The register
What's built, and what's coming.
No dates, because we would rather under-promise than list something you plan around. Anything not yet built is here too, in the same table.
- One map — spaces, experiences, events and points of interestLive
- Town portals assembled from CMS blocks, edited by volunteersLive
- Host identity that carries across every listingLive
- Geographic pickup — listings surface in a portal by boundaryLive
- One interaction model across editing and marketplaceIn progress
- Curated collections — a festival, a trail, a season across hostsIn progress
- Accommodation as a listing type, with real depthNot yet
- Bookable halls and spacesNot yet
- Embeds for websites a group already runsNot yet
- Promoted placement — only if it stays labelled and boundedUnder test
Why a public list
Every new surface is a standing commitment that someone keeps it true. A capability added without an owner and an update path doesn't sit inert — it decays, and one wrong listing discounts everything around it.
How a yes gets decided
Which motivation does it serve, and for whom. Does it hold the volunteer, accuracy, discovery-integrity and coherence tests. And what does it displace — capability is finite, so a yes here is a not-yet somewhere else.
Ask about anything here
If something on this list is what your town or your group actually needs, that's useful to know — it's how the order changes.
hello@nnest.app →How we run it
Who owns this, and who gets paid
The operator's side is written down because leaving it unstated is how conflicts of interest go unmanaged. If you are considering putting your town on this platform, you should be able to read it.
Fees in, costs out, nothing in the middle
01 · In
Listing and portal fees
Paid by commercial hosts and by towns. Free events and community organisations sit outside or near cost.
02 · Held
NNEST (Noojee) Inc
An incorporated community association. Revenue lands here, and the platform is owned here.
03 · Out
Delivery charged back
The operator invoices for build and running costs at rates set by non-conflicted committee members.
The conflict, named
The same people hold positions in both entities. That is managed through documented recusal, arm's-length rate-setting and proactive disclosure — not left to good intentions.
If we stepped away tomorrow
The association keeps the platform, the domains, the data and the documentation. Conventional technology and sufficient notes are a deliberate choice for exactly this reason.
Outcome 01
The arrangement is legible
Revenue lands with the association; delivery costs are charged back. The conflict of holding positions in both entities is managed rather than left implicit.
How nnest does it
Recusal is documented and rates are set by non-conflicted members so anyone who asks how this works gets a clear answer rather than a defensive one.
Outcome 02
The platform outlasts whoever runs it
Community infrastructure that depends on one person is not infrastructure.
How nnest does it
Technology stays conventional and documentation stays sufficient so a change of operator or committee is an inconvenience, not an outage.
Outcome 03
Delivery is sustainable at community scale
A capability that only works with dedicated staffing is not a capability this platform has.
How nnest does it
The build is sized for a small operation on community revenue so what exists keeps working instead of quietly rotting between grants.
Outcome 04
Every proposal is tested, not just judged
Capability is finite. A yes here is a not-yet somewhere else, and naming that at the point of decision is more honest than discovering it in the backlog.
How nnest does it
Each idea is checked against the four load-bearing constraints so the roadmap stays short, and what ships stays true.