What’s Trending in The Network State

Tim Draper, Ed Hesse, and Trent Mc'Conaghy will select five winning pitches for the Startup Society Founders’ Awards. Each winner will receive $2,000 USD plus 1,000 $JUR to support their startup society. Anyone can enter but to win, your society proposal needs to be clear, attractive to others, and realistic to achieve. Let’s talk about how to set up the basic structure to support a winning pitch: To enter, you will fill out a form to describe your startup society concept (which takes less than 2 minutes). In order to craft a winning proposal, you should focus on addressing the following questions: Why would people want to join your society? Does it have broad appeal with values that are common to many people? Or perhaps your society would only appeal to a narrow niche, but your citizens would be passionately committed. Is your goal useful and achievable? How could your society benefit citizens in a way that is realistic? When someone asks “what’s in it for me.” the answer should be something that is meaningful to them and something your group could really deliver.  As you consider your answers, try to imagine what someone could say that would get you excited about an idea like yours. Remember a time when you felt inspired reading about a similar vision? Strive to capture and share that creative energy.  You can also join the Jur community on Discord to talk about Startup Societies in general and get reactions to your specific idea. An Awards Committee will evaluate your concept and assign a score of 1 to 5. The ten highest-scoring proposals will be shortlisted for evaluation by the judges. Each founder on the shortlist will get support from the Jur team to refine their pitch for the judges. The judges will score the pitches on three criteria: desirability, feasibility, and viability. In other words, do people want a society like this? Can the goals of their society be achieved? Do the goals bring substantial benefits so that their society will endure?Pitch your Startup Society now!

The Startup Society is a new concept that offers the potential for rapid social innovation. To fully grasp the significance of the Startup Society concept, it’s helpful to consider the context.  Technology and Social Change  Social change and technological change are intertwined. Tools and techniques for agriculture changed society. Social organization allowed specialization and new technology. The printing press made the mass spread of facts and ideas possible, allowing the creation of a new type of social organization, democratic nation-state republics, which replaced feudal monarchies. Today, distributed ledger technology is making new models of social organization possible.  The Nation State System Works…Slowly  Society and economic activity are currently organized under the nation-state system. Old European cities evolved gradually over time and today are a maze of curving streets, fascinating but not efficient. Analogously, nation-state governments have a complex legacy of existing rules. The processes for creating new rules necessarily balance the interests of divergent factions in the population. The result is often a pluralist deadlock. It can be difficult to test new ideas.  Software Startups - Designed For Rapid Evolution Software startups know they have to deliver fast; after all, runways don’t last forever. But you can’t just deliver fast. You have to deliver what is needed, and it has to work and please users. Many startups don’t get it right. Failure is common. But the software startup paradigm allows Founders who have a vision to test their idea, focusing on delivering a valuable service with a fast, lean approach in order to discover what works and what doesn’t as quickly as possible. Startup companies move faster than larger companies to test and prove the viability of new ideas, then scale. Extending the Startup Paradigm to Social Organization People who have great ideas about society can get frustrated working in the confines of the glacially slow system of existing institutions. The startup model offers an alternative. Founders can establish a set of values as a starting point to rally other people who are closely aligned. People who agree with the values can apply to become members of a Startup Society. Founders can establish criteria for admission to ensure members will find each other to be respectable and desirable colleagues. Founders may also choose to create social cohesion by proposing norms of communication and new traditions to encourage members to bond. The Startup Society can adopt mechanisms for proposing and voting on policies and actions.  What Is A Startup Society? A Startup Society is a social group that uses a model that is analogous to the lean software startup model to evolve rapidly. While Startup Societies could take many forms, Jur focuses on facilitating startup Societies with the following properties.  Led by a Founder Software startups are initially animated by the passion of a Founder. Jur believes the same will be true of most successful Startup Societies.  