What do you think?
Rate this book
The Network State: How To Start a New Country
Technology has enabled us to start new companies, new communities, and new currencies. But can we use it to start new cities, or even new countries? This book explains how to build the successor to the nation state, a concept we call the network state.
This book introduces the concept of the network state: a country you can start from your computer, a state that recruits like a startup, a nation built from the internet rather than disrupted by it.
The fundamental concept behind the network state is to assemble a digital community and organize it to crowdfund physical territory. But that territory is not in one place — it’s spread around the world, fully decentralized, hooked together by the internet for a common cause, much like Google’s offices or Bitcoin’s miners. And because every citizen has opted in, it’s a model for 100% democracy rather than the minimum threshold of consent modeled by 51% democracies.
Of course, there are countless questions that need to be answered to build something of this scope. How does a network state work socially, technically, logistically, legally, physically, financially? How could such a thing even be viable?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
This book introduces the concept of the network state: a country you can start from your computer, a state that recruits like a startup, a nation built from the internet rather than disrupted by it.
The fundamental concept behind the network state is to assemble a digital community and organize it to crowdfund physical territory. But that territory is not in one place — it’s spread around the world, fully decentralized, hooked together by the internet for a common cause, much like Google’s offices or Bitcoin’s miners. And because every citizen has opted in, it’s a model for 100% democracy rather than the minimum threshold of consent modeled by 51% democracies.
Of course, there are countless questions that need to be answered to build something of this scope. How does a network state work socially, technically, logistically, legally, physically, financially? How could such a thing even be viable?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
262 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 4, 2022
1586 people are currently reading
5564 people want to read
About the author
Balaji S. Srinivasan
1 book196 followersBalaji S. Srinivasan is an angel investor and entrepreneur. Formerly the CTO of Coinbase and General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, he is an early investor in many successful tech companies and crypto protocols, including Alchemy, Ava Labs, Bitcoin, Cameo, Chainlink, Clubhouse, Dapper Labs, Deel, EPNS, Ethereum, Instadapp, Lambda School, Mighty, NEAR Protocol, OnDeck, Opensea, Replit, Republic, Roam Research, Solana, Soylent, Superhuman, Synthesis, XMTP, and Zora. Dr. Srinivasan was the cofounder of Earn.com (acquired by Coinbase), Counsyl (acquired by Myriad), Teleport (acquired by Topia), and Coin Center. He holds a BS/MS/PhD in Electrical Engineering and an MS in Chemical Engineering from Stanford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 169 reviews
July 9, 2022
First of all, the structure of the book is rather unclear. The actual topic of network societies is only explained briefly in the last 30 pages, to get there you'll have to get through 220 pages rambling about alternative history from a libertarian/Crypto bro point of view. What in the beginning still reads like philosophy soon feels like conspiracy theories. Mostly it's just weird history lessons and dystopia prophecies about a civil war between democrats (wokes) and republicans (bitcoiners) followed by a Chinese coup (I wish I was kidding, but that's all in the book).
The actual technological and social implementation of the idea itself in its parts is not very new, it's just a virtual group of people organized via Blockchain technology that is recognized diplomatically.
The actual technological and social implementation of the idea itself in its parts is not very new, it's just a virtual group of people organized via Blockchain technology that is recognized diplomatically.
August 12, 2022
Urgency of a school shooter’s manifesto, eloquence of a freshwater property time-share pitch. What isn’t wrong is stupid and what isn’t stupid is obvious. If books were people then this is Jared Kushner after a bong hit.
July 24, 2022
A fascinating analysis of current global geopolitics, and a bold prediction on what may become the new world order thanks to blockchain tech. Nation-States, after all, originated circa 18th century thanks to technological advances such as cartography. As Nation-States replaced multiethnic empires from previous eras, this books asks: what might replace Nation-States given current technology?
I'm fully aligned with experimenting new ways of organizing people beyond the Nation-State paradigm, and would have loved the book to delve deeper into some operational details. How to transition gracefully from status quo in areas such as taxation, civil and military defense, diplomacy, etc. seems to have been left as an exercise to the reader.
Highly recommended for the tech-minded.
I'm fully aligned with experimenting new ways of organizing people beyond the Nation-State paradigm, and would have loved the book to delve deeper into some operational details. How to transition gracefully from status quo in areas such as taxation, civil and military defense, diplomacy, etc. seems to have been left as an exercise to the reader.
Highly recommended for the tech-minded.
August 3, 2022
Powerful concept. Mediocre writing
5/5 for the concepts
3/5 for the writing
The concept of a network state at this stage in human history is a so interesting. It is clear that the trajectory of major players like the US and China are undesirable and the network state is an interesting/promising third option. The author(s) provide good arguments, evidence and examples. However, the book could be 1/3 as long and lose no substance, as there is a lot of repetition and Balaji likes to follow tangents.
5/5 for the concepts
3/5 for the writing
The concept of a network state at this stage in human history is a so interesting. It is clear that the trajectory of major players like the US and China are undesirable and the network state is an interesting/promising third option. The author(s) provide good arguments, evidence and examples. However, the book could be 1/3 as long and lose no substance, as there is a lot of repetition and Balaji likes to follow tangents.
September 8, 2022
Balaji is a great idea generator. He's very creative in a diverging, out-of-the-box way: even if I disagreed with whatever I read in the book (which was in >50% of cases), I didn't mind - there's nothing wrong in disagreeing with smart people who provoke you to think and challenge your viewpoints.
"Network State" is about a very disrupting idea: the next step of the evolution of the state - in a way Balaji sees that. It's not a secret that his view on that is inspired by bitcoin, blockchain, and the general idea of decentralization of control. Frankly, I'm very far from being convinced - I liked the mental models, I liked how the author presented the historical cycles of control, and I even liked the scenarios he drafted. However, even if I appreciate the boldness of the idea, I believe that there's zero realistic rationale behind this potential direction of the development of social/political thought.
Why so? First of all, I think that Balaji has either failed to grasp the essence of what nature is (what constitutes it, what gives people the common identity/pride) OR he has assumed (too boldly) that this model has no future and e.g. future societies will be able to exist with temporary, non-exclusive "membership". Which I don't believe in at all - as that's "no skin in the game" model.
Anyway, even with all that simplification, it was an interesting read. Courageous but non-realistic. 4-4.2 stars.
"Network State" is about a very disrupting idea: the next step of the evolution of the state - in a way Balaji sees that. It's not a secret that his view on that is inspired by bitcoin, blockchain, and the general idea of decentralization of control. Frankly, I'm very far from being convinced - I liked the mental models, I liked how the author presented the historical cycles of control, and I even liked the scenarios he drafted. However, even if I appreciate the boldness of the idea, I believe that there's zero realistic rationale behind this potential direction of the development of social/political thought.
Why so? First of all, I think that Balaji has either failed to grasp the essence of what nature is (what constitutes it, what gives people the common identity/pride) OR he has assumed (too boldly) that this model has no future and e.g. future societies will be able to exist with temporary, non-exclusive "membership". Which I don't believe in at all - as that's "no skin in the game" model.
Anyway, even with all that simplification, it was an interesting read. Courageous but non-realistic. 4-4.2 stars.
April 23, 2023
Repetitive, unimaginative and mostly handwaving technocratic fantasy (not even dystopia for its infeasibility).
I actually read the network state from cover to cover with an open mind, intrigued to find novel ideas and substance.
The author spends most of the book arguing that modern nation states are in fact declining. He then presents a simplistic model of the world's ruling forces as a triangle: wokist "NYT" (declining power of US), collectivist "CCP" (rising Chinese power) and networked "BTC" (rebellious libertarian alternative). That theme of the book is the most repetitive and boring – overusing news headlines and own tweets as references, it's mostly a right-libertarian populist indoctrination. As any right-libertarian analysis, it conveniently ignores negative effects of corporate capitalism and neoliberal globalist politics ruling over all three identified powers (NYT, CCP and BTC) – arguably the real root cause of the societal decline.
Now the actual proposition of the book is to build alternative states, starting with a single contrasting idea (called "one commandment"), an online community motivated to collective action around that idea, crowdsourced physical archipelago of land, blockchain economy, and finally – diplomatic recognition by incumbent states. The last part is complete handwaving along the lines of collect underpants, ???, profit. The need for the incumbent host state to recognize sovereignty of particular network state citizens and their land on it's own territory contradicts author's premise that the network state's main defense is secrecy and
blockchain's resistance to seizures.
