"This chapter serves as an accessible introduction to some key concepts that are used to describe contemporary urban commons and commoning and as an overview of situated experiments in public-commons cooperation and governance, that have adapted these through a variety of protocols, institutional designs, and social, technical, and ecological innovations. Drawing on the experiences of the cities of Ghent, Barcelona, and others, as well as recent developments in peer-to-peer production and value accounting, it makes a case for urban contributive democracy, and finally, cosmolocal production, a planetary mutualization strategy."

"Mutualizing Urban Provisioning Systems
Michel Bauwens, Rok Kranjc, and Jose Ramos"

"Techno-elementals" are subtle beings that align themselves with human technology and artifacts. This book explores the emerging life of technology, It describes some of the effects the technological environment has on our humanity and the dangers and opportunities that lie ahead. To understand techno-elementals, we need to stretch into unfamiliar territory--to see the subtle realms as an ecosystem and subtle beings as living organisms. This writing seeks to introduce people to the reality, the wonder, and the naturalness of the non-physical world around us."

""Techno-elementals" are subtle beings that align themselves with human technology and artifacts. This book explores the emerging life of technology, It describes some of the effects the technological environment has on our humanity and the dangers and opportunities that lie ahead. To understand techno-elementals, we need to stretch into unfamiliar territory--to see the subtle realms as an ecosystem and subtle beings as living organisms. This writing seeks to introduce people to the reality, the wonder, and the naturalness of the non-physical world around us."

"Yann André Le Cun[1] (/ləˈkʌn/ lə-KUN, French: [ləkœ̃];[2] usually spelled LeCun;[2] born 8 July 1960) is a French-American computer scientist working primarily in the fields of machine learning, computer vision, mobile robotics and computational neuroscience. He is the Silver Professor of the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University and Vice President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta.[3][4]"

"n signing Executive Order 14242 (“Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”), President Trump directed the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” That order will have immense consequences for federal and state government, as well as for the character of the American people. Moving forward, the key questions are whether Congress will back up the order, whether state government will reform its education policymaking structure, and whether the American people will engage on academic content. All these necessitate a repudiation of habits induced by the century-long progressive march against the Constitution.

With respect to education, progressivism has emasculated Congress. "

"hree times in the past year, a high court in the West has sought to disqualify a presidential frontrunner from competing in a national election—not for treason or murder, but for recondite offenses tangled in technicalities and presented with novel legal theories. Donald Trump (with his 34 felonies) and Romania’s Calin Georgescu (with last November’s suspicious TikTok campaign) were joined on Monday by nationalist candidate Marine Le Pen in France. Her National Rally, which has its roots in a more right-wing party founded by Le Pen’s father 50 years ago, has moderated its message since she took it over in 2011 and now gets more votes than any party in France. Le Pen has steadily improved in her three presidential campaigns and is blowing the competition away in the runup to the 2027 race. She draws 34 to 37 percent of the vote, depending on which poll you read, with the closest of her rivals barely scraping 20. "

"Open Protocol Research Group, “Sketches Toward a Theory of the Protocol Underground,” July 2024, https://mirror.xyz/openprotocolresearch.eth/YuZvCx5ge2nQXo8L2n0iWKN_CflivaCfsoLNMoVTqf4.

[7] Open Protocol Research Group, Undercapital: Open Protocols and the Underground Potential of the Distributed Ledger, September 2024, https://gallery.manifold.xyz/optimism/listing?listingId=586."

"Process of defining boundaries and establishing order within a space, whether physical, conceptual, or social. Creates recognizable patterns and identities by organizing flows of energy or information. Always accompanied by potential deterritorialization—the undoing of these same boundaries."

"Process where interactions amplify differences between individuals or groups, creating self-reinforcing divisions. The natural tendency to establish boundaries—self/other, in-group/out-group. Functions as both self-differentiation and group identification."

"Non-hierarchical network structure that spreads horizontally through multiple connections and entry points. Unlike tree structures with clear roots, rhizomes grow in any direction without central organization. A model for thought and social organization that resists fixed centers and binary logic."

"rhizomatic

Describing systems that grow through horizontal connection rather than vertical hierarchy. Characterized by multiplicity, heterogeneity, and asignifying rupture—can be broken but will start up again on old or new lines. Creates maps rather than tracings, focusing on experimentation over reproduction."

