In March 2025, Turkey faced one of the deepest crises of its democratic history. The events that began on March 19 marked a turning point for many. This date was not only the start of a political operation, but also the declaration of a period in which freedom, the rule of law, and public conscience took a heavy blow.

We witnessed it together: university students were dragged through the streets. Young women were handcuffed behind their backs, left waiting for hours on cold concrete,

They were kicked by a group of police officers... Some detainees were too exhausted to speak, others had been in cuffs so long they couldn’t move their hands. What we saw were not just individual rights violations. It was an attempt to suppress an entire society.

The public’s right to access information was also under attack. Mainstream media either ignored the events or distorted them. It behaved as if there were no protests happening across the country. RTÜK issued heavy penalties to TV channels covering the protests. Freedom of thought and expression were directly targeted by official censorship mechanisms.

Film director İlker Canikligil was arrested and tried, a clear intimidation tactic. YouTube channels of journalists like Fatih Altaylı were forced to obtain licenses unlawfully, despite no such requirement existing in the law. In the eyes of the government, journalism had now become a crime.

These pressures didn’t stop at the political level. Counter-campaigns were organized against political leaders calling for boycotts, specifically designed to manipulate public opinion. Hidden advertisements promoted brands like Espresso Lab.

And now, society turns to social media for justice, because courts, institutions, and oversight mechanisms have lost their credibility. The law is no longer a tool, it’s a weapon. It’s used against whoever the ruling powers choose, and ignored when it’s inconvenient.

Is there still hope in such an environment? This is exactly where we need to start thinking about alternative structures. This is where Bitcoin comes in.

What Bitcoin Was and Wasn’t

Bitcoin emerged as a response to the 2008 global financial crisis. When people’s savings were wiped out by irresponsible money printing by banks, trust in central authorities was seriously shaken. Bitcoin offered a technological answer to this trust crisis.

The “whitepaper” published by Satoshi Nakamoto was not just a technical explanation of a cryptocurrency. It was also a manifesto for a new economic and social order. Bitcoin was decentralized. It couldn’t be controlled by any government, institution, or individual. Its supply was limited, no inflation could be created. It was transparent, every transaction was visible to all. It was participatory, it functioned through consensus.

Today, the oppressive governance model in Turkey stands in total opposition to the model Bitcoin represents. On one side, a system where the law is tied to political power. On the other, a protocol governed by algorithms and consensus.

Democracy = Social Consensus

At its core, Bitcoin is built on a structure that closely resembles democracy: social consensus. Decisions aren’t dictated from above. Everyone participating in the network has a voice. Like a society writing its own constitution. Like young people shouting “we are here too” in the streets.

New World Citizenship: A Dream or an Alternative System?

Is it the place we're born that defines our identity, or the values we choose? Does carrying a passport make someone a citizen, or is it belonging to a community that matters? States, borders, flags... are they really still at the center of our lives? And what if we can now anchor our identity to a chain, a blockchain? Should we then trust the code, not the state?

In a world becoming increasingly digital, the role of the nation-state is starting to dissolve. In an age where political, economic, and social power structures are being questioned, decentralized systems like Bitcoin are not just a technical solution, they’re a political alternative. Because these systems allow us to redefine identity. Without bureaucracy, class privilege, or the inherited advantages of citizenship. But how possible is this? And more importantly, how sustainable?

Communities: A System Where Everyone Has a Role

In this new order, citizenship isn’t gained on defined land but in digital communities. Belonging is voluntary. To join the “population” of a country, all you have to do is contribute: write code, teach, create content, secure the system, or generate ideas. There’s no hierarchy, no ranks, only roles based on contribution. Everyone is, in some way, a public servant. No one is excluded, but no one gets special privileges either. Being a citizen in this system means taking active responsibility. The passive citizen model becomes obsolete.

Governance: Is There Wisdom Beyond the Code?

Decisions are made through community voting. Everyone has a say, but this right is balanced, not by pure equality, but by past contributions, knowledge level, and impact. The code is open, the system transparent, but transparency alone doesn’t guarantee wise decisions. Elections follow specific protocols. Representatives serve in cycles, with limited powers. But the question remains: is voting enough to govern a system? Or does governance risk becoming a mere ritual over time?

Everyday Life: A Day in the Life of a Digital Public Servant

The day begins at 8:00 AM with reviewing a new proposal recorded on-chain. A smart contract suggests how to distribute community funds. Voting has started, and the clock is ticking. At 10:00 AM, there’s a moderation task assigned based on contribution points. New member onboarding will be managed. In the afternoon, a few hours are spent preparing educational content for the system’s learning module. By evening, participating in new forum discussions helps increase governance score. There’s no retirement, no fixed salary. If you contribute, you earn. If not, the system doesn’t exclude you, but it offers you nothing either. This is what true digital citizenship looks like.

Economic Model: How Is Wealth Distributed?

In this system, money isn’t printed, it’s created. Wealth isn’t based on production but on contribution. Do the hard workers earn more? Yes, but it depends on how they work. Coders, creators, educators, all are valuable. But value measurement algorithms are not perfect; measuring contribution is not always objective. Is wealth accumulation possible? Of course. This system isn’t capitalist, but it’s not fully egalitarian either. Reward mechanisms encourage contribution, but over time, certain individuals will inevitably stand out. In other words, whales can still exist here too.

Legal System: Can Lawmaking, Enforcement, and Judgment Be Written Into Code?

The legislative process unfolds through on-chain proposals and voting. Every law is open, transparent, and accessible to community input. Execution is carried out via smart contracts. Power lies with the software, not a person. The judiciary is the most complex issue. Was there a faulty transaction? Were your tokens stolen? Do you believe the system malfunctioned? This is where “arbiter nodes” come in, independent decision-makers selected by the community. But for this system to stay fair and effective, a solid ethical foundation is essential.

So, Is This a Utopia?

Yes, this model carries the shine of a utopia. But blind optimism would be naïve. Extreme decentralization makes decision-making difficult. In times of crisis, taking initiative may be impossible. When a catastrophe occurs outside the system, there’s no one to hold accountable. Conscience is not written into the code. Empathy and collective memory rely entirely on individual effort.

And the whales… What if those who contributed most early on later monopolize power? Doesn’t this echo capitalism’s accumulation problem? And what about those who can’t contribute? What place is there in this system for individuals with low education or no technical skills? This world, which appears open to all, may be out of reach for some.

Conclusion: Thinking Together Despite Everything

Turkey is going through a dark time. But the youth, women, students, and workers of this country continue to be a source of hope. While Bitcoin may not be a direct part of this struggle, the ideas it represents reflect the spirit of this social resistance.

Global citizenship is not a fantasy. In an age where governments are corrupt and institutions are collapsing, people must build new systems. Bitcoin could be the beginning of that.

But here’s the real issue: It’s not enough to demand justice, equality, and freedom, we must also design the structures that uphold them. And perhaps the citizenship of the future won’t be written at the ballot box, but in the next “block.”

In the end, this system is neither a complete utopia nor a simple alternative to the decaying order we currently live in. But maybe - just maybe - it could be a new form of citizenship, a new kind of social contract. Only if those dreaming of this world first build their own moral protocols.

In March 2025, Turkey faced one of the deepest crises of its democratic history. The events that began on March 19 marked a turning point for many. This date was not only the start of a political operation, but also the declaration of a period in which freedom, the rule of law, and public conscience took a heavy blow.

We witnessed it together: university students were dragged through the streets. Young women were handcuffed behind their backs, left waiting for hours on cold concrete,

They were kicked by a group of police officers... Some detainees were too exhausted to speak, others had been in cuffs so long they couldn’t move their hands. What we saw were not just individual rights violations. It was an attempt to suppress an entire society.

The public’s right to access information was also under attack. Mainstream media either ignored the events or distorted them. It behaved as if there were no protests happening across the country. RTÜK issued heavy penalties to TV channels covering the protests. Freedom of thought and expression were directly targeted by official censorship mechanisms.

Film director İlker Canikligil was arrested and tried, a clear intimidation tactic. YouTube channels of journalists like Fatih Altaylı were forced to obtain licenses unlawfully, despite no such requirement existing in the law. In the eyes of the government, journalism had now become a crime.

These pressures didn’t stop at the political level. Counter-campaigns were organized against political leaders calling for boycotts, specifically designed to manipulate public opinion. Hidden advertisements promoted brands like Espresso Lab.

And now, society turns to social media for justice, because courts, institutions, and oversight mechanisms have lost their credibility. The law is no longer a tool, it’s a weapon. It’s used against whoever the ruling powers choose, and ignored when it’s inconvenient.

Is there still hope in such an environment? This is exactly where we need to start thinking about alternative structures. This is where Bitcoin comes in.

What Bitcoin Was and Wasn’t

Bitcoin emerged as a response to the 2008 global financial crisis. When people’s savings were wiped out by irresponsible money printing by banks, trust in central authorities was seriously shaken. Bitcoin offered a technological answer to this trust crisis.

The “whitepaper” published by Satoshi Nakamoto was not just a technical explanation of a cryptocurrency. It was also a manifesto for a new economic and social order. Bitcoin was decentralized. It couldn’t be controlled by any government, institution, or individual. Its supply was limited, no inflation could be created. It was transparent, every transaction was visible to all. It was participatory, it functioned through consensus.

Today, the oppressive governance model in Turkey stands in total opposition to the model Bitcoin represents. On one side, a system where the law is tied to political power. On the other, a protocol governed by algorithms and consensus.

Democracy = Social Consensus

At its core, Bitcoin is built on a structure that closely resembles democracy: social consensus. Decisions aren’t dictated from above. Everyone participating in the network has a voice. Like a society writing its own constitution. Like young people shouting “we are here too” in the streets.

New World Citizenship: A Dream or an Alternative System?

Is it the place we're born that defines our identity, or the values we choose? Does carrying a passport make someone a citizen, or is it belonging to a community that matters? States, borders, flags... are they really still at the center of our lives? And what if we can now anchor our identity to a chain, a blockchain? Should we then trust the code, not the state?

In a world becoming increasingly digital, the role of the nation-state is starting to dissolve. In an age where political, economic, and social power structures are being questioned, decentralized systems like Bitcoin are not just a technical solution, they’re a political alternative. Because these systems allow us to redefine identity. Without bureaucracy, class privilege, or the inherited advantages of citizenship. But how possible is this? And more importantly, how sustainable?

Communities: A System Where Everyone Has a Role

In this new order, citizenship isn’t gained on defined land but in digital communities. Belonging is voluntary. To join the “population” of a country, all you have to do is contribute: write code, teach, create content, secure the system, or generate ideas. There’s no hierarchy, no ranks, only roles based on contribution. Everyone is, in some way, a public servant. No one is excluded, but no one gets special privileges either. Being a citizen in this system means taking active responsibility. The passive citizen model becomes obsolete.

Governance: Is There Wisdom Beyond the Code?

Decisions are made through community voting. Everyone has a say, but this right is balanced, not by pure equality, but by past contributions, knowledge level, and impact. The code is open, the system transparent, but transparency alone doesn’t guarantee wise decisions. Elections follow specific protocols. Representatives serve in cycles, with limited powers. But the question remains: is voting enough to govern a system? Or does governance risk becoming a mere ritual over time?

Everyday Life: A Day in the Life of a Digital Public Servant

The day begins at 8:00 AM with reviewing a new proposal recorded on-chain. A smart contract suggests how to distribute community funds. Voting has started, and the clock is ticking. At 10:00 AM, there’s a moderation task assigned based on contribution points. New member onboarding will be managed. In the afternoon, a few hours are spent preparing educational content for the system’s learning module. By evening, participating in new forum discussions helps increase governance score. There’s no retirement, no fixed salary. If you contribute, you earn. If not, the system doesn’t exclude you, but it offers you nothing either. This is what true digital citizenship looks like.

Economic Model: How Is Wealth Distributed?

In this system, money isn’t printed, it’s created. Wealth isn’t based on production but on contribution. Do the hard workers earn more? Yes, but it depends on how they work. Coders, creators, educators, all are valuable. But value measurement algorithms are not perfect; measuring contribution is not always objective. Is wealth accumulation possible? Of course. This system isn’t capitalist, but it’s not fully egalitarian either. Reward mechanisms encourage contribution, but over time, certain individuals will inevitably stand out. In other words, whales can still exist here too.

Legal System: Can Lawmaking, Enforcement, and Judgment Be Written Into Code?

The legislative process unfolds through on-chain proposals and voting. Every law is open, transparent, and accessible to community input. Execution is carried out via smart contracts. Power lies with the software, not a person. The judiciary is the most complex issue. Was there a faulty transaction? Were your tokens stolen? Do you believe the system malfunctioned? This is where “arbiter nodes” come in, independent decision-makers selected by the community. But for this system to stay fair and effective, a solid ethical foundation is essential.

So, Is This a Utopia?

Yes, this model carries the shine of a utopia. But blind optimism would be naïve. Extreme decentralization makes decision-making difficult. In times of crisis, taking initiative may be impossible. When a catastrophe occurs outside the system, there’s no one to hold accountable. Conscience is not written into the code. Empathy and collective memory rely entirely on individual effort.

And the whales… What if those who contributed most early on later monopolize power? Doesn’t this echo capitalism’s accumulation problem? And what about those who can’t contribute? What place is there in this system for individuals with low education or no technical skills? This world, which appears open to all, may be out of reach for some.

Conclusion: Thinking Together Despite Everything

Turkey is going through a dark time. But the youth, women, students, and workers of this country continue to be a source of hope. While Bitcoin may not be a direct part of this struggle, the ideas it represents reflect the spirit of this social resistance.

Global citizenship is not a fantasy. In an age where governments are corrupt and institutions are collapsing, people must build new systems. Bitcoin could be the beginning of that.

But here’s the real issue: It’s not enough to demand justice, equality, and freedom, we must also design the structures that uphold them. And perhaps the citizenship of the future won’t be written at the ballot box, but in the next “block.”

In the end, this system is neither a complete utopia nor a simple alternative to the decaying order we currently live in. But maybe - just maybe - it could be a new form of citizenship, a new kind of social contract. Only if those dreaming of this world first build their own moral protocols.