Yeah. Thank you. It's so good to be to be back. And, I, it's it's awesome to see ETHDenver evolve, actually. And and I don't always have that same kind of enthusiasm for, like, crypto conferences. And it certainly has its its kind of, dangers and flaws and and demons. But, but one thing that's really powerful about it, is is that, you know, pretty early on John Pollard, who is who is kind of the orchestrator of the whole thing made, I think, a very powerful decision to, to develop the the conference as a, cooperative DAO, incorporated a DAO as a cooperative. It's called SporkDAO, the underlying entity, and, you know, Spork like a fork slash spoon. And, this year, a couple things are really exciting about that. One is, Paula has identified this year, the theme is, the year of this spork and has really made a point of emphasizing that sense of co ownership, of this conference. And so I I think that's a very powerful educational opportunity to show people what it can mean to co own and co govern something in the real world, something that is like a point of convergence for community and, and to, and to invite participants in in that in that profound way. Second that is really neat about it is that, the location changed. It really outgrew last year its its previous location, which was really interesting, like, old, kind of gothic building in Denver. They moved it to the National Western Complex, which is where the big Denver stock shows are, you know, where you come and see cows. And so, like, I've only ever been there for the stock show to, like, take my kid to see the fiddle contests, you know. Are you are you a are you a cow buyer? I'm not a cow buyer, but I'm a fiddle aficionado. So, so it it's it's really, actually moving to see this, like, this old legacy of of agricultural economy, much of which in in, you know, the Western United States has been organized on cooperative basis. You know, the the Farm Bureau and its, like, cooperative insurance programs, you know, have been historically based at that location too. So to see this, like, agricultural tradition, this this legacy of agricultural co ownership and co governance, especially emerging out of that populist movement in the eighteen eighties, and and beyond, converge with this very, very new form of co ownership and co governance. Now it doesn't mean that it's like kumbaya and all the problems are solved. And there's, you know, just as, like, that earlier form of cooperativism was always intertwined with colonialism and and imperialism, the this current form of cooperativism is constantly, you know, hanging in the balance between regens and degens, between between the, like, the urges of of capital control and accumulation and consolidation or this vision of a more inclusive, more, more, kind of, empowering digital economy. So, you know, the the struggles are are familiar, but, it's been very cool to see this, you know, to see this conference kind of, be at least a space of opportunity for for expanding the, you know, the cooperative commonwealth as they used to say. Right.

When you, participate, basically, you can, receive SPORT tokens. And then you, in addition to claiming those tokens, can become a you know, register as a member of the cooperative. And in that way, you, you know, you you use, like, quote, unquote, real names, and that sort of thing because it's a legal, you know, it's a legal association, not just an on chain association. But it's, it also enables, further forms of economic participation and and participation in governance because that that legal entity is is kind of deeply tied to the on chain entity.

