The contemporary discourse about the sharing economy is both hyped and full of hope for a more sustainable future, but what is it that actually is shared? How much sharing is actually taking place, and in what dimensions and how can systems for sharing be governed? These questions are discussed in this paper and we compare the contemporary sharing economy discourse with old and since long established organized systems for sharing, here exemplified by constitutional hybrid organizations, thus organizations established with a purpose of mutual sharing in dimensions such as responsibility, power, surplus and risk. It is discussed that the contemporary sharing economy discourse mainly focus on collaborative consumption while constitutional hybridity is a more genuine form of organized mutuality. It is concluded that in both systems for sharing there seem to be empty governance structures. In the sharing economy it is mainly a market logic that dominates, where others than the consumers own what is shared. In constitutional hybridity the consumers are also owners, but it seems as they are either not aware of their ownership responsibilities and formal governance duties, or they are not really interested in taking such responsibilities. So, although there are existing and technically functioning systems for governance of systems for sharing, the practice of governance follows other logics, which calls for more research on governance in systems for sharing.