The network state also mostly ignores physical reality and prefers to stay in the VR/metaverse. It provides no answers to how exactly a network state enclave would interact with its host incumbent state (before recognition) in terms of immigration regime, border control, defense, justice, supplies of everything that network state citizens don't produce themselves or transfer of goods between network state enclaves. Until diplomatic recognition, there is no perceived difference of network state "citizenship" for people.
Another contradiction is how the author argues that network states are fully consensual because everyone needs to explicitly opt-in and everyone has a right to opt-out. At one point author notes that network states would eventually need to recognize citizenship by "right of blood" without realizing how that nullifies explicit opt-in social contract theory. He also ignores that right to opt-out is not the same as the actual ability to opt-out, which can be limited by either lack of capital or entry restrictions by alternative states.
Yet another problem with network states is how their citizens, aligned by a single unifying idea, would seemingly ignore any potential disagreements they might have in other aspects of their lives. Would people united by e.g. "keto kosher" idea suddenly stop fighting about issues of birth control, gun rights, appropriate monetary policy or what exactly constitutes "keto kosher"? And if they don't, how are they going to align for collective action?
The book proposes that a network state should be ruled by a single authoritarian founder to avoid fracture. The author argues that authoritarianism is not an issue as long as anyone can freely exit (which I argued is not really free). Now this is the epitome of absurdity of the right-libertarian thinking, going from "I don't submit to any authority" to "I like authority that I agree with".
In essence, the author escapes from the messy reality of social interaction and builds himself a fantasy world of orderly aligned totalitarian societies, mediated by blockchain and VR where necessary, so they don't ever have to face mutual disagreements.
I actually read the network state from cover to cover with an open mind, intrigued to find novel ideas and substance.
The author spends most of the book arguing that modern nation states are in fact declining. He then presents a simplistic model of the world's ruling forces as a triangle: wokist "NYT" (declining power of US), collectivist "CCP" (rising Chinese power) and networked "BTC" (rebellious libertarian alternative). That theme of the book is the most repetitive and boring – overusing news headlines and own tweets as references, it's mostly a right-libertarian populist indoctrination. As any right-libertarian analysis, it conveniently ignores negative effects of corporate capitalism and neoliberal globalist politics ruling over all three identified powers (NYT, CCP and BTC) – arguably the real root cause of the societal decline.
Now the actual proposition of the book is to build alternative states, starting with a single contrasting idea (called "one commandment"), an online community motivated to collective action around that idea, crowdsourced physical archipelago of land, blockchain economy, and finally – diplomatic recognition by incumbent states. The last part is complete handwaving along the lines of collect underpants, ???, profit. The need for the incumbent host state to recognize sovereignty of particular network state citizens and their land on it's own territory contradicts author's premise that the network state's main defense is secrecy and
blockchain's resistance to seizures.
The network state also mostly ignores physical reality and prefers to stay in the VR/metaverse. It provides no answers to how exactly a network state enclave would interact with its host incumbent state (before recognition) in terms of immigration regime, border control, defense, justice, supplies of everything that network state citizens don't produce themselves or transfer of goods between network state enclaves. Until diplomatic recognition, there is no perceived difference of network state "citizenship" for people.
Another contradiction is how the author argues that network states are fully consensual because everyone needs to explicitly opt-in and everyone has a right to opt-out. At one point author notes that network states would eventually need to recognize citizenship by "right of blood" without realizing how that nullifies explicit opt-in social contract theory. He also ignores that right to opt-out is not the same as the actual ability to opt-out, which can be limited by either lack of capital or entry restrictions by alternative states.
Yet another problem with network states is how their citizens, aligned by a single unifying idea, would seemingly ignore any potential disagreements they might have in other aspects of their lives. Would people united by e.g. "keto kosher" idea suddenly stop fighting about issues of birth control, gun rights, appropriate monetary policy or what exactly constitutes "keto kosher"? And if they don't, how are they going to align for collective action?
The book proposes that a network state should be ruled by a single authoritarian founder to avoid fracture. The author argues that authoritarianism is not an issue as long as anyone can freely exit (which I argued is not really free). Now this is the epitome of absurdity of the right-libertarian thinking, going from "I don't submit to any authority" to "I like authority that I agree with".
In essence, the author escapes from the messy reality of social interaction and builds himself a fantasy world of orderly aligned totalitarian societies, mediated by blockchain and VR where necessary, so they don't ever have to face mutual disagreements.
September 8, 2022
This is a great book which probably belongs with The Sovereign Individual and a few others as the best way to prepare for the new social structures of the 21st century and beyond. Balaji covers the history of the nation state, the current tripolar politics of the world (China/CCP authoritarianism, NYT/elites led US and other Western institutions and their fracturing unity, the world of cryptoanarchy), and proposes a new solution -- the network state, which is an overlay/parallel society with a clear growth path from startup to something recognized to at least some degree by existing states.
What I particularly like about the network state model is it can be incrementalist -- a small group can form a "startup society", then through adoption raise enough funds to purchase physical property in various places, then get different types of formal recognition by existing entities (which could be as simple as free trade zone type status, or charter city, or task/infrastructure specific grants, or as expansive as some kind of formal near-peer diplomatic recognition).
Lots of small criticisms. There was probably 10-20% too much NYT/Taylor Lorenz specific hate in the middle section, and the distinction between true cryptoanarchy (which he didn't fully describe) and his proposed "network state" wasn't as clear as it should have been (which I think is due to there not being a huge distinction to be made between them). Seasteading as a whole got only a passing mention, along with historical/failed "microstate" projects -- Seasteading at least seems viable and probably has plenty to offer in the network state world. And, asymmetry of force options would potentially make city states or microstates viable -- if someone has WMD/MAD capability, he doesn't need a huge nation (decentralized, in the case of a network state) to protect a small territory.
Overall, a thought provoking book, and an interesting way to think about the future.
What I particularly like about the network state model is it can be incrementalist -- a small group can form a "startup society", then through adoption raise enough funds to purchase physical property in various places, then get different types of formal recognition by existing entities (which could be as simple as free trade zone type status, or charter city, or task/infrastructure specific grants, or as expansive as some kind of formal near-peer diplomatic recognition).
Lots of small criticisms. There was probably 10-20% too much NYT/Taylor Lorenz specific hate in the middle section, and the distinction between true cryptoanarchy (which he didn't fully describe) and his proposed "network state" wasn't as clear as it should have been (which I think is due to there not being a huge distinction to be made between them). Seasteading as a whole got only a passing mention, along with historical/failed "microstate" projects -- Seasteading at least seems viable and probably has plenty to offer in the network state world. And, asymmetry of force options would potentially make city states or microstates viable -- if someone has WMD/MAD capability, he doesn't need a huge nation (decentralized, in the case of a network state) to protect a small territory.
Overall, a thought provoking book, and an interesting way to think about the future.
August 7, 2022
Ideas to stretch your brain
So much to think about. Prescient in fascinating ways, we'll see how many predictions come true. The tools for thought throughout are exceptional.
So much to think about. Prescient in fascinating ways, we'll see how many predictions come true. The tools for thought throughout are exceptional.
September 17, 2022
The Network State is a tour-de-force of intellectual horsepower from Balaji. This is likely the densest book I've ever read, not necessarily in terms of conciseness (it's a bit repetitive), but in the number of footnotes and hyperlinks used to provide evidence for different assertions. To read all the areas where I was unfamiliar with the source material would have made this book 100X longer, so there are areas where I admittedly had to take on faith that the author's understanding of the source material was correct. Based on his interpretation of source material I was familiar with, I was reasonably okay with that faith.
Balaji posits that the three "Leviathans" (great powers) are God, State, and Network. You can believe in the doctrine of your religion, your politics, or your cryptocurrency. These powers compete in the marketplace of ideas, and people ultimately place one at their top importance. While most are familiar with God and State, Network is the new idea here.
The Network State discusses a future more similar to our past, where nation-states have less absolute coercive power and must instead compete against opt-in network-states that gradually increase their power based on a shared belief (a "One Commandment"). The main idea here is that organizing power by physical proximity no longer makes sense in a digital world. We more in common with the members of our favorite sub-reddit (or Discord channel, facebook group, etc.) than we do with our neighbor. By intentionally fostering community and building reputation, these online communities could eventually gain recognition and impact the world (leading to more recognition, leading to more impact...). The author refers to these attempts to create a network state as "startup societies" (similar to how "startup companies" attempt to create public companies).
