Larus Limited

10/04/2026

“Community control” sounds reassuring. But once scarcity appears, rhetoric is no longer enough.

Lu Heng argues that when rights are undefined, discretion fills the vacuum — and discretion concentrates. In that structure, the real owner is not the collective named in principle, but whoever controls allocation, interpretation, enforcement, and revocation. That is why the article treats stewardship language not as protection, but as moral cover for centralized control.

Explore IPv4 governance, IP address scarcity, and the challenges of community control, revealing how internet resource management faces real-world contradictions.

06/04/2026

Scarcity is not hoarding. And asset recognition is not the enemy of connectivity.

Lu Heng argues that the familiar claim collapses under basic value-chain analysis: end-user connectivity is priced overwhelmingly by equipment, fiber, power, real estate, spectrum, and transit — not by IPv4 alone. His sharper point is that IPv4 is the first truly scarce asset many ISPs have legitimately held, and suppressing that fact does not protect the public. It weakens the very operators expected to expand and sustain networks.

A thought-provoking exploration of why IPv4 scarcity and assetization can boost global connectivity and market efficiency — reframing addresses as strategic digital assets.

03/04/2026

he market did not destroy an egalitarian order. There was no egalitarian order to destroy.

In this note, Lu Heng argues that the RIR system was built to coordinate scarce number resources through documented need, utilization, and registration policy — not to redistribute IPv4 from richer countries to poorer ones. In an unequal world, that kind of system does not erase inequality. It formalizes it.

That is why the serious question is not whether commercialization feels morally uncomfortable. It is whether smaller operators are better served by discretionary gatekeeping or by access on predictable terms.

Does IPv4 commercialization really harm poorer countries? This analysis argues the problem isn’t markets—but flawed governance, cost structures, and misattributed blame in global internet economics.

02/04/2026

Sovereignty does not disappear in one dramatic act. It is surrendered layer by layer, until a nation still bears the consequences, but no longer fully controls the infrastructure relationship that shapes them.

Lu Heng’s latest note argues that what begins as double extraction at the operator level becomes sovereignty inversion at the level of the state: control moves upward into foreign private legal bodies, while economic and public downside remain below with the nation. In some cases, the liability carried at the top can be capped at figures as low as US$100

Read the full note:

01/04/2026

What if the real tax on poorer markets is not price, but procedure?

In this new note, Lu Heng argues that the RIR system was never designed to redistribute IPv4 scarcity from richer countries to poorer ones. It was built to manage uniqueness, conservation, routability, and registration accuracy. In practice, that means a needs-based system operating inside an unequal world ends up codifying existing inequality rather than correcting it.

The burden then falls hardest on weaker operators: fixed fees, compliance cost, delay, uncertainty, and discretionary dependence all become more punitive the smaller and poorer the operator underneath them. That is the poverty penalty.

Read the full note:

Explore how the RIR system creates a “poverty penalty” by shifting IPv4 costs onto poorer nations while claiming fairness. A critical analysis of inequality, scarcity, and global internet governance.

30/03/2026

For a long time, the registry layer survived in relative darkness.

In this new note, Lu Heng argues that this was not accidental. A structure built on fragmented costs, procedural insulation, and low visibility works best when very few people examine it closely. But once the conflict is pushed into public media, government circles, and broader policy debate, the questions become obvious: why does a thin coordination layer now look like thick governance, discretionary control, and low-accountability power sitting above scarce operator assets?

What they believed would expose a villain may instead expose the system itself.

Read the full note:

On How Thick Governance Destroyed the Obscurity It Needed to Survive Written by Lu Heng | 30 March 2026 CEO […]

26/03/2026

A serious state should ask a very simple question: what is the minimum shared layer actually required for interoperability, and what has been improperly added on top of it?

In this article, Lu Heng argues that global uniqueness requires narrow technical coordination, not a thick governance layer with coercive consequences over nationally significant numbering relationships. Once revocation, disputed transfers, sanctions, continuity risk, and administrative standing remain in foreign private hands while public downside stays with the nation, sovereignty has effectively been inverted.

Read here:

25/03/2026

This is not a story about a single dispute. It is a story about a pattern.

Lu Heng argues that systems built on asymmetric power, weak accountability, and procedural insulation do not produce one isolated victim by accident. They produce many — often over years — while keeping each case fragmented, localized, and easy to dismiss. The real protection of such a system is not legitimacy, but the inability of those harmed to see one another.

The next step, then, is not outrage. It is documentation.

Read the full note:

On Why I Am Certainly Not the First Victim, and Likely the First Survivor Written by Lu Heng | 20 […]

24/03/2026

The value of the Internet lies in global uniqueness. And uniqueness does not require thick governance.

In this article, Lu Heng makes the case that once scarce IPv4 resources became transferable, financeable, and economically significant, the registry layer ceased to be merely clerical in effect. It became a conditioning layer above assets. That layer now suppresses full capitalization through uncertainty and friction, while preserving operator exposure to the same administrative chokepoint.

That is the real cost of governance thickness.

Read here:

23/03/2026

The most interesting argument in this note is that extraction can happen without seizure.

Lu Heng suggests that when a governance layer sits above scarce operator-held assets, it does not need to confiscate them directly to impose cost. It only needs to preserve enough uncertainty, friction, and administrative dependence to weaken full capitalization while keeping downside exposure where it already is.

Worth reading for anyone interested in governance, incentives, and institutional design.

On Regional Internet Registries’ Thick Governance Turns Uniqueness into Double Extraction Written by Lu Heng | 23 March 2026 CEO […]

20/03/2026

The core issue is not personality. It is structure.

In this article, Lu Heng argues that the present RIR model concentrates high-consequence authority over scarce number resources while limiting meaningful downside through narrow liability, thin capitalization, and weak remedy. That is not a temporary governance flaw. It is a structural contradiction.

If the governed resource is economically serious, accountability cannot remain symbolic.

Read here: