4 posts tagged with "tech innovation"

Balaji Srinivasan’s The Network State: How to Start a New Country (2022) is a manifesto that argues modern technology enables the creation of new, virtual-first sovereign communities. Srinivasan lays out a chapter-by-chapter case for why traditional nation-states are failing and how “network states” – highly aligned online communities that aggregate into real-world polities – could emerge as their successors. Below is a detailed summary and analysis of each chapter, highlighting the major arguments, frameworks, key proposals, and examples, as well as how these ideas interconnect across the book.

Chapter 1: Quickstart – Defining the Network State and Its Blueprint​

Chapter 1 introduces the concept of the “network state” and provides a high-level blueprint for creating one. Srinivasan defines a network state as “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.” In essence, unlike a traditional state defined by contiguous territory, a network state is defined by its people and their shared purpose, enabled by the internet. This chapter contrasts the structure of network states with legacy nation-states: a nation-state is bounded by geography, whereas a network state is geographically decentralized – its members are distributed globally but connected via the internet and a unifying mission. The author even includes an illustrative “one image” dashboard of a hypothetical million-citizen network state: it appears as an archipelago of populated nodes around the world, with a running count of its total population, income, and land area. For example, the book presents a mock-up showing scattered clusters in cities like Tokyo, Mumbai, New York, etc., all linked as one community (see figure), emphasizing that a network state is cloud-based and only later anchors in physical space. This “cloud first, land last” ethos (start digital, then materialize physically) is a core principle.

Key Proposal – Seven Steps to Start a New Country: Srinivasan outlines a step-by-step framework for building a network state, analogizing it to founding a startup. He argues that creating a new society from scratch is easier than reforming legacy states weighed down by historical baggage. The path, summarized in seven broad steps, is as follows:

1. Found a “startup society” – Begin with an online community united by a common vision or One Commandment (a single moral principle – a concept later detailed). Anyone can start such a community, just as anyone can found a company or cryptocurrency. The founder’s legitimacy is proven simply by others choosing to join and follow the project.
2. Organize it into a “network union” – Convert the loose community into a group capable of collective action. This means coordinating members for their mutual benefit, much like a traditional union but not tied to a single employer or locale. The network union gives the community “organizational muscle,” allowing it to act in unison (for example, lobbying for a cause, pooling resources, or defending members) rather than being just a social media group. Srinivasan terms this “unionization” the key step that turns an online crowd into a coherent polity.
3. Build trust offline and a crypto-economy online – Start holding in-person meetups and gatherings to strengthen social bonds and trust among members, while simultaneously creating an internal economy using cryptocurrency. In other words, members of the community should begin transacting, sharing funds, or trading via a native digital currency or token. This step establishes economic interdependence and real-world camaraderie. For example, the community might host regular events or co-working spaces, and use crypto tokens for voting or rewards. Srinivasan emphasizes using blockchain to secure these interactions, since a blockchain provides an immutable ledger for the community’s records (identity, transactions, votes).
4. Crowdfund physical “nodes” – Once the community is cohesive and has amassed some capital, begin acquiring physical spaces for members. These nodes could be apartments, houses, co-living facilities, or even entire neighborhoods – anywhere members can live together or meet periodically. The idea is to materialize the community in the real world by creating hubs where the digital citizens can gather. Srinivasan gives examples of crowdfunding everything from single apartments up to towns. Over time, the community will own an archipelago of properties distributed globally, rather than one contiguous territory.
5. Digitally connect the distributed nodes – Link these physical enclaves into one networked whole – a “network archipelago”. Members across all locations remain in constant communication via the internet, and a shared cryptographic passport or membership system is used to grant access to physical sites. Augmented or mixed reality tools can overlay a sense of unity, blurring the line between the online community and its on-ground homes. In short, even though members might be spread across dozens of cities, they function as one population through digital connectivity. (In the figure above, this is visualized by dotted lines connecting nodes worldwide.)
6. Conduct an on-chain census & show metrics – As the community grows in population and wealth, perform a cryptographically audited census to publicly prove its scale. This means using the blockchain and other verification methods to publish real-time data about the network state’s membership count, economic output, and land holdings. Srinivasan suggests a level of radical transparency here: just as a startup shows user growth, a network state would continuously broadcast its “net worth and number of members” to gain credibility. This step is about demonstrating traction: if thousands of people are already voluntarily part of the community and collectively own significant property and income, it strengthens the case that this entity is “real” and should be taken seriously. (He explicitly compares it to how Bitcoin went from being dismissed to, over time, achieving recognition as legal tender.)
7. Gain diplomatic recognition – Finally, seek recognition from at least one existing sovereign state for the community’s autonomy. This could start with small steps – for instance, negotiating a status like an autonomous zone, a charter city arrangement, or simply establishing formal relations with a country as an experimental “digital nation.” The ultimate goal is incremental sovereignty, potentially culminating in recognition by the United Nations. Srinivasan notes that if a startup society grows to millions of citizens and a multi-billion-dollar economy, it will have leverage to negotiate recognition “just as Bitcoin has now become a bona fide national currency” (referring to nations like El Salvador adopting Bitcoin). Diplomatic recognition is the capstone that transforms a mere community into a true network state, granting it the legal standing to enter treaties, trade internationally, and protect its members.

This seven-step roadmap is one of the major frameworks in the book. Srinivasan frames it as the “seventh method” of founding a country, contrasting it with six traditional (and mostly unsuccessful or undesirable) methods: election, revolution, war, micronations, seasteading, and space colonization. All those either rely on violence or face impractical odds, whereas a network state can be built peacefully and incrementally like a startup. A recurring example he gives is the analogy to the Jewish diaspora and Zionism: a network state is like a “reversed diaspora” – instead of an ethnic or religious group dispersed by history, it’s a self-selected group of people coming together by choice around a principle and then dispersing themselves strategically to acquire land. Eventually, like historical diasporas that founded new nations (e.g. Israel for the Jewish people), a network state aims to coalesce into a sovereign entity.

Why pursue a network state? Srinivasan’s argument is normative as well as practical. He believes current nation-states are stuck in their past – their laws and institutions can’t easily adapt to the fast-changing digital era because they are constrained by historical borders, legacy constitutions, and entrenched interests. By contrast, a newly created state can start with a clean slate morally, legally, and technologically. “Creating > reforming,” he writes pointedly. Throughout this chapter, he stresses that technology (internet platforms, cryptocurrencies, remote coordination tools) has lowered the barriers to starting new scaled communities, much as it lowered barriers for entrepreneurs to start new companies. Anyone with a computer can “start a country” in the cloud now – a provocative but central claim of the book.

As an example of credibility through growth, Srinivasan invokes Bitcoin’s trajectory: early on it was mocked and ignored, but as it gained users and value it forced governments to acknowledge it. Similarly, a “startup society” that grows to millions of members and significant wealth can compel recognition. He also points to Estonia’s e-residency and “cloud citizenship” initiatives as harbingers of partial digital nationhood, and cites experiments like seasteading (floating communities) and charter cities as parallel efforts to escape the constraints of current political geography. These examples illustrate that the demand for new governance models is real, and network states are his proposed solution. By the end of Chapter 1, the reader has a clear vision that a network state starts as a social network and ends as a new country, and the rest of the book will elaborate why this is needed and how it intersects with history and geopolitics.

Chapter 2: History as Trajectory – The Moral and Technological Origins of New Societies​

Chapter 2 zooms out to a historical and philosophical perspective. Srinivasan argues that to build a new state one must first understand how history made current states what they are, and identify the moral failures of present regimes that a new community could address. In other words, a startup society needs a moral justification for its existence – a reason it can claim to be “better” than the status quo. This chapter provides a conceptual toolkit: it examines how history is recorded (and distorted), how power and truth interact, and how societal paradigms shift over time. It culminates in the idea that new states should be founded on a single, clear moral innovation – dubbed “One Commandment” – which serves as their lodestar.

The role of history and moral purpose: Srinivasan begins by noting that “a startup country starts with a moral issue”, unlike a startup company which starts with a tech innovation. Since a new country asks people to join a new social contract, it must claim a moral high ground or solve a “moral deficit” in existing society. The founder’s job is twofold: (1) explain what moral failing or problem in today’s world the new community will fix, and (2) provide historical examples or precedents where this problem was absent or solved, to prove that a better society is possible. This sets the stage for the One Commandment concept – one guiding principle that the new state will uphold in contrast to legacy states. Srinivasan emphasizes history because, as he lists, history underpins legitimacy: people use historical arguments to win debates, justify laws (every regulation has a story behind it), and derive morality (major religions are rooted in historical narratives). Crucially, “history is written by the winners,” meaning our understanding of the past is often a product of power, not truth. This leads him to stress that a fresh reading of history (or even a re-recording of history using new tools) is needed to chart a new trajectory.

Microhistory vs. Macrohistory: To illustrate how we might get a clearer picture of truth, Srinivasan distinguishes microhistory (small-scale, reproducible historical experiments) from macrohistory (the grand, one-time trajectory of world events). He likens microhistory to something like “the history of a chess game” – something that can be repeated and analyzed statistically – whereas macrohistory is like the chaotic flow of all human affairs that we can’t rerun as an experiment. The larger point is that the more data and the more granular our understanding (the more we turn macro-problems into micro-analyses), the better we can learn and predict. History as usually told is too coarse-grained and often wrong or biased. “If the news is fake, imagine history,” he quips later in the chapter – meaning if media today can distort reality, then surely our history books (written under various regimes) might be full of distortions too.

