solve rather than abstract discussions about potential impact.

Grassroots sports organizations approached from a different angle, seeking agency in solution design rather than having technology imposed upon them. They needed clear understanding of how blockchain might address their specific challenges—transparent fund distribution, community ownership of programs, resistance to top-down mandates from traditional funders. Critically, they wanted to maintain their community-centered approaches while exploring new tools.

Funders, both traditional and crypto-native, demanded clear impact metrics and comprehensible value propositions. They struggled to understand how coordination activities produced measurable outcomes comparable to direct service delivery. This insight highlighted the need to demonstrate rather than explain coordination value.

These findings informed a dual intervention approach combining Gatherings for relationship building with governance transformation for structural change. This parallel strategy recognized that cultural and structural change must occur simultaneously—relationships without supporting infrastructure waste social capital, while governance changes without stakeholder buy-in create empty structures.

Pattern Selection

All In For Sport selected patterns based on their documented effectiveness in similar contexts and alignment with identified needs. The Gatherings pattern, adapted from community organizing practices for digital-physical hybrid contexts, created structured spaces that encouraged emergence while maintaining productivity. Unlike traditional conferences with predetermined agendas and one-way information flow, Gatherings allowed participants to shape content based on their interests and expertise.

The coordi-nations pattern reconceptualized All In For Sport as a network of aligned communities rather than a single entity attempting to serve everyone. This reframing addressed fundamental tensions between maintaining coherent identity and serving diverse constituencies. The pattern enabled the implementation of cells structures allowing project teams to operate autonomously within shared values and mission alignment. The separation of operational governance (execution) from community governance (mission stewardship) created clarity about different types of decision-making. It also included resource-sharing mechanisms designed to create sustainable funding flows between operational cells and coordination infrastructure, though this aspect would prove most challenging to implement.

These patterns had demonstrated success in analogous contexts. Gatherings had facilitated productive dialogue between technical and non-technical communities in other sectors. Network organizations showed greater resilience and adaptability compared to hierarchical structures across multiple domains. The cells pattern had successfully balanced autonomy with alignment in various DAOs and cooperative organizations. The combination of patterns addressed All In For Sport’s interconnected challenges comprehensively rather than piecemeal.

Resource Requirements and Mobilization

Implementation required careful mobilization of multiple resource types, each presenting unique challenges and opportunities. Human resources proved most critical—the intervention needed facilitators capable of managing conversations between groups with vastly different knowledge bases, communication styles, and cultural contexts. All In For Sport identified facilitators who understood both Web3 technical concepts and community development practices, a rare combination that proved essential for successful bridge-building.

Technical infrastructure requirements were deliberately kept minimal to reduce participation barriers. The team resisted the temptation to showcase cutting-edge Web3 tools, instead relying on familiar platforms: basic video conferencing for gatherings, collaborative documents for shared note-taking, and standard project management tools for coordination. The DAO’s existing Optimism blockchain infrastructure provided governance frameworks without requiring participants to navigate complex technical interfaces. This simplicity demonstrated that coordination value came from human connections and trust-building rather than technological sophistication.

Financial resources came from multiple sources, each with different expectations and constraints. Jumpstart provided funding specifically for participant compensation, recognizing that meaningful engagement required valuing people’s time. The Ontario Trillium Foundation supported operational costs for the Gatherings series. The Reimagining Power Project funded governance transformation work and documentation processes. Critically, all funding sources accepted experimental approaches and emergent outcomes rather than demanding predetermined deliverables—a flexibility that proved essential for authentic transformation.

Knowledge resources represented perhaps the most valuable assets, though they were also the most difficult to coordinate. The SuperBenefit governance patterns provided tested models for DAOs, cells, roles, and tasks implementation. Documentation from other organizational transformations offered lessons about common pitfalls and success factors. Most importantly, the distributed expertise of participants—spanning grassroots organizing, blockchain development, sports program management, and Web3 facilitation—created a rich knowledge ecosystem that the intervention sought to activate rather than replace.