Online / Location Indepedent Some Startup Societies exist in a particular place in the physical world, but location-independent Startup Societies can offer membership to anyone in the world, offering the potential for more rapid growth.  Closely Aligned & Fast Moving  Startup Societies with clear and specific values are more likely to attract members and thrive. Societies unified by shared values can come to a consensus quickly, test new ideas, assess results, and implement policies that work in a rapid cycle of lean innovation.  Web3 - Trustless & Censorship Resistant Existing social institutions have established (albeit sometimes somewhat tarnished) long-standing and valuable reputations at stake, so people have expectations about how they can trust them. New societies that arise overnight can’t rely on reputation and history. But they can use Web3 to ensure transparency and reliability, providing inviolable trust with distributed ledger technology. Startup Societies can use simple sets of Web3 tools designed to propose, test, vote on, and adopt policies, values, norms, and traditions.  How To Build A Startup Society Broadly speaking, in order to succeed a Startup Society will need to have three properties. It must be desirable; there must be some group of people that wants want the Founder is planning to offer. It must be feasible; there must be some practical way to deliver what the Founder is planning to offer. And finally it must be viable; the benefits that the Society creates must be sufficiently significant to inspire continuing participation so that the society will endure.  So the first step in building a Startup Society is to think of why a group of people would want to join together and what they could create that would be meaningful for them. Once you come up with your concept, apply in under two minutes and your proposal will be added to the Society Lab in Jur’s Discord community. The community, including high-profile advisors like Zane Austen from TheNetworkState.com, will help you refine your idea. But hurry, proposals will be evaluated on March 31 so time is limited to participate.  Watch the below video to help you put together your proposal for the Startup Society Founders' Awards. https://youtu.be/uEiGF47tF_A

Jur is offering five prizes of $2,000 USD plus 1,000 $JUR in the Startup Society Founders’ Awards. The awards focus attention on the opportunity to develop rapidly evolving new societies with the aid of blockchain technology. We live under the influence and control of complex systems of social organization and governance that evolved gradually over centuries. Our world order is created by agreements between nation-states and our local governments' power, which also derives from nation-states. We might assume this is the way things have always been done and the only way to do things, but the nation-state system is only a few centuries old. The nation-state system might change a lot over the next century, but it is not designed for rapid change. Fortunately, if we want to accelerate the rate of social evolution, there is another option.  The Startup Society concept is designed to support the rapid creation of digital-first societies with clear simple rules and values and provide a transparent and auditable system for proposing, voting on, and implementing new features for societies. The Startup Society model envisions multiple opt-in groups that people can freely choose to join. In this model, an individual citizen may belong to multiple societies but does not have to belong to any. People can voluntarily self-organize based on shared values and priorities and experiment with rules that support their own ideals.  These digital-first Startup Societies will exist in the context of the nation-state system. Eventually, some startup societies might crowdfund territory around the world, providing direct physical access to citizens of many or all nations. They might also seek free enterprise zone status and diplomatic recognition, eventually becoming distributed peers to nation-states, a new type of entity called a network state. But even a digital-only society could have a very meaningful impact.  Consider a simple example: a Society for digital nomads who are committed to sustainable development. A Society founder could propose a list of values and priorities and invite people to join a digital community. The founder could then propose rules and invite society members to vote. For instance, everyone could agree to purchase a group health insurance policy for nomads and informally commit to only staying in locally owned lodging and purchasing carbon offsets for travel. Eventually, the Society might choose to crowdfund some co-working and living spaces, but clearly, a Startup Society can provide benefits for its citizens even if it is purely digital.  Now that you understand the Startup Society concept and how it could be useful, Jur invites you to pitch your own Startup Society proposal. How could people who share your values, interests, and priorities freely associate in ways that improve their lives?  Apply now.

