Which state-level 50501 hubs were most active and who led them?

1. The question being asked and the reporting reality

The user is asking which state-level hubs did the most work and who led them; reporting shows a mixture of genuinely leaderless claims and concrete local leadership — the movement’s “no leaders” rhetoric coexisted with named local coordinators and registered entities that ran operations on the ground ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

2. Massachusetts: the clearest case of an active, organized hub

Massachusetts stands out because its local chapter says it became a registered 501(c) with “hundreds of active volunteers,” describing an organized state team of volunteers running continuous local campaigns and trainings — language that signals sustained activity and formal structure not present in every state hub ^[1].

3. Indiana: documented local leadership with a central committee

Indiana’s hub provides one of the clearest rosters of named leaders — an “Indiana 50501 central” group explicitly listing Scott, Caroline, Taelar, Tori and Janet as the Central Committee — showing a recognizable core team coordinating district- and town-level leadership and making Indiana one of the more institutionally organized state nodes ^[2].

4. Nebraska / Omaha: an active local node with identifiable organizers (kept anonymous)

Local reporting on Omaha’s 50501 activity portrays it as a major force within Nebraska, noting a trio of main organizers (who chose to remain anonymous for safety/political reasons) and listing partnerships with established local groups — evidence of concentrated organizing and mobilization capacity in that state hub ^[3].

5. National and platform-level figures: amplification more than command

At the national level, figures like Dunn (quoted) and the Reddit origin story (user Evolved_Fungi) illustrate that much of 50501’s growth came from platform virality and a loose “pantry” model that supplied resources and training rather than direct orders; national partners such as Political Revolution and Voices of Florida functioned as amplifiers and allies, not top-down leaders ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

6. What “most active” means and evidence limits

“Most active” can mean turnout, sustained organizing, formal structure, or public visibility; reporting documents statewide activity across all 50 states and highlights hubs differently — for example, the national map and Build The Resistance listing emphasize widespread actions in all states ^[5], Rolling Stone cites massive turnout and a federated hub model ^[4], and Wikipedia aggregates high-level participation estimates — but there is no single public dataset in these sources that ranks hubs by a common metric, so assessments rely on qualitative signals like registration, named leaders, partnerships and media visibility ^{[6] [5]}.

7. Reconciling leaderless claims with named local leaders

The movement’s stated decentralization is sincere in design — “federated” hubs, a fluid “national” team, and endless local autonomy are repeatedly emphasized ^{[4] [1]} — yet that decentralization didn’t preclude locally visible leadership: Massachusetts’ registered organization, Indiana’s central committee roster, and Omaha’s organizing team demonstrate that practical leadership sprung up at state level even where the movement disavowed a formal national hierarchy ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

8. Bottom line answer

Based on available reporting, the most obviously active and well-documented state-level hubs were Massachusetts (formal 501(c) with hundreds of volunteers) and Indiana (named central committee of Scott, Caroline, Taelar, Tori and Janet), with Omaha/Nebraska singled out for strong local organizing (three main local organizers) and other states amplified by national partners and platform-coordinated resources; national figures and partners supplied coordination and amplification rather than top-down leadership ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.