Experiment Implementation

Gatherings Series Implementation

All In For Sport conducted six gatherings from November 2024 to February 2025, building on preparatory Community Experience meetings held from August to October 2024. These sessions aimed to bridge Web3 technology innovators with grassroots sports organizations.

Structure and participation:

Selective attendance based on relevance rather than consistent participation across all sessions
Smaller, self-selected groups produced higher engagement quality
Technical accessibility remained a persistent challenge

Key finding from retrospective: “In trying to be maximally inclusive, we sometimes became accidentally exclusive to those seeking more specialized discussions.”

Documented themes (from Gathering 1 poetic harvest):

“Shift power from centralized entities to communities”
“Mobilize capital collectively, equitably”
Focus on systems reimagining rather than incremental change

Governance Transformation

The organization’s original NFT-focused governance structure proved inadequate for emerging coordination activities. This mismatch catalyzed development of a new governance framework aligned with coordi-nations principles.

Process and outcomes:

Development of AIFSIP-04 proposal implementing operational governance and community governance patterns to separate execution from mission protection
Smooth ratification “without significant contention - a sign that the changes addressed real needs recognized by all participants” (reflection document)
Adoption of coordi-nations model - network of aligned communities rather than traditional hierarchical organization
Creation of cells structures enabling autonomous teams to pursue projects within mission boundaries

The governance transformation established AIFS’s evolution from attempting to be everything to everyone toward becoming coordination infrastructure that enables others. The operational governance pattern allowed execution teams to move quickly on opportunities while the community governance pattern ensured mission alignment. This created the foundation for Group State—shared understanding and context that enables collective decision-making.

Partnership Development and Network Effects

The experiment generated several partnerships that validated the coordi-nations approach through practical application. Each partnership demonstrated different aspects of how coordination infrastructure creates value.

Women Win collaboration: Women Win, a global fund advancing gender equity through sport, approached AIFS to explore Web3 applications for their grantmaking. AIFS provided technical orientation sessions, connected Women Win to relevant blockchain projects working on transparent fund distribution, and facilitated introductions to other DAOs experimenting with participatory grantmaking. In return, Women Win shared decades of experience in grassroots funding mechanisms and helped AIFS understand traditional philanthropy’s constraints. This reciprocal exchange exemplified coordi-nations’ mutualist principles—both organizations gained capabilities without formal contracts or fee structures.

Tech365 coordination role: The International Olympic Committee selected AIFS to provide coordination infrastructure for their Tech365 initiative, connecting 25 sports technology organizations across 16 countries. AIFS’s selection wasn’t based on technical superiority but on demonstrated ability to facilitate cross-cultural, cross-sector collaboration. They provided shared Discord infrastructure, facilitated knowledge-sharing sessions, and created connections between organizations with complementary capabilities. This validated their evolution from attempting direct service delivery (NFTs for sports) to providing coordination infrastructure that enables others to create value. This partnership represented the first functioning cell within the new governance structure.

Indigenous community connections: Through the gatherings, AIFS connected with Indigenous communities exploring blockchain for economic sovereignty. While specific partnerships didn’t formalize during the experiment period, these connections revealed universal patterns: communities worldwide face similar challenges around transparent resource allocation, community ownership of initiatives, and resistance to funder-imposed priorities. These discoveries reinforced the global applicability of coordination infrastructure.

Infrastructure and Operational Support

Beyond facilitation and governance frameworks, Reimagining Power provided critical infrastructure upgrades that enabled All In For Sport to function more effectively as a coordination platform.

Meeting and streaming infrastructure:

Zoom subscription for conducting gatherings and team meetings
Professional streaming platform for broadcasting sessions to wider audiences
Video storage solutions for archiving gathering recordings and making them accessible for future reference

Technical infrastructure improvements:

Website upgrade and maintenance fixes, enabling AIFS to update content independently and maintain consistent external communications
Migration of role badging tool to new provider, implementing the roles pattern for member recognition and governance participation tracking
Implementation of workflow management systems supporting the tasks pattern for more efficient operational coordination

Knowledge management enhancements:

Knowledge gathering tools for capturing insights during gatherings
Deployment of documentation systems to organize institutional knowledge from gatherings and governance discussions
Setup of day-to-day operational tools that reduced administrative overhead
Creation of systems for storing and retrieving project information across distributed team members, supporting Group State maintenance

These infrastructure improvements addressed a common challenge in DAOs: the gap between governance innovation and operational capability. While many DAOs focus on novel decision-making mechanisms, basic operational infrastructure often remains neglected. The support provided helped AIFS close this gap, enabling them to focus on coordination activities rather than technical maintenance.

Persistent Challenges

Despite validation and partnership success, fundamental challenges remained unresolved throughout the experiment period.

Financial sustainability remains the critical obstacle: “The chronic under-resourcing of coordination roles - a problem shared by traditional nonprofits and DAOs alike - continues to limit potential impact” (reflection document). While operational cells might generate project revenue, no sustainable model emerged for funding the coordination infrastructure itself. Traditional funders want direct program delivery; Web3 funders seek technological innovation. Neither values the patient work of building bridges between communities.

Stakeholder alignment presented specific challenges (documented in reflections):

Misunderstanding about how RPP’s funding would be used to support experiments and how resources would be allocated (stakeholders expected direct experiment funding; reality was primarily SuperBenefit coordination and knowledge capture)
Lack of clarity in the relationship between Reimagining Power and All In For Sport, specifically around resource allocation for experiment activities
AIFS secured separate Jumpstart funding to compensate gathering participants when RPP funding structure became clear

Technical accessibility versus depth remained unresolved: Every gathering faced the same tension—making blockchain concepts accessible to grassroots organizations while maintaining engagement from technical experts. Attempts to serve both audiences simultaneously satisfied neither. The team considered separated tracks but implementation remained incomplete by experiment’s end.

Outcomes and Reflections

Quantitative Outcomes

The experiment produced measurable outputs that demonstrate the scale and reach of activities:

Five completed gatherings with 111 total participants
AIFSIP-04 governance proposal ratified by community vote
Partnership established with Women Win for Web3 exploration
Selection for IOC Tech365 coordination (25 organizations, 16 countries)
Separate funding secured from Jumpstart for participant compensation

Qualitative Shifts

Documentation from reflections and retrospectives identified several organizational changes:

Identity clarification: AIFS articulated its role as coordination infrastructure rather than direct service provider. Team members could explain their value proposition: connecting Web3 innovation with grassroots sports development.

Stakeholder perspective changes (documented in reflections):

Web3 participants: “I came thinking I had solutions. I learned I barely understood the problems”
Grassroots organizations moved from blockchain skepticism to identifying specific use cases
Both groups recognized need for ongoing translation and bridge-building

Governance improvements: Implementation of operational governance and community governance patterns resolved documented decision-making bottlenecks. Operational cells gained autonomy within mission boundaries while community stewardship protected core values. The emerging Group State created shared context enabling collective alignment.

Pattern Analysis Through Coordi-nations Framework

The experiment validated several coordi-nations principles while revealing implementation challenges:

Voluntary Association Pattern - Validated: Selective gathering attendance produced higher engagement quality than mandatory participation. The retrospective noted this as initially disappointing but ultimately beneficial.

Fractal Replication Pattern - Partially Validated: Partner organizations adapted AIFS’s gathering methodology. The coordi-nations governance model influenced other DAO discussions. However, full replication of the coordination model remained limited.