On November 28th, 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, before the Polkadot Sub0 conference, a group of Web3 founders met informally for an in-depth discussion around new concepts: Network States and beyond. It has been a unique kind of experience that created unique reflections and insights. Jur founder Alessandro Palombo supported the opening of the gathering, giving an introductory presentation: “The Network State Primer”. The goal was to  provide an overview on the concept of state and nation, their history, the context in which they arose, and how the internet has changed that context, followed by a deep dive into the  Network State concept with examples of possible Network States. In the below video, Ale goes into further details:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYjyoKrJLwI You can view the Network State Primer presentation deck below:  https://www.slideshare.net/ssuser0e7122/the-network-state-primer-sub0-conference-lisbon-nov-2022 The Network State movement's goal is to serve citizens who believe we can create better societal organizations. The outcome of this spontaneous meeting will soon be disclosed with new and interesting times anticipated ahead. Please join the Jur community on Discord to stay updated with new developments on the Network State movement and  help set the course to a future of enhanced freedom.

From Empire To Nation-State to Decentralized Country Living in the nation-state paradigm, it might seem very natural, as if it has always been and will always be the way human affairs are ordered. But modern nation-states only emerged a few hundred years ago, whereas the Empires of Ghana, Byzantium, and Rome lasted for 1,000 years or more In an essay he wrote in 2021, Mario Gabriele posits that technological change will result in a new paradigm for social organization, “The Decentralized Country.” He begins by explaining how a previous change in technology created the context for the nation-state system. Nations - What, Why, and How What is a nation? A nation as we conceive of it today is a body of citizens united with an ideology, terrain, and governance plus recognition from other nations. Why did they come to be? How did they arise? In Imagined Communities Benedict Anderson explains prior to the printing press, people could not read and get new information and were trapped in their social class. They had an entirely different sense of their place in “history” - not as witnesses to “an endless chain of cause and effect or of radical separation between past and present” but as people stuck in place in “an unmoving monolith connected to the divine”. The Printing Press Changed Our Understanding of Time The printing press and the decline of the power of the church allowed people to experience current events simultaneously, creating a "deep horizontal comradeship" with other citizens and a sense of being witness to a progression of cause and effect resulting in social change. This disruption drove societies' transition from divinely decreed imperial rulers to more democratic nations united by common characteristics. Where once there was only a sacred language read by a few, the printing press opened up reading in vernacular language for the masses. We will see an analogous expansion of possibility and participation with the blockchain. The Internet is Changing Our Perception of Space The internet is changing society too. While the printing press changed our sense of time, the internet is changing our sense of space and truth. People and relationships are increasingly location-independent. Where “legacy media” - large institutions that produced “the news” once ruled in an oligopoly maintained by the barrier to entry of high production and distribution costs, the internet reduces publication costs to near zero and inherently distributes content with potentially infinite reach. The consequence is many potential sources of truth, a fragmentation of what was once a shared sense of reality, and a loss of legitimacy for governments that rely on media to create a shared understanding and basis for debate. What changes could this bring? Gabriele says we need to consider the changes blockchain is creating in economic relationships to make a prediction. The Blockchain Can Create Vernacular Economies In the past, the digital realm was clearly subservient to the powers that be in the physical realm. But the blockchain creates the possibility of a digital economy that cannot be censored. Despite skepticism, the idea seems to be catching on - blockchain assets have reached a valuation of three trillion, up from zero over 13 years. Gabriele makes an analogy - the blockchain creates the possibility of a “vernacular economy” beyond the control of the current authorities, an expansion of freedom that is similar to the way the printing press expanded written communication from an inaccessible sacred language read and controlled by a privileged few to vernacular language read and created by all. According to Gabriele, this change is