Balaji formally defines the network state as a social network with:
- a moral innovation
- a sense of national consciousness
- a recognized founder
- a capacity for collective action
- an in-person level of civility
- an integrated cryptocurrency
- a consensual government limited by a social smart contract
- an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories
- a virtual capital
- an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition
The book goes through why each of these is necessary to be a full network state.
Other main ideas I came away with:
- A decentralized, sovereign cryptocurrency has the potential to have a huge impact on the world (I already believed this going in; Balaji seems to share this conviction)
- Balaji hates the journalist class (particularly the New York Times), and makes a compelling case for the harms they've done to society
- Living in a society where 51% can boss around 49% is hardly principled. We should aim for 100% consent and 0% coercion. This means systems should compete to win your business/citizenship and should be easy to "exit" or walk away from. That's very different from how the world is organized today, and shows the overwhelming power of the nation state (who can take a good chunk of "your" money for trying to renounce your citizenship)
This book seems to be a natural successor to The Sovereign Individual, which discussed nation-states losing power as technology enabled people to be more sovereign, forcing governments to compete for citizens in a marketplace rather than being able to control. (I'm only partially through the Sovereign Individual right now so can't speak to the specific here—however, the inspiration is clear).
I'd highly recommend this book. Balaji's discusses ideas from a first-principles approach, boiling arguments down to their axioms and building back up into useful frameworks. I'm eager to discuss the ideas in this book with others who have read it, and am looking forward to the next edition.
Balaji posits that the three "Leviathans" (great powers) are God, State, and Network. You can believe in the doctrine of your religion, your politics, or your cryptocurrency. These powers compete in the marketplace of ideas, and people ultimately place one at their top importance. While most are familiar with God and State, Network is the new idea here.
The Network State discusses a future more similar to our past, where nation-states have less absolute coercive power and must instead compete against opt-in network-states that gradually increase their power based on a shared belief (a "One Commandment"). The main idea here is that organizing power by physical proximity no longer makes sense in a digital world. We more in common with the members of our favorite sub-reddit (or Discord channel, facebook group, etc.) than we do with our neighbor. By intentionally fostering community and building reputation, these online communities could eventually gain recognition and impact the world (leading to more recognition, leading to more impact...). The author refers to these attempts to create a network state as "startup societies" (similar to how "startup companies" attempt to create public companies).
Balaji formally defines the network state as a social network with:
- a moral innovation
- a sense of national consciousness
- a recognized founder
- a capacity for collective action
- an in-person level of civility
- an integrated cryptocurrency
- a consensual government limited by a social smart contract
- an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories
- a virtual capital
- an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition
The book goes through why each of these is necessary to be a full network state.
Other main ideas I came away with:
- A decentralized, sovereign cryptocurrency has the potential to have a huge impact on the world (I already believed this going in; Balaji seems to share this conviction)
- Balaji hates the journalist class (particularly the New York Times), and makes a compelling case for the harms they've done to society
- Living in a society where 51% can boss around 49% is hardly principled. We should aim for 100% consent and 0% coercion. This means systems should compete to win your business/citizenship and should be easy to "exit" or walk away from. That's very different from how the world is organized today, and shows the overwhelming power of the nation state (who can take a good chunk of "your" money for trying to renounce your citizenship)
This book seems to be a natural successor to The Sovereign Individual, which discussed nation-states losing power as technology enabled people to be more sovereign, forcing governments to compete for citizens in a marketplace rather than being able to control. (I'm only partially through the Sovereign Individual right now so can't speak to the specific here—however, the inspiration is clear).
I'd highly recommend this book. Balaji's discusses ideas from a first-principles approach, boiling arguments down to their axioms and building back up into useful frameworks. I'm eager to discuss the ideas in this book with others who have read it, and am looking forward to the next edition.
August 31, 2022
Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State (2022) is the sequel to The Sovereign Individual (1997). Not literally, mind you. It just picks up where Lord Rees-Mogg leaves off: a substantiated observation that the d(Westphalian state power)/dt < 0.
Srinivasan refreshes the Rees-Mogg thesis with the events of the past two decades and then takes us a step forward to describe our next leviathan: not god, not country, but networks to which we voluntarily align ourselves.
Network State is sprawling. It's a description of our present moment, it's prognostication, but mostly it's a "toolbox" [8] for individuals to take us to a future of network states, a "proposed solution for maintaining liberal values in an illiberal world" [8].
NB: for anyone curious, Balaji's interview on Tim Ferriss is a good 80/20 introduction to the Network State concepts. Recommended!
----------
From the 5th to 17th century AD, church and state shared power in western Europe. Both state sovereigns (temporal authority) and the church (spiritual authority) collected taxes. Charlemagne sought a coronation from Pope Leo III in 800 AD, and the Crusades saw kings ordered around by the pope as agents of Christendom. Discontinuous swathes of land and various towns and castles seemed to constantly pass from lord to lord. This whole period of history can feel weird and illegible to us because it is. Look at a map of Europe from 1000 AD: you can't really overlay colored shapes on it like a modern map because there simply weren't defined polities that clearly controlled every inch of land.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) changed all of that when it ended the Thirty Years' War and created the nation state system that we are familiar with now in 2022. The treaty (A) affirmed the power of kings (states) over the church and awarded them a local monopoly on legitimate use of violence, and (B) did away with the fuzzy, shifting state borders of old [202-3]. Over every inch of land from that point forward there would be a clear state with a clear government with unchallenged authority within its borders.
Does this seem right in 2022? Like Rees-Mogg before him, Srinivasan argues no: the state is no longer in control and is in a period of secular decline. For instance, networks of people can use bitcoin (BTC) to transact, coordinate, and store value in a way that cannot be seized or manipulated by the US government (***). Encryption beats guns, taxation, and the Federal Reserve. Networks of truth-seeking individuals can easily challenge state-aligned narratives pushed by NYT and others (e.g. Hunter Biden) [52]. Srinivasan asks us rhetorically, "does the US government feel like it is in charge?" [54] Networks of coordinated individuals in cyberspace seem to increasingly be capable of skirting state power.
(***)
It's important to note just how big of a deal it is for a network to be able to transact using BTC which cannot be appropriated by the government, nor can it be inflated or otherwise manipulated.
Why? In my own formulation, money can be thought of as a system of compulsion (or coercion). The more money you have the greater ability you have to compel (coerce) people to do things. Without the ability to take money (tax) or print money, the state loses power over certain networks of people.
Losing power to tax kicks off a vicious cycle that makes it harder to possibly appropriate a network's wealth in the future. Paraphrasing Sovereign Individual, "if a state can't coerce, it can't pay to enforce conscription, or pay the conscripts themselves, or seize the money to pay for all the equipment needed to prosecute ... [acts of violence]" [197].
Money is, as it turns out, power.
(***)
Srinivasan argues that in the United States, the struggle between monolithic state and distributed networks is becoming the defining axis of conflict and supplanting the post-Reagan Blue vs Red world we are used to:
I think Srinivasan nails this splitting of America from Blue vs Red to "Dollar Green" vs "Bitcoin Orange". I increasingly see thoughtful friends on the left alienated by Democrat lies from the causes of inflation to the state of our armed forces in Iraq. Meanwhile, there are level-headed capitalists, entrepreneurs, and working Americans on the right that simply want little to do with the machinery of state. Could these Joe Rogan watchers congeal to form a new coalition against the NYT / CNN / Fox / Harvard monolith?
There is some prognostication about how the world will evolve from this moment in time, a scenario described as "American Anarchy, Chinese Control, International Intermediate" [178-185]. While interesting to consider, I think the more insightful commentary circles around the new polities that - given trends of growing network power - will germinate within the husks of nation states (excluding China): network states.
Put simply, "a network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" [9]. Individuals can opt in and admission criteria can be set by the network.
Network states "begin by identifying a moral issue in today's culture and presenting a historically-informed solution to that issues in the form of a new society" [24]. They will begin building a cryptocurrency-linked economy, and eventually will accumulate wealth, build offline archipelagos of land and property, and in final form, gain diplomatic recognition.