So when the network state, idea first started spreading around, actually, I I have to say I was really excited by it. You know, at least the idea of trying to shake up what the nation state is and to create, a kind of political entity that better fits our increasingly networked lives. And and further, I am no friend of borders and cops and militaries, you know, and and, you know, I I I've spent a lot of my, you know, like, early part of my career was devoted around, like, logic of nonviolence and anti war movements. And and, and so the idea that, you know, that we could find a way to to to do away with this nation state and to enable people to, connect more freely across, like, these bizarre territorial borders we've established and to, reflect our kind of shared network belonging, to to produce political, affiliations that are, native to the networks, that we inhabit. You know, all of that is very appealing to me. And also the possibility of experimenting more with how we do, political, life. You know, how we, how we organize. And and so much of that, I think, resonates also with with, ideas that were forming in, like, the late nineties and early two thousands around the counter globalization movement. And, you know, these ideas have long histories in internationalist politics and so forth, around, you know, trying to create these these networked, entities where where, you know, the the whole idea of, like, counter globalization is, yes, we want a global, you know, a global identity too. We we want globalization too, but through people and movements and shared affinity rather than through capital flows. And so so that I that that that initial vision of, like, okay. Let's replace these these territorial and these or even not replace, but but add to, you know, the the the entities that we might, have in our territorial lives, to also have, you know, political formations in our in our, you know, in in in our networked lives. And and I actually think, like, political internationalism has been, you know, really, missing. You know, when you when you compare, for instance, left political movements today to, what they they looked like a hundred years ago, there was much more, I think, of a sense of global solidarity and interconnectedness in a sense that workers in you know, workers of the world unite was a kind of classic slogan that you don't hear anymore. It's much more of, you know, workers in of of this country or that country, you know, do something and change policy. Right? And, and so that that globalism, that internationalism, you know, really appealed to me. But there is some big But,

In in many respects, it actually reminded me of the of the Communist Manifesto, you know, as a piece of rhetoric. You know, it's playful, it's forceful, it's weird. And, you know, there's an intensity and a kind of also, you know, emotional intensity combined with like a kind of forcefulness of argument and clarity of argument that, you know, I every time he mentioned Marx, I, I thought, wow, you really sound more like Marx than you realize. But I was struck most of all by what was not there. What was missing? What was unspoken? And that's where I think the most profound, concerns lie. And and and what in particular, you know, I'm concerned is not addressed in any explicit way and thus will be you know, when when there's a power vacuum and you don't say something, what that usually means is you're inheriting the power structure of the surround. You know? You're you're enabling what surrounds you to fill the the void. And, and and what's missing there is how are you going to finance this? What is the economic pathway? How are these, you know, single founders, going to going to build the the polities of their dreams? There's some intimations there around, you know, that use kind of token magic, but I think there's a lot of reason to, you know, suspect there's a much more to the story than than, Balaji lets on. And then second, the question of governance. These are the things I'm always obsessed with, ownership and governance. And so when I don't see them, I get worried, because, because I, you know, if if we're not going to make the question of governance explicit, then what are we going to get? We're gonna get the the forms of ownership and governance that, are probably most familiar to biology and others in the tech world, which is venture capital and startups and, and monopoly pursuing, ambitious founders who claim to be transforming the world and in the process consolidate power for themselves and their friends. And so what I end up reading in the absences is this is a proposal to remake politics in the image of a tech startup. And I think there are a lot of reasons to be very, very worried about that trajectory.

Yeah. I I I think there's something kind of incoherent and I think he makes an interesting set of arguments about this, but but there's, I think, a lingering incoherence about the idea of, of holding territory, you know, for these network states and, and and somehow departing from from territorial states into this other form. I think it still matters, Like, the the management of territorial lands, you know, is still something that probably should be done in some kind of cohesive way. And, and I I guess I imagine network entities as a layer on top of, territorial administration, rather than a total departure from. And, you know, I say this like coming from you know, I belong to a network state that happens to be 2,000 years old. You know, I'm a Roman Catholic. You know, we've been we've been at this for a while. And even, like, Vatican City, you know, has relative autonomy, but it is still deeply enmeshed in its relationship to Italy. And it has diplomatic recognition, all things Balaji wants. But come on, you know, like, we're, you know, we the largest landowner, you know, private landowner in the world, you know, but but, you know, we're still still kind of recognize the sovereignty of the of the of the territories that that, you know, these lands are held in. And and so it's, you know, I think it's it's much more useful to think about it as a layer. And and what I'm interested in too is how do you, create, how do you create such layers that this we lean less on the state? So for instance, I you know, I've I've written an article on this, for Colonel magazine called Lighten the Load of the Nation State. You know, I actually think one of one of our deep problems in politics today is that we are asking too much of nation states. We're asking them to solve, you know, wealth inequality, climate change, you know, this whole list of things that actually they're very poorly equipped to address because they're global problems. They're networked problems, and, territorial nation states are just, like, don't have the power, even very powerful ones, to directly address those single handedly. They need to be coordinated, solutions. And, and so, you know, I guess my hope is not that our either these terror these states would just disappear or or be supplanted, but that, they would, be in some ways less important in the same way that, like, my city has a government, but we don't, like, have cops at our borders, you know, checking who comes in. You know, we just like, that border doesn't matter that much anymore, because, like, there's other borders matter more or other other kind of lines are are more significant. The same way that, like, Europe has gone from a bunch of really, really locked up countries to, you know, a place where people can flow relatively easily. We we've just shifted the focus, of of what we attend to. And I think that's kind of the opportunity we have to to broaden, you know, the range of shared concern and the and the range of shared, identity and and and shared polity, so that so that we we we lean less on the nation state. And and I think, ultimately, a vision too here is one, that, that decolonial scholars have talked about as, as nonexclusive sovereignties. The idea that, you know, right now, we we live in a world in which, like, which state you belong to is, like, absolutely critical. And that is a super important identity for you, whether you like it or not. But if you look at, for instance, this, you know, beautiful website, nativelands.ca, you know, map of indigenous territories, you know, you look at place where I live in in, in, Northern Colorado, We've got the Ut. We've got the Cheyenne. We've got the Arapaho territories all overlapping. The land was, you know, not not, you know, it was shared among different communities. And and we can also imagine people, you know, having multiple sovereignties, multiple relationships to sovereign entities to to to political, structures, rather than, you know, generally just having one. And I think that's actually a freer a freer world in which we can flow more, you know, through networks rather than simply being trapped inside the boundaries of a particular country. You know, so, again, there's there's a lot in that kind of in that kind of outlook that that that resonates with with what's with what Balaji is is saying. And and and this goes back so much, like, with every, like, shiny new startup. Like, with with Uber, there is that legitimate, like, longing for, you know, more freedom in how we do work and, like, being the convenience of being able to, like, order something conveniently on your phone. The the ability to, like, decide when you work and when you don't, like, that is a real that is a that is a beautiful and honest and human longing. The problem with Uber is that it's on the terms of a startup that is trying to dominate the world and and and oppress its its workers. And and and I think we have the same problem. We have this this this this glimpse, this this cooptation of a very beautiful, set of possibilities for human beings,

Yeah. And, I mean, another side that that is missing in that exit invoice question, but I think that Hirsch you know, that, you know, Albert Hirschman who proposed this distinction, you know, had in mind with voice was options. What are your choices, and what is structuring those choices? So, for instance, in in, you know, again, to keep on the the topic of of rideshare apps, is, or or, you know, what they've become convenience apps, gig apps, the in my town again, over the pandemic, a cooperative, deliveries restaurant delivery service came up that was co owned by the restaurants. Right? And the drivers loved it because it paid better wages than the than the other ones. The city loved it because it was local and the, and it's good for the restaurants. The restaurants loved it because it wasn't extracting from them. It was basically an at cost service designed to support them, and they they had governance power over it. So, you know, everyone with deep engagement in this in this company loved it. The problem was is the the competitors, this seamless and Uber or whatever could flood the zone with with, venture capital and and and undercut, what this, you know, fledgling coop was trying to do and, and ended up driving it out of business. And so we no longer have that option. So now my exit option, if I do, you know, food delivery, is like Uber or Seamless. Right? And those are two shitty options. The the you know? So so I'm always interested in it particularly, like, from my experience with cooperative examples like this is, like, what are the options we don't get to have because of of the structure of the of the market or of the ecosystem or or or or whatever is is organizing the options. And so exit is always inadequate if you don't have an option that is actually just. And and, so often we see that where people really don't have first of all, exit is not a real option because it it means it it it has such high cost for individuals like losing their networks, their family, their livelihood. You know, leaving even an a social media app can be devastating for somebody. So exit can be far more costly than it appears. And furthermore, when you do exit, you might not have a good option. You know? It it in in so many things in our technological world, like, you're be basically have to choose between, like, which monopoly do you wanna hang out with. Like, you know, which horrible option do you wanna choose? And you don't have the option of, like, a community governed, like, thing that actually has your interest at that, at heart. And that's what I think the danger is here in in the absences of the of the network state proposal so far is that we're gonna end up with a bunch of really lousy options, and we're gonna forget that we could actually have a better way. You know, we could actually have that restaurant uncooperative, but we don't get to have nice things because the market is organized against them.

Absolutely. I mean, he really does not lay out, like, the investment strategy. The closest thing, as I recall, and I was really looking for this, was was, that you might, like, tokenize the community, and the community would grow through the value of the tokens as they become, you know, traded and circulated and used. Right? And this is the kind of old, Bitcoin, you know, altcoin dream. Right? He's basically saying, like, if you believe in the network state first, then you'll have the token first, and maybe you'll be rich later down the line. Like, it's pretty implicit. Or you show or you show value. I mean, there there's some reasonableness. The idea, okay. Like, you know, maybe you'll luck out and, like, the the magic money that you create is gonna start, is gonna start being valuable. And we've seen this happen sometimes in in crypto land where, like, tokens for mysterious reasons become valuable, because of some faith that people have in in what stands behind it, the founder, the idea, whatever it is. But when you look at the norm in emerging crypto practice, that's actually not what's happening. It can look like what's happening, but what's actually happening in far and away the largest platforms, the OpenSeas, the Uniswaps, the, you know, the the major DeFi protocols, the major, you know, even, you know, early Ethereum, you know, everything post Bitcoin, you know, is and even, you know, the growth spurts of Bitcoin is that you have major institutional investor money entering into the into the picture, and that is what's supercharging these markets. And, and that is because not because of anything having to do with tokens or tokenomics, but because we live in a capitalist world outside of crypto land, and that's where the money is. You know? Like, it's why you rob a bank. That's where the money is. You know? And and so where the money is in our, like, old old world is what's driving the power in in these networked worlds. And similarly, you know, the this is what happens when you have a a power vacuum is is that the existing power structures of the world outside of it fill the the void. And, and and so you end up with with that same old power of capital, stepping in. And that's, you know, in the absence of a, of a clear alternative financing mechanism, that is precisely what would happen, with with network states in the same way that it has happened with every major crypto project. And, and and particularly the fact that this is coming from a venture capitalist. This is how he thinks and how he works. So, like, it's you know, one has no reason to expect that he has any concern about that model of growth. But there are very good reasons to be concerned about it. That this is a model of growth based on, you know, achieving monopoly style market power, based on, accumulating communities on essentially deceptive terms, tell giving people free stuff to build network effects in order to capture their value or whatever it is you wanna capture, their data, their their money, their their loyalty, their their family relationships, you know, at their their jobs. Take your pick. And, and this is you know, I think venture capital, like, in a healthy economy might have some role. But it is, I think, a very, very poor, tool for achieving things that we we rely on in in fundamental ways. Because it ultimately means that we're relying on something that is does not have our best interests at heart. And and one hopes if one is going to replace, you know, quasi poorly but nominally democratic nation states with something else, that you would achieve something that is more accountable to the people who rely on it. And and the language of state implies a relationship of reliance, that it is more accountable to the people who rely on it, than, than what came before. And, you know, I'm profoundly concerned about a world in which we have to choose among, you know, among monopolists, to to access the basic, the the basic rights of of citizenship and the basic protections and the basic the the common goods, the public goods that we need, health care, you know, public assistance, retirement programs, all these things. That's very scary, and it might work out for some people. And that's where that kind of libertarian exit comes in, but it's it's profoundly unlikely to to work out for most people. You know, venture capital plays are, are dependent on on producing inequalities, and and, one can expect that that a network state play is going to,