"Freely propogated social and technical protocols woven together into a memetically tight compound cultural protocol of improvisational, empirical imagination.

If institutional protocols tend to have constraints on reproducibility or empirical veracity (military classification or organizational newspeak), open protocols are the spontaneous result of the absolute zero-point of these impulses: maximal memetic reproduction combined with dedicated empirical curiousity and integrity. Exposed to the weathers of this extitutional zero-point, compound protocols become refined into a flow-state or [machinic point] where the cultural injunction to open experimentation is entangled with a technical toolkit such that the technical protocol becomes synonymous with freedom and pluralism.

Examples: LSD, Sadomasochism, turntables.

Graph View

"

"The destabilizing of boundaries and fixed identities, freeing elements to form new assemblages. Movement that escapes established territories, creating lines of flight from rigid structures. Always followed by reterritorialization—the reorganization into new patterns and territories."

"Argument: Mutualism is a rich political orientation for Ethereum to explore because it is an operational rather than ideological politics."

"Alongside a handful of other renegade academics in the universities, and a group of lawyers and political advisors, we helped design this law, steer it through parliament, and get it passed. Universities, we argued at the time, have simply refused to reform themselves and so they must be forced to reform through external interventions.

So, make no mistake, this fine, this symbol of what defending free speech looks like on the ground, at least partly reflects the impact that counter-cultural campaigners like us are having out there in the real world."

"Veteran French leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon has cricitized a Paris court’s decision to bar far-right politician Marine Le Pen from running for office after finding her guilty of embezzlement on Monday.

“The decision to remove a politician from office should be up to the people,” Mélenchon said after the court also sentenced Le Pen to four years in prison, two of them suspended and the other two with an electronic tag rather than in custody.

Mélenchon, who founded the far-left France Unbowed party, said he shared his party’s conviction that Le Pen’s far-right National Rally should not be fought in court but at the ballot box."

"The comparative analysis of the three paradigms—Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations—provides critical insights into the potential trajectories of decentralized governance in the context of Web3 technologies. While each paradigm offers a distinct ideological and structural approach, the findings reveal a convergence on key themes related to governance, sovereignty, and community empowerment. Network States, driven by a crypto-libertarian ideology, emphasize efficiency, individual sovereignty, and market-driven governance models, yet they introduce significant risks of exclusion and inequality due to their reliance on financialization. In contrast, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations prioritize more inclusive and ethical governance models, emphasizing collaborative, commons-based approaches and transnational cooperation. These paradigms offer alternative pathways that focus on collective well-being, digital justice, and cultural preservation. The results demonstrate that while decentralized technologies hold transformative potential, their implementation must be grounded in ethical considerations and inclusivity to avoid reproducing the inequalities of traditional governance structures. This study’s findings thus suggest that hybrid governance models—such as those seen in Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations—may offer more sustainable and equitable frameworks for decentralized governance in the digital age, reinforcing the need for an approach that balances technological innovation with the broader aspirations of global communities.
4. Conclusions
To further clarify and enhance the connection between the research findings and the contributions of this study, the previous section compared the three paradigms—Network State, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations—across multiple layers, including ideological, governance, economic, technological, and territorial aspects. By providing a nuanced comparative analysis, this article underscored how each paradigm represents a distinct approach to addressing the challenges of decentralized governance in the digital age.
The findings reveal that the Network State adheres to a crypto-libertarian worldview, prioritizing individual sovereignty and market-driven governance models. In contrast, Network Sovereignties adopt a commons-centric approach, emphasizing collaborative governance and public goods stewardship. Meanwhile, Algorithmic Nations extend this further by promoting culturally rooted self-determination and transnational cooperation through an emancipatory framework. These distinctions highlight that while the Network State is primarily driven by efficiency and scalability, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations offer more inclusive, community-oriented governance models, emphasizing the ethical and cultural dimensions of decentralized governance.
The comparative analysis in Table 2 made a strong case for the transformative potential of decentralized governance. However, this study also drew attention to the risks posed by the Network State’s reliance on financialization and market-driven mechanisms, which could exacerbate inequalities within digital communities. This analysis, paired with findings from the research design (Section 3), underscores the need for hybrid governance models like Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations, which combine decentralized technologies with a strong ethical and community-driven focus. These paradigms offer a more balanced approach to governance, ensuring that technological advancements serve the broader goal of digital justice and sovereignty for all, rather than privileging a select few.
To build on the relationship between the findings and the conclusions, this study demonstrated that the comparative analysis of the Network State, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations paradigms directly confirms the initial hypothesis. The nuanced evaluation across ideological, governance, economic, technological, and territorial layers not only reveals the distinct nature of each paradigm but also emphasizes their implications for decentralized governance models in the digital age. The results show that while the Network State is driven by a crypto-libertarian worldview, prioritizing individual sovereignty and efficiency, it introduces risks related to financialization and potential inequalities. In contrast, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations prioritize ethical and communal governance, underscoring the importance of inclusivity and cultural self-determination. These paradigms challenge the Network State’s market-centric orientation and advocate for a more holistic and ethically grounded approach to governance, particularly in the context of digital justice.
By directly linking the findings to the initial assertions, this study confirms the need for hybrid governance models that can balance technological innovation with the collective aspirations of diverse communities. The empirical insights gathered through action research, especially from Fulbright, DRC, and SOAM Network Sovereignties, further reinforce the conclusion that decentralized technologies should be employed in ways that serve broader societal needs, rather than exacerbating inequalities. This comparative study highlights the critical role that decentralized governance models can play in reshaping global governance, sovereignty, and digital citizenship, while also offering a clear warning against the unchecked expansion of crypto-libertarian ideals. This connection between findings and conclusions solidifies the contribution of this study in advocating for governance models that promote equity, solidarity, and ethical stewardship in a rapidly digitizing world. To further expand on the significance of this study’s conclusions for various fields, it is essential to emphasize how decentralized technologies can bring transformative effects beyond the governance structures explored. Web3 technologies and decentralized governance paradigms illuminating new forms of nation-statehood, such as Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations, have the potential to reshape global industries such as finance, healthcare, education, and supply chains, which are all heavily reliant on centralized control today. For example, blockchain-based financial services can enhance financial inclusion by providing secure, transparent, and accessible alternatives to traditional banking, especially in underserved regions. Similarly, in healthcare, decentralized data governance can give individuals more control over their personal health information, fostering privacy and security, and in education, peer-to-peer learning platforms could revolutionize how knowledge is shared and certified across borders.
Moreover, this study’s findings also suggest that decentralized governance models can play a pivotal role in supply chain transparency, offering blockchain-based verification systems that ensure ethical sourcing and sustainability, which are critical in industries like fashion, agriculture, and food. By highlighting these practical applications, this study extends its relevance beyond academia, offering valuable insights for policymakers, technologists, and industry leaders looking to integrate decentralized technologies into various sectors. This not only amplifies this study’s appeal to a wider readership but also positions it as a key contributor to the ongoing dialogue on the future of decentralization and its role in shaping more equitable, inclusive, and resilient industries globally.
Hence, the debates surrounding Network States, Network Sovereignties, and Algorithmic Nations are not just theoretical; they have real-world implications for how we organize society and exercise power in the digital age. As we continue to explore these paradigms, it is crucial that we remain attentive to the ways in which digital technologies are reshaping our world, and the opportunities and challenges they present for building a more just and equitable global order. Future research should explore the practical applications of Web3 technologies within specific geopolitical contexts, examining how decentralized governance models like Network Sovereignties (commons-centric worldview) and Algorithmic Nations (emancipatory–transnational worldview) can be implemented in diverse cultural and regional settings. Additionally, the further exploration of Network States (crypto-libertarian worldview) is necessary, particularly regarding their scalability and potential to exacerbate inequalities, and the implications of creating new sovereignties driven by crypto-libertarian ideals. Comparative studies on the impact of these paradigms on global governance, digital citizenship, and ethical concerns around digital sovereignty would be beneficial.
This article primarily focuses on theoretical frameworks and draws heavily on fieldwork from Silicon Valley, which may limit the generalizability of its findings to other global regions. The emphasis on the libertarian ideology of Web3 technologies could also overlook alternative approaches to decentralization that prioritize collective well-being over individual sovereignty. Moreover, the analysis does not extensively address the technical challenges and scalability issues inherent in implementing decentralized governance on a global scale, which could impact the viability of these models in practice.
The fieldwork conducted since August 2022 has been arranged organically, involving connections with startups, scholars, practitioners, foundations, and initiatives within the Web3 global ecosystem. This process, although organic, has included workshops, interviews, and collaborations with key figures such as Primavera de Filippi, Felix Beer, Michel Bauwens, Nathan Schneider, Connor Spelliscy, Ayona Datta, Eric Alston, Iker Iraola, Julen Zabalo, Eugene Leventhal, Morshed Mannan, and SOAM fellow residents and Edge Esmeralda Conference/Workshop participants. Additionally, the Summer School AI4SI in St Sebastián (Jaime Díaz and Iban Askasibar) has been helpful in contextualizing the Web3 ideology in Europe. While the organic nature of this research could be seen as a limitation, it has provided a robust and dynamic foundation for understanding the Web3 ideology.
In conclusion, as we navigate the intersection of technological innovation and global governance, the decentralized Web3 ideology offers a provocative vision of new forms of nation-statehood futures, yet it is one that warrants critical scrutiny given that it might be a map in search of territory [79]. The rescaling of nation-states and the emergence of Network States reflect a growing trend towards decentralization, but this shift also risks reinforcing ultra-liberal ideologies that prioritize individualism and market-driven solutions over collective well-being and the view of the commons [18]. Libertarianism seems unable to observe the state as anything but a control-obsessed and rent-seeking dysfunctional Leviathan. While decentralized technologies have the potential to empower individuals and communities, they also pose significant dangers by potentially deepening inequalities and echo-chambers, and eroding the social and cultural foundations that have traditionally bound nations together. The vision of Network States, driven by a libertarian ideology, often overlooks the importance of inclusive, community-driven governance and risks creating exclusive digital enclaves for the wealthy and privileged [80]. To reimagine digital futures in a way that truly benefits all global citizens, it is essential to challenge these narratives and advocate for a more equitable and holistic approach to digital governance—one that recognizes the value of solidarity, digital justice, and the diverse needs of global communities through network nations or Algorithmic Nations. And thus, the Web3 ideology relatively requires a territory, a hybrid one, beyond global citizenship flatness and embracing a vast diversity and richness in a spiky world full of culture, life, and good vibes without denying how states and nations play out their techno-political action and how their political economy could be fairly transformed [81]. However, there is being realistic in terms of acknowledging the historic path dependency and to reshuffle it without losing perspective being trapped in wishful thinking [24,82]. The post-nation-statehood techno-political futures we seek should not merely reflect the ambitions of the few but must be rooted in the collective aspirations and rights of the many. And yet, the Web3 global ecosystem seems to be a map in search of territory [83].
In A Map in Search of Territory, Evgeny Morozov offers a critical perspective on the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and into Web 3.0 [82]. Morozov argues that while Web 3.0 promises a decentralized alternative to the platform-centric models of Web 2.0, it is still largely speculative, often lacking a clear, concrete structure. He highlights that Web 1.0 was a simple, read-only Internet, where users were primarily consumers of information, while Web 2.0 introduced interactivity and user-generated content but became dominated by a handful of centralized platforms (e.g., Google, Facebook), giving rise to platform monopolies. Web 3.0, according to Morozov, positions itself as a corrective to Web 2.0’s shortcomings by advocating for decentralization through blockchain, peer-to-peer networks, and user data sovereignty. However, Morozov remains skeptical about whether Web 3.0 can deliver on its promises of democratizing the Internet. He suggests that Web 3.0’s ideological framework—rooted in Silicon Valley’s libertarian culture—may inadvertently recreate power imbalances, as the infrastructure of Web 3.0 is still controlled by a select group of technologists and venture capitalists [52]. In this sense, while Web 3.0 seeks to transcend the issues of platform dominance from Web 2.0, Morozov questions if it will truly enable users to exercise meaningful control over their digital interactions or simply replicate the same concentration of power in a different form. This critique from Morozov fits within the broader debate about whether Web 3.0’s decentralized ethos can genuinely reshape governance and sovereignty, or if it risks perpetuating the same hierarchical dynamics that characterized earlier iterations of the Internet. Having said that, the promising research by MetaGov, BlockchainGov, Liberty Project, and the Decentralization Research Centre might be worth keeping for scanning to advance emancipatory datafication strategies beyond pure resistance or acritical adoption [22].
As a final remark, unlike Network States, which aim to create entirely new countries driven by a crypto-libertarian ideology, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations may not only coexist but also complement each other. Stemming from an Arendtian inspiration [84], Algorithmic Nations emphasize the emancipatory potential for existing communities, such as indigenous groups and e-diasporas, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty through data-driven governance for minorities [85]. This culturally rooted approach aligns with the commons-centric focus of Network Sovereignties, creating a synergistic relationship that empowers communities to decide their own political futures, whether that involves establishing a new state or simply asserting their digital rights and autonomy. Together, these paradigms offer a nuanced pathway toward sovereignty that respects both individual and collective agency. Whereas Network Sovereignties focus on a commons-centric worldview, Algorithmic Nations evolving from the current circumstances attempt to offer an emancipatory Arendtian pathway for those that collectively aim to reinforce a (digital) nation, or even become a (pluri-national) state that embraces digital justice and an internationalist worldview driven by solidarity. Rights should be secured all the time through an emancipatory worldview to allow such a commons worldview to flourish [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93]."

