I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the creation and expansion of network-states. You and I forfeit physical and digital freedoms by virtue of living in the USA, but the costs of physical relocation, obtaining citizenship in a foreign country, and other related expenses are sufficiently high that we both choose to remain where we are despite potentially more attractive environments around the world. Would network-states have to make joining easy to encourage widespread adoption but simultaneously adopt high barriers to exit in order to prevent the flight of people who disagree with the rules implemented? Or would low barriers to exit serve to enhance adoption since potential netizens wouldn't be locked in to their initial decision?
The latter. From my understanding the each Network-state would be able to define it's own barriers to entry. Balaji thinks the best would be a high barrier to entry and low barrier to exit. It's all about having aligned interests/incentives. If you really believe in the purpose of the network-state then you are willing to go through the process to enter but if at any point you change your mind, there's no benefit to the community in having someone who disagrees with the core beliefs. He has a concept that I'm not fully briefed on called the 1 commandment, where these communities are formed around a single core belief. Could be anything from carbs are bad to we shouldn't drive cars.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the creation and expansion of network-states. You and I forfeit physical and digital freedoms by virtue of living in the USA, but the costs of physical relocation, obtaining citizenship in a foreign country, and other related expenses are sufficiently high that we both choose to remain where we are despite potentially more attractive environments around the world. Would network-states have to make joining easy to encourage widespread adoption but simultaneously adopt high barriers to exit in order to prevent the flight of people who disagree with the rules implemented? Or would low barriers to exit serve to enhance adoption since potential netizens wouldn't be locked in to their initial decision?
The latter. From my understanding the each Network-state would be able to define it's own barriers to entry. Balaji thinks the best would be a high barrier to entry and low barrier to exit. It's all about having aligned interests/incentives. If you really believe in the purpose of the network-state then you are willing to go through the process to enter but if at any point you change your mind, there's no benefit to the community in having someone who disagrees with the core beliefs. He has a concept that I'm not fully briefed on called the 1 commandment, where these communities are formed around a single core belief. Could be anything from carbs are bad to we shouldn't drive cars.
I love crypto
Nice one!
Interesting, concise and easy read. Thank you.