essential to the change he sees coming in society. No one, he asserts, would choose to belong to a society that can be forced to disappear. The blockchain makes it possible to create uncensorable societies. From Nation State Citizenship To Promiscuous Nationalism Gabriele believes that the combination of social change caused by the internet and freedom created by blockchain technology will result in new forms of social organization. Digital activity will become increasingly valuable and socially important. In this context, it is only natural that, according to Gabriele’s prediction, “the most influential civilization-scale entities will exist entirely online.” Gabriele contrasts his own vision of “Decentralized Countries” (DeCos) with Balaji Srinivasan's concept of “Network States”. While Balaji asserts that an archipelago of territory will be important to unite citizens around the globe and achieve diplomatic recognition, Gabriele believes Decentralized Countries can have a significant impact without ever establishing territory, asserting that “our digital lives are more real and valuable than our corporeal ones”. United By Truly Shared Ideology  To understand the nature of DeCos, Gabriele considers how they differ from existing countries regarding the three essential characteristics of ideology, terrain, and governance. DeCos unite people who share their particular ideology globally rather than having to try to fit an ideology to a specific local population that may hold diverse ideologies. Hence a DeCos’ population may be more strongly united by truly shared values. And easier ways to participate can allow DeCos to change their ideology more rapidly to correspond to citizens’ changing values. Existing In Digital Terrain Gabriele believes that physical terrain will only be important to DeCos inasmuch as traditional governments may pass rulings that are based on physical terrain; DeCos themselves will focus on “digital terrain”. Specifically, he believes they will create metaverse-type virtual environments. “Such a world would be exponentially more context-rich and culturally reinforcing than a Discord server and Snapshot page.” Greater Participation In Governance Using Blockchain Blockchains will provide reliable tools for participatory governance. Whereas traditional nation-state citizens implicitly support their government and accept the social contract by not immigrating, citizens of DeCos will have a much easier way to depart. Citizens can opt out as easily as they opt in with a click. Their continued presence as citizens shows they truly accept the social contract. DAOs are not DeCos DAOs are organizations, not nations. While they share the potential for true decentralization, “massive, distributed, censorship-free governance” they are bound by a narrow purpose rather than a shared ideology and a broad sense of “digital patriotism”. ‍Promiscuous Nationalism  While nation-states are focused on physical territory, DeCos have no such limit. A nation-state citizen can only physically occupy one nation at a time, but a DeCo citizen can exist in many virtual spaces at the same time. Many nation-states limit citizenship, but Gabriele believes DeCos will not. Particularly in their early stages, we might expect them to be flexible and accommodating to attract citizens. Gabriele predicts that “as DeCos establishes firmer borders, cultures, and services, stronger allegiance may be required”. DeCos Might Not Need Recognition Will DeCos seek and receive the recognition necessary for legal status on par with nation states? Gabriele thinks it is not necessary: “Providing they leverage decentralized technologies, DeCos should prosper outside national paradigms”. That is to say, with or without the consent of nation-states.  But Gabriele also thinks there will be some attempts by DeCos to engage with and participate in the nation-state paradigm. Representatives of DeCos may lobby or even run for office to try to pass legislation that is favorable to DeCos. DeCos might seek to crowd-fund territory, but Gabriele thinks this is going in the wrong direction. Gabriele’s Prediction - Non-Terrestrial DeCos Influencing Nations “If we believe that value will increasingly accrue to the digital world over the physical one, it seems that DeCos that devote themselves to the former will capture most power. In that respect, I think the most influential DeCos touch as little land as possible, and ideally none. Rather than outright exterminate the concept of nations, DeCos will sit above them, using their social and financial capital to guide terrestrial policies.” How long could that take? Gabriele points out that Singapore went from nothing to the 4th highest GDP per capita in less than six decades. Gabriele concludes: “Half a century may be long enough to see the coronation of a true DeCo…Nations will not last forever. It is time we consider what comes next.” What do you think? Join the Jur community on Discord to discuss DeCos, Network States, and the future of social organization and governance.

