This chapter develops the necessary conditions for the vision of property flexibility to flourish and become a valuable normative alternative. It returns to the themes raised in previous chapters, and advances three main arguments. First, it offers a robust normative account of the institutional choices for access, arguing that peer-to-peer markets offer considerable benefits from a flexibility perspective. Instead of the current regulatory support for commercial access, the law should consider regulatory means that encourage the peer-to-peer model of access. The problem with this endorsement of the peer-to-peer model is the power of the platform. Second, this chapter calls for a better conceptualization of the role of platforms as powerful agents constituting the activity. It suggests two possible reforms: the promotion of platform alternatives that have some public oversight, and the regulation of platforms as market-constituting fiduciaries. Finally, the chapter evaluates the comparative normative value of each vision, stability and flexibility, and offers guidelines for a legal scheme that recognizes both the subversive and the ideal.