# Double Extraction: The Hidden Cost of RIR Governance
– AFRINIC’s US$100 liability cap reflects a structural flaw across all five RIRs.
– RIR users face “double extraction”: suppressed asset value plus full exposure to registry risk.
—
AFRINIC’s $100 liability cap is not an African problem—it is a symptom of a deeper structural flaw.
Heng Lu, founder of LARUS.net, calls it “double extraction”: a two-layer cost imposed on operators by institutions designed to coordinate, not control, their resources.
—
## AFRINIC Under Fire
AFRINIC’s service agreement caps liability at “the greater of the previous six months’ fees or US$100”. One hundred dollars—for resources supporting hundreds of dollars monthly in enabled business value, for infrastructure representing millions in capital investment.
“This is not a typo. It is a feature,” Lu told BTW.media in an interview last week, leaning back in his office chair.
The same registry that can suspend, transfer, or revoke your number resources—sitting at the chokepoint of operational continuity—bears less liability than a dry cleaner losing your suit. Operators are locked into regional silos: African operators with AFRINIC, European with RIPE, Asian with APNIC. No exit. No competitive pressure.
One economist specialising in internet infrastructure, who requested anonymity, put it plainly: “Any company delivering services over the internet depends on IP address resources. Google, Amazon, Netflix—they all sit on top of the same registry layer. No addresses, no network. No network, no revenue.”
The difference lies in resilience. A large technology company can absorb disruption: legal teams on retainer, engineering resources to reconfigure networks, cash reserves to survive months of uncertainty. A small or medium-sized internet company cannot.
Picture a mid-sized cloud provider serving 50,000 customers. Its entire operation—billing, customer access, service delivery—depends on continued recognition of its IPv4 allocations. If an RIR suspends those resources due to a policy dispute, administrative error, or governance decision, the operator cannot simply “switch providers”. There is no exit.
The business impact is immediate: customers lose connectivity, service-level agreements are breached, contracts are voided, revenue stops. For a 50,000-customer provider, even a 48-hour disruption could mean hundreds of thousands in damages, reputational harm, and customer churn.
Yet if a registry error, policy decision, or administrative suspension disrupts those resources, the operator’s recourse is capped at US$100.
Phone silence. Then the economist continued: “It’s not asymmetry. It’s a power imbalance masquerading as governance. The registry holds the kill switch for your entire business, but its maximum liability is less than a parking fine. Google can fight this. A 50-person startup cannot. That’s the point.”
—
## Double Extraction
“Double extraction emerges from a simple observation: the registry layer sits above massive capital while speaking the language of low-value coordination,” Lu explained. “It need not seize assets directly. It only preserves enough uncertainty to prevent resources from being treated with the certainty serious capital requires.”
The first extraction suppresses full capitalisation through non-asset rhetoric, conditional recognition, and transfer friction. The second loads risk onto operators whose assets are prevented from full capitalisation.
“Value is capped from above while risk is loaded from below,” Lu noted. “Operators creating value receive no full asset upside, yet bear operational and commercial downside if the registry layer becomes unstable, politicised, or coercive.”
One RIR policy participant defended the current system: “The stewardship model exists to prevent speculation and ensure addresses flow to operational networks, not hoarders. The friction is intentional—it protects operators from themselves.”
But does it?
—
## Users Bear the Cost
The real cost is not the IPv4 address itself. It is the business built on top of it.
A cloud provider does not lose value because an IP address is “worth” US$50 on the secondary market. It loses value because its entire service—customer billing, application delivery, revenue generation—depends on continued recognition of that address.
“When an RIR suspends your resources, you do not lose the asset. You lose the business,” the economist observed. “The address might be priced at US$50. The customers, contracts, and reputation built on top of it? That is what cannot be compensated.”
This is where Lu’s valuation methodology becomes relevant. His US$30–60 trillion figure is not about what IPv4 addresses trade for today. It is about what business value they enable: roughly US$300 monthly recurring revenue per address in cloud services, lease pricing near US$0.30—reflecting 0.1% of enabled value.
“The visible market does not refute the higher valuation. It reveals a discount,” Lu argued. “But the discount is not the problem. The problem is that when the registry layer disrupts your resources, you lose the enabled value, not the asset value. And your recourse is still US$100.”
—
## Is Governance Necessary?
Defenders argue that procedural accountability through governance substitutes for liability, preventing speculation that would fragment routing tables and destabilise global interoperability.
“The uniqueness requirement justifies coordination,” the RIR policy participant said. “Without regional registries maintaining authoritative databases, we’d have competing claims to the same address space. The alternative is chaos.”
Fair point. But this defence raises questions. If the goal is preventing speculation, why do transfer markets exist within regions but face friction across them? If the goal is operational use, why are large holders permitted to retain addresses without demonstrating active deployment?
A closer reading suggests the answer may be simpler: the system protects those already inside it. Artificial friction benefits insiders. When power detaches from liability, it detaches from reality.
—
## A Structural Flaw
AFRINIC is not the disease. It is the symptom.
The AFRINIC crisis makes visible what operates quietly in every region. In RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN, the same structural flaw exists: a registry layer exercising control without consequence, extracting value while disclaiming responsibility.
Lu’s framework offers explanatory power that alternative accounts lack. It explains why operators face two layers of cost, why the discount is invisible until capitalisation is attempted, why small operators cannot resist when the registry layer becomes coercive.
The question is not whether to abolish the registry layer, but how to reshape it. The internet requires coordination for global uniqueness. The question is whether that coordination can be achieved through thin governance—minimal, neutral, transparent—rather than thick discretion.
The future will be decided by operators seeking structures aligning control with consequence. Before that arrives, each operator should ask: if you were next, would you survive?
If no, the problem is present.
—
*Heng Lu is the founder of LARUS.net and a veteran analyst of internet governance. His research is published at heng.lu. BTW.media has covered the AFRINIC crisis extensively in “The Gatekeeper’s Bargain” and “The Great African IP Lock-In”.*
**Also Read:**
– [The Gatekeeper’s Bargain: The Deepening Liability Crisis at AFRINIC](https://blog.btw.media/afrinic/the-gatekeepers-bargain-the-deepening-liability-crisis-at-afrinic/)
– [The Great African IP Lock-In: How a Disputed Board is Trapping Millions in Digital Assets](https://blog.btw.media/all/internet-governance/the-great-african-ip-lock-in-how-a-disputed-board-is-trapping-millions-in-digital-assets/)