Mutualization Pattern - Mixed Results:

Successful: Knowledge sharing, network connections, infrastructure access (Discord spaces, meeting tools)
Failed: Financial resource sharing mechanisms never materialized
The reflection noted: “The chronic under-resourcing of coordination roles…continues to limit potential impact”

Network Sovereignty Pattern - Validated: AIFS functioned as what Castells terms a “switcher” - connecting previously isolated networks without attempting to control them.

Critical Findings

The Inclusion Paradox: “In trying to be maximally inclusive, we sometimes became accidentally exclusive to those seeking more specialized discussions” (retrospective). This finding challenges assumptions about universal accessibility in bridge-building work.

Coordination Value Gap: While the experiment demonstrated clear value in connecting disconnected actors, no sustainable funding model emerged. Traditional funders want direct service metrics; Web3 funders seek technological innovation. Neither values coordination infrastructure.

Scale Limitations: All documented successes occurred within small, high-trust networks. Questions remain about coordi-nations viability at larger scales or in lower-trust environments.

Incomplete Implementation

The experiment achieved significant progress in implementing coordi-nations principles:

✓ Built community of kinship through Gatherings
✓ Identified resonating communities (Women Win, Tech365 partners)
✓ Encouraged mutual support through knowledge sharing
✓ Created collective identity as “coordi-nation”
✓ Pooled resources (knowledge, connections, infrastructure)
✓ Organized for collective action (Tech365 coordination)
✗ Failed to increase economic interdependence

This incomplete implementation suggests full coordi-nations development may require broader ecosystem changes, particularly new economic models valuing coordination as public goods.

Assessment & Evolution

Pattern Performance Analysis

Each implemented pattern produced specific outcomes that illuminate both possibilities and limitations of coordi-nations approaches. The Gatherings pattern successfully created bridges between previously disconnected groups, though not without adaptation challenges. The emphasis on emergence over predetermined outcomes enabled authentic relationship development while maintaining sufficient structure for productivity. Participants consistently distinguished these gatherings from typical Web3 conferences or nonprofit workshops, reporting that the “productive tension” between different perspectives generated genuinely new thinking rather than reinforcing existing positions.

The most significant adaptation involved greater separation between technical and community sessions than originally planned. Initial attempts to serve all audiences simultaneously led to frustration—technical participants found discussions too basic while community organizations struggled with even simplified blockchain concepts. The evolved approach maintained connection points through joint opening and closing sessions while allowing specialized discussions in between. This modification respected different knowledge needs while preserving the bridging function.

The coordi-nations model provided organizational clarity that exceeded initial expectations. Rather than functioning as a prescriptive framework requiring rigid implementation, it offered a generative metaphor that helped participants reconceptualize All In For Sport’s role. Thinking of the organization as a network of aligned communities rather than a single entity resolved longstanding tensions between maintaining coherent identity and serving diverse constituencies. The model’s flexibility enabled contextual adaptation—each community node could modify approaches while maintaining alignment through shared principles and values.

Implementation of the cells pattern revealed important insights about the relationship between structural and cultural transformation. While governance frameworks successfully established parameters for operational cells—defining autonomy boundaries, resource-sharing mechanisms, and accountability structures through operational governance and community governance patterns—actual cell formation proceeded much slower than policy creation. The Tech365 collaboration became the first operational cell only after the experiment concluded, suggesting that structural change requires accompanying cultural shifts and practical resources. Creating policies proved far easier than fostering the entrepreneurial energy and risk-taking mindset necessary for cell success.

Knowledge Transfer and Adoption

Documentation reveals encouraging patterns of knowledge transfer beyond All In For Sport’s immediate network. Partner organizations began adapting the Gatherings methodology for their own stakeholder engagement processes, modifying formats based on local contexts and specific needs. Women Win incorporated elements of the approach into their grantee convening design. Other DAOs in the Optimism ecosystem explored coordi-nations governance concepts, particularly the separation between operational execution and community stewardship enabled by the operational governance and community governance patterns.

