> when it's quite literally modelled after his feudalist beliefs
Okay, but aren't most P2P networks modelled like this? You have client-servers, relays, and super-relays.
The only difference is the amount of buy-in required to run a relay or super-relay. But the amount of buy-in can also be compared to the cost to run an Eth2 node. It's a proof-of-stake network, essentially.
Yes. It's modeled after a republic, in contrast to today's dominant models, which are, in fact, either feudal or corporate (monarchical).
The problem with Urbit used to be that each node was permanently bound to a single parent and "lords" had too much control over their "subjects", including things like kicking them out of the Urbitverse. That was changed so AFAIK it's no longer a concern. Most P2P systems are completely different because nodes can use any relay and relaying is separate from identity.
> Most P2P systems are completely different because nodes can use any relay and relaying is separate from identity.
A planet has just one Star that sponsors them in Urbit, but as a planet, you can choose to leave your Star and move to a different Star.
So you can also choose a different relay in Urbit. And yes, your Planet address is spawned by a Star, but you do fully own your address. It is separate in the sense that you can move it elsewhere.
> The source code and design sketches for the project alluded to some of Yarvin's views, including initially classifying users as "lords," "dukes," and "earls".
(from the wiki page on urbit.)