"But wait," you ask, "how will these network states protect me in my house in SF against property crime and gun violence?" Good question! Network states will need to run on top of surrounding "legacy state" until they can amass enough capability to police themselves at some point in the future [227]. At the end of the day these network states take us to a world that looks more like 1000 AD than 2000 AD: "just as in the pre-Westphalian period, where the Catholic Church exerted transnational control, the digital power wielded by the American and Chinese empires invalidates traditional notions of sovereignty" [235]
Prepare for the medieval 22nd century.
----------
I have a nagging suspicion that building opt-in network states on top of legacy states is going to restrict their potential more than Srinivasan suggests. If rights stem from power, being able to protect your BTC from seizure means something -- but if the state still has the guns then nothing stops them from taking every other atom in your possession.
I also think that moreso than rules in an online community, peoples' quality of life is dominated by your physical environment, i.e. your city and neighborhood. Srinivasan is clear to call out that city states aren't network states. But I would argue if your neighbor on one side is building a keto cult kitchen and a neighbor on the other side is part of a space exploration cult, your network state probably will matter a whole lot less than getting the damn sidewalks shoveled.
Every so often a book makes you think on scales different from what you maybe accustomed to. A tip of the hat to Balaji Srinivasan for doing that with Network State.
Srinivasan refreshes the Rees-Mogg thesis with the events of the past two decades and then takes us a step forward to describe our next leviathan: not god, not country, but networks to which we voluntarily align ourselves.
Network State is sprawling. It's a description of our present moment, it's prognostication, but mostly it's a "toolbox" [8] for individuals to take us to a future of network states, a "proposed solution for maintaining liberal values in an illiberal world" [8].
NB: for anyone curious, Balaji's interview on Tim Ferriss is a good 80/20 introduction to the Network State concepts. Recommended!
----------
From the 5th to 17th century AD, church and state shared power in western Europe. Both state sovereigns (temporal authority) and the church (spiritual authority) collected taxes. Charlemagne sought a coronation from Pope Leo III in 800 AD, and the Crusades saw kings ordered around by the pope as agents of Christendom. Discontinuous swathes of land and various towns and castles seemed to constantly pass from lord to lord. This whole period of history can feel weird and illegible to us because it is. Look at a map of Europe from 1000 AD: you can't really overlay colored shapes on it like a modern map because there simply weren't defined polities that clearly controlled every inch of land.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) changed all of that when it ended the Thirty Years' War and created the nation state system that we are familiar with now in 2022. The treaty (A) affirmed the power of kings (states) over the church and awarded them a local monopoly on legitimate use of violence, and (B) did away with the fuzzy, shifting state borders of old [202-3]. Over every inch of land from that point forward there would be a clear state with a clear government with unchallenged authority within its borders.
Does this seem right in 2022? Like Rees-Mogg before him, Srinivasan argues no: the state is no longer in control and is in a period of secular decline. For instance, networks of people can use bitcoin (BTC) to transact, coordinate, and store value in a way that cannot be seized or manipulated by the US government (***). Encryption beats guns, taxation, and the Federal Reserve. Networks of truth-seeking individuals can easily challenge state-aligned narratives pushed by NYT and others (e.g. Hunter Biden) [52]. Srinivasan asks us rhetorically, "does the US government feel like it is in charge?" [54] Networks of coordinated individuals in cyberspace seem to increasingly be capable of skirting state power.
(***)
It's important to note just how big of a deal it is for a network to be able to transact using BTC which cannot be appropriated by the government, nor can it be inflated or otherwise manipulated.
Why? In my own formulation, money can be thought of as a system of compulsion (or coercion). The more money you have the greater ability you have to compel (coerce) people to do things. Without the ability to take money (tax) or print money, the state loses power over certain networks of people.
Losing power to tax kicks off a vicious cycle that makes it harder to possibly appropriate a network's wealth in the future. Paraphrasing Sovereign Individual, "if a state can't coerce, it can't pay to enforce conscription, or pay the conscripts themselves, or seize the money to pay for all the equipment needed to prosecute ... [acts of violence]" [197].
Money is, as it turns out, power.
(***)
Srinivasan argues that in the United States, the struggle between monolithic state and distributed networks is becoming the defining axis of conflict and supplanting the post-Reagan Blue vs Red world we are used to:
If we add up all these pieces, we get a possible future where the left- and right-libertarians from both parties line up against the left- and right-authoritarians.
We're already starting to see this if we look at Substack vs establishment journalists, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald vs Fox News / NYT, BTC vs USD, web3 vs Big tech, the migration of ethnic minorities to the Republicans and the migration of neoconservatives to the Democrats.
In this scenario a new coalition would finally be popping in to view. And it's a totally different carving of the political spectrum than the Reagan era. Rather than nationalists and capitalists (the right) against internationalists and socialists (the left), it's internationalists and capitalists (left- and right-libertarians) against socialists and nationalists (left- and right-authoritarians) [75].
I think Srinivasan nails this splitting of America from Blue vs Red to "Dollar Green" vs "Bitcoin Orange". I increasingly see thoughtful friends on the left alienated by Democrat lies from the causes of inflation to the state of our armed forces in Iraq. Meanwhile, there are level-headed capitalists, entrepreneurs, and working Americans on the right that simply want little to do with the machinery of state. Could these Joe Rogan watchers congeal to form a new coalition against the NYT / CNN / Fox / Harvard monolith?
There is some prognostication about how the world will evolve from this moment in time, a scenario described as "American Anarchy, Chinese Control, International Intermediate" [178-185]. While interesting to consider, I think the more insightful commentary circles around the new polities that - given trends of growing network power - will germinate within the husks of nation states (excluding China): network states.
Put simply, "a network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" [9]. Individuals can opt in and admission criteria can be set by the network.
Network states "begin by identifying a moral issue in today's culture and presenting a historically-informed solution to that issues in the form of a new society" [24]. They will begin building a cryptocurrency-linked economy, and eventually will accumulate wealth, build offline archipelagos of land and property, and in final form, gain diplomatic recognition.
"But wait," you ask, "how will these network states protect me in my house in SF against property crime and gun violence?" Good question! Network states will need to run on top of surrounding "legacy state" until they can amass enough capability to police themselves at some point in the future [227]. At the end of the day these network states take us to a world that looks more like 1000 AD than 2000 AD: "just as in the pre-Westphalian period, where the Catholic Church exerted transnational control, the digital power wielded by the American and Chinese empires invalidates traditional notions of sovereignty" [235]
Prepare for the medieval 22nd century.
----------
I have a nagging suspicion that building opt-in network states on top of legacy states is going to restrict their potential more than Srinivasan suggests. If rights stem from power, being able to protect your BTC from seizure means something -- but if the state still has the guns then nothing stops them from taking every other atom in your possession.
I also think that moreso than rules in an online community, peoples' quality of life is dominated by your physical environment, i.e. your city and neighborhood. Srinivasan is clear to call out that city states aren't network states. But I would argue if your neighbor on one side is building a keto cult kitchen and a neighbor on the other side is part of a space exploration cult, your network state probably will matter a whole lot less than getting the damn sidewalks shoveled.
Every so often a book makes you think on scales different from what you maybe accustomed to. A tip of the hat to Balaji Srinivasan for doing that with Network State.
October 18, 2024
Jæja, loksins búinn með þessa maníubók.
Bókin snýst um þá hugmynd að búa til einskonar markað ríkja, þar sem er hægt að búa til startup ríki/land með nýjum lögum. Fólk gæti þá valið hvaða ríki það myndi búa í, svo með tímanum myndi þessi markaður láta betri ríki stækka og verri minnka.
Ég þekki ekki höfundinn en hann virðist vera nokkurskonar techbro í stöðugri maníu. Þetta þarf ekki að vera slæmt, en gott að hafa bak við eyrað.
Það eru nokkrir gallar sem ég sé á hugmyndinni sem mér finnst ekki hafa verið svarað nægilega fyrir í bókinni.
Helst er sú staðreynd að er að í samskiptum milli ríkja gildir frumskógarlögmálið. Sá sterkari fær sínu fram. Eina ástæða þess að markaðurinn virkar í samkeppni fyrirtækja er að ríkið passar upp á að allir spili eftir sömu reglunum (til þess að samkeppnin sé fólkinu í ríkinu örugglega til góðs). Það er enginn aðili sem gæti framfylgt svona reglum í samskiptum milli ríkja, nema ef sameinuðu þjóðirnar yrðu efldar töluvert. En þá ertu aftur kominn á byrjunarreit, því hver á ákveða reglurnar þar? Að minnsta kosti ekki neinn markaður.
Þetta veldur því að ríki sem einblína á að fá mest vald enda með mesta valdið. Þannig ríki keppast við að fá vinnusamasta fólkið til sín og losna við þá sem vilja einfaldlega bara slaka á og líða vel. Ég held því að fólki mun ekki endilega líða betur í þessu kerfi.
Annar hlutur sem er mikilvægur fyrir þetta kerfi er frjálst flæði fólks milli ríkja. Fólk á að geta 'exit'-að að vild, það er grunnforsendan. En hver mun tryggja það að fólk geti farið? Bæði þarf samfélagið sem fólkið er meðlimur í að hleypa þeim út, og einhver þarf að taka við þeim.
Það eru margir aðrir hlutir sem ég gæti gagnrýnt en nenni ekki að fara úti þá alla hér.
Best að nefna líka einhverja kosti. Það er hægt að benda á að nú þegar gildir frumskógarlögmálið í alþjóðasamskiptum. Nú þegar er þetta markaður sem ekki gilda neinar reglur um. Því ætti tilkoma 'Network State'-a aðeins að auka samkeppnina og gefa fólki fleiri möguleika.
Það væri örugglega frábær hlutur ef það væru til nokkur svona samfélög sem tækju opnum örmum á móti innflytjendum í leit að betra lífi, sem koma frá löndum þar sem eru fá tækifæri. Það myndi líklega veikja tangarhald einræðisherra á íbúum landa sinna.
Helsta gagnrýnin sem ég hef á bókina sjálfa er samt sú að mér finnst að höfundur átti sig ekki á einum stórum áhrifaþætti í lífi fólks. Það eru aðrir hlutir sem fólki þykir annt um en stjórnmál, reglur og samfélagið. Fólki þykir annt um fjölskylduna sína, það vill búa nálægt henni, fólkinu sem það ólst upp með og vinum sínum. Fólk er ekki tilbúið að 'exit'-a bara því lögin eru betri hinum megin við lækinn, nema ef það er óbærilegt að lifa þín megin.
Ég held að höfundur sé of fastur í sinnu techbro-startup-maníu búbblu og þarf líka að prófa að snerta jörðina og draga andann djúpt.
Mér fannst samt skemmtilegt að lesa bókina, alls ekki allt vitlaust sem kemur fram í henni. Gaman að lesa um svona nýjar hugmyndir sem hljóma galnar en er samt eitthvað vit í.
Bókin snýst um þá hugmynd að búa til einskonar markað ríkja, þar sem er hægt að búa til startup ríki/land með nýjum lögum. Fólk gæti þá valið hvaða ríki það myndi búa í, svo með tímanum myndi þessi markaður láta betri ríki stækka og verri minnka.
Ég þekki ekki höfundinn en hann virðist vera nokkurskonar techbro í stöðugri maníu. Þetta þarf ekki að vera slæmt, en gott að hafa bak við eyrað.
Það eru nokkrir gallar sem ég sé á hugmyndinni sem mér finnst ekki hafa verið svarað nægilega fyrir í bókinni.
Helst er sú staðreynd að er að í samskiptum milli ríkja gildir frumskógarlögmálið. Sá sterkari fær sínu fram. Eina ástæða þess að markaðurinn virkar í samkeppni fyrirtækja er að ríkið passar upp á að allir spili eftir sömu reglunum (til þess að samkeppnin sé fólkinu í ríkinu örugglega til góðs). Það er enginn aðili sem gæti framfylgt svona reglum í samskiptum milli ríkja, nema ef sameinuðu þjóðirnar yrðu efldar töluvert. En þá ertu aftur kominn á byrjunarreit, því hver á ákveða reglurnar þar? Að minnsta kosti ekki neinn markaður.
Þetta veldur því að ríki sem einblína á að fá mest vald enda með mesta valdið. Þannig ríki keppast við að fá vinnusamasta fólkið til sín og losna við þá sem vilja einfaldlega bara slaka á og líða vel. Ég held því að fólki mun ekki endilega líða betur í þessu kerfi.
Annar hlutur sem er mikilvægur fyrir þetta kerfi er frjálst flæði fólks milli ríkja. Fólk á að geta 'exit'-að að vild, það er grunnforsendan. En hver mun tryggja það að fólk geti farið? Bæði þarf samfélagið sem fólkið er meðlimur í að hleypa þeim út, og einhver þarf að taka við þeim.
Það eru margir aðrir hlutir sem ég gæti gagnrýnt en nenni ekki að fara úti þá alla hér.
Best að nefna líka einhverja kosti. Það er hægt að benda á að nú þegar gildir frumskógarlögmálið í alþjóðasamskiptum. Nú þegar er þetta markaður sem ekki gilda neinar reglur um. Því ætti tilkoma 'Network State'-a aðeins að auka samkeppnina og gefa fólki fleiri möguleika.
Það væri örugglega frábær hlutur ef það væru til nokkur svona samfélög sem tækju opnum örmum á móti innflytjendum í leit að betra lífi, sem koma frá löndum þar sem eru fá tækifæri. Það myndi líklega veikja tangarhald einræðisherra á íbúum landa sinna.
Helsta gagnrýnin sem ég hef á bókina sjálfa er samt sú að mér finnst að höfundur átti sig ekki á einum stórum áhrifaþætti í lífi fólks. Það eru aðrir hlutir sem fólki þykir annt um en stjórnmál, reglur og samfélagið. Fólki þykir annt um fjölskylduna sína, það vill búa nálægt henni, fólkinu sem það ólst upp með og vinum sínum. Fólk er ekki tilbúið að 'exit'-a bara því lögin eru betri hinum megin við lækinn, nema ef það er óbærilegt að lifa þín megin.
Ég held að höfundur sé of fastur í sinnu techbro-startup-maníu búbblu og þarf líka að prófa að snerta jörðina og draga andann djúpt.
Mér fannst samt skemmtilegt að lesa bókina, alls ekki allt vitlaust sem kemur fram í henni. Gaman að lesa um svona nýjar hugmyndir sem hljóma galnar en er samt eitthvað vit í.
November 3, 2022
Its going to be one of the most influential political books of this century, I believe, people in the future will treat this book as we treat wealth of nations (Adam Smith) or social contract (Rousseau) today.
April 5, 2023
Extraordinarily long book (too long perhaps) but a lot of good concepts and frameworks about society and governance.
Some things that I found particularly interesting:
1) political history shows the underdog evolving to become the superpower: democrats were at their very bottom in 1864 after losing the civil war up to the 2008 Obama era peaking point
2) the idea of red vs blue politics morphing to Bitcoin orange vs USD green. Establishment Republicans and Democrats go green, while progressive left and libertarian right go Orange.
3) money is power and cryptocurrencies has allowed that power to potentially become Stateless, this is what underlies the potential of Network States. Progressives see the potential in crypto to give power to the disenfranchised in the current system while libertarians see the power shifting from the State.
A visionary template, even if the ideas may be overly ambitious.
If I were to start a network union, the #1 rule of the country is all citizens would need to read books. Who’s in?
Some things that I found particularly interesting:
1) political history shows the underdog evolving to become the superpower: democrats were at their very bottom in 1864 after losing the civil war up to the 2008 Obama era peaking point
2) the idea of red vs blue politics morphing to Bitcoin orange vs USD green. Establishment Republicans and Democrats go green, while progressive left and libertarian right go Orange.
3) money is power and cryptocurrencies has allowed that power to potentially become Stateless, this is what underlies the potential of Network States. Progressives see the potential in crypto to give power to the disenfranchised in the current system while libertarians see the power shifting from the State.
A visionary template, even if the ideas may be overly ambitious.
If I were to start a network union, the #1 rule of the country is all citizens would need to read books. Who’s in?
October 16, 2022
I just can't. How can a book this incoherent and babbly have a 4+ rating?
The concept of a network state sounds sexy as fuck so I was excited to read this, but this book is so badly written that i could not read beyond the first chapter. Its about as articulate as a Joe Rogan podcast's most conspiracy theory episode.
The concept of a network state sounds sexy as fuck so I was excited to read this, but this book is so badly written that i could not read beyond the first chapter. Its about as articulate as a Joe Rogan podcast's most conspiracy theory episode.
August 10, 2022
Highlights:
>What’s the most powerful force on earth? In the 1800s, God. In the 1900s, the US military. And by the mid-2000s, encryption
>Tech culture, startup culture, and now BTC/web3 culture is becoming global culture
>What’s the most powerful force on earth? In the 1800s, God. In the 1900s, the US military. And by the mid-2000s, encryption
>Tech culture, startup culture, and now BTC/web3 culture is becoming global culture
March 17, 2023
Deep, complex and a bit dark
This book is a combination of a political manifesto, a technological futurism prediction, and the historical treatise. His big concept is that it is now possible to create a new kind of nation, one that is aligned around digital identities and scattered around the world rather than aligned around the land they live on. To make his point, he takes us on a long journey through a range of historical examples, current technology and trends, and the thoughts of dozens of philosophers.
Honestly, I’m not super excited about the possibility of forming a net work state. I don’t think they’re terrible either. It’s just not something that at this point I feel a big need to create. I am much more interested in reforming the current system, and then creating a new one.
But I found his analysis of the past, and the present to be very thought-provoking. My one complaint in this area is that he is some thing of a pessimist about how bad things are, and how bad they are going to get. I am more of an optimist, based on positive forces and trends that I know of that he gives no airtime to.
So, I am not going to follow his advice, but if he wants to stretch your brain and have a marvelous mental work out, then you will love this book
This book is a combination of a political manifesto, a technological futurism prediction, and the historical treatise. His big concept is that it is now possible to create a new kind of nation, one that is aligned around digital identities and scattered around the world rather than aligned around the land they live on. To make his point, he takes us on a long journey through a range of historical examples, current technology and trends, and the thoughts of dozens of philosophers.
Honestly, I’m not super excited about the possibility of forming a net work state. I don’t think they’re terrible either. It’s just not something that at this point I feel a big need to create. I am much more interested in reforming the current system, and then creating a new one.
But I found his analysis of the past, and the present to be very thought-provoking. My one complaint in this area is that he is some thing of a pessimist about how bad things are, and how bad they are going to get. I am more of an optimist, based on positive forces and trends that I know of that he gives no airtime to.
So, I am not going to follow his advice, but if he wants to stretch your brain and have a marvelous mental work out, then you will love this book
March 27, 2023
Alright, this is a great book. Even though it reiterates sometimes on the core points, it has an extremely good structure, and the language is beautifully clear. The main idea is revolutionary, to say the least, and is probably a little bit disengaged from what's going on in our mortal world but still, there's much sense to it, even if some (or half, or even most) of it is unrealistic.
One specific issue with The Network State is that the reframing of history is quite frivolous in it, but it's also that frivolousness that provides a solid chunk of the novel perspective.
One specific issue with The Network State is that the reframing of history is quite frivolous in it, but it's also that frivolousness that provides a solid chunk of the novel perspective.
Read
November 26, 2022Throws hot takes at you faster than you can decide if you agree with them. More provocative than well-argumented. Still worth a read.
December 16, 2022
I tried. Got 53% of the way through and just couldn't bear anymore of Balaji's venomous, cynical, know-it-all self-righteousness any longer and abandoned it. Plus, the proposition, of creating a single-issue society online and transforming it into a physical sovereign on par with nation states just seemed like a far-fetched crackpipedream the more I read and thought about it, and so the whole premise of the book lost appeal the further I got into it. This is a seriously smart guy, but is much too enamored with his own intellect for my taste. I was so excited about this book, and so relieved when I finally decided to abandon it.
November 7, 2022
That this sophomoric jumble of nonsense is taken seriously by otherwise intelligent people is the best evidence I have seen that the humanities and social sciences represent a real domain of expertise.
October 25, 2023
9.5/10 - Profoundly insightful and pioneering. Most will disregard—and for their reasons. Upon the quality and *precision* of thought, I find it hard to believe many books have ever been written of this magnitude.
It feels like it ends abruptly given the high focus on foundation setting and a 30,000 ft view look at how such incredible transitions might happen. It’s an idea that many will laugh at. I don’t at all claim to know the future, that Balaji does, or that this isn’t far out there. He sets an excellent framework. This book notably was far more focused on *how* (broadly) and *why* immense transitions of power and influence than *when.* I’d be very interested to see a second edition on how a network state would mingle in power with a legacy nation state.
I gather the majority of critics will not even take the first steps to consider ideas like this. Things that have never been done before are hard for the human mind to comprehend (especially the closer one gets to the now *truly* massive modern establishment), but I will say that Balaji did a great job showing how our post-WW2 world and even “nation states” world actually isn’t that old.. And in summarizing the many transitions of power, wealth, and influence that have occurred in recent history to medium-term history (ie last 20-100 years). All this considered, combined with some of the most articulate writing I’ll ever read, the plausibility of entire new countries forming becomes at least dramatically less hard to believe. And a point of optimism.
It feels like it ends abruptly given the high focus on foundation setting and a 30,000 ft view look at how such incredible transitions might happen. It’s an idea that many will laugh at. I don’t at all claim to know the future, that Balaji does, or that this isn’t far out there. He sets an excellent framework. This book notably was far more focused on *how* (broadly) and *why* immense transitions of power and influence than *when.* I’d be very interested to see a second edition on how a network state would mingle in power with a legacy nation state.
I gather the majority of critics will not even take the first steps to consider ideas like this. Things that have never been done before are hard for the human mind to comprehend (especially the closer one gets to the now *truly* massive modern establishment), but I will say that Balaji did a great job showing how our post-WW2 world and even “nation states” world actually isn’t that old.. And in summarizing the many transitions of power, wealth, and influence that have occurred in recent history to medium-term history (ie last 20-100 years). All this considered, combined with some of the most articulate writing I’ll ever read, the plausibility of entire new countries forming becomes at least dramatically less hard to believe. And a point of optimism.
April 7, 2024
On the future emergence of internet-based decentralised countries. Felt like two seperate books Chapters 1 and 5 interesting but 2-4 entirely skippable.
Balaji is a genius with plenty of creative and provocative ideas. But the writing gets repetitive and he frustratingly oversimplifies some issues, leaving questions unanswered. Lots of citations which are great, but many links are broken.
Balaji is a genius with plenty of creative and provocative ideas. But the writing gets repetitive and he frustratingly oversimplifies some issues, leaving questions unanswered. Lots of citations which are great, but many links are broken.
March 21, 2025
Bro is mad upset that Superman and Spiderman were reporters, and more enlightening ideas.
July 2, 2024
The book's vision of rethinking the world from a digital-first perspective is fascinating, highlighting the compelling power of networks. While the ambition of this vision is thought-provoking, I couldn't extinguish the practical concerns about how such a state would interact with the physical world. Nevertheless, the book sparks an interesting conversation about the future of digital societies and governance.
July 11, 2022
An important read for innovators
A wide ranging romp through the most interesting crypto/political philosophy I have ever read. If you have seen Balaji's lectures online you may have a good sense for some of the content, and you'll still love reading every single page. I can't wait for the director's cut! Importantly, I LOL'd at least once last chapter. 10/10 would get a digital passport to Balaji's future network state. Win and help win.
A wide ranging romp through the most interesting crypto/political philosophy I have ever read. If you have seen Balaji's lectures online you may have a good sense for some of the content, and you'll still love reading every single page. I can't wait for the director's cut! Importantly, I LOL'd at least once last chapter. 10/10 would get a digital passport to Balaji's future network state. Win and help win.
October 11, 2025
Srinivasan's "The Network State: How to Start a New Country" (2022) presents a bold blueprint for reimagining governance in the digital age. The TL;DR review: As others have noted, and I agree, the book is visionary, yet poorly organized and mediocrely written. Many of the negative reviewers strike me as to stuck in their politics to objectively read another’s POV.
Despite its mediocre writing and poor organization, it’s still a very worthwhile read.
Drawing from his background as a tech entrepreneur and former CTO of Coinbase, Srinivasan envisions "network states" as online-first communities that evolve into sovereign entities. The core thesis is that, empowered by cryptocurrencies, remote work, and global networks, individuals can form voluntary societies that crowdfund land, build parallel institutions, and eventually seek diplomatic recognition—essentially starting nations from laptops rather than revolutions.
The book's strengths lie in its visionary scope and interdisciplinary synthesis.
Srinivasan (mostly successfully) weaves history, technology, and political theory, contrasting "network states" with traditional "nation-states" and "network unions" like Bitcoin or social media collectives.
He outlines a seven-step “network state” startup process: found the startup society online, organize it into a purposeful community, crowdfund resources, materialize in the physical world through hubs, network archipelago-style across locations, gain recognition, and scale. This framework is refreshingly actionable, with practical advice on using blockchain for governance, DAOs for decision-making, and metrics like "one-command install" for societal bootstrapping. It's particularly compelling in chapters on history's "leviathans" (states, gods, markets, networks), where he argues that tech can democratize state-building, bypassing corrupt establishments.
The prose is dense packed with neologisms and diagrams that do make complex ideas more accessible. For tech optimists, it's a rallying cry, highlighting how decentralization could solve issues like regulatory capture and cultural fragmentation, fostering innovation in education, healthcare, and law.
Srinivasan is optimistic, which is refreshing. We could use more optimistic technologists. His optimism is supported by real-world analogs like Estonia's e-residency or Prospera in Honduras. The book excels as a thought experiment, inspiring one to question entrenched power structures and explore crypto-enabled alternatives.
It's also a timely book, amid rising interest in “web3” and remote communities post-pandemic. That said, the vision can feel utopian, glossing over geopolitical realities—such as resistance from existing states or the challenges of physical security—potentially underestimating the "blood and soil" elements that have historically bound societies. However, I have long now argued that a group’s value-system is the new “blood and soil” and will increasingly be the bond of groups as societies move more online.
Critics note its libertarian bent might favor tech elites, ignoring equity issues in access to these new frontiers. Still, nothing has enabled nor has the potential to enable the under-resourced than the technology revolution of the last 40 years.
Overall, "The Network State" is provocative and pushes boundaries, even if not all ideas land practically — that are worthwhile pondering. That’s why it's a worthwhile read for anyone pondering tech's societal reshape.
Despite its mediocre writing and poor organization, it’s still a very worthwhile read.
Drawing from his background as a tech entrepreneur and former CTO of Coinbase, Srinivasan envisions "network states" as online-first communities that evolve into sovereign entities. The core thesis is that, empowered by cryptocurrencies, remote work, and global networks, individuals can form voluntary societies that crowdfund land, build parallel institutions, and eventually seek diplomatic recognition—essentially starting nations from laptops rather than revolutions.
The book's strengths lie in its visionary scope and interdisciplinary synthesis.
Srinivasan (mostly successfully) weaves history, technology, and political theory, contrasting "network states" with traditional "nation-states" and "network unions" like Bitcoin or social media collectives.
He outlines a seven-step “network state” startup process: found the startup society online, organize it into a purposeful community, crowdfund resources, materialize in the physical world through hubs, network archipelago-style across locations, gain recognition, and scale. This framework is refreshingly actionable, with practical advice on using blockchain for governance, DAOs for decision-making, and metrics like "one-command install" for societal bootstrapping. It's particularly compelling in chapters on history's "leviathans" (states, gods, markets, networks), where he argues that tech can democratize state-building, bypassing corrupt establishments.
The prose is dense packed with neologisms and diagrams that do make complex ideas more accessible. For tech optimists, it's a rallying cry, highlighting how decentralization could solve issues like regulatory capture and cultural fragmentation, fostering innovation in education, healthcare, and law.
Srinivasan is optimistic, which is refreshing. We could use more optimistic technologists. His optimism is supported by real-world analogs like Estonia's e-residency or Prospera in Honduras. The book excels as a thought experiment, inspiring one to question entrenched power structures and explore crypto-enabled alternatives.
It's also a timely book, amid rising interest in “web3” and remote communities post-pandemic. That said, the vision can feel utopian, glossing over geopolitical realities—such as resistance from existing states or the challenges of physical security—potentially underestimating the "blood and soil" elements that have historically bound societies. However, I have long now argued that a group’s value-system is the new “blood and soil” and will increasingly be the bond of groups as societies move more online.
Critics note its libertarian bent might favor tech elites, ignoring equity issues in access to these new frontiers. Still, nothing has enabled nor has the potential to enable the under-resourced than the technology revolution of the last 40 years.
Overall, "The Network State" is provocative and pushes boundaries, even if not all ideas land practically — that are worthwhile pondering. That’s why it's a worthwhile read for anyone pondering tech's societal reshape.
July 13, 2022
Exceptional
A riveting read of the potential hope that technology brings to help us reegnight our humanity. Balaji at his brilliant best.
A riveting read of the potential hope that technology brings to help us reegnight our humanity. Balaji at his brilliant best.
January 31, 2025
Tech bro writes a book to repackage company-owned towns from the Gilded Age, which were built by corporations to house its workers while giving the company an insane amount of control over their lives.
Similar to other Silicon Valley ventures such as Uber, this takes an existing idea, adds varying levels of technology on top, and calls it a genius, novel invention that helps you, the regular joe. That is of course until the other shoe drops, like when you realize that Uber’s main innovation was to offer cheap prices initially to drive out competitors (aka predatory pricing) by reducing the costs of having their own employees (e.g. drivers are classed as independent contractors) and equipment (rely on drivers’ cars so they also bear all wear and tear costs) all while they use the funding by billionaire investors to keep going (reported making a profit for first time in 2023).
While you may mistake this for generosity, they were just playing the long game - that they are special geniuses who deserve billions of dollars for their special ideas while also eroding public’s belief in the government and laws and regulations, like worker rights and protections. Their companies are the best and the most efficient and the current system (the state) is inefficient and unworkable system. After all, how could they be wrong when they have billions of dollars? Obviously pushing all the costs onto the common man while taking all the profits makes them smart, not greedy and immoral.
You should totally trust them, they are recognized founders of moral innovations, like the virtuous Facebook or Tesla (but only after it was bought by a rich guy because obviously it barely had any value when it was just founded by actual engineers). Go live in their network state and work for them. Although, I guess the founder must want you in the first place, so you better be useful and if you ever give them any issues (costs) or get too old to be useful, that’s your fault, so you can just go outside and figure it out instead of draining THEIR resources. Maybe they’ll throw you a bone of $10 of that specific network state’s crypto currency for charity. It could totally have value outside or in other network states … if they let you in.
So many people, including me, were fooled into thinking companies like Uber or WeWork were good because they came packaged with this cool new technology and all technology is good. Right? Or is shit wrapped in pretty packaging still shit? (And isn’t it oddly fitting that tech bros would pick crypto currency/block chain out of all the things in the world to be the “pretty” packaging for the company-owned town shit?)
Maybe in the early 2000s, you could’ve said that technology is good because the general public didn’t know much beyond the shine of innovation. But every day, we learn more and more (e.g., your data is collected and sold to the highest bidder) and shocker, it’s not all good (nor all bad), like most things made by humans. This of course is due to the Fourth Estate or the fourth power, which refers to the press and news media who not only report news but also play a significant role in monitoring and influencing the other branches of government and society. And now the hate on NYT and journalists makes sense - can’t have your worker bees know they’re being taken advantage of or how this 1% can sow misinformation to influence elections in their favor just so that they can continue to hoard wealth.
By the way, it’s called the Fourth Estate because it derives from the old European concept of the three estates of the realm (the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners) aka the social hierarchy, with the nobility (and depending on the period/region, the clergy) having the power. If we extrapolate this into Balaji’s little book, one would assume the network state founders are the nobility, most people are commoners, and the clergy seemingly doesn’t exist (but how will they use “religious” issues to sow division between the commoners?). As for the fourth estate, perhaps they get rid of it since they hate journalists but just keep some of the unscrupulous ones for a little Ministry of Truth situation.
To everyone who thinks this is a great idea, can you answer the following questions:
1. Do you think you will get to choose to be inside one of these utopian network states or even pick the “best” one?
2. Do you think that if you were chosen, you would hold an important position inside them? Assume you’re not one of those magical “founders” in this situation, because you wouldn’t need to belong to a network state since you already have your own.
If the historical context of nobility and commoners doesn’t help you visualize that the commoner majority, perhaps some basic math will paint a clearer picture. Per Forbes, as of 2024, there are roughly 3,000 billionaires in the world out of a total of 8.2 billion people per the United Nations estimate in 2024. Thus, you have a 3.65854e-7% chance of being one of the founders. “The Ultimate Infinitesimal Chance” would be a great headline, if journalism was still allowed of course.
P.S. Do you think the author, Balaji S. Srinivasan, would get his own network state? He was formerly the CTO of Coinbase, so he could just work for Brian Armstrong or either Marc Andreessen or Ben Horowitz since he’s apparently a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz.