Yeah. I I appreciate you bringing up the the Catalan Integral Cooperative. This is this network in in the Barcelona area. I reported on it years ago. And I remember one very important moment for me there was, was I was, just kind of chatting with the, with the the kind of administrative folks who were sitting on computers, like, doing spreadsheets or something. And I asked them, so, like, what's your can you explain to me, like, what your legal structure is? Like, what kind of cooperative are you? And, you know, Catalonia has, like, a long cooperative history and has lots of interesting cooperative statutes. And they're like, which one? And and I said, you know, what well, you're a cooperative. Right? The the cooperative. And they're like, oh, no. We have many, many legal entities. And and I wasn't sure I I'm not sure any of them were actually cooperative. And and it was striking because they had essentially you know, it was a it was a very powerful learning, for me because they had done what actually capitalists do all the time, which is, like, they had their own entity, you know, in their in their minds, in their community, in their social relationships. And they just used whatever legal entities they needed to use to accomplish their goals. Right? They they use the legal system opportunistically, but they, had their own you know, the the what mattered to them was how they was how they self organized in their own spaces. And and that was a very powerful lesson to me. That that idea that the goal is not just to, like, get your thing instantiated in the state, but to create a layer of of interface and relationship. Again, I think that is, you know, akin to what institutions like the Catholic church and others have done for a long time, and and certainly that cooperatives do. And I think it's really important to have those layers of that layered life. It goes back to, you know, the kind of colonials democratic theory of Alexis de Tocqueville that, like, doing civic associations in everyday life, doing having mini polities, in your daily life is actually really important to being able to practice democracy, much more broadly. Also, that space of experimentation, I think, is profoundly important. And that again, it was part of what excited me about this idea of nation of network states. It's like, yes, we need more spaces of experimentation. We we, you know, the in DAOs right now, in in crypto land, there's so much more experimentation with governance models than, like, I see in cooperatives because cooperatives are kind of saddled to the state that tells you this is how you're supposed to to organize and govern. Whereas in Daulland, people aren't really thinking about that as much, and it it opens the door to, like, figuring out new approaches. And that's really exciting. I don't wanna lose that. I'm really eager to protect that. It's one reason I think, you know, what you're doing with the the koala model law, Primavera, is so important, because it is it is a way of carving out and protecting space of experimentation for DAOs. This is a law, a a strategy for legal recognition that, you know, allows DAOs to remain kind of flexible and and and creative. And and and and, historically, I think they're interesting you know, you could even do that on a territorial basis. You know, cities like, Shenzhen and Shanghai, you know, developed the way they did in China because they had different rules from from, from the places around them. Now, normally, what ends up happening actually is when special territories are carved out by governments like China, it's to make them more capitalist, to make space for unbridled capitalism. What if instead, you know, we were experimenting both at the network level and at territorial levels with with more democratic, forms of governance with, you know, let let's put a, a city, under the power of, of a random jury, for for a few years and see how it goes, see what we learn. You know, that's the kind of thing that that, you know, I think we need to be pushing. And and and what is the and and and that is the vision that is actually exciting about a network state. Ah, yes. Let's have spaces where people can try different things, and we can learn from those experiments, and we can and we can live by them, and we can opt in and opt out to the ones that excite us. And, you know, yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Let's do that. And it it's kind of shocking in in the book, the degree to which, you know, he is very interested in, like, you know, the, you know, the keto diet network state, which is cool. You know? Like, I I I'm all about, like, weird lifestyles. I'm really into, like, monasteries. Right? Another space of, like, carving out another kind of political life with among people who are obsessed with weird things. You know? Like, I am all about that, and who have weird dietary practices. Yes. I wanna live in a community of people who also have weird dietary practices. Let's do it. But, but what's missing is that question of how are you gonna how are you gonna self govern? And actually, in those monasteries, like, despite their profound monarchism often, they would still have, like, a modicum in the rule of Saint Benedict of, like, you know, your dictatorial habit is still elected by the by the monks every once in a while, or the nuns. Saint, in the in the Middle Ages, Saint Claire, when forming the the women's order of of, the Franciscans, insisted over the objections of the pope that that all the nuns should be heard about big decisions. You know, that that that you that this was in some respects going to be a democratic space. And so even by the the very modest yardstick of medieval Catholic monasteries, Balaji's governance imagination is is, is impoverished. And and that's saying a lot.

