I am writing this article as a companion piece to the summary of conversations we had during a live meeting at Akasha Hub in Barcelona, part of the plural event. The topic was "Network States or Network Societies." I noticed that while writing the report of what was said, I was tempted to include my own bias and opinions. Since that report was meant to be an objective record of the discussion, I decided to separate my personal analysis and write my own (maybe temporary) opinion in this article.

It is an attempt to rationalize a gut feeling and analyze what is actually bothering me. On paper, Network States sound aligned with the values I stand for: privacy, freedom, and development by technologies I used to build. So, why does the concept trigger such resistance in me?

I wonder if the cause is spiritual rather than practical. Is it the idea that it is being thought of by a young, elite group of digital nomads? No, that shouldn't be a problem. Universities and students have always been the frontrunners of historical revolutions. It is often the young, healthy, and slightly wealthy who have the luxury not just to survive daily life, but to think about future scenarios, build new consensus, and gather people around it. This is not new in history, though it would be great to change that dynamic.

Hijacking Core Values

Is what's bothering me the fact that the core values of Web3—freedom and individual sovereignty—are being hijacked? Are they being seen as an opportunity to create new systems where the benefits mostly go to the designers, without any of the accountability found in our current legal, regulatory, economic, or tax systems? Is this why real estate moguls and big investors are so attracted to this movement?

We have seen modern examples where cities or states create economic free zones or tax havens built from scratch. A prime example is Dubai. People often point to it as a success: "Look at Dubai, it’s great." You have a desert, you build a city out of nothing, and everyone seems happy and rich. It attracts companies and money because there are no taxes. But what we actually have is a completely surveilled city. Hotels have microphones, streets have cameras, and social behavior is strictly controlled. Meanwhile, the people building this city live in conditions akin to modern slavery—passports confiscated, living in barracks, and earning wages too low to enjoy the city they build. Statistics suggest a high prevalence of prostitution. This is a manipulative vision of a "successful" Network State, controlled by mass media, marketed as a new opportunity where "everyone makes money," yet hiding deep ethical flaws.

Historical Precedents and Friction

Network States are now described as digital-first communities creating their own rules in cyberspace. This is not new; elite societies like the Knights of Malta have existed "outside" standard legal systems for a long time.

One of the oldest relevant examples is Auroville in India. For decades, they have had the opportunity to create their own laws and economic system within a geographical territory. It is an interesting experiment rooted in spiritual values, which helps bind the community together. However, problems arise not necessarily within the community, but in the clash with neighboring villages. The natural border—a forest—between Auroville and the rest of India has become a zone of crime and money laundering due to the disparities between the two systems. Even though the neighbors may share similar religious or cultural roots, the friction between the "exit" community and the existing reality creates issues.

Another example is the "Free Town Project" in Grafton, New Hampshire, where a group of libertarians attempted to set up a town with no rules. Chaos descended, and eventually, the town was overrun by bears because no one managed waste collectively. This illustrates the danger of designing systems from a single, thin viewpoint—often that of young, privileged coders—that excludes the elderly, the sick, children, and those who cannot simply "travel the world."

While the intentions of these creators are often beautiful and they genuinely want to make the world better, the systems are designed without the input of the people they will inevitably affect. A sick person or a grandfather in your hometown cannot contribute to the code or speak at the meetings. We need to design systems of listening and inclusion alongside the code. Otherwise, these new societies will only serve the healthy and mobile, failing to account for the inevitable realities of life: aging, illness, divorce, and family needs.

The "Exit Narrative" Trap

Ultimately, what bothers me most is the "exit narrative"—the idea that we need to exit society to find freedom. This mirrors a human psychological loop where we project problems and solutions outside of ourselves. Society is an amplification of the inner workings of individuals. Spiritual teachers often say the problem is not outside you—it isn't your partner, the politicians, or the system. The problem is often internal. Changing yourself is the hardest challenge.

It is like a man who drinks ten beers a day because he lives next to a friendly bar. He decides to move to a forest to escape the bar. While moving might help, it doesn't address the root insecurity or trauma driving him to drink. He will still seek outside validation. Similarly, exiting society to start from scratch on an uninhabited piece of land doesn't solve the core human problems. We often fail to look at society without judgment and work on fixing it from within.

The exit mentality is already pervasive. People would rather build a community with strangers they met on a forum than know their own neighbors, understand what the local school kids are talking about, or help the elderly in their street. It is a refusal to engage with the reality we live in.

Culture and Geography

At a Network State Conference in Singapore, Balaji Srinivasan answered a question about Catalonia. Someone asked if Catalans, who have sought independence from Spain, should move to a place like Estonia to build their own zone. Balaji suggested it might be easier to get a piece of uninhabited land and build from scratch rather than integrate or fight within an existing country.

This answer illustrates the absurdity of the exit mentality. You cannot simply move a nation. Catalonia's heritage is deeply rooted in its geography—the Mediterranean Sea, the mountains, the climate. Their way of life and culture has evolved over centuries in that specific place. You cannot just grab it and move it elsewhere. We need to respect the deep cultural heritage that shapes our societies.

Democracy and Accountability

In Europe and the US, our democratic systems are built on centuries of evolution. While flawed and currently struggling—to the point where I hesitate to call them functioning democracies because people no longer feel represented—they contain valuable mechanisms for accountability. The "exit" approach throws this evolved knowledge in the bin to start over.

In the crypto/Web3 world, there is often a clash with legal and regulatory systems because the technology creates systems where no single person is accountable. If a DAO gets hacked, who is responsible? The DAO is "everyone," which means no one is liable. While I have designed such systems, I understand the regulator's view: there must be accountability. Accountability is the social contract—the understanding that your actions affect others.

By exiting society, you break this social contract. You no longer feel responsible for the pollution in the water pipes, the politicians elected, or the tax money spent. Fixing democracy requires us to feel responsible and act, not to leave. I am not talking about "accountability" in the sense of policing speech, but real responsibility for actions, policies, and crimes.

Misdirected Innovation

It creates a sense of sadness to see incredibly smart people shift their focus to building brand new systems from scratch rather than fixing our current society. We need everyone on deck to evolve our current reality. If the people rushing to fund Network States are the same real estate moguls and centralized powers we claim to oppose, we must ask if we are truly changing anything. If there is no resistance from the status quo, you are probably helping it.

We see this with the "Network School" island, backed by Bitcoin gains and investors like the Chinese developer Country Garden (which invested billions into the "ghost city" infrastructure of Forest City). The school articulates a vision of peace and trade, yet it is an in-residence experience that filters for those young and unattached enough to leave their families for a year. It implicitly selects for the "elite" while excluding locals who actually understand the reality of living in these failed manufactured utopias like Forest city.

Colonialism vs. Connection

Vitalik Buterin recently wrote about "pop-up cities" and decentralized hubs. While this supports decentralized development, it still often comes from a tech-first perspective that feels colonial—nesting an ideology into an existing society to "convert" or include people in new structures.

Vitalik considers 60 days a "long period" for a pop-up city. In terms of culture, 60 days is nothing. Culture takes decades or centuries to shape. Even Web3 culture, which is only about 15 years old, is built on older subcultures like hackers and hippies. It is arrogant to assume this nascent culture is strong enough to influence deep-seated local cultures.

Instead of creating "hubs" in tropical paradises where digital nomads have the advantage, I would love to see a pop-up city in mid-Siberia, or the Amazon, or a place Iran without internet access. In these places, digital nomads would be forced to rely on local knowledge and people to survive and be comfortable. This would create a true exchange. We should solve actual problems—teaching encryption to kids in surveillance states or helping with regeneration in deforestation zones—rather than creating tax havens for the elite.