Srinivasan sees blockchain ledgers and digital records as a breakthrough for recording truthful microhistories. “This is where Bitcoin becomes interesting. It’s the most accurate form of record because it (almost) cannot be falsified.” A public blockchain, which logs transactions or events transparently and tamper-proof, could serve as an immutable history for a community, as opposed to traditional archives that authorities can alter or censor. He envisions future historians sifting through on-chain logs to understand what really happened, rather than relying solely on state-approved documents. This is a recurring theme: technological truth vs. political power. In current systems, “political power triumphs over (tech) truth” – governments and media can spin or suppress facts. For example, Srinivasan notes how officials often use atrocity narratives to justify war or crackdowns (citing how both the Soviet Union and U.S. have cherry-picked historical wrongs to claim moral authority). To counter this, he advocates for a “bottom-up, cryptographic history” – a ledger of events that is distributed and verifiable, beyond any one winner’s control.

He surveys a range of historical models to draw insight from many lenses. These include: technological determinism (tech drives history forward), the helix model (history is cyclical and linear – “the same things happen over and over but with better technology”), the Ozymandias model (civilizations can collapse entirely), the “Great Founder” or tech tree model (great individuals make history, but only within the limits of what technology exists at the time), and even opposing heuristics like the “train crash” vs. “idea maze” models (either ignorance of history dooms us to repeat it, or excessive knowledge of history can stifle innovation because people think “that failed before” when conditions have changed). The details of each model are less important than the conclusion he draws: both political narratives and technological realities shape history. He asserts that “political incentives favor propagating useful narratives, while technological incentives favor truths that work”. A successful new state must harmonize these – embrace rational, data-driven “tech truth” without neglecting the power of narrative and identity (the “nation” side of nation-state). This balance between nationalism (social cohesion around a story) and rationalism (hard truths and science) is presented as essential.

God, State, Network – The Evolving Leviathans: One of the chapter’s most striking frameworks is the idea that society’s overarching authority, the Leviathan (a term from Hobbes), has changed form over time: from God to the State to, now, the Network. Srinivasan sketches this progression:

• God as Leviathan (the age of religion): For centuries, religious belief was the highest authority that kept order – people behaved because of divine oversight and fear of hell. The community of the faithful (the “People of God”) was primary. He cites Nietzsche’s “God is dead” to mark how this waned in the 1800s as elites lost their fear of divine punishment.
• State as Leviathan (the age of nationalism): With secularization, the nation-state took God’s place in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now “if you committed a crime, God wouldn’t punish you – but the State certainly would.” The “People of the State” (citizens bound by patriotism and law) became the defining identity. This era saw the rise of industrial warfare and world wars – the violent apotheosis of state power.
• Network as Leviathan (the digital age): Today, Srinivasan argues, both the old religious order and the post-WWII nation-state order are eroding. “The next Leviathan is the Network – the Internet and the crypto network.” In a world of ubiquitous connectivity, he who controls the network (or algorithm) wields power. “If you commit a crime, the network will punish you,” he suggests, meaning that deplatforming, digital surveillance, or smart contract code could enforce rules where police used to. He even asserts, provocatively, “Today, the most powerful force isn’t God or the US Army. It’s the blockchain.” This is because strong encryption and decentralized ledgers limit what states can do – “Encryption > state violence,” since a government cannot brute-force break modern crypto and thus cannot seize encrypted assets or spy on encrypted communication. Likewise, “crypto economy > fiat economy” (states can’t easily censor or inflate cryptocurrency) and “peer-to-peer > state media” (the internet routes around information gatekeepers). Srinivasan gives a flurry of “X > Y” comparisons: e.g., social > national (online social networks undermine geographically-bound civic unity), mobile > sessile (people can move more freely with smartphones/remote work, so borders are less binding), virtual reality > physical proximity (VR can create new worlds with their own rules, offering escape from local laws), smart contracts > legal contracts (code executes faster and more predictably than traditional law), cryptographic verification > official confirmation (blockchain truth vs. government claims). All these illustrate how technology can empower individuals and new groups at the expense of traditional state authority.

Importantly, Srinivasan does not claim the state is already obsolete – rather, we are in a transitional clash between network power and state power. He notes that states still have “teeth,” evidenced by things like the reach of the Chinese Communist Party or even Western governments’ ability to enforce lockdowns and censor information via Big Tech collaborations. He draws a parallel that the U.S. and China are each melding state and network power in different ways: The U.S. establishment informally coordinates with social networks and media (creating a de facto “woke” theocracy of censors and fact-checkers), whereas China’s regime explicitly controls tech and uses it for surveillance. In both cases, the lines between government and network are blurring. He terms an alliance of an existing state with network power a “network/state” (with a slash) and distinguishes “positive network/state” fusions – e.g. “El Salvador embracing Bitcoin” or Estonia’s e-governance (a government adopting network principles to empower citizens) – from negative network/state fusions like “China using tech to spy and control” or the U.S. government using Big Tech to quash dissent. These examples serve as warnings that if we don’t create new network states, existing states might co-opt networks for authoritarian ends.

Ultimately, Chapter 2 argues that for a network state to succeed, it must offer what neither God nor the State now fully offers: meaning. Srinivasan writes, “The network state offers greater efficiency and consent. But it doesn’t yet offer meaning. This is why you need a One Commandment.” In other words, while technology can provide the tools (efficiency, cryptographic security, decentralized consensus), people still crave a shared purpose or moral vision (the kind religions or grand political ideologies provided). One Commandment is his term for the innovative moral rule or principle that each new startup society should adopt to bind its members. Just as major religions had Ten Commandments, he cheekily says a startup society only needs one – a single key idea that “other countries have missed” and which is historically and scientifically true.

Illustrative examples of One Commandment communities: Srinivasan gives concrete examples of possible startup societies, each defined by their “one commandment”:

• The Cancel-Proof Society: A purely digital network union devoted to the principle that cancel culture is wrong. Its One Commandment might be “Thou shalt not cancel others for speech.” In practice, this community could form a solidarity network that comes to the defense of any member who is mobbed or deplatformed online. The author notes this could start as just a Discord group that mobilizes support whenever someone is unfairly canceled – a small-scale moral community enforcing free speech norms.
• Keto Kosher (Anti-Sugar Society): A network archipelago (digital + physical) built around the idea that sugar is a poison to modern health. Its moral stance: “Sugar is bad” (much like some religions prohibit certain foods). Members commit to a ketogenic/low-carb lifestyle, and the community would crowdfund apartments or even towns where sugar and processed foods are banned at the “border”. This tongue-in-cheek example shows a health-based One Commandment – a reaction to the obesity epidemic and a critique of nations’ public health failures. The name “Keto Kosher” implies a quasi-religious approach to diet (kosher laws for sugar).
• The Digital Sabbath Society: A community asserting that constant connectivity is harmful. One Commandment: “Regularly unplug from the internet.” It might operate retreats or residential areas where internet access is cut off at certain hours, enforcing periodic digital fasting. This addresses the workaholic, screen-addicted pace of modern life – a moral stance on tech usage itself.
• “Your Body, Your Choice” – The Post-FDA Society: A more radical example aimed at personal freedom in healthcare. Its core principle: individuals should have the absolute right to buy or sell any medical product (complete medical libertarianism). To actually practice this, such a community would need diplomatic recognition and a legal jurisdiction (a “sanctuary” city or enclave) because it flouts existing drug and safety laws. Srinivasan suggests this as an example of a network state that does acquire recognition to allow a controversial freedom – effectively creating an opt-in regulatory regime for its citizens.

These examples underscore how a network state’s legitimacy comes from fulfilling a moral or policy niche that existing states ignore or mishandle. They also show how Chapters 1 and 2 interconnect: Chapter 1 gave the mechanics of forming a network state, and Chapter 2 provides the animating spirit (the mission or cause). Srinivasan’s view is that a successful new country will be born not just from tech savvy, but from “moral entrepreneurship” – identifying a societal problem (health, speech, governance, etc.) and rallying people who passionately want a solution.

In summary, Chapter 2 lays the philosophical groundwork: it critiques how nations derive moral authority from curated history and shows that in the internet age those narratives are breaking down (“if the news is fake…history?”). It then posits that new, internet-native communities can use technology (blockchains, encryption) to establish truth and trust, but they must also supply meaning via a clear moral proposition. This sets the stage for the more contemporary analyses in the next chapters, which explain the current geopolitical “moment” and future scenarios that make room for network states.

Chapter 3: The Tripolar Moment – U.S., China, and Bitcoin as Competing Powers​

Where Chapter 2 looked at the past to justify new states, Chapter 3 analyzes the present world order, contending that we are in a “tripolar” moment in which three major factions compete for global influence. Srinivasan identifies these poles as: (1) the American establishment (and its attendant media/cultural ideology), (2) the Chinese Communist Party (authoritarian state capitalism), and (3) the decentralized crypto network (epitomized by Bitcoin and web3 communities). Each represents a different organizing principle – respectively, “Woke Capitalism” or liberal democracy (though Srinivasan is critical of its current trajectory), Communist/State Capitalism, and Decentralized Technological Capitalism. This chapter’s key argument is that virtually everyone will have to navigate between these three power centers, and that none of them alone offers a universally appealing future. This context is crucial because it illustrates the void that network states could fill (a fourth alternative or a neutral ground). It also introduces conceptual frameworks like “moral vs. martial vs. money power” and how legitimacy is earned in each domain.