It's something you're always gonna hear. And and I I in my interactions with Balaji, I think I think there's that this kind of, dynamic too. And it's I think it's a it's a well meaning kind of ignorant, but but well meaning, perspective is saying is saying, okay. You know, you wanna experiment with democracy. That's really nice. Like, go ahead and do it. You know, let the best model win. Right? And so so they'll say, yeah. You can experiment. Like, create your democratic start up. Like, I've heard this for years, like, working in the cooperative movement. Like, talking to, like, you know, venture backed founders and all this stuff. Stopping you. So Yeah. Exactly. Like, I'm not gonna stop you. I would love to see that happen. Like, yeah. Let's have a cooperative alternative to Uber. Great. But you do that. Yeah. I'm over here doing my Exactly. I'm gonna become a billionaire. And and, and that's cool. You do that cute thing over there. But but the the, and and I suspect that will be the response. But the the challenge is, like, we can't actually experiment because, because the space is is organized in such a way that those experience experiments will never will never, really compete or succeed. And, and and and therefore, you know, we end up with that option space, I was talking about. So so we need to be very intentional in exploring these new kinds of political possibilities in thinking about what kind of infrastructure do we need to actually be able to experiment in the same way that, like, I think crypto is very profound in in in one important respect, which is that, like, in all previous, like, online spaces, like, the server model, has actually just totally inhibited possibilities of self governance for historical reasons. I go into, like, in a paper called, about this concept of implicit feudalism. And the, it's a, it's it's been a constrained space, and democratic practice has not emerged for specific reasons. And that kind of practice is emerging in crypto land for specific reasons because of the design of these of these networks that they lend themselves in different ways to self governance, and to and to joint decision making. And and so when we think about what kind of infrastructure would we want, say we want network states, okay, but we want democratic network or or network somethings. What what what kind of infrastructure might we want? I would argue that we need, like, constraints that make sure that, like, monopolist and monarchist stuff does not emerge, right, and is not encouraged to be successful. And, and and maybe that means, like, the kind of diplomatic recognition or whatever that that they're pursuing, like, is not available for for, you know, dictatorial regimes. That's one approach. That's a kind of stick approach. The carrot approach could be to say, okay. If we're gonna invest in these things, let's real anticipate the problem and, and create cooperative investment funds. You know, there's a $130,000,000,000 cooperative bank, down the road from me, here in Denver. And, it was designed through federal policy, because farmers demanded for a bunch of decades, got really noisy, that we need a means to finance our cooperatives. And so finally, reluctantly, the federal government set up this very constrained set of entities that enabled farmers to access billions and billions of dollars to finance their cooperatives. That is itself a cooperative co owned by the cooperatives that use it. And so, you know, if we were serious about setting up, you know, a democratic future through new kinds of network entities, we would then have to set up the appropriate kinds of democratic financing mechanisms that would be appropriate to that kind of, activity. Venture capital is just structurally nondemocratic. It's structurally based on achieving, consolidated, consolidated gains and and and exits. So so that kind of carrot and stick needs to be present if we're serious about building democratic, futures in these kinds of spaces.

