.png)
CommonEasy is a peer to peer platform where trust, networks and solidarity are central. Founder Jip de Ridder explains how it all started with a spreadsheet among friends, how Elinor Ostrom’s ideas influenced his thinking, and why building social engagement is so important.
How did CommonEasy get started?
'It started small, very personal. I’ve always questioned how the world works. During my economics studies, I wanted to understand how systems really function. But the more I learned, the more contradictions I encountered. If the market is so efficient, why can’t you find your accountant, marketer, and HR on the market? Why do all those big companies exist? Then I thought: I want to contribute something myself, something pragmatic and concrete, instead of just philosophizing.
Honestly, it initially came from a desire to save some money on my phone. The first experiment was with friends: we insured our phones together, without an intermediary. I managed everything, tracked it in a spreadsheet, and ran it through a Facebook group. As long as no one objected when someone lost or broke their phone, I would pay out. Later, we improved the model through co-creation, iterating based on how people actually handle risk.'
What makes CommonEasy different from a traditional insurer or a mutual fund (broodfonds)?
'Three things. First: it’s cheaper, because there’s no profit motive. You can save up to thirty percent. Second: it’s transparent - you know exactly where your money goes. Third: it’s more human; people genuinely help each other. Broodfondsen operate through associations, and insurers don’t really know you. In short, there’s no relationship. We assume you already have a network, and that social capital matters. CommonEasy is basically a tool, a digital platform that acts as a safety net. Your claim is assessed by like-minded peers. The best comparison is a platform like LinkedIn, because it shows which connections you share and who is involved. That makes it far more personal than traditional mutual funds or insurance.'
How do you scale something like this without losing trust?
'Trust is the foundation. You start small, in circles of people who know each other. Then you can expand, but always gradually: closer circles contribute more, further circles less. This is the principle behind our circle system. Some rules are needed to prevent chaos, like one-on-one intake meetings with another member, monthly updates on recovery, and community programs to support burn-out or other challenges.
‘We work from trust and scale from there.’
'People tend to think in silos or bubbles, but in a network, everyone is the centre. That’s why we organise the insurance around social engagement rather than social control. It’s crucial: people should be voluntarily involved, not forced.'
𝚃𝚎x𝚝 continues down the video.
How does this relate to Elinor Ostrom’s commons principles?
'We always look at incentives and shared interests, exactly as Ostrom described for successful commons. She showed that shared resources function well when there are clear rules, when users are involved in decision-making, when monitoring takes place, and when sanctions exist for rule-breaking. We work with clear rules so the network can function without a central top-down organisation. This way, we combine Ostrom’s fundamental principles - shared responsibility, transparency, clear incentives - with trust and social engagement, while maintaining the flexibility and dynamism of a peer-to-peer network.'
What does your approach mean for the future of social security in the Netherlands?
'Making solidarity workable. The platform can be used for all kinds of things: insuring a phone is simple, but disability is far more complex. You can help each other without a large organisation managing everything. CommonEasy shows that you can rely on a network, based on trust and shared interests. That is the real power of the commons.
We now have around 500 members. The model keeps evolving because social dynamics are always changing. But it demonstrates that a different kind of safety net is possible—more human, transparent, and affordable than traditional systems. Technology scales, money scales, but community and trust do not automatically. That’s why building social engagement remains essential.'
Author: Brechtje Polman