Three poles – NYT, CCP, BTC: Srinivasan often labels the poles with shorthand symbols. In a memorable table, he compares:

• The “NYT” (New York Times) faction – the American establishment. Here “NYT” stands for the Western media and institutional elite that shape narrative and policy in the U.S. and allied countries. He calls this the “woke capital” ideology: a blend of capitalist economics with progressive (sometimes censorious) social values, coupled with U.S. military power (“drone-strike democracy” as he sardonically terms it). The source of truth for this pole is “The New York Times” – i.e., mainstream media and academia define what is true and acceptable. Its economy runs on the U.S. dollar (USD) and its legitimacy on liberal democratic claims (though Srinivasan argues it has become a largely unaccountable bureaucracy).
• The “CCP” faction – China’s one-party state. Its source of truth is “The Party” (top-down dictates and censored information). Its economy is the controlled Yuan/RMB system. Its ideology is centralized or nationalist capitalism (nominally communist, but effectively Han Chinese nationalism plus state-directed market economics). This pole emphasizes martial power (hard power, surveillance, territorial control) and nationalist unity. Srinivasan describes it as a network too – the Party has ~95 million members, a “network” that permeates Chinese society and even requires a rigorous application (essays on Marxism, sponsor vouches, probation period) to join. In effect, the CCP is like a massive ideological union that is distinct from the Chinese state it controls – that’s why he calls it a “martial network” rather than just a state apparatus.
• The “BTC” faction – the cryptocurrency and web3 ecosystem. Its source of truth is “the protocol” – open-source blockchain consensus (what the ledger says is true). Its economy is cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin foremost, but also others). Its ideology is decentralized digital libertarianism, which Srinivasan frames as neutral or “aracial libertarianism” (since anyone can join, and the system doesn’t see race or nationality). This pole has money power at its core – it’s challenging the monopoly of money creation and transaction held by states. It’s also building a new media ecosystem: he notes that Bitcoin and crypto communities are starting to create their own news channels, social networks, and influencers, meaning over time they could rival institutions like the NYT in shaping public opinion.

Srinivasan’s tripolar model is a conceptual framework highlighting a shift from a unipolar or bipolar Cold War world to a new triangle of power. In 1990, after the USSR fell, the world was unipolar under the U.S. Now (2020s), he says even the U.S. internally is “bipolar” (split between two domestic factions), and the world is tripolar. The domestic U.S. split is important: one could say the American establishment itself has two wings – one more aligned with the “NYT/woke” worldview and another sympathetic to the crypto, decentralized ethos (think tech libertarians, Bitcoin enthusiasts, etc.). This foreshadows his later point that a U.S. internal conflict could arise between those two visions.

Moral, Martial, and Monetary Power: In a historical analogy, Srinivasan compares the current trio to roles played in the 20th century. He claims in the 1900s: “the moral power was the USSR, the money power was the US, and the martial power was the Nazis”. That is, communism wielded ideological/moral appeal (at least to some, as an idea of justice), the U.S. wielded financial might, and Nazi Germany tragically wielded raw military force. All three were states. Today, he says, “these powers are networks”:

• NYT-led network as Moral Power: It’s not a state but a conglomerate of media, universities, NGOs – a network that claims moral authority (e.g., human rights, democracy rhetoric) and can pressure governments by shaping public opinion. Srinivasan describes the New York Times (symbolic of mainstream media) as “the moral network” in the sense that it positions itself as the arbiter of truth and virtue, “holding governments to account”. However, he criticizes that “their articles aren’t factual, but moral” – implying an activist slant – and likens NYT-driven cancellation campaigns to the USSR’s ideological purges (“cancels ‘for democracy’ much as Soviets destroyed lives ‘for the greater good’”).
• CCP as Martial Network: While the CCP obviously controls a state (China), Srinivasan emphasizes it operates like a networked organization that transcends a normal government bureaucracy. With nearly 100 million members all pledged to an ideology, it’s a Party-network that has cells in every company, region, and even abroad. The CCP demands intense loyalty and is structured more like a massive union or fraternity than a typical political party (he illustrates this with the detailed application process). He labels it the “martial power” of today because under Xi Jinping it has become very military- and control-focused, building hard power and a surveillance state.
• Bitcoin/Crypto as Money Network: Bitcoin began as just code, but it spawned a global community that is leaderless, borderless, yet aligned by a protocol – a true network. Its power started in money (finance) but is expanding into media and technology. Srinivasan notes Bitcoin is “becoming a media network” too, as many companies and creators in the crypto space create content, propagate memes (like the Bitcoin community’s narratives about freedom), and challenge mainstream media accounts. In the long run, this network could even “take over the NYT” in influence, he suggests, because it unites financial incentive with information distribution.

Having laid out the trio, Srinivasan explores how each legitimizes itself and how they conflict. In Section 3.5 “Submission, Sympathy, Sovereignty,” he summarizes each faction’s mode of persuasion or ideology of power:

• The CCP’s message to people (especially domestically) is essentially “Submit to me, I am more powerful”. It’s raw power and authority – legitimacy through strength and delivering stability/prosperity (at the cost of freedom). This is a straightforward authoritarian bargain.
• The NYT/Woke message is “You are guilty (an oppressor), so you must sympathize with and yield to the victims”. This encapsulates the social justice or “woke” rationale that demands moral submission: people in the West are told to atone for various historical or identity-based injustices by empowering certain groups and silencing others. Srinivasan sees this as a form of control via moralizing and shaming, quite opposite to the CCP’s approach, but similarly demanding obedience (to the ever-changing moral narrative).
• The BTC/Crypto ethos says “Empower yourself and escape control – claim sovereignty as an individual”. It’s practically the opposite of the other two: where CCP wants obedience and NYT faction wants contrition, the crypto world tells people to take responsibility for their own fate (hold your own keys, be your own bank, speak freely on uncensorable platforms). It’s a very libertarian, “don’t tread on me” ideal of sovereignty, appealing especially to those who feel stifled by the other two poles.

Given such divergent values, conflict is inevitable. In Section 3.6 “Conflicts and Alliances,” Srinivasan outlines how the poles might clash or align. He acknowledges that each bloc also has internal dissenters: e.g., within the NYT camp, not all Westerners are “woke” – there are moderate liberals or libertarians in America who dislike cancel culture (he calls them “non-woke Democratic voters”). Within China, there are capitalists or liberals who preferred the more open China of decades past (before Xi’s heavy-handed turn). Within crypto, there are people who are not maximalists (they might hold Bitcoin but also trust some institutions). So these sub-factions could create shifting alliances.

He posits that many countries or groups outside the U.S.-China duopoly will be pressured to choose a side – and if they reject both, “they’ll naturally join BTC” by default. This foreshadows Chapter 4’s idea of an “International Intermediate” alliance. We already see glimmers: for instance, some smaller countries (like El Salvador or certain Eastern European and African nations) are exploring Bitcoin or decentralized tech to reduce reliance on either superpower’s systems. Srinivasan is essentially predicting a realignment where the third pole (decentralized network) becomes a refuge or rallying point for those who want neither an American-led nor Chinese-led order.

In summary, Chapter 3 uses geopolitical analysis to set the stage for why network states might gain adherents. The world is no longer united under a single model of liberal democracy; it’s fracturing into (at least) three visions, and this chaos creates an opening for startup societies. Notably, Srinivasan’s framing casts the U.S. establishment in a critical light similar to how one might criticize the Chinese regime – he sees both as hegemonic forces (one using soft power and moralism, the other using surveillance and nationalism) that ultimately demand conformity. This underscores a recurring theme: exit versus voice. Instead of taking a side in the US-vs-China (or left-vs-right) battles, Srinivasan advocates exiting to a new system – building opt-in societies enabled by crypto tech. Chapter 3’s tripolar world description is the strategic backdrop for that: those dissatisfied with both East and West will look for an “exit” option, which network states aim to provide.

Chapter 4: Decentralization, Recentralization – Future Scenarios and the Case for a New Center​

In Chapter 4, Srinivasan turns toward the future, exploring possible scenarios for how the tensions outlined in Chapter 3 could play out. The title “Decentralization, Recentralization” reflects a core insight: history may be entering a phase of fragmentation (decentralization of power away from the old nation-state status quo), but this could be followed by a “recentralization” around new structures – potentially the network states. He describes various futures (American anarchy, Chinese control, etc.) and introduces the concept of an “International Intermediate” – a new centrist alignment of those who reject both U.S. wokeism and Chinese authoritarianism. This “Intermediate” essentially foreshadows a coalition of network states or allied polities that form a new world order. The chapter is rich with speculative thought experiments, but they all serve to reinforce why building new decentralized states is both necessary and plausible amid global upheaval.

Multiple Futures, Not One: Srinivasan prefaces that unlike deterministic futurists, he sees many “possible futures” because outcomes depend on human action – “we have the power to build it”. He cautions against linear predictions, citing four factors that increase uncertainty:

• Volatility: The internet and social media have introduced high social volatility (trends, panics, and movements can spike suddenly), and cryptocurrencies introduce high economic volatility. So rapid swings or unforeseen events (e.g., viral mobilizations, market crashes) are more likely. Example: a hashtag could ignite nationwide protests overnight, or a crypto collapse could destabilize economies – wildcards that make the future less predictable.
• Reflexivity: People’s beliefs about the system feed back into the system. If everyone expects chaos, they might act in ways that cause chaos (self-fulfilling prophecy). If people anticipate a government crackdown, they might preemptively exit, causing the very instability that provokes a crackdown. This loop makes straightforward prediction harder – any forecast can change the behavior of those who hear it.
• Competing Curves: There are multiple technologies and social movements developing concurrently – the network state may not be the only solution. Maybe AI, or a strong AI-ruled state, or some other unforeseen innovation could dominate instead. Srinivasan acknowledges the network state is one contender among many, not an inevitability.
• Limits of predictability: Aside from physics or closed systems, social prediction is fraught. He echoes the maxim “all models are wrong, but some are useful”, implying we should treat his scenarios as sketches, not certainties.

Despite these caveats, he identifies a trend: the collision of the three poles (US, China, Crypto) and the rise of network states out of the turmoil. In other words, global volatility may shake loose the old order, and something like network states could recentralize stability in a new form. He calls this emerging pole the “Recentralized Center” or “International Intermediate”. This is basically everyone who wants to avoid both extremes of the existing superpowers. It includes countries, organizations, and individuals who might band together around a new model of governance that values freedom, technological progress, and voluntary association (versus the coercion or ideological conformity demanded by the other poles). The way to unite these disparate actors, he says, is innovating something better – effectively offering a positive vision that outcompetes the US/China models. This positive vision is precisely what the network state embodies in Srinivasan’s view: a society with greater democracy (or voluntary entry/exit) than China and greater cultural cohesion and technological competence than a polarized United States.