honor, like, the the positive urges there. And and, you know, I've tried to do that in in this conversation. I try to do it myself because I feel those positive urges. You know? I I I really appreciate a lot of what I think is drawing people into this. I I I feel it in myself. You know? I went out of, you know, out of the militarized nation state too, and I love that that other people feel that way. You know? That's a great starting point. That's a really cool place to begin. And I think we need to really work on asserting positive alternatives, that, you know, maybe draw on some of this language that build on it. And, you know, frankly, I mean, the fact that Balaji, like, the main thing I'm concerned about, you know, about this book other than, like, the, you know, the weird rants that drive me crazy, is that it's a, is that it doesn't actually specify the things I'm most concerned about. You know? And so to me, that's an invitation strategically to say, okay. Let's specify those things. Let's let's enter into this conversation and and, and see what happens if we if we introduce a constraint against authoritarianism, a constraint against investor control. Say nothing, you know, can be a network state or whatever badge people wanna carry, if it is controlled by by investors rather than people who rely on it. You know, one one could imagine all kinds of things. You know, my understanding is that there are funds being established, like venture funds being established actually to invest in network state related projects. We should demand the creation of democratic financing mechanisms. You know, ask hard questions about, like, what are the what are the term sheets look like? Let's establish democratic term sheets term sheets that won't inhibit participant control. So so I think because that, the problem is actually absences. There's a there's space for constructive engagement, and for present presenting an alternative. I I've been lately really into, the history of of, Vanguard, the mutual fund, which, you know, I I'm no great fan of index funds and the stock market in general and, you know, all these things. I'm part of a campaign, now called, that that is through an organization a Quaker organization called equate earthquake Quaker action team that is trying to, push Vanguard to divest from fossil fuels. But one thing that's very interesting about Vanguard is it was a case where, somebody, Jack Bogle, this kind of banker type, you know, got really mad at his fellow bankers essentially and realized, hey. If I, just share the thing I'm creating, share ownership with the people who are investing in it and make it co owned by them, we're gonna cut out, you know, some middlemen, and, and we're gonna create a much more streamlined, much more capital efficient, much more powerful kind of entity and ends up, like, totally transforming the financial world and and, you know, not nearly enough. But, but at least undercutting costs and significantly lowering costs for for individual participants, by creating a cooperatively owned mechanism. Why are there not more people like him? Because he died with $80,000,000 rather than $80,000,000,000. Right? Because our system allows people to get far, far too wealthy. Right? But at the beginning of anything, there are opportunities to, to to to set the table stakes, to to set the the the terms and the conditions, in the same way that in Colorado here when we're as the the crypto ecosystem was developing, you know, we were able to to to get that ETHDenver institution when it was much smaller than it is today to incorporate as a cooperative. And and because of that, you know, we're doing ETHDenver is now an exercise in cooperative education for tens of thousands of people. And so so I think this is a moment where where where, you know, we can take advantage of the newness, and the the the the the excitement around these ideas, by asking some some hard questions and saying yes and. You know, if if the answer is no, then I think, you know, the strategy needs to shift. But I think it's still it's still a moment where there are a lot of people who are excited by this idea, who who, like anybody, you know, hasn't thought through all the the possibilities. And and and, you know, the the those of us who come with with a certain kind of analysis and a certain kind of experience, can enter in and say, okay. Let's contribute to this to this excitement, you know, in these sorts of ways. So I I'm still in kind of a yes and phase, and and I hope that that can I hope that that can work? I hope that that, we can insert some really critical, tools into this into this moment. And whether that involves, you know, holding the the meme of the network state and just reinventing what it means in certain in some important respects or introducing a counter meme or or whatever it is. I I I you know, I'll let the meme masters, handle that. But I'm you know, I I will not be satisfied by, you know, anything that is less accountable than our shitty, quasi democracy, democratic states. You know, that to me is like in the same way that I, you know, I used to say that Bitcoin people, like, come back when you've got something more accountable than the Federal Reserve. Like, I hate the Federal Reserve too, but y'all haven't caught up to it yet, you know. And and, similarly with with, you know, at least the Federal Reserve, like, and the, you know, The US financial system, like, has to care about full employment, you know, has to care about, like, employment levels. Like, that matters, you know, and come back when you care about employment, or whatever it takes to get people the money they need to live. Similarly with network states, you know, let's just keep holding that demand. Like, let's see let let's prove to me that what we're talking about here is going to be better than where we started from. Yeah. It's funny because I I actually think that

