It should be clear from the initial writings released about it that Cosmos is seen as prefigurative: we intend to embody the values we want to see realized at a broader social scale.
Especially interesting to peruse is the list of examples of prefigurative political movements at the bottom. Worldwide, such movements tend to be viewed as “revolutionary”–after all, isn’t it definitively revolutionary to not just endorse or propose, but to undertake to model (as a kind of proof-of-concept) the transformation of social relationships desired? It’s a defiant and powerful move in the face of traditional authority/power structures, surely: it’s like saying "if we can prove that this alternative model has better outcomes, then how about YOU come to the table and prove why you think you deserve to be in power, huh?
(Better for those with excess power to just squash such movements in the early stages…)
While I do see liberatory transformation as “fractal” (that is: manifesting most healthily throughout all levels), I wonder about scale/scaling. The norms governing reciprocal, uplifting interactions occurring at a group or clan scale: do they look same as at the city or global scale? What structures are stable at each scale? Do the methods employed at each scale always align and amplify, or conflict and create draining dissonance? Does choosing one beneficial method at one scale block alternative methods from being considered or utilized at other scales? Basically: is the proposal for a kind of decentralized autonomous organization that empowers its human users fractally across every level of interaction–feasible?