We need to build with eachother, not just for eachother, and use these decentralized power structures to reform our hijacked institutions. The momentum to change is here, but it requires engaging with reality, not exiting it.

image: Lemmings ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lemmings_group.jpg)

I am writing this article as a companion piece to the summary of conversations we had during a live meeting at Akasha Hub in Barcelona, part of the plural event. The topic was "Network States or Network Societies." I noticed that while writing the report of what was said, I was tempted to include my own bias and opinions. Since that report was meant to be an objective record of the discussion, I decided to separate my personal analysis and write my own (maybe temporary) opinion in this article.

It is an attempt to rationalize a gut feeling and analyze what is actually bothering me. On paper, Network States sound aligned with the values I stand for: privacy, freedom, and development by technologies I used to build. So, why does the concept trigger such resistance in me?

I wonder if the cause is spiritual rather than practical. Is it the idea that it is being thought of by a young, elite group of digital nomads? No, that shouldn't be a problem. Universities and students have always been the frontrunners of historical revolutions. It is often the young, healthy, and slightly wealthy who have the luxury not just to survive daily life, but to think about future scenarios, build new consensus, and gather people around it. This is not new in history, though it would be great to change that dynamic.

Hijacking Core Values

Is what's bothering me the fact that the core values of Web3—freedom and individual sovereignty—are being hijacked? Are they being seen as an opportunity to create new systems where the benefits mostly go to the designers, without any of the accountability found in our current legal, regulatory, economic, or tax systems? Is this why real estate moguls and big investors are so attracted to this movement?

We have seen modern examples where cities or states create economic free zones or tax havens built from scratch. A prime example is Dubai. People often point to it as a success: "Look at Dubai, it’s great." You have a desert, you build a city out of nothing, and everyone seems happy and rich. It attracts companies and money because there are no taxes. But what we actually have is a completely surveilled city. Hotels have microphones, streets have cameras, and social behavior is strictly controlled. Meanwhile, the people building this city live in conditions akin to modern slavery—passports confiscated, living in barracks, and earning wages too low to enjoy the city they build. Statistics suggest a high prevalence of prostitution. This is a manipulative vision of a "successful" Network State, controlled by mass media, marketed as a new opportunity where "everyone makes money," yet hiding deep ethical flaws.

Historical Precedents and Friction

Network States are now described as digital-first communities creating their own rules in cyberspace. This is not new; elite societies like the Knights of Malta have existed "outside" standard legal systems for a long time.

One of the oldest relevant examples is Auroville in India. For decades, they have had the opportunity to create their own laws and economic system within a geographical territory. It is an interesting experiment rooted in spiritual values, which helps bind the community together. However, problems arise not necessarily within the community, but in the clash with neighboring villages. The natural border—a forest—between Auroville and the rest of India has become a zone of crime and money laundering due to the disparities between the two systems. Even though the neighbors may share similar religious or cultural roots, the friction between the "exit" community and the existing reality creates issues.

Another example is the "Free Town Project" in Grafton, New Hampshire, where a group of libertarians attempted to set up a town with no rules. Chaos descended, and eventually, the town was overrun by bears because no one managed waste collectively. This illustrates the danger of designing systems from a single, thin viewpoint—often that of young, privileged coders—that excludes the elderly, the sick, children, and those who cannot simply "travel the world."

While the intentions of these creators are often beautiful and they genuinely want to make the world better, the systems are designed without the input of the people they will inevitably affect. A sick person or a grandfather in your hometown cannot contribute to the code or speak at the meetings. We need to design systems of listening and inclusion alongside the code. Otherwise, these new societies will only serve the healthy and mobile, failing to account for the inevitable realities of life: aging, illness, divorce, and family needs.

The "Exit Narrative" Trap

Ultimately, what bothers me most is the "exit narrative"—the idea that we need to exit society to find freedom. This mirrors a human psychological loop where we project problems and solutions outside of ourselves. Society is an amplification of the inner workings of individuals. Spiritual teachers often say the problem is not outside you—it isn't your partner, the politicians, or the system. The problem is often internal. Changing yourself is the hardest challenge.

It is like a man who drinks ten beers a day because he lives next to a friendly bar. He decides to move to a forest to escape the bar. While moving might help, it doesn't address the root insecurity or trauma driving him to drink. He will still seek outside validation. Similarly, exiting society to start from scratch on an uninhabited piece of land doesn't solve the core human problems. We often fail to look at society without judgment and work on fixing it from within.

The exit mentality is already pervasive. People would rather build a community with strangers they met on a forum than know their own neighbors, understand what the local school kids are talking about, or help the elderly in their street. It is a refusal to engage with the reality we live in.

Culture and Geography

At a Network State Conference in Singapore, Balaji Srinivasan answered a question about Catalonia. Someone asked if Catalans, who have sought independence from Spain, should move to a place like Estonia to build their own zone. Balaji suggested it might be easier to get a piece of uninhabited land and build from scratch rather than integrate or fight within an existing country.

This answer illustrates the absurdity of the exit mentality. You cannot simply move a nation. Catalonia's heritage is deeply rooted in its geography—the Mediterranean Sea, the mountains, the climate. Their way of life and culture has evolved over centuries in that specific place. You cannot just grab it and move it elsewhere. We need to respect the deep cultural heritage that shapes our societies.

Democracy and Accountability

In Europe and the US, our democratic systems are built on centuries of evolution. While flawed and currently struggling—to the point where I hesitate to call them functioning democracies because people no longer feel represented—they contain valuable mechanisms for accountability. The "exit" approach throws this evolved knowledge in the bin to start over.

In the crypto/Web3 world, there is often a clash with legal and regulatory systems because the technology creates systems where no single person is accountable. If a DAO gets hacked, who is responsible? The DAO is "everyone," which means no one is liable. While I have designed such systems, I understand the regulator's view: there must be accountability. Accountability is the social contract—the understanding that your actions affect others.

By exiting society, you break this social contract. You no longer feel responsible for the pollution in the water pipes, the politicians elected, or the tax money spent. Fixing democracy requires us to feel responsible and act, not to leave. I am not talking about "accountability" in the sense of policing speech, but real responsibility for actions, policies, and crimes.

Misdirected Innovation

It creates a sense of sadness to see incredibly smart people shift their focus to building brand new systems from scratch rather than fixing our current society. We need everyone on deck to evolve our current reality. If the people rushing to fund Network States are the same real estate moguls and centralized powers we claim to oppose, we must ask if we are truly changing anything. If there is no resistance from the status quo, you are probably helping it.

We see this with the "Network School" island, backed by Bitcoin gains and investors like the Chinese developer Country Garden (which invested billions into the "ghost city" infrastructure of Forest City). The school articulates a vision of peace and trade, yet it is an in-residence experience that filters for those young and unattached enough to leave their families for a year. It implicitly selects for the "elite" while excluding locals who actually understand the reality of living in these failed manufactured utopias like Forest city.

Colonialism vs. Connection

Vitalik Buterin recently wrote about "pop-up cities" and decentralized hubs. While this supports decentralized development, it still often comes from a tech-first perspective that feels colonial—nesting an ideology into an existing society to "convert" or include people in new structures.

Vitalik considers 60 days a "long period" for a pop-up city. In terms of culture, 60 days is nothing. Culture takes decades or centuries to shape. Even Web3 culture, which is only about 15 years old, is built on older subcultures like hackers and hippies. It is arrogant to assume this nascent culture is strong enough to influence deep-seated local cultures.

Instead of creating "hubs" in tropical paradises where digital nomads have the advantage, I would love to see a pop-up city in mid-Siberia, or the Amazon, or a place Iran without internet access. In these places, digital nomads would be forced to rely on local knowledge and people to survive and be comfortable. This would create a true exchange. We should solve actual problems—teaching encryption to kids in surveillance states or helping with regeneration in deforestation zones—rather than creating tax havens for the elite.

We need to build with eachother, not just for eachother, and use these decentralized power structures to reform our hijacked institutions. The momentum to change is here, but it requires engaging with reality, not exiting it.

image: Lemmings ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lemmings_group.jpg)