The concept of the nation state arose in response to the historical context in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This paradigm was well suited to its time, but now the context has changed. In his paper entitled “The Network State Revolution” Jur founder Alessandro Palombo analyses how it is not an ideal social construct in a digital world experiencing the growth of Web3. The evolution of technology created a context that profoundly influenced the evolution of social organization into what today we call the “Nation State.” During the era in which nations were formed, people’s lives and relationships were preordained by their birthplace. Transportation was slow, expensive, and inaccessible. And this situation persisted into the 19th century. The average citizen at that time lived his entire life in the range of a few miles from his home. Etymology tells us that the word "nation" comes from natus, which means "born." For the majority of the population, sharing culture equated to sharing territory, and vice versa, because where you were born was where you lived your entire life. According to Benedict Anderson, the printing press played a central role in the birth of modern nation states. In 1440, the Gutenberg printing press enabled vast populations across expansive territories to develop a common sense of culture: The development of nationalism, he argued, was caused by the convergence of capitalism and print media. According to Anderson, the development of mass vernacular newspapers laid the basis for the nation because their readership could imagine sharing a collective experience of the news, irrespective of their geographical distance from each other and of social hierarchies. Further expanding cultural identity, the cost of producing books in England declined dramatically after the introduction of the printing press, as sharing information across distances became 10x cheaper. However, although technological innovation achieved a breakthrough in printing capabilities in 1600, it took centuries to achieve critical mass in literacy; in 1800 only 62% of England’s population could read. Similarly, the internet was not immediately embraced, but grew exponentially over the past thirty years. The Internet even produced its own “language,” as Mario Gabriele notes in his article on the subject: “The modern version of a vernacular language is, of course, the meme. It is the dialect of the internet everyman, and it is natively suited for that dominion. Not only are memes context-rich, visual, and remixable, they're often post-linguistic — you do not need to speak a particular language to enjoy them. Such a feature is ideal for the internet's global audience”. The Internet has enabled a broader sense of belonging, creating conditions for digital coexistence online and in the metaverse. The cost of sharing information is virtually free today. If Anderson's assessment is accurate, social media –living in an eternal "now"– are more capable of creating commonalities than past influences. Despite the distance that separates them, a physically dispersed population that is online can still relate and share emotions on Instagram or a sense of belonging in Reddit. Instead of associating with those who are close in space, they can associate with those who are close in interests and values. The Internet has already enabled the formation of new cultures and "subcultures" where people share a vision.  For many, the Internet –the home of so many subcultures– already holds a deeper meaning than shopping and cat memes. It is a place where significant new relationships are formed. Members of crypto-communities commonly meet in person after having interacted for months or years online. While it is a long way from the ideas of the 80s, for someone born in the 1990s or in the 2000s, the idea of founding an opt-in digital society is not far-fetched. The implications of this movement are more than cultural: if the Internet has already enabled online commerce, thereby rendering territorial boundaries less important, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality will catalyze the next leap. The Internet will facilitate the creation of new types of techno-political boundaries and, conversely, become increasingly significant with its own virtual boundaries. Web3 introduces an Internet of ownership where users own digital assets directly, without intermediaries. Trading Bitcoin does not require trust in a Leviathan, "controller," or specific guarantor of peace. Again, it’s possible to see the speed of change— this time at a faster and more abrupt rate of cryptocurrency adoption. Not only has the territorial boundary disappeared, the need for a guardian of that boundary or trade relations becomes obsolete and unnecessary. The paradigm of "ownership" or "to have" is going to be stateless and a-territorial as well. This is what could be described as a Copernican Revolution of the dynamic between the digital and physical worlds. The digital world is becoming the main realm where our consciousness is formed, relationships are built, culture is made, and scarce resources are managed. Minting tokens online was only the first step.  When we consider the current context, it is evident that the basis for the emergence of new social constructs such as Network States are already well established. The Internet made e-commerce a reality; scrolling social networks represents a daily routine for billions of people. Web3, VR, and AR will be just new elements in a trend that started thirty years ago that will accelerate us along our trajectory to increasingly digitized lives. We can see the trend of non-governmental digital replacements for offline government service in the growth of Online Dispute Resolution in Paypal, Ebay, Alibaba, or Airbnb. Large platforms managing millions of relationships created their own "quasi judicial" system, already absorbing what in the past was predominantly a prerogative of states. New "services" have already built systems (with their own rules and principles) that are already "stateless" and self-standing. Already we see online alternatives for some government services. Network states offering more complete services will inevitably follow and may become significant much more quickly than many people expect. Twelve years ago, how many would have guessed that the blockchain economy would grow to an asset value of several trillion dollars? Network states may have a similarly surprising trajectory.  You can read more about the Network State movement in the Network State Wiki created by the Jur community.