That would have been my guess too, but it doesn't preclude the experiment. I personally think there's more to it than pure enforcement. Coherent standards for what counts as an invention, and a well defined expiry term, are two things that attracted adherence to the patent system. Without them, patents would be too much of a mess to enforce. Those things have evolved over time within the existing patent system, and depend on not only statute but also case law. I don't see how anything like that can build up independent of having a robust government operating over the long term.

On the other hand we already have "copyright without enforcement" for recorded music, via file sharing.

Disclosure: I have 20 patents.

Don Lancaster, who doesn't think much of patents, recommended when you have an idea, publish it immediately. That puts it in the "prior art" and makes it harder to enforce a patent covering the concepts.

Indeed, "defensive publication" can be a viable IP strategy when you're working in a quickly evolving space. Another is a provisional patent application which is much cheaper than a full blown application.

It's still worth at least chatting with a patent lawyer (which I'm not) to make sure what you think is sufficient as a defensive publication, actually is.