P.P.S. The one star is for all of Balaji’s very hard work in this attempt to make a corporate-state seem like an actual alternative to people living in countries because it would’ve been impossible for a normie to take the same concept espoused by Curtis Yarvin without mentioning those fun parts about how technology will be used for all-seeing surveillance or to lock poor people in a virtual reality prison. A well-earned participation trophy, if you will.
P.P.P.S. Even if the world comes to this scenario where us lowly peons are chained to our jobs or rather “biometrically locked to a network state,” I would never ever get over the immense, perverse pleasure of knowing that these people will only have each other left.
They might be delusional enough to think that being knowledgeable in one specific STEM area and having billions of dollars makes both them and their ideas smarter and better than the totality of all the regular public school teachers, farmers, economists, mechanics, dentists, and the literal billions of wonderfully normal people that not only make this world work but also interesting and beautiful and conjure up that one little spark of joy or laughter or silliness even in the darkest of times, BUT they will never convince any human being (or even AI for that matter) that being in a group with the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musky, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Curtis Yarvin, Balaji, Brian whatever, et al. for the rest of your life would be the best possible life well lived instead of a miserable existence. It would be like going to a party where you had one interesting conversation, that one guy prattling on and on in a corner about physics, some awkward moments, oh another one whining in a different corner about no one coming to his cool sea city even though it’s literally the best and so on, except you’re stuck there, for the rest of your life, forever with all these people who think, who know they are the smartest, bestest boys.
Since I clearly can’t leave well enough alone, is this one of those times where the touch grass meme actually applies? While I’m so happy (and frankly relieved) that y’all found some enjoyment in the art of cinema with your love of “The Matrix,” please know there are so many other, wonderful things you can experience, especially when you talk to people from all walks of life. Appreciating and liking something doesn’t have to lead to obsessing and recreating a fictional world in our very real one. I’ll leave you with a quote from another movie, maybe y’all can give that a watch.
“You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you’re going to go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” - The Social Network
Similar to other Silicon Valley ventures such as Uber, this takes an existing idea, adds varying levels of technology on top, and calls it a genius, novel invention that helps you, the regular joe. That is of course until the other shoe drops, like when you realize that Uber’s main innovation was to offer cheap prices initially to drive out competitors (aka predatory pricing) by reducing the costs of having their own employees (e.g. drivers are classed as independent contractors) and equipment (rely on drivers’ cars so they also bear all wear and tear costs) all while they use the funding by billionaire investors to keep going (reported making a profit for first time in 2023).
While you may mistake this for generosity, they were just playing the long game - that they are special geniuses who deserve billions of dollars for their special ideas while also eroding public’s belief in the government and laws and regulations, like worker rights and protections. Their companies are the best and the most efficient and the current system (the state) is inefficient and unworkable system. After all, how could they be wrong when they have billions of dollars? Obviously pushing all the costs onto the common man while taking all the profits makes them smart, not greedy and immoral.
You should totally trust them, they are recognized founders of moral innovations, like the virtuous Facebook or Tesla (but only after it was bought by a rich guy because obviously it barely had any value when it was just founded by actual engineers). Go live in their network state and work for them. Although, I guess the founder must want you in the first place, so you better be useful and if you ever give them any issues (costs) or get too old to be useful, that’s your fault, so you can just go outside and figure it out instead of draining THEIR resources. Maybe they’ll throw you a bone of $10 of that specific network state’s crypto currency for charity. It could totally have value outside or in other network states … if they let you in.
So many people, including me, were fooled into thinking companies like Uber or WeWork were good because they came packaged with this cool new technology and all technology is good. Right? Or is shit wrapped in pretty packaging still shit? (And isn’t it oddly fitting that tech bros would pick crypto currency/block chain out of all the things in the world to be the “pretty” packaging for the company-owned town shit?)
Maybe in the early 2000s, you could’ve said that technology is good because the general public didn’t know much beyond the shine of innovation. But every day, we learn more and more (e.g., your data is collected and sold to the highest bidder) and shocker, it’s not all good (nor all bad), like most things made by humans. This of course is due to the Fourth Estate or the fourth power, which refers to the press and news media who not only report news but also play a significant role in monitoring and influencing the other branches of government and society. And now the hate on NYT and journalists makes sense - can’t have your worker bees know they’re being taken advantage of or how this 1% can sow misinformation to influence elections in their favor just so that they can continue to hoard wealth.
By the way, it’s called the Fourth Estate because it derives from the old European concept of the three estates of the realm (the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners) aka the social hierarchy, with the nobility (and depending on the period/region, the clergy) having the power. If we extrapolate this into Balaji’s little book, one would assume the network state founders are the nobility, most people are commoners, and the clergy seemingly doesn’t exist (but how will they use “religious” issues to sow division between the commoners?). As for the fourth estate, perhaps they get rid of it since they hate journalists but just keep some of the unscrupulous ones for a little Ministry of Truth situation.
To everyone who thinks this is a great idea, can you answer the following questions:
1. Do you think you will get to choose to be inside one of these utopian network states or even pick the “best” one?
2. Do you think that if you were chosen, you would hold an important position inside them? Assume you’re not one of those magical “founders” in this situation, because you wouldn’t need to belong to a network state since you already have your own.
If the historical context of nobility and commoners doesn’t help you visualize that the commoner majority, perhaps some basic math will paint a clearer picture. Per Forbes, as of 2024, there are roughly 3,000 billionaires in the world out of a total of 8.2 billion people per the United Nations estimate in 2024. Thus, you have a 3.65854e-7% chance of being one of the founders. “The Ultimate Infinitesimal Chance” would be a great headline, if journalism was still allowed of course.
P.S. Do you think the author, Balaji S. Srinivasan, would get his own network state? He was formerly the CTO of Coinbase, so he could just work for Brian Armstrong or either Marc Andreessen or Ben Horowitz since he’s apparently a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz.
P.P.S. The one star is for all of Balaji’s very hard work in this attempt to make a corporate-state seem like an actual alternative to people living in countries because it would’ve been impossible for a normie to take the same concept espoused by Curtis Yarvin without mentioning those fun parts about how technology will be used for all-seeing surveillance or to lock poor people in a virtual reality prison. A well-earned participation trophy, if you will.
P.P.P.S. Even if the world comes to this scenario where us lowly peons are chained to our jobs or rather “biometrically locked to a network state,” I would never ever get over the immense, perverse pleasure of knowing that these people will only have each other left.
They might be delusional enough to think that being knowledgeable in one specific STEM area and having billions of dollars makes both them and their ideas smarter and better than the totality of all the regular public school teachers, farmers, economists, mechanics, dentists, and the literal billions of wonderfully normal people that not only make this world work but also interesting and beautiful and conjure up that one little spark of joy or laughter or silliness even in the darkest of times, BUT they will never convince any human being (or even AI for that matter) that being in a group with the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musky, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Curtis Yarvin, Balaji, Brian whatever, et al. for the rest of your life would be the best possible life well lived instead of a miserable existence. It would be like going to a party where you had one interesting conversation, that one guy prattling on and on in a corner about physics, some awkward moments, oh another one whining in a different corner about no one coming to his cool sea city even though it’s literally the best and so on, except you’re stuck there, for the rest of your life, forever with all these people who think, who know they are the smartest, bestest boys.
Since I clearly can’t leave well enough alone, is this one of those times where the touch grass meme actually applies? While I’m so happy (and frankly relieved) that y’all found some enjoyment in the art of cinema with your love of “The Matrix,” please know there are so many other, wonderful things you can experience, especially when you talk to people from all walks of life. Appreciating and liking something doesn’t have to lead to obsessing and recreating a fictional world in our very real one. I’ll leave you with a quote from another movie, maybe y’all can give that a watch.
“You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you’re going to go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” - The Social Network
July 29, 2022
Many interesting ideas that are thought-provoking! Definitely worth spending time to read through. But the book also has many hasty conclusions. What's more, some of the future pictures the author envisioned don't seem to be very appealing. He said he doesn't have illusions about the future, but even if there is a slight chance of getting a better version of the world and of humankind, it's worth fighting for.
July 5, 2022
Digital encryption to Nietzsche and everything in between
Balaji advocates for the "Network State", a proposed successor to the 20th century nation state, which is a community that organizes itself and acts with a shared purpose and moral framework.
Balaji advocates for the "Network State", a proposed successor to the 20th century nation state, which is a community that organizes itself and acts with a shared purpose and moral framework.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 169 reviews