To better understand the drivers of change, Srinivasan introduces two sets of “axes”: sociopolitical axes and technoeconomic axes. These are lenses to examine emerging divisions that don’t map cleanly onto old left-right politics or East-West geography:

• Sociopolitical Axes: One example he gives is “International Indians” – highlighting India’s rise. India is modernizing fast, producing many tech entrepreneurs, and has a 5-million strong diaspora in the West that is often quite influential. He suggests India (and its global network of expatriates) will be a key player in the new alignment. This hints that India might align with neither US nor China fully, potentially gravitating to a third path or being pivotal in the Intermediate coalition. Another sociopolitical axis is Transhumanists vs. Anarcho-Primitivists: essentially, those who enthusiastically embrace technology’s modification of humanity (think biohackers, AI enthusiasts, World Economic Forum types) versus those who reject modern tech to return to simpler living (think eco-radicals, Amish-like movements). Notably, both camps come in left- and right-wing variants, meaning the traditional left-right spectrum is scrambled on this issue. For instance, a left-transhumanist might push for technocratic control (as in some WEF ideas), while a right-transhumanist might be a libertarian biohacker; conversely, a right-wing anarcho-primitivist might be a survivalist, while a left-wing one might be an anti-tech green activist. By mentioning this, Srinivasan shows that new ideological cleavages are forming that transcend nationality – people around the world align with or against technology’s trajectory. A network state could explicitly cater to one of these philosophies (imagine a transhumanist network state experimenting with gene editing freedoms, or a neo-luddite network state that bans certain tech). Finally, he introduces the Identity Stack concept: each person has multiple layers of identity (nationality, religion, city, profession, hobbies, online communities, etc.), but one tends to dominate as their primary loyalty. In an age of mobile, networked lives, that primary identity might not be their country anymore – it could be an online community, an ideology, or something else. “Everyone is patriotic about at least one thing,” he writes – be it their nation, or Bitcoin, or a subculture. For a startup society to succeed, it needs to rank high in someone’s identity stack – ideally become their top identity (“I am first and foremost a citizen of X Network State”). This ties back to the One Commandment idea: a strong moral cause can elevate a network state to primary importance in members’ hearts, beyond their old nationality.

• Technoeconomic Axes: Here, Srinivasan discusses how technology (especially the internet) is amplifying variability in outcomes – we get bigger booms and busts socially and financially. “The internet increases variance” in everything. He compares social media’s effect to the Soviet policy of glasnost (sudden free speech) and crypto’s effect to perestroika (market liberalization) – reforms that introduced instability in the USSR, ultimately contributing to its collapse. By analogy, the openness and freedom of the internet might be destabilizing today’s ossified institutions (which were not built to handle so much free flow of information and capital). Indeed, “Few institutions born before the Internet will survive it,” he declares, because the digital world is now primary and many legacy structures are crumbling under digital pressure. One striking line: “Now it’s not just about remote work, but remote life.” The pandemic proved that education, work, commerce, even governance can happen largely online – meaning geography is less determinant. He points out that by 2020, essentially all sectors (even ones like medicine, government, education that resisted digitization) were forced to go online due to COVID. This accelerated the trend that “all value is digital” or at least digitally mediated. Yet, he observes a paradox: despite advanced tech, productivity in the physical world has stagnated or even declined (e.g., construction is slower, infrastructure projects are mired in red tape). He lists theories for this “Great Stagnation”:

  • The Great Distraction: We save time with tech in one area only to waste it on social media and entertainment.
  • The Great Dissipation: Regulatory and compliance burdens eat up all the gains (lots of paperwork, legal hoops).
  • The Great Dilemma: Culture and law now require years of study and process before building anything (overcautiousness), slowing innovation.
  • The Great Dumbness: We have the tech, but institutions make foolish decisions (e.g., contrast China building a train station in 9 hours versus Western projects taking years).
  • The Great Delay: Perhaps gains are real but just taking time to materialize fully – once we automate everything, productivity will leap, but we’re in a transition.

  This discussion, while somewhat tangential, reinforces why new governance approaches might be needed: maybe current governments are the ones causing the Great Dissipation and Delay with bureaucracy and outdated rules. A network state starting fresh could optimize for efficiency and actually realize the promise of high-tech productivity by cutting through legacy inertia. It also underscores that people are frustrated – they sense technological progress but don’t see it in their everyday life (affordable housing, faster transport, etc.), leading to political disillusionment. A network state could be a proving ground for doing things differently – e.g., a charter city that builds ultramodern infrastructure in a fraction of the time by bypassing old regulations, or a cloud community that coordinates R&D faster.

After analyzing these axes, Srinivasan moves to explicit scenarios in Sections 4.5 and 4.6:

American Anarchy, Chinese Control, International Intermediate (Section 4.5): He paints three big scenarios:

1. American Anarchy: The United States, due to extreme polarization and institutional decay, could spiral into civil conflict – essentially a second civil war. He bullet-points why: polarization is at a peak, federal authority is distrusted, economic conditions are worsening, social media amplifies envy and hatred, states (like red vs blue states) are increasingly defiant of federal mandates, etc.. A particularly interesting point: he suggests a Bitcoin seizure by a bankrupt U.S. government could be a trigger for conflict. If the U.S. tried to outlaw or confiscate cryptocurrency (to prop up the dollar or for control), crypto-aligned citizens might literally rebel, since many of them are deeply ideologically committed to financial freedom. In his framing, “the woke state” (the establishment) and “the Bitcoin maximalists” are on a collision course if things get dire. This is speculative, but it highlights how the crypto network (pole 3 from Chapter 3) could come into direct conflict with the U.S. pole on U.S. soil. Srinivasan clearly hopes to avoid this violent outcome (hence building peaceful opt-out network states), but he’s warning it’s possible.

2. Chinese Control: In China, he imagines an opposite but equally dystopian outcome – total techno-totalitarianism. Perhaps triggered by an attempted coup or internal unrest, the CCP clamps down even harder, locking the country into a high-surveillance, AI-driven dictatorship that then exports its model abroad. He lists signs: Xi Jinping already purged rivals across the spectrum (from liberals in Hong Kong to corrupt officials to tech billionaires – showing the Party tolerates no challenge). China has been developing a comprehensive surveillance stack (mandatory digital yuan that can be frozen, health QR codes that control movement, “smart city” kits including cameras and facial recognition) and has pilot tested them during COVID lockdowns. If this architecture gets locked in and “sold to other states”, many authoritarian-leaning governments around the world might adopt Chinese surveillance tech and methods (some are already doing so). The result is a planet where large regions operate like CCP franchises – a nightmare for freedom. Srinivasan does note a twist: Chinese population might accept this outcome due to rising nationalism (they trust their government more now than in the past), so externally it’s scary but internally it could be stable, at least for a time.

3. International Intermediate: This is Srinivasan’s preferred scenario – a third grouping emerges composed of everyone who doesn’t want scenario 1 or 2. He calls it the “Recentralized Center” or simply “the II” (International Intermediate). This would include certain nations (potentially India, parts of Europe, maybe some in Latin America or Africa), as well as millions of individuals globally, and crucially the network states and startup societies being built. They align to uphold a different order that values decentralization but avoids both the chaos of anarchy and the oppression of dictatorship. One can think of it as a new Non-Aligned Movement, but instead of being passive, it’s proactive in building a new system. The network state concept provides the blueprint for what they build: new communities with rule of law, rights, and technological sophistication, but without the baggage of the U.S. and Chinese systems. Srinivasan frames this not as pure decentralization (which he equates with a kind of anarchy), but as a “recentralization” around a better center. In other words, after a period of fragmentation, humans will still seek governance and cohesion – the goal is to have those new centers be opt-in and network-driven rather than defined by 19th-century borders.

Victory Conditions and Surprise Endings (Section 4.6): Next, Srinivasan speculates on how each major player could “win” or how unexpected alliances might form:

• A U.S. establishment victory might mean the Western liberal order, even after internal conflict, reasserts itself and retains global leadership – “the West has always won…no reason it won’t again”, he notes wryly. This assumes the U.S. overcomes its internal anarchy and tech challenges.
• A CCP victory means China becomes the dominant superpower and turns inward, creating a wealthy but closed empire. He mentions “luxury communism” – an idea that advanced automation might allow the CCP to provide high living standards without political freedom, making their model attractive or at least sustainable. Robots (directed by AI) could replace workers, and the state allocates abundant goods, achieving prosperity alongside total control – a sci-fi version of communism where AI is the new central planner.
• Surprise alliance: One striking possibility he raises is “the CCP and US establishment work together to stop BTC.” This would be like two old rivals teaming up against a common threat (he analogizes it to the U.S. and USSR briefly aligning to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War). It’s not impossible – one could imagine Washington and Beijing both seeing stateless cryptocurrency as a threat and coordinating on draconian global regulations or technical measures to neuter it. If both major powers agreed to shut down crypto exchanges, attack mining, etc., the crypto network might struggle (although its decentralized nature is designed to resist exactly such crackdowns). This scenario underscores that the two big Leviathans might bury the hatchet to squash the upstart third.
• Surprise outcome: “BTC ends human wars, but not robot wars.” This imaginative twist suggests: if Bitcoin (shorthand for crypto) becomes global money, states can’t print money for war or seize funds to finance armies, potentially reducing human conflict (no money, no war). However, nations or groups might then build autonomous robot armies (which don’t require salaries or traditional logistics) and still fight, meaning war could continue in another form (drones, AI bots battling without direct human soldiers). It’s a futurist musing on how technology could change the nature of conflict.

