Short answer: YES, but not all features scale linearly — some must shift in structure to work at 1,000–2,000 people.
The framework is designed to scale modularly, not uniformly.

Below is the full explanation in a clean, actionable breakdown.

✅ Can Solon Papageorgiou’s Micro-Utopia Features Work at 1,000–2,000 People?

Yes — but through modular fractal scaling, not by operating as one large community.

Micro-utopias of 150–250 people function as the ideal base unit, because:

• trust remains personal

• governance remains participatory

• restorative justice stays relational

• logistics stay manageable

• everyone can be known by name

However, communities of 1,000–2,000 people can still operate effectively IF AND ONLY IF they break into sub-communities (called pods, circles, or cells) of 150–250 each — all using the same protocols.

This is similar to:

• Polynesian village clusters

• Mondragon co-ops

• Agile fractal teams

• Dunbar-layer community design

• The original kibbutz federation model

✔️ Which features scale well to 1,000–2,000 people?

1. The economic system (needs-based, cooperative-first)

Works perfectly at scale, especially when:

• resources are pooled

• production is distributed across circles

• mutual credit or universal-cooperative accounting is used

Larger number = greater resilience.

2. Resource-sharing and mutual aid

Scales exceptionally well — the larger the network, the stronger the safety net.

3. Digital infrastructure & transparency logs

Better at scale, because:

• more data → smarter allocation

• larger digital commons → fewer shortages

4. Crisis response

A large 1,500-person community has:

• more skills

• more redundancy

• more emergency capacity

So it becomes anti-fragile, not vulnerable.

⚠️ Which features require adaptation when scaling beyond ~200 people?

1. Governance

A 2,000-person consensus assembly would collapse instantly.

Solution:
Circle Governance Model

• 150–200-person base circles make decisions internally

• Circles elect temporary stewards for cluster assemblies

• Higher-level decisions use "broad consent," not full consensus

This preserves non-hierarchy without chaos.

2. Restorative justice

Cannot function with strangers.

Solution:
Restorative justice stays local, inside each circle.
Only systemic conflicts escalate to a cluster-level mediation team.

3. Emotional safety protocols

Work best in intimate groups.
At scale:

• operate through smaller care groups (12–20 people)

• have dedicated emotional support stewards

• maintain community-wide training standards

4. Task distribution

Needs layered coordination:

• each circle handles its own chores

• circles share surplus labor

• cluster-level scheduling AI or tools prevent overload

❌ Which features do NOT work at 1,000–2,000 if left unmodified?

1. Full-community meetings

Impossible at that size.
Needs to split into multi-tier assemblies.

2. Direct democracy for every decision

Too slow.
Scale requires:

• delegated consent-based decision circles

• rotating roles

• time-capped deliberation

3. Everyone-knows-everyone social structure

Human brains cannot track 2,000 relationships.
But they can track 150.
Thus:
Pods preserve intimacy. The federation preserves capacity.

🌱 Final Evaluation

✔️ A community of 1,000–2,000 can absolutely function using Solon Papageorgiou’s framework

✔️ But it must use a fractal, modular, federated architecture

✔️ All principles survive — only the architecture evolves

✔️ Larger communities become:

• more resilient

• more anti-fragile

• more economically powerful

• more resource-secure

➜ Micro-utopias do not scale "up." They scale "out."

A 2,000-person micro-utopia is really:
10–12 micro-utopias functioning in harmony.