This document provides a dense, system-level analysis of all sixteen possible combinations of Access (A), Ownership (O), Identity (I), and Recovery (R). Rather than isolating them as trivial cases, each state is examined as an equilibrium under human, operational, and economic pressure.
States are written as binary tuples (A, O, I, R). The four axes are defined in four-axes.md.
(0,0,0,0): Null State
This state represents the absence of any cryptographic or social system. There is no user, no ownership, no reference, and no recovery. It is included for completeness as the origin state from which all others emerge. nimimo does not operate here.
(1,0,0,0): Access Without Ownership
A user can initiate a session through an access mechanism, but no cryptographic ownership, identity, or recovery exists. This mirrors traditional web onboarding. In nimimo, this state is intentionally transient and immediately followed by local ownership generation.
(0,1,0,0): Ownership Without Access
Cryptographic keys exist without an interface. While sovereign, this state is unusable for most humans. nimimo avoids exposing users directly to this by adding access abstraction without authority.
(0,0,1,0): Identity Without Ownership
A human-readable identity exists without cryptographic backing. This creates semantic authority without control, which historically leads to centralization. nimimo forbids identity creation before ownership.
(0,0,0,1): Recovery Without Target
Recovery exists without anything to recover. This state is logically incoherent and prevented in nimimo by design.
(1,1,0,0): Access Collapsed Into Ownership
Access directly controls ownership. Losing access means losing funds. This is the hallmark of custodial systems. nimimo structurally prevents this collapse.
(1,0,1,0): Identity Collapsed Into Access
Identity exists only within a specific access provider, creating platform lock-in. nimimo binds identity to ownership instead.
(1,0,0,1): Recovery Collapsed Into Access
Recovery depends on access providers, introducing reset authority. nimimo recovery artifacts are user-controlled and access-independent.
(0,1,1,0): Identity Collapsed Into Ownership
Identity becomes authoritative over ownership, leading to account-style control. nimimo treats identity purely as referential.
(0,1,0,1): Recovery Collapsed Into Ownership
Recovery can override ownership, breaking cryptographic finality. nimimo recovery requires possession of encrypted artifacts.
(0,0,1,1): Identity Reset Systems
Identity can be restored without ownership, creating centralized identity authority. nimimo cryptographically binds identity to ownership.
(1,1,1,0): Full Account Collapse
Access, identity, and ownership collapse into a single authority. This is classical custody. nimimo rejects this architecture.
(1,1,0,1): Managed Wallet Systems
Ownership exists but access and recovery override it. nimimo forbids any recovery override of ownership.
(1,0,1,1): Deferred Ownership Systems
Identity and access exist before ownership. Whoever introduces ownership later controls it. nimimo generates ownership immediately and locally.
(0,1,1,1): Sovereign but Inhuman
All elements exist except access abstraction. Users reintroduce access, collapsing the system. nimimo adds access without collapsing authority.
(1,1,1,1): Separated Full State
All four axes coexist without collapse. Access is replaceable, identity is referential, ownership is final, and recovery is optional. This is the state nimimo maintains.