I mean, I think I think that kind of, like, collaborative funding can do important important things and and introduce, like, strategic comments. I think of cases like Wikipedia or the Fediverse, you know, where where, like, pow. So something comes up from, from nowhere and and, establishes this powerful, like, purpose driven, infrastructure that that others can build on. But I actually think, you know, I I love what you said about that, like, relationship between the different layers between this, you know, states and the network. I I kind of think of them in my head with terrible academic terms like academic or, like network, jurisdictions. You know, I agree that the state word is is not right. But but I actually think that you have to look back to the state to the existing states, if we're going to get, the the infrastructure we need for the for the next phase. And, in the same way that I'm arguing that, you know, that that if under current under the current trajectory, what we are gonna get is venture capital, the reason for that is not just because, like, a private interest aligning in certain ways. It's because our existing states have emboldened and empowered venture capital. Like, in 1979, congress changed a prudent man rule, which affects how pension funds can invest and basically open the floodgates for the largest stores of capital, which are, which are highly regulated, to invest in venture capital. And that's what made venture capital take off. Like, you know, if you look at the people who are rich from tech, like, they are nothing compared to pension funds. You know, they need pension funds. They can't do anything without you know, like, venture capital was a joke before the pension funds showed up. And, and and and so we need to recognize that that we are already supercharging a certain model. And, if we want a different model, we're going to have to recognize that the structural conditions need to, need to go in that direction. You know, cooperatives have achieved massive, massive scale, when, federal, in The US when when the the federal government has created provisions for them to access large amounts of capital, like, for for rural electrification in the nineteen thirties and forties and fifties, you know, and and still today, rural electric co op co ops can access massive stores of capital because the federal government has established, infrastructure, that allows them to compete. And, and and similarly, I I think honestly, it it is gonna require this recognition, among those who are structuring the economy to say, if we if we're serious about this stuff and we're we really want to invest in in these new kinds of entities, we're gonna have to create, infrastructures that support them and that support directing large stores of of capital to them. Because right now, you know, I I think those you know, certain strategic projects can can happen through private initiative. But, but we have to also really appreciate the way in which the existing tax code, the existing, you know, weird little regulations. I'm I'm always looking for those weird little regulations that nobody knows about that are structuring this thing. And, and and and we need to be very attentive to those because those are shaping and constraining the possibilities for the future that we're allowed to imagine.

Yeah. Out of the podcast, into the DAOs. Let's go.

as I mentioned, an essay in, Kernel Magazine called, Lighten the Load of the Nation State that explores some of these themes. And then, you know, another one from some months back in Noema magazine is about encoding human rights into blockchains. And I think this is actually really relevant in terms of thinking about how how we might think of blockchains and protocols more like their polities, more like their political spaces, spaces where we, obtain rights and and obligations and responsibilities. And so I think that's actually very relevant, something we didn't really get into around protocol governance and the relationship to to this conversation. And then finally, I've got a an article that's up as a draft, on my website under open work, called Web three is the opportunity that we've had all along. And that's that's kind of a a plea for for seeing the opportunity of Web three in light of longer struggles for, you know, democratic ownership and governance. And and I think that's that's really relevant. Helps kind of put this context in its place, put this challenge in its place, I hope. But above all, thank you so much for all the work you're doing. I'll also, plug, plug your new book, coming out soon that I've had a chance to look at, and it's awesome. And, I think it's gonna be a really, really useful guide for, for for for people who who, you know, share concerns and sensibilities like the ones we've we've been talking about and who are trying to find a way to navigate this, you know, this this strange new world.

Thanks so much. Alright. Thank you.