Thank you for pointing to Freenet. We deeply respect Ian Clarke’s work and the foundational routing principles they’ve explored over the decades. However, ther

Thank you for pointing to Freenet. We deeply respect Ian Clarke’s work and the foundational routing principles they’ve explored over the decades. However, there is a fundamental difference in scale. While excellent projects like Freenet operate effectively at the scale of millions of nodes, our solution is architected to provide a 100,000x greater reach, seamlessly handling 100+ billion nodes. This massive leap is precisely why it requires the completely different set of architectural assumptions we outlined in our post. Regarding patents: We completely understand the P2P community's skepticism toward intellectual property. As researchers, our goal isn't to lock this technology behind corporate paywalls or restrict open-source deployment. The patent is strictly a defensive measure to secure our authorship and prevent large-scale centralized entities from capturing the core math and monopolizing it. Once a working PoC is built with our engineering co-founder, we are fully open to establishing an open/defensive patent license (like a FRAND or Open Patent Pledge) to ensure the protocol can be used freely for sovereign, public-good P2P infrastructure.