These adoptions demonstrated “fractal replication” in practice—patterns spreading through voluntary adoption rather than mandated implementation. Organizations selected elements that addressed their specific challenges rather than wholesale copying, leading to contextual innovations that enriched the overall pattern library. This organic spread validated the coordi-nations principle that scaling occurs through pattern integrity rather than organizational growth.

Implementation Guidance

Analysis of implementation successes and challenges provides actionable guidance for future coordi-nations experiments. Success factors consistently included leadership willing to abandon original visions when evidence showed limited value—All In For Sport’s abandonment of the NFT model exemplified this flexibility. Stakeholder networks with sufficient trust to weather uncertainty proved essential, as transformation periods inevitably include confusion and questioning. Patient funding that accepted experimental outcomes rather than predetermined deliverables enabled authentic exploration rather than performance of expected results.

Warning indicators documented throughout the experiment help future practitioners recognize when course correction is needed. Persistent stakeholder confusion about organizational purpose, despite repeated explanation attempts, signals fundamental misalignment rather than communication failures. Difficulty attracting participants relevant to stated mission suggests that the mission itself may need reexamination. Team exhaustion from trying to be everything to everyone indicates the need for clearer boundaries and more focused strategy.

Implementation strategies must account for varying organizational contexts. Organizations with strong technical capabilities might begin with governance transformation using patterns like operational governance, community governance, and cells while gradually building community relationships and trust. Community-rooted organizations could start with relationship-building gatherings while slowly introducing structural innovations as comfort with new concepts grows. Resource-constrained groups should focus on thoroughly implementing one pattern rather than attempting multiple simultaneous changes.

Theoretical Validation and Limitations

The All In For Sport experiment provides empirical evidence for several coordi-nations propositions while revealing important limitations. The experiment validated that network sovereignty can emerge through practice rather than design—AIFS became a coordi-nation through experimentation and discovery rather than implementing a predetermined blueprint. Pattern integrity did enable scaling without hierarchical growth, as demonstrated by partner organizations’ voluntary adoption of AIFS practices. Voluntary association based on relevance and interest produced notably higher engagement quality than mandatory participation models. Working symbiotically alongside existing institutions generated more value than exit-based strategies would have achieved.

However, the experiment also revealed critical gaps requiring further investigation. Economic models for sustaining coordination infrastructure remain elusive—while the value of coordination was clearly demonstrated, translating that value into sustainable funding proved impossible within existing philanthropic and Web3 funding paradigms. Governance mechanisms that balance autonomy with interdependence at scale remain theoretical, as all documented successes occurred within small networks of fewer than 150 participants. Technical tools that support relational organizing without imposing transactional logic require development. Perhaps most importantly, clear transition pathways from traditional organizational forms to coordi-nations need articulation and testing.

Scale and context limitations deserve particular attention. All successful implementations occurred within high-trust networks where participants shared some common background or values. Whether coordi-nations principles can function in lower-trust environments or at scales exceeding Dunbar’s number remains unknown. The intensive facilitation required for authentic voluntary association—skilled facilitators, patient relationship building, careful attention to power dynamics—may not be economically viable beyond experimental contexts with special funding.

Conclusion

Summary of Findings

All In For Sport’s evolution from NFT-based funding project to coordination infrastructure during the Reimagining Power Project experiment (August 2024 - March 2025) provides concrete evidence for both the possibilities and limitations of coordi-nations as an organizational form. The transformation addressed three documented challenges through parallel interventions: a Gatherings series that connected 111 participants from Web3 and grassroots sports communities, and governance restructuring that formalized separation between operational execution and community stewardship through operational governance and community governance patterns.

The experiment achieved significant milestones while encountering persistent obstacles. All In For Sport successfully clarified its identity as coordination infrastructure, moving beyond attempts to provide direct services or products. The organization established governance structures through AIFSIP-04 that enabled autonomous cells while maintaining mission coherence. Partnerships with organizations like Women Win and selection for the IOC Tech365 initiative validated the coordination approach. However, sustainable funding models for coordination infrastructure remained elusive throughout the experiment, reflecting systemic gaps in how both traditional philanthropy and Web3 ecosystems value connective work versus direct service delivery.

