New Forms of Web3-Enabled Nation-Statehood

* Article: Decentralized Web3 Reshaping Internet Governance: Towards the Emergence of New Forms of Nation-Statehood? by Igor Calzada. Future Internet 2024, 16(10), 361; doi

URL = https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/16/10/361

"How is decentralized Web3 reshaping Internet governance and influencing the rise in new nation-statehood paradigms?"

Contextual Quote

On Re-Scaling State Functions:

"Contrary to libertarian beliefs that decentralization would dismantle state structures, these developments suggest a transformation in how sovereignty and governance are exercised. The concept of rescaling — wherein global and local forces interact to reshape state functions — has profound implications for the future of governance. This rescaling is evident in the rise in city-regional governance and the increasing prominence of digital platforms as arbiters of power, challenging the traditional Westphalian model [13,14,15]. As new forms of nation-statehood emerge, the intersection of platforms and governance will play a critical role in shaping sovereignty, transparency, and techno-political futures."

- Igor Calzada [1]

Abstract

"This article explores how decentralized Web3 is reshaping Internet governance by enabling the emergence of new forms of nation-statehood and redefining traditional concepts of state sovereignty. Based on fieldwork conducted in Silicon Valley since August 2022, this article systematically addresses the following research question: How is decentralized Web3 reshaping Internet governance and influencing the rise in new nation-statehood paradigms?

It compares three emerging paradigms around Web3:

(i) Network State (Srinivasan), envisioning digital entities rooted in crypto-libertarian principles;

(ii) Network Sovereignties (De Filippi), emphasizing communal governance aligned with digital commons; and

(iii) Algorithmic Nations (Calzada), drawing on Arendtian thought and demonstrating how communities—such as indigenous and stateless groups, as well as e-diasporas—can attain self-determination through data sovereignty.

This article contributes a unique conceptual analysis of these paradigms based on fieldwork action research in Silicon Valley, responding to evolving technologies and their potential to reshape Internet governance. This article argues that decentralized Web3 provides a transformative vision for Internet governance but requires careful evaluation to ensure that it promotes inclusivity and equity. It advocates for a hybrid approach that balances global and local dynamics, emphasizing the need for solidarity, digital justice, and an internationalist perspective in shaping future Internet governance protocols."

Excerpts

Igor Calzada:

"The comparative analysis of the three paradigms—Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations—provides critical insights into the potential trajectories of decentralized governance in the context of Web3 technologies. While each paradigm offers a distinct ideological and structural approach, the findings reveal a convergence on key themes related to governance, sovereignty, and community empowerment. Network States, driven by a crypto-libertarian ideology, emphasize efficiency, individual sovereignty, and market-driven governance models, yet they introduce significant risks of exclusion and inequality due to their reliance on financialization. In contrast, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations prioritize more inclusive and ethical governance models, emphasizing collaborative, commons-based approaches and transnational cooperation. These paradigms offer alternative pathways that focus on collective well-being, digital justice, and cultural preservation. The results demonstrate that while decentralized technologies hold transformative potential, their implementation must be grounded in ethical considerations and inclusivity to avoid reproducing the inequalities of traditional governance structures. This study’s findings thus suggest that hybrid governance models—such as those seen in Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations—may offer more sustainable and equitable frameworks for decentralized governance in the digital age, reinforcing the need for an approach that balances technological innovation with the broader aspirations of global communities.

From the Conclusions:

To further clarify and enhance the connection between the research findings and the contributions of this study, the previous section compared the three paradigms—Network State, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations—across multiple layers, including ideological, governance, economic, technological, and territorial aspects. By providing a nuanced comparative analysis, this article underscored how each paradigm represents a distinct approach to addressing the challenges of decentralized governance in the digital age.

The findings reveal that the Network State adheres to a crypto-libertarian worldview, prioritizing individual sovereignty and market-driven governance models. In contrast, Network Sovereignties adopt a commons-centric approach, emphasizing collaborative governance and public goods stewardship. Meanwhile, Algorithmic Nations extend this further by promoting culturally rooted self-determination and transnational cooperation through an emancipatory framework. These distinctions highlight that while the Network State is primarily driven by efficiency and scalability, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations offer more inclusive, community-oriented governance models, emphasizing the ethical and cultural dimensions of decentralized governance.

The comparative analysis in Table 2 made a strong case for the transformative potential of decentralized governance. However, this study also drew attention to the risks posed by the Network State’s reliance on financialization and market-driven mechanisms, which could exacerbate inequalities within digital communities. This analysis, paired with findings from the research design (Section 3), underscores the need for hybrid governance models like Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations, which combine decentralized technologies with a strong ethical and community-driven focus. These paradigms offer a more balanced approach to governance, ensuring that technological advancements serve the broader goal of digital justice and sovereignty for all, rather than privileging a select few. To build on the relationship between the findings and the conclusions, this study demonstrated that the comparative analysis of the Network State, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations paradigms directly confirms the initial hypothesis. The nuanced evaluation across ideological, governance, economic, technological, and territorial layers not only reveals the distinct nature of each paradigm but also emphasizes their implications for decentralized governance models in the digital age. The results show that while the Network State is driven by a crypto-libertarian worldview, prioritizing individual sovereignty and efficiency, it introduces risks related to financialization and potential inequalities. In contrast, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations prioritize ethical and communal governance, underscoring the importance of inclusivity and cultural self-determination. These paradigms challenge the Network State’s market-centric orientation and advocate for a more holistic and ethically grounded approach to governance, particularly in the context of digital justice.

By directly linking the findings to the initial assertions, this study confirms the need for hybrid governance models that can balance technological innovation with the collective aspirations of diverse communities. The empirical insights gathered through action research, especially from Fulbright, DRC, and SOAM Network Sovereignties, further reinforce the conclusion that decentralized technologies should be employed in ways that serve broader societal needs, rather than exacerbating inequalities. This comparative study highlights the critical role that decentralized governance models can play in reshaping global governance, sovereignty, and digital citizenship, while also offering a clear warning against the unchecked expansion of crypto-libertarian ideals. This connection between findings and conclusions solidifies the contribution of this study in advocating for governance models that promote equity, solidarity, and ethical stewardship in a rapidly digitizing world. To further expand on the significance of this study’s conclusions for various fields, it is essential to emphasize how decentralized technologies can bring transformative effects beyond the governance structures explored. Web3 technologies and decentralized governance paradigms illuminating new forms of nation-statehood, such as Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations, have the potential to reshape global industries such as finance, healthcare, education, and supply chains, which are all heavily reliant on centralized control today. For example, blockchain-based financial services can enhance financial inclusion by providing secure, transparent, and accessible alternatives to traditional banking, especially in underserved regions. Similarly, in healthcare, decentralized data governance can give individuals more control over their personal health information, fostering privacy and security, and in education, peer-to-peer learning platforms could revolutionize how knowledge is shared and certified across borders.

Moreover, this study’s findings also suggest that decentralized governance models can play a pivotal role in supply chain transparency, offering blockchain-based verification systems that ensure ethical sourcing and sustainability, which are critical in industries like fashion, agriculture, and food. By highlighting these practical applications, this study extends its relevance beyond academia, offering valuable insights for policymakers, technologists, and industry leaders looking to integrate decentralized technologies into various sectors. This not only amplifies this study’s appeal to a wider readership but also positions it as a key contributor to the ongoing dialogue on the future of decentralization and its role in shaping more equitable, inclusive, and resilient industries globally. Hence, the debates surrounding Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations are not just theoretical; they have real-world implications for how we organize society and exercise power in the digital age. As we continue to explore these paradigms, it is crucial that we remain attentive to the ways in which digital technologies are reshaping our world, and the opportunities and challenges they present for building a more just and equitable global order. Future research should explore the practical applications of Web3 technologies within specific geopolitical contexts, examining how decentralized governance models like Network Sovereignties (commons-centric worldview) and Algorithmic Nations (emancipatory–transnational worldview) can be implemented in diverse cultural and regional settings. Additionally, the further exploration of Network States (crypto-libertarian worldview) is necessary, particularly regarding their scalability and potential to exacerbate inequalities, and the implications of creating new sovereignties driven by crypto-libertarian ideals. Comparative studies on the impact of these paradigms on global governance, digital citizenship, and ethical concerns around digital sovereignty would be beneficial.

This article primarily focuses on theoretical frameworks and draws heavily on fieldwork from Silicon Valley, which may limit the generalizability of its findings to other global regions. The emphasis on the libertarian ideology of Web3 technologies could also overlook alternative approaches to decentralization that prioritize collective well-being over individual sovereignty. Moreover, the analysis does not extensively address the technical challenges and scalability issues inherent in implementing decentralized governance on a global scale, which could impact the viability of these models in practice.

The fieldwork conducted since August 2022 has been arranged organically, involving connections with startups, scholars, practitioners, foundations, and initiatives within the Web3 global ecosystem. This process, although organic, has included workshops, interviews, and collaborations with key figures such as Primavera de Filippi, Felix Beer, Michel Bauwens, Nathan Schneider, Connor Spelliscy, Ayona Datta, Eric Alston, Iker Iraola, Julen Zabalo, Eugene Leventhal, Morshed Mannan, and SOAM fellow residents and Edge Esmeralda Conference/Workshop participants. Additionally, the Summer School AI4SI in St Sebastián (Jaime Díaz and Iban Askasibar) has been helpful in contextualizing the Web3 ideology in Europe. While the organic nature of this research could be seen as a limitation, it has provided a robust and dynamic foundation for understanding the Web3 ideology.

In conclusion, as we navigate the intersection of technological innovation and global governance, the decentralized Web3 ideology offers a provocative vision of new forms of nation-statehood futures, yet it is one that warrants critical scrutiny given that it might be a map in search of territory. The rescaling of nation-states and the emergence of Network States reflect a growing trend towards decentralization, but this shift also risks reinforcing ultra-liberal ideologies that prioritize individualism and market-driven solutions over collective well-being and the view of the commons. Libertarianism seems unable to observe the state as anything but a control-obsessed and rent-seeking dysfunctional Leviathan. While decentralized technologies have the potential to empower individuals and communities, they also pose significant dangers by potentially deepening inequalities and echo-chambers, and eroding the social and cultural foundations that have traditionally bound nations together. The vision of Network States, driven by a libertarian ideology, often overlooks the importance of inclusive, community-driven governance and risks creating exclusive digital enclaves for the wealthy and privileged. To reimagine digital futures in a way that truly benefits all global citizens, it is essential to challenge these narratives and advocate for a more equitable and holistic approach to digital governance—one that recognizes the value of solidarity, digital justice, and the diverse needs of global communities through network nations or Algorithmic Nations. And thus, the Web3 ideology relatively requires a territory, a hybrid one, beyond global citizenship flatness and embracing a vast diversity and richness in a spiky world full of culture, life, and good vibes without denying how states and nations play out their techno-political action and how their political economy could be fairly transformed [81]. However, there is being realistic in terms of acknowledging the historic path dependency and to reshuffle it without losing perspective being trapped in wishful thinking. The post-nation-statehood techno-political futures we seek should not merely reflect the ambitions of the few but must be rooted in the collective aspirations and rights of the many. And yet, the Web3 global ecosystem seems to be a map in search of territory.

In A Map in Search of Territory, Evgeny Morozov offers a critical perspective on the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and into Web 3.0. Morozov argues that while Web 3.0 promises a decentralized alternative to the platform-centric models of Web 2.0, it is still largely speculative, often lacking a clear, concrete structure. He highlights that Web 1.0 was a simple, read-only Internet, where users were primarily consumers of information, while Web 2.0 introduced interactivity and user-generated content but became dominated by a handful of centralized platforms (e.g., Google, Facebook), giving rise to platform monopolies. Web 3.0, according to Morozov, positions itself as a corrective to Web 2.0’s shortcomings by advocating for decentralization through blockchain, peer-to-peer networks, and user data sovereignty. However, Morozov remains skeptical about whether Web 3.0 can deliver on its promises of democratizing the Internet. He suggests that Web 3.0’s ideological framework—rooted in Silicon Valley’s libertarian culture—may inadvertently recreate power imbalances, as the infrastructure of Web 3.0 is still controlled by a select group of technologists and venture capitalist. In this sense, while Web 3.0 seeks to transcend the issues of platform dominance from Web 2.0, Morozov questions if it will truly enable users to exercise meaningful control over their digital interactions or simply replicate the same concentration of power in a different form.

This critique from Morozov fits within the broader debate about whether Web 3.0’s decentralized ethos can genuinely reshape governance and sovereignty, or if it risks perpetuating the same hierarchical dynamics that characterized earlier iterations of the Internet. Having said that, the promising research by [[MetaGov[[, BlockchainGov, Liberty Project, and the Decentralization Research Centre might be worth keeping for scanning to advance emancipatory datafication strategies beyond pure resistance or acritical adoption.

As a final remark, unlike Network States, which aim to create entirely new countries driven by a crypto-libertarian ideology, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations may not only coexist but also complement each other. Stemming from an Arendtian inspiration, Algorithmic Nations emphasize the emancipatory potential for existing communities, such as indigenous groups and e-diasporas, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty through data-driven governance for minorities. This culturally rooted approach aligns with the commons-centric focus of Network Sovereignties, creating a synergistic relationship that empowers communities to decide their own political futures, whether that involves establishing a new state or simply asserting their digital rights and autonomy. Together, these paradigms offer a nuanced pathway toward sovereignty that respects both individual and collective agency. Whereas Network Sovereignties focus on a commons-centric worldview, Algorithmic Nations evolving from the current circumstances attempt to offer an emancipatory Arendtian pathway for those that collectively aim to reinforce a (digital) nation, or even become a (pluri-national) state that embraces digital justice and an internationalist worldview driven by solidarity. Rights should be secured all the time through an emancipatory worldview to allow such a commons worldview to flourish."

(https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/16/10/361#B11-futureinternet-16-00361)