"A classic of phenomenology and existentialism, The Phenomenon of Life sets forth a systematic and comprehensive philosophy—an existential interpretation of biological facts laid out in support of his claim that the mind is prefigured throughout organic existence. Hans Jonas shows how life-forms present themselves on an ascending scale of perception and freedom of action, a scale reaching its apex in a human being's capacity for thought and morally responsible behavior."

" infrastructure is always shared means, which means that it requires coordination, and second those means are shared to many ends — ideally very open-ended, unpredictable ends so that society may express its greatest creativity — which means that you cannot predict how it will get used and not all uses will be good.2 Because of this, you can't just regulate and forget: you need an institution to remain involved in the continued operation of the infrastructure system.

Most major, typical infrastructure systems emerged gradually over time. And since becoming widespread, they have evolved and innovated, but usually within a relatively similar set of means and ends, at least in terms of what they enable directly. Thanks to that gradual emergence and relative stability over time, the governance of those systems has had the occasion to become reasonably established and reliable.

But the digital world has been different. In fact, this may be the biggest but least recognised shock delivered by the internet. The flexibility of computers, the connectivity of networks, and the end-to-end principle of internet architecture that means new services can be invented by users rather than by infrastructure operators have together made it incredibly easy to create novel types of services that precisely offer "shared means to many ends." And many of these services have become critical infrastructure over a highly compressed timeline.

When I started almost 30 years ago, you were a "webmaster" or a "sysadmin" or both, and while you had to rely on an ISP, on DNS, and on some internet functions, it wouldn't be rare to run your own everything — email, web server, DNS resolver — and to build any web site entirely from scratch, relying on nothing other than simple hosting software and basic browsers. Today, the list of infrastructural services you need to rely on to build a successful, professional, business on the web is longer than most people, even professionals, realise. As a user, the story is just as stunning: you used to do everything with a desktop computer, an OS, an internet connection, and some relatively basic software like a simple browser. In contrast, daily life now relies on a plethora of services, many of them evidently infrastructural. Digital infrastructure, the full collection of shared means to many ends in the digital sphere, is incredibly vast.

And that's the shock. This massive and sudden influx of infrastructure has overwhelmed our governance capacities. We simply do not have the institutional capacity to cope with that much more infrastructure coming into existence all at once. We have not been able, collectively, to keep up and to stand up for social, commerce, browsers, search, advertising, chat, operating systems, app stores, mapping, and more the kind of institutional bodies that we rely on so strongly that we hardly ever think of them but that work day in, day out to govern water, transportation, energy, sewage, libraries, the legal system, and everything else that keeps civilisation ticking. Ungoverned infrastructure will almost invariably collapse from overuse or destructive use, so‑called internet governance bodies have restricted themselves to governing but a tiny fraction of the digital sphere, and most states have at best attempted regulation from a distance — which given the kind of issue at hand has often proven predictably ineffectual.

This has created a power vacuum and power abhors a vacuum. Tech companies have rushed into that vacuum, and the sheer volume of infrastructure they now control explains why Big Tech companies are now, for all intents and purposes, supranational governance bodies that happen to also own some computers.3

Which leads us to a key question: if they provide governance, why would we want to take it over? "

"In this paper, we set out a vision
for a different path for AI.
It starts with a recognition that
societies don’t have to just
consume the AI technologies
shaping their lives—they can
create them.
That’s why we call for a new
collective enterprise: building AI
infrastructure for the common
good. Public investments can
unleash a wave of innovation,
expanding access to better
tools, and in time expanding our
collective imagination.
The result is a new political
economy."