Implications for Practice

The experiment offers evidence-based guidance for organizations navigating technology-community intersections. The documented success of creating emergent spaces with minimal predetermined structure challenges assumptions about the need for detailed planning in multi-stakeholder processes. Allowing selective participation based on relevance, rather than expecting universal attendance, improved engagement quality—though this required reframing success metrics from attendance numbers to relationship depth.

Critical requirements for similar transformations emerged from the documentation. Leadership must demonstrate willingness to abandon failing models when evidence shows limited community value, as AIFS did with its NFT approach. Funding sources need to accept experimental outcomes rather than predetermined deliverables, enabling genuine exploration rather than performance of expected results. Most importantly, organizations must recognize that coordination work requires dedicated resources comparable to direct service provision—volunteer efforts alone cannot sustain the intensive relationship building and maintenance that bridging work demands.

Contributions to Coordi-nations Theory

All In For Sport’s journey provides rare empirical evidence for coordi-nations as a viable organizational form, while revealing implementation challenges that theory alone cannot address. The experiment validated key coordi-nations principles while demonstrating the value of specific governance patterns. The implementation of operational governance and community governance patterns created necessary structural clarity. The cells pattern enabled autonomous action within aligned boundaries. The role of Group State in maintaining collective coherence became evident through practice.

The case contributes several insights to coordi-nations theory and practice. First, coordi-nations principles can emerge organically through experimentation rather than requiring top-down implementation of theoretical frameworks. Second, pattern integrity does enable non-hierarchical scaling, as demonstrated by the voluntary adoption of AIFS practices by partner organizations. Third, the symbiotic approach of working alongside existing institutions generates more sustainable value than exit-based strategies. However, the experiment also reveals that mutualist principles face severe constraints within capitalist funding structures that prioritize visible outputs over connective infrastructure.

Future Directions

The documented outcomes and persistent challenges point toward specific areas requiring continued investigation and development. Research priorities include developing economic models that recognize coordination as public infrastructure deserving sustained support, comparable to how societies fund roads or digital networks. Governance mechanisms that maintain coordi-nations coherence at scales beyond small, high-trust networks need theoretical development and practical testing. Technology tools that support relational organizing without imposing transactional logic require thoughtful design that prioritizes human connection over efficiency metrics.

Ecosystem development needs extend beyond individual organizations to systemic changes. Funders must evolve evaluation frameworks that capture coordination value rather than only counting direct service metrics. Technical developers should prioritize community-centered design processes that begin with user needs rather than technological capabilities. Policy frameworks need updating to recognize and support network sovereignty models that operate across traditional organizational and geographic boundaries. Educational resources for coordi-nations implementation should document both successes and failures, providing honest guidance for future practitioners.

All In For Sport continues operating as coordination infrastructure while exploring sustainable funding models. Their incomplete but instructive journey demonstrates that new organizational forms can emerge through patient experimentation, even within constraining economic systems. The persistent challenge remains translating the demonstrated value of coordination work into sustainable support structures. This tension between proven need and economic sustainability extends beyond All In For Sport to fundamental questions about how societies value and support the connective tissue that enables collective action. As global challenges increasingly require coordination across traditional boundaries, the lessons from this experiment become ever more relevant—not as a blueprint to follow, but as evidence that alternatives are both necessary and possible.

About This Case Study

Organization: All In For Sport
Documentation Period: August 2024 to March 2025
Primary Author: rathermercurial.eth
Date Published: July 18, 2025

This case study was developed as part of the Reimagining Power Project, exploring how Web3 technologies can enable new forms of collective organization. It contributes to growing knowledge about coordi-nations and alternative institutional forms for the digital age.

Knowledge Garden

Reimagining Power @ All In For Sport