• Basically, the world is turning into a shitstorm, of democracies turning into authoritarian regimes & authoritarian regimes turning into full big-brother mode on steroids.

• However, it’s more politely put explained in Bilaji’s theories as American Anarchy & Chinese Control.

• US goes into civil war

• China x10 the surveillance and control via their digital currency.

The logical question is now, what’s the difference between a nation-state & a network state?

• Nation states focus on geography as the primary idea & ideology is secondary.

• Network states focus on ideology as the primary idea & geography is secondary.

• Borders to define territory that will be protected and expend with the use of force & through bloodshed

• Populations that are enclosed within the territory depending on the relations with neighbouring states & other groups such as the UN, etc. the population could be stuck without the ability to travel legally.

• Central government to create & enforce laws in the interest of large corporations or who sell themselves out the the highest bidders

• Diplomatic recognition by other states and groups depending on who they please and rub shoulders with they could get benefits or suffer for not playing ball

• Domestic monopoly on violence if their population doesn’t behave as intended or are protesting/rioting against the state, then bring out the military & guns to “restore order”

• Digital-first, network around & on the internet

• Digital ownership, acquiring domains, usernames, social media accounts & plots of land across different metaverses.

• Citizenships across different network states, unlike nation states, the network states means easier entry into network states meaning that competition and innovation to keep engagement will be high. This could look like either the majority of time spend in one network state or a mixture/equal divide across several.

• Anonymity/Incognito may be adopted by network states, to reduce the attack vectors as an online community.

• Digital ownership, not just focusing on IRL land and territory but also domain names, handles, ENS names, land plots across different metaverses, ect.

• Governance by the people, for the people, sounds like a catchy political slogan 😅 But with on-chain governance such as proposals & voting depending on reputation, contribution and a range of other factors etc. will mean that the network states for legitimate & transparent democracies.

• The above point also covers decentralised administration through code as smart contracts or code as law, however people want to interpret it.

• Digital diplomatic recognition, imagine recognition being in the form of simple API access or bridging to another blockchain network. So instead of recognition being done by shady deals from politicians and elites, it will become more about interoperability and compatibility across networks/communities.

• Domestic control from third parties is about moving away from the current system or lack of system around checks & balances of power that tech companies have over governments & nation-states since they can be controlled from a single computer or centralised area. The network states can keep system checks by maintaining private keys so the interference is lowered from external parties & enabling the citizens to be able to exit easily, in turn, showing votes of no confidence.

• Similarly, sovereignty is via private keys, so your international sovereignty could be stored with your private keys, which unlike passwords are much harder to crack/hack. Bilaji makes a point about this changing/replacing the military, with what & how, perhaps focusing completely on cyber warfare?

Usually, there are a few ways to ways to try to change the system

1. Vote:

Unfortunately, voting isn’t transparent and we don’t always get a choice.

1. Protest peacefully:

Governments can ignore you, and when they no longer can ignore you, they can change the laws to limit protests like in the UK with laws that are wishy-washy.

1. Wake up & choose violence:

Unfortunately, nation-states have a monopoly on violence, so not much you can do against armed protest police, and if you do, then the army gets deployed… Good luck.

An alternative route, is simply to opt-out of the system, by creating your own large community, society or network state, with it’s own governance, currency & monetary policy which from the sounds of it all will build to a level that could detract serious value/GDP from nation states which would eventually lead to these network states being recognised & legitimised.

Hopefully in a similar fashion to how all new technologies like, kind of like how BTC was laughed at, then villainized, then seen as a risky asset, to now being adopted by nation-states, sucking up a huge portion of their GDP from both retail & institutionalised investors, then now regulation frameworks being discussed by world-leaders.

I think a similar trajectory awaits network/crypto states.

… Slowly… but surely 🐌 🎯