Finally, in Section 4.7 “Towards a Recentralized Center,” Srinivasan concludes that the answer is not to revel in chaos or destroy all institutions, but to build better institutions. “Our institutions are failing. We don’t need no institutions, but new ones. That’s the network state.”. This line encapsulates a recurring theme: he rejects pure nihilism or anarchism – humans still need governance, community, and order (“institutions”). But instead of the old nation-state institutions that are failing (due to corruption, partisanship, slowness), we should create new institutions fit for the digital age. The network state is presented as precisely that: a reimagined institution of governance, built by private initiative, incorporating technological tools, and grounded in a voluntary social contract around a moral principle. It’s essentially his answer to all the scenarios: no matter which way things go, having network states in the mix provides resilience. If the U.S. or China falter, network states can carry forward progress in pockets. If the U.S. and China become tyrannical, network states offer escape and experimentation. If they both remain strong, network states can still innovate on the margins and potentially influence reform.

In summary, Chapter 4 ties together the present and future: it takes the tripolar tensions of Chapter 3 and asks, “What next? How do we avoid the worst?” Srinivasan’s answer is the Recentralized Center of Network States – essentially a new peaceful superpower made of many aligned startup societies. This sets up Chapter 5, which dives deeper into the nuts and bolts of transitioning from the current nation-state system to the network state system. The interplay is clear: Chapters 3 and 4 gave the macro why (the world needs a new solution amid upheaval), and now Chapter 5 will give the how at the structural level.

Chapter 5: From Nation-States to Network States – Replacing the Old System with the New​

The final chapter synthesizes the book’s proposals and contrasts the old world of nation-states with the new world of network states. It is both descriptive – explaining what nation-states are and why they are the way they are – and prescriptive – outlining how network states differ and why they can be the successors. Srinivasan effectively formalizes a conceptual framework for understanding sovereignty in the two eras (industrial age vs information age). He also recaps the blueprint to actually create a network state, tying back to Chapter 1’s quickstart but now with the full philosophical and geopolitical context established.

Why Now? Srinivasan first asks, why is this the moment to attempt starting new countries? He harkens back to definitions: what is a nation-state? and why did history produce the nation-state system we have today?. By dissecting this, he identifies both the strengths and constraints of the nation-state, which the network state will re-engineer.

Definition of Nation-State: He gives a basic definition (citing Britannica): “a nation-state is a territorial polity, ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify as a nation.” In simpler terms, it’s a country on a map with a government and a people who (supposedly) share a common identity or culture. Crucially, it’s tied to geography. Srinivasan emphasizes that the nation-state system (the global order of countries) operates like a club with certain rules. He enumerates eight rules that define the modern international order (these are drawn from author Joshua Keating’s description of country “club rules,” which Srinivasan quotes and paraphrases):

• (1) Borders are mutually recognized. Each country has a defined territory, and other countries agree to respect those boundaries.
• (2) A country must have a state (government) that asserts a monopoly on force inside its borders, and a resident population (citizens).
• (3) Every spot on land is claimed by some country. There is no terra incognita left on Earth’s landmass – no blank spaces; it’s all divided up.
• (4) Every person is a citizen of at least one country. In theory, statelessness is an anomaly; everyone belongs to the system, you can’t opt out of having a nationality.
• (5) All countries are legally sovereign equals on paper. Tiny Tuvalu and huge China have equal status under international law (one country, one vote in the UN, etc.), even if power-wise they differ.
• (6) Consent of the governed is preferred but not required. Democracies and dictatorships are both still recognized as states. A regime doesn’t lose its statehood just for being undemocratic or failing morally. Human rights abuses or tyranny don’t get you kicked out of the “club” of nations (North Korea is still a country, for example).
• (7) No elimination of countries by force (post-WWII norm). Countries might invade each other, but the norm is you don’t extinguish another UN-recognized country entirely or annex it outright. Borders can move rarely, but generally, even war doesn’t destroy the status of a nation (e.g., Kuwait was occupied by Iraq but remained recognized as Kuwait). The “club” is very reluctant to accept outright conquest or secession that redraws maps.
• (8) No new countries (border fixes). The current set of countries and borders is expected to remain mostly static; secession or forming a new country is discouraged. The international community generally opposes breakaway movements (hence the rarity of new nations except via decolonization or mutual agreement).

These rules show the inertia of the nation-state system. Srinivasan points out they are enforced by institutions like the UN and by major powers (the U.S. especially, which underwrites “cartographic stasis” – the frozen map). The system assumes a “physical first” world: geography is primary, and political authority is mapped to land. Additionally, he lists assumptions we make because of these rules:

• The world is fully discovered (no terra incognita left to explore or claim).
• There’s no unclaimed land (no terra nullius); even uninhabited rocks are owned by someone.
• Land is divided top-down by lines on a map. Every square inch has a government jurisdiction.
• One person, one state: People generally have one nationality; changing it is rare, and citizenship usually comes by birth (jus sanguinis or jus soli).
• Legitimacy comes from control and maybe elections: A state is legitimate if it can maintain order internally (monopoly of violence) and is ideally supported by its people’s consent and respects rights (though in practice brute force often ends up getting recognized too).
• Centralized administration: A nation-state typically has a hierarchical government (executive, legislature, bureaucracy, courts) making and enforcing laws uniformly over its territory.
• Domestic monopoly on violence: Only the state’s police/military can use force; private force is suppressed.
• International sovereignty is backed by military might: Ultimately, a state’s independence is guaranteed by force (its own or an ally’s). Srinivasan notes “Pax Americana” – the U.S. military has been the ultimate enforcer of the global order after WWII.
• Diplomatic recognition and treaties govern interactions: Being recognized by others (having embassies, UN seat) is crucial; without recognition, a would-be country struggles (no trade, no security guarantees).

He distills six essential parts of the state from this: borders, population, central government, international sovereignty, diplomatic recognition, and domestic force monopoly. And a nation-state specifically has two components: a nation (a cultural/ethnic “people”) and a state (the governing apparatus). When those align, you get a nation-state (e.g. Japan, where Japanese people = Japanese state). He observes problems like micronations failed because they tried to declare a state (and territory) without having a real nation (a people) first. Conversely, empires (like Rome or the Austro-Hungarian Empire) failed in part because they were a state with many nations, lacking unity. The lesson for network states is: you must build the nation (community) first, then the state – exactly what he’s been arguing (cloud first, land last).

Up to this point, Chapter 5 has effectively diagnosed why existing countries are so hard to change: their very definitions and international norms lock in the status quo. Secession is discouraged (Rule 8), internal reform is slow due to historical baggage, and there’s no vacant land to try something new. This is why, Srinivasan argues, we have to innovate in the digital realm – to find a loophole or alternative path to statehood.

On Network States: Now he systematically contrasts a network state’s assumptions to the above:

• Digital first: Instead of territory first, a network state starts online. The community (nation) forms in the cloud around an idea (One Commandment) before any land is acquired. Territory is an endgame, not a starting point. This flips the “physical first” rule.
• Composition: A network state still needs a nation and a state, but in this context, the nation is an online network (a digital community of people with shared values) and the state is a “governance network” – essentially the leadership and smart contract infrastructure that administer the community. They are intertwined networks rather than a people tied to a land and a bureaucratic hierarchy.
• Terra incognita returns: While Earth’s physical land is all claimed, the digital realm is like a new frontier – unlimited “territory” in terms of new online domains, virtual worlds, and also the idea that some network communities might operate stealthily (“incognito”) until they are strong enough. He even suggests a network could keep some aspects secret to protect itself (e.g. members who are pseudonymous for safety).
• Terra nullius returns: There are always new niches or unclaimed “lands” in cyberspace – new niches of values or social space that no state controls (for example, the Bitcoin network itself was like a new digital territory that emerged). Also, if needed, network states might find physical footholds in underutilized places (perhaps seasteads, private land buys, or special zones), effectively creating new “land” for communities that didn’t exist on the political map.
• Bottom-up voluntary migration: Instead of being assigned a citizenship by birth and having to stay put, people will choose their network affiliations. Membership in a network state is voluntary – you opt in because you agree with its One Commandment or mission. Likewise, you can exit if you no longer align or if the governance fails you (enabled by crypto: your assets and identity are portable). This is a huge shift: a network state “flips the power dynamic” because citizens are customers in a sense – they can leave, so the governance has to remain accountable and appealing.
• Multiple citizenships (N networks per citizen): In a network state world, one person could belong to several networks simultaneously. For instance, one might be part of a Keto Kosher community and a digital art commune and still hold a legacy national citizenship. This breaks the exclusivity of nation-states (today dual citizenship is allowed in some cases, but generally one primary national identity dominates). In network states, identity is modular – you might devote, say, your healthcare and science pursuits to a “post-FDA” network state, and your cultural life to a different network, etc. This polycentric citizenship is a novel idea.
• Legitimacy from consent and value, not just force or birth: A network state’s legitimacy comes from people choosing to join (often by physically moving to its hubs or contributing financially) and remaining because it delivers value – “legitimacy from physical migration and digital choice”. It’s a market-driven legitimacy rather than historical or coercive. If a network state stops delivering (say it becomes oppressive or fails its mission), people can withdraw their consent by leaving – a very literal application of consent of the governed.
• Decentralized administration: Rather than a single centralized government writing paper laws, network states could govern via smart contracts, DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), and on-chain votes. Srinivasan envisions governance being more participatory and algorithmically enforced. For example, rules might be encoded in the community’s blockchain; decisions could be made by token-holder voting; many functions could be automated. This doesn’t mean no leadership (he does mention a recognized founder/leader is often present), but it means the apparatus of governance is transparent and distributed, not hidden in bureaucracies.
• Domestic “monopoly of root access”: This is a play on the “monopoly of violence” concept. In a network state, coercive force is minimal (since it’s voluntary), but the “power” the state has is control over the digital infrastructure – the servers, the cryptographic keys, the platform rules. Srinivasan says the governance of a network state can control almost everything within the network’s digital domain (just like a sysadmin has root access on a server). However, if they abuse that power, members can fork the code or leave with their private keys (their assets/identity), so there’s a built-in check. In short, network states enforce order via code and community enforcement, not armed police – and if leadership misbehaves, people exit rather than revolt.
• International sovereignty via cryptography: Traditional states defend sovereignty with armies; a network state defends itself with encryption. Srinivasan argues that strong cryptography (and decentralization) makes the network state’s critical functions unassailable by outside powers. For example, if the community’s assets are in Bitcoin, no invading force can seize those without the keys. If communications are encrypted, no one can spy on or censor the community’s coordination. Thus, crypto acts as a “shield” for a stateless state. He calls this “international sovereignty via cryptography”, highlighting that encryption can do what armies do: protect autonomy.
• Digital diplomatic recognition: Srinivasan imagines that network states might recognize each other and allow easy movement of people/assets between them via interoperable blockchain systems. For instance, if you leave one network state, you take your digital property and reputation on-chain to another – akin to how passports and treaties allow moving between countries, but in this case done trustlessly via blockchain. Public blockchains in this scenario serve as a kind of neutral ground or international law – he writes, “chains manage cooperation and constraint: public blockchains are the equivalent of international law”. And the concept of “Pax Bitcoinica” (a bit tongue-in-cheek) suggests that Bitcoin or a similar global crypto becomes a neutral reserve asset that prevents any one network from dominating, ensuring mutual peace (similar to how “Pax Americana” was underpinned by U.S. gold/dollar at one time, here a decentralized currency underpins a peaceful order).

All these differences can be summed up in a phrase Srinivasan uses: “The network is the nation, the network is the territory, the network is the state.” A network state’s people are literally a social network. Its land is wherever that network operates (including virtual land in VR or metaverse spaces in the future). And its government is the network’s code and community itself making rules (the network-as-Leviathan). He calls the Network “the Leviathan” to complete the God-State-Network arc: now the network provides security and order (through encryption and consensus) the way God or the State used to.

Srinivasan addresses the question of maps: “What does a network state look like on a map?” Since it’s not contiguous, it would appear as many pinpricks – an archipelago of enclaves connected by dotted lines (as that earlier illustration in Chapter 1 showed). Physically scattered, but digitally a dense cluster (imagine a graph of social network connections – members mostly connected to each other, forming a subnetwork within the global social graph). He points out advantages: digital states are higher-dimensional – not limited to one place, they can plug into each other (perhaps one person can belong to two, or two network states can share a virtual capital), they can scale faster (software scales quicker than bureaucracy), and creating “new land” is easy (spin up a new server, or crowdfund a new house) unlike Earth’s finite land. Also, much of a network state is invisible to outsiders – you can’t point to it on a globe easily; it exists in pockets and in the cloud, which might give it resilience. He contrasts deterministic physical division (nation-states partition space) with “probabilistic digital division of people into subnetworks” – essentially people self-sorting into online communities of choice. This line captures the fundamental paradigm shift: instead of geography dividing land, we have internet dividing people by affinity.

Finally, Srinivasan reiterates the path to get there (essentially revisiting the Quickstart but with refined terms). He explicitly describes founding a network state as akin to founding a billion-dollar startup (a unicorn) – you don’t declare one on day 1; you start with a project and build toward it. He includes a book excerpt summarizing three developmental phases (which mirror the earlier seven steps in condensed form):

• Network Union: an entirely digital community (like Step 1 and 2 earlier) that organizes collective action online. The focus is building coordination capacity – members act together for common causes (this “organizational muscle” is stressed as key).
• Network Archipelago: that network union starts acquiring physical properties and linking them (Step 3-5 earlier). Physical interaction (in-person meetups, living together) is crucial to build trust, just as Step 3 emphasized. At this stage, it’s partially a digital community and partially a set of real communities – a proto-state that still lacks legal status but has tangible presence.
• Network State: the network archipelago achieves diplomatic recognition from at least one existing state (Step 7). This formal recognition and sovereignty is crucial to being a true state (it allows self-governance without interference). After that, it can expand recognition and power gradually.

He also notes a network state can expand in multiple ways beyond just population or land – it can grow demographically (more citizens), geographically (more nodes), digitally (more online influence/services), economically (higher GDP), ideologically (broaden its appeal or deepen its convictions), and technologically (improve its tech infrastructure). This is almost like metrics a network state founder would track, analogous to a startup’s user growth, feature growth, etc. It shows the multifaceted nature of building a society.

With Chapter 5, Srinivasan effectively completes the loop: he started with a bold claim that you can start a new country in the cloud, justified it with historical and moral reasoning, analyzed the current breakdown of the old order, and now has spelled out the blueprint and theory for the new order. The major recurring themes come together here – decentralization vs centralization, technology vs politics, moral purpose, and startup-style growth. By juxtaposing nation-state and network state assumptions, he highlights the innovation: network states treat geography as secondary, treat citizens as customers/volunteers, use technology as the backbone of governance, and achieve legitimacy through proof-of-concept (traction) rather than historical lineage.

One of the key proposals implicitly in this chapter is that network states could eventually form a “Network State System” analogous to today’s nation-state system. Once one network state is recognized, many could follow, and they would develop their own norms and alliances (potentially even a Network States’ UN of sorts). This is the “recentralized center” idea framed as an actual geopolitical reality: a multitude of new micro-nations (but globally distributed ones) cooperating via blockchain and mutual recognition. Srinivasan hints that once the first domino falls (the first credible network state), the model could rapidly replicate – much like how once Bitcoin proved a concept, thousands of cryptocurrencies emerged.

Throughout Chapter 5, illustrative examples and references back up his points: for instance, he references how Estonia and Singapore “fused with the network” (e-governance) as positive examples, or El Salvador’s Bitcoin law as a state integrating with a network. He cites how early Israel (pre-1948 diaspora) was essentially a God+network combination, and once the state formed, it became God+network+state – implying that network states might follow a similar trajectory from diaspora to recognized homeland, minus the divinity aspect. He even analogizes VR as future “land” – a network state could one day have its capital city entirely in virtual reality, which, while speculative, shows the degree of breaking from physical constraints he envisions.

By the end of the book, the reader is left with a comprehensive vision: The Network State is a proposal to rethink nation-building for the 21st century using the tools of the internet, blockchain, and startup methodology. Srinivasan’s chapters interlock like pieces of an argument:

• Chapter 1 gave the elevator pitch and plan: you can start a country like a startup.
• Chapter 2 gave the moral and historical justification: current states are morally failing and tech allows new social experiments; we need a moral mission (One Commandment) to rally people.
• Chapter 3 provided a diagnosis of the present: power is shifting to networks (media networks, party networks, crypto networks) and the world is unstable, opening space for alternatives.
• Chapter 4 offered future possibilities: things could get very bad (civil war, digital totalitarianism) if we don’t create a new “center,” and network states can be that peaceful middle path by innovating better governance.
• Chapter 5 delivered the structural blueprint and contrast: it spelled out how exactly a network state differs from a nation-state and how we could transition from one model to the other step by step.

Recurring Themes and Interconnections​

Several recurring themes weave throughout the chapters, creating a coherent narrative:

• Decentralization vs. Centralization: From historical cycles (the Frontier Thesis and “Future is Our Past” in Chapter 2, which argued technology drove centralization then will drive decentralization again) to the description of the internet’s effect in Chapter 4 (increasing variance and breaking centralized institutions), Srinivasan returns to the idea that power is decentralizing in our time. However, he doesn’t advocate chaos; instead, he foresees a recentralization around new units (network states). The balance of decentralization and order is key: e.g., Chapter 2’s conclusion that technological truth (decentralized data) must be balanced with social narrative (central authority), or Chapter 4’s call for a “recentralized center” after fragmentation. This theme underscores why network states are proposed: they leverage decentralized tech (blockchains, internet communities) but package them into cohesive new societies – a synthesis of decentralized innovation with centralized purpose.
• Technology as a Determinant of Sovereignty: Srinivasan constantly highlights how technology (especially cryptography and the internet) shifts the dynamics of power. In Chapter 2, encryption and blockchain were shown as new guarantors of truth and property, eroding the state’s information monopoly. In Chapter 3, the very contenders for power included a technology network (Bitcoin) alongside nation-states. By Chapter 5, cryptography is explicitly the means by which network states achieve “international sovereignty” and defense. The throughline is that code is replacing violence as the final backstop of power in many domains. This is why Srinivasan believes a small online community can eventually challenge nation-states: because technology gives individuals and networks leverage that only armies and bureaucracies used to have. Illustrative examples: Musk using data logs to disprove a media story (tech truth trumping narrative), or Bitcoin surviving nation-state bans due to its decentralized design.
• Moral Purpose and “One Commandment”: A strong moral imperative appears in each chapter. Chapter 1 touched on it by saying network states aim to “build the best type of society possible”. Chapter 2 delved deeply into moral failures of states and the need for a moral North Star for new communities (One Commandment). In Chapter 3, even the factions are driven by quasi-moral visions (woke justice, nationalist harmony, libertarian self-sovereignty). By Chapter 5, when listing network state components, “a moral innovation” is first among reasons for the network to exist. This underscores Srinivasan’s belief that successful societies aren’t built on tech alone; they need a shared belief that binds people. Recurring examples like the Keto Kosher or Cancel-Proof societies in Chapter 2 resurface in Chapter 5’s notion that people join for values, not just money. The interconnection is clear: the cause identified in Chapter 2 becomes the selling point of the startup society in Chapter 1 and the core of its identity in Chapter 5.
• Exit vs. Voice: Srinivasan frequently alludes to the idea that “exit” (leaving a system to create a new one) is increasingly viable, whereas “voice” (trying to change the system from within) is often futile. The entire book is predicated on exiting the nation-state system to build anew. For example, Chapter 3’s scenario of U.S. polarization implies that instead of fighting a civil war (voice through conflict), one could exit and form a community elsewhere (physically or online). Chapter 4’s intermediate coalition is essentially an exit from both superpowers’ visions. And Chapter 5 provides the mechanism of exit: multiple citizenships, voluntary migration, etc., making exit easier than before. A recurring illustrative reference is to the Sovereign Individual thesis (decentralizing tech empowers individuals to escape state control) which he explicitly cites in Chapter 2. Another is the mention that Bitcoin provides an “exit” for wealth (Pax Bitcoinica – people can store value outside any state’s reach). All these underscore the theme that competition between governments (via citizen exit) leads to better governance, which is a core rationale for network states.
• Startup Mentality in Governance: Srinivasan consistently uses entrepreneurship metaphors. Chapter 1 explicitly frames a network state as a startup society and likens founding one to founding a company. Chapter 2 compares political and tech revolutionaries, suggesting “startup founders and political activists aren’t so different”. In Chapter 4, he lists innovation and building as the answer to political problems (“How do you get them together? By innovating: build something better.”). And Chapter 5 outright says “founding a network state is like founding a unicorn”. This theme of applying Silicon Valley principles to nation-building (move fast, iterate, focus on growth metrics, product-market fit for governance) connects the practical how-to with the ideological why. Even the way the book itself is structured – identify a problem (market need), propose a solution (product), analyze competition (US, China, etc.), and then detail the solution’s features – mirrors a startup pitch deck. Srinivasan’s background as a tech entrepreneur seeps into every argument, implying that governance should be subject to entrepreneurship and competition just like industries have been.
• Interplay of Narrative and Reality: He repeatedly shows that controlling the narrative (belief) and controlling the physical reality (force/tech) are two sides of the coin. Chapter 2’s Political Determinism vs Technological Determinism discussion and the need for a synthesis is one example. Chapter 3’s description of NYT vs CCP vs BTC is essentially narrative power vs physical power vs algorithmic power, each checking the other. By Chapter 5, the idea that network states need both a “sense of national consciousness” (narrative identity) and an “integrated cryptocurrency” (material-economic tool) shows he knows a successful new state requires winning hearts and minds (and wallets). The recurring example of the New York Times as “moral network” vs Tesla logs or blockchain as truth is used to illustrate that dynamic in concrete terms. Srinivasan essentially argues throughout that networks can provide an alternative narrative (e.g. new ideologies, online cultures) and alternative reality (via technology platforms and virtual worlds), allowing them to become full-fledged societies.

In conclusion, The Network State is both a diagnosis and a manifesto. Srinivasan interlinks history, technology, and politics to argue that the nation-state as we know it has reached an inflection point. Each chapter builds on the last: from establishing the concept and quick plan, to justifying it with historical trajectory and moral necessity, to analyzing the current breakdown of the old order, to envisioning future outcomes, and finally to presenting the network state as a concrete blueprint for a new order. The book’s major arguments – that cloud communities can evolve into countries, that technology (blockchain & internet) enables this, and that a moral mission is essential – are reinforced with frameworks like the seven steps, the tripolar world, Leviathans, and the nation vs network state comparison. Its key proposals include pursuing “cloud first, land last” nation-building, creating new jurisdictions focused on specific values (One Commandment societies), and using tools like on-chain census and crypto economies to establish credibility. The illustrative examples – from historical (religious diasporas, American frontier, Soviet collapse) to contemporary (Bitcoin, Estonia e-residency, CityDAO, cancel culture, COVID lockdowns) – serve to ground these ideas in reality and show parallels to the network state concept.

Whether or not one agrees that network states will succeed, Srinivasan’s book provides a comprehensive framework for reimagining sovereignty in the digital age. It challenges the reader to envision a world map not of colored blocs, but of overlaying digital communities – a “social network of nations” built from the internet up. The chapters, taken together, argue that this is not utopian but a logical next step in political evolution, driven by the same forces that created prior shifts (technology, migration, and the eternal human quest for meaning and improvement). In a time of global uncertainty, The Network State offers an audacious roadmap for founding the polities of the future, one online community at a time.

Sources:

• Srinivasan, Balaji S. The Network State: How To Start a New Country. 1729.com/thenetworkstate (online edition) .
• Aure’s Notes – Summary of The Network State (extensive chapter-by-chapter synopsis with quotes).
• Bookey App – The Network State Summary (chapter summaries focusing on key concepts).
• Frawley, Andrew. “Balaji’s Network State: Reviewing Its Goodness and Feasibility.” Medium, 2022 (critical discussion of the network state framework).
• Tim Ferriss Show #606 – Interview with Balaji Srinivasan (2022) (mentions the book is available free online and discusses core ideas).
• Mirror.xyz – “Why CityDAO might Become the First Network City” (2022) (applies Srinivasan’s 7-step framework to a real project).
• New Atlantis – “Virtual Reality Reboots History” (2023) (contextualizes Srinivasan’s ideas in broader debates on liberalism and technology).

The rise of generative AI has been nothing short of explosive. From stunning digital art to human-like text, AI is creating content at an unprecedented scale. But this boom has a dark side: where does the AI get its training data? Often, it's from the vast expanse of the internet—from art, music, and writing created by humans who receive no credit or compensation.

Enter Camp Network, a new blockchain project that aims to solve this fundamental problem. It’s not just another crypto platform; it's a purpose-built "Autonomous IP Layer" designed to give creators ownership and control over their work in the age of AI. Let's dive into what makes Camp Network a project to watch.

---

What's the Big Idea?​

At its core, Camp Network is a blockchain that acts as a global, verifiable registry for intellectual property (IP). The mission is to allow anyone—from an independent artist to a social media user—to register their content on-chain. This creates a permanent, tamper-proof record of ownership and provenance.

Why does this matter? When an AI model uses content registered on Camp, the network's smart contracts can automatically enforce licensing terms. This means the original creator can get attribution and even receive royalty payments instantly. Camp's vision is to build a new creator economy where compensation isn't an afterthought; it's built directly into the protocol.

---

Under the Hood: The Technology Stack​

Camp isn't just a concept; it's backed by some serious tech designed for high performance and developer-friendliness.

• Modular Architecture: Camp is built as a sovereign rollup using Celestia for data availability. This design allows it to be incredibly fast (targeting ~50,000 transactions per second) and cheap, while remaining fully compatible with Ethereum's tools (EVM).
• Proof of Provenance (PoP): This is Camp's unique consensus mechanism. Instead of relying on energy-intensive mining, the network's security is tied to verifying the origin of content. Every transaction reinforces the provenance of the IP on the network, making ownership "enforceable by design."
• Dual-VM Strategy: To maximize performance, Camp is integrating the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) alongside its EVM compatibility. This allows developers to choose the best environment for their app, especially for high-throughput use cases like real-time AI interactions.
• Creator & AI Toolkits: Camp provides two key frameworks:
  • Origin Framework: A user-friendly system for creators to register their IP, tokenize it (as an NFT), and embed licensing rules.
  • mAItrix Framework: A toolkit for developers to build and deploy AI agents that can interact with the on-chain IP in a secure, permissioned way.

---

People, Partnerships, and Progress​

An idea is only as good as its execution, and Camp appears to be executing well.

The Team and Funding​

The project is led by a team with a potent mix of experience from The Raine Group (media & IP deals), Goldman Sachs, Figma, and CoinList. This blend of finance, tech product, and crypto engineering expertise has helped them secure $30 million in funding from top VCs like 1kx, Blockchain Capital, and Maven 11.

A Growing Ecosystem​

Camp has been aggressive in building partnerships. The most significant is a strategic stake in KOR Protocol, a platform for tokenizing music IP that works with major artists like Deadmau5 and franchises like Black Mirror. This single partnership bootstraps Camp with a massive library of high-profile, rights-cleared content. Other key collaborators include:

• RewardedTV: A decentralized video streaming platform using Camp for on-chain content rights.
• Rarible: An NFT marketplace integrated for trading IP assets.
• LayerZero: A cross-chain protocol to ensure interoperability with other blockchains.

Roadmap and Community​

After successful incentivized testnet campaigns that attracted tens of thousands of users (rewarding them with points set to convert to tokens), Camp is targeting a mainnet launch in Q3 2025. This will be accompanied by a Token Generation Event for its native token, $CAMP, which will be used for gas fees, staking, and governance. The project has already cultivated a passionate community eager to build on and use the platform from day one.

---

How Does It Compare?​

Camp Network isn't alone in this space. It faces stiff competition from projects like the a16z-backed Story Protocol and the Sony-linked Soneium. However, Camp differentiates itself in several key ways:

1. Bottom-Up Approach: While competitors seem to target large corporate IP holders, Camp is focused on empowering independent creators and crypto communities through token incentives.
2. Comprehensive Solution: It offers a full suite of tools, from an IP registry to an AI agent framework, positioning itself as a one-stop shop.
3. Performance and Scalability: Its modular architecture and dual-VM support are designed for the high-throughput demands of AI and media.

The Takeaway​

Camp Network is making a compelling case to become the foundational layer for intellectual property in the Web3 era. By combining innovative technology, a strong team, strategic partnerships, and a community-first ethos, it’s building a practical solution to one of the most pressing issues created by generative AI.

The real test will come with the mainnet launch and real-world adoption. But with a clear vision and strong execution so far, Camp Network is undoubtedly a key project to watch as it attempts to build a more equitable future for digital creators.

Protocol Architecture​

Enso Network is a Web3 development platform built as a unified, intent-based execution engine for on-chain operations. Its architecture abstracts away blockchain complexity by mapping every on-chain interaction to a shared engine that operates across multiple chains. Developers and users specify high-level intents (desired outcomes like a token swap, liquidity provision, yield strategy, etc.), and Enso’s network finds and executes the optimal sequence of actions to fulfill those intents. This is achieved through a modular design of “Actions” and “Shortcuts.”

Actions are granular smart contract abstractions (e.g. a swap on Uniswap, a deposit into Aave) provided by the community. Multiple Actions can be composed into Shortcuts, which are reusable workflows representing common DeFi operations. Enso maintains a library of these Shortcuts in smart contracts, so complex tasks can be executed via a single API call or transaction. This intent-based architecture lets developers focus on desired outcomes rather than writing low-level integration code for each protocol and chain.

Enso’s infrastructure includes a decentralized network (built on Tendermint consensus) that serves as a unifying layer connecting different blockchains. The network aggregates data (state from various L1s, rollups, and appchains) into a shared network state or ledger, enabling cross-chain composability and accurate multi-chain execution. In practice, this means Enso can read from and write to any integrated blockchain through one interface, acting as a single point of access for developers. Initially focused on EVM-compatible chains, Enso has expanded support to non-EVM ecosystems – for example, the roadmap includes integrations for Monad (an Ethereum-like L1), Solana, and Movement (a Move-language chain) by Q1 2025.

Network Participants: Enso’s innovation lies in its three-tier participant model, which decentralizes how intents are processed:

• Action Providers – Developers who contribute modular contract abstractions (“Actions”) encapsulating specific protocol interactions. These building blocks are shared on the network for others to use. Action Providers are rewarded whenever their contributed Action is used in an execution, incentivizing them to publish secure and efficient modules.

• Graphers – Independent solvers (algorithms) that combine Actions into executable Shortcuts to fulfill user intents. Multiple Graphers compete to find the most optimal solution (cheapest, fastest, or highest-yield path) for each request, similar to how solvers compete in a DEX aggregator. Only the best solution is selected for execution, and the winning Grapher earns a portion of the fees. This competitive mechanism encourages continuous optimization of on-chain routes and strategies.

• Validators – Node operators who secure the Enso network by verifying and finalizing the Grapher’s solutions. Validators authenticate incoming requests, check the validity and safety of Actions/Shortcuts used, simulate transactions, and ultimately confirm the selected solution’s execution. They form the backbone of network integrity, ensuring results are correct and preventing malicious or inefficient solutions. Validators run a Tendermint-based consensus, meaning a BFT proof-of-stake process is used to reach agreement on each intent’s outcome and to update the network’s state.

Notably, Enso’s approach is chain-agnostic and API-centric. Developers interact with Enso via a unified API/SDK rather than dealing with each chain’s nuances. Enso integrates with over 250 DeFi protocols across multiple blockchains, effectively turning disparate ecosystems into one composable platform. This architecture eliminates the need for dApp teams to write custom smart contracts or handle cross-chain messaging for each new integration – Enso’s shared engine and community-provided Actions handle that heavy lifting. By mid-2025, Enso has proven its scalability: the network successfully facilitated $3.1B of liquidity migration in 3 days for Berachain’s launch (one of the largest DeFi migration events) and has processed over $15B in on-chain transactions to date. These feats demonstrate the robustness of Enso’s infrastructure under real-world conditions.

Overall, Enso’s protocol architecture delivers a “DeFi middleware” or on-chain operating system for Web3. It combines elements of indexing (like The Graph) and transaction execution (like cross-chain bridges or DEX aggregators) into a single decentralized network. This unique stack allows any application, bot, or agent to read and write to any smart contract on any chain via one integration, accelerating development and enabling new composable use cases. Enso positions itself as critical infrastructure for the multi-chain future – an intent engine that could power myriad apps without each needing to reinvent blockchain integrations.

Tokenomics​

Enso’s economic model centers on the ENSO token, which is integral to network operation and governance. ENSO is a utility and governance token with a fixed total supply of 100 million tokens. The token’s design aligns incentives for all participants and creates a flywheel effect of usage and rewards:

• Fee Currency (“Gas”): All requests submitted to the Enso network incur a query fee payable in ENSO. When a user (or dApp) triggers an intent, a small fee is embedded in the generated transaction bytecode. These fees are auctioned for ENSO tokens on the open market and then distributed to the network participants who process the request. In effect, ENSO is the gas that fuels execution of on-chain intents across Enso’s network. As demand for Enso’s shortcuts grows, demand for ENSO tokens may increase to pay for those network fees, creating a supply-demand feedback loop supporting token value.

• Revenue Sharing & Staking Rewards: The ENSO collected from fees is distributed among Action Providers, Graphers, and Validators as a reward for their contributions. This model directly ties token earnings to network usage: more volume of intents means more fees to distribute. Action Providers earn tokens when their abstractions are used, Graphers earn tokens for winning solutions, and Validators earn tokens for validating and securing the network. All three roles must also stake ENSO as collateral to participate (to be slashed for malpractice), aligning their incentives with network health. Token holders can delegate their ENSO to Validators as well, supporting network security via delegated proof of stake. This staking mechanism not only secures the Tendermint consensus but also gives token stakers a share of network fees, similar to how miners/validators earn gas fees in other chains.

• Governance: ENSO token holders will govern the protocol’s evolution. Enso is launching as an open network and plans to transition to community-driven decision making. Token-weighted voting will let holders influence upgrades, parameter changes (like fee levels or reward allocations), and treasury usage. This governance power ensures that core contributors and users are aligned on the network’s direction. The project’s philosophy is to put ownership in the hands of the community of builders and users, which was a driving reason for the community token sale in 2025 (see below).

• Positive Flywheel: Enso’s tokenomics are designed to create a self-reinforcing loop. As more developers integrate Enso and more users execute intents, network fees (paid in ENSO) grow. Those fees reward contributors (attracting more Actions, better Graphers, and more Validators), which in turn improves the network’s capabilities (faster, cheaper, more reliable execution) and attracts more usage. This network effect is underpinned by the ENSO token’s role as both the fee currency and the incentive for contribution. The intention is for the token economy to scale sustainably with network adoption, rather than relying on unsustainable emissions.

Token Distribution & Supply: The initial token allocation is structured to balance team/investor incentives with community ownership. The table below summarizes the ENSO token distribution at genesis:

Allocation	Percentage	Tokens (out of 100M)
Team (Founders & Core)	25.0%	25,000,000
Early Investors (VCs)	31.3%	31,300,000
Foundation & Growth Fund	23.2%	23,200,000
Ecosystem Treasury (Community incentives)	15.0%	15,000,000
Public Sale (CoinList 2025)	4.0%	4,000,000
Advisors	1.5%	1,500,000

Source: Enso Tokenomics.

The public sale in June 2025 offered 5% (4 million tokens) to the community, raising $5 million at a price of $1.25 per ENSO (implying a fully diluted valuation of ~$125 million). Notably, the community sale had no lock-up (100% unlocked at TGE), whereas the team and venture investors are subject to a 2-year linear vesting schedule. This means insiders’ tokens unlock gradually block-by-block over 24 months, aligning them to long-term network growth and mitigating immediate sell pressure. The community thus gained immediate liquidity and ownership, reflecting Enso’s goal of broad distribution.

Enso’s emission schedule beyond the initial allocation appears to be primarily fee-driven rather than inflationary. The total supply is fixed at 100M tokens, and there is no indication of perpetual inflation for block rewards at this time (validators are compensated from fee revenue). This contrasts with many Layer-1 protocols that inflate supply to pay stakers; Enso aims to be sustainable through actual usage fees to reward participants. If network activity is low in early phases, the foundation and treasury allocations can be used to bootstrap incentives for usage and development grants. Conversely, if demand is high, ENSO token’s utility (for fees and staking) could create organic demand pressure.

In summary, ENSO is the fuel of the Enso Network. It powers transactions (query fees), secures the network (staking and slashing), and governs the platform (voting). The token’s value is directly tied to network adoption: as Enso becomes more widely used as the backbone for DeFi applications, the volume of ENSO fees and staking should reflect that growth. The careful distribution (with only a small portion immediately circulating after TGE) and strong backing by top investors (below) provide confidence in the token’s support, while the community-centric sale signals a commitment to decentralization of ownership.

Team and Investors​

Enso Network was founded in 2021 by Connor Howe (CEO) and Gorazd Ocvirk, who previously worked together at Sygnum Bank in Switzerland’s crypto banking sector. Connor Howe leads the project as CEO and is the public face in communications and interviews. Under his leadership, Enso initially launched as a social trading DeFi platform and then pivoted through multiple iterations to arrive at the current intent-based infrastructure vision. This adaptability highlights the team’s entrepreneurial resilience – from executing a high-profile “vampire attack” on index protocols in 2021 to building a DeFi aggregator super-app, and finally generalizing their tooling into Enso’s developer platform. Co-founder Gorazd Ocvirk (PhD) brought deep expertise in quantitative finance and Web3 product strategy, although public sources suggest he may have transitioned to other ventures (he was noted as a co-founder of a different crypto startup in 2022). Enso’s core team today includes engineers and operators with strong DeFi backgrounds. For example, Peter Phillips and Ben Wolf are listed as “blockend” (blockchain backend) engineers, and Valentin Meylan leads research. The team is globally distributed but has roots in Zug/Zurich, Switzerland, a known hub for crypto projects (Enso Finance AG was registered in 2020 in Switzerland).

Beyond the founders, Enso has notable advisors and backers that lend significant credibility. The project is backed by top-tier crypto venture funds and angels: it counts Polychain Capital and Multicoin Capital as lead investors, along with Dialectic and Spartan Group (both prominent crypto funds), and IDEO CoLab. An impressive roster of angel investors also participated across rounds – over 70 individuals from leading Web3 projects have invested in Enso. These include founders or executives from LayerZero, Safe (Gnosis Safe), 1inch, Yearn Finance, Flashbots, Dune Analytics, Pendle, