Good points. As you mention, for most local initiatives it’s a manageable risk. So the goal is to have those hosts to be as close as possible of the activities of the collective. Both in terms of geographic and in terms of verticals.
A typical example of that would be boy scouts. It’s international but you have national entities and very local groups. Those local groups shouldn’t have to create a legal entity. And the national host is not only in the same jurisdiction, but also has a very good understanding of the type of activities that are organized by the local groups. So their risk is manageable and I would argue that the benefits of being able to create an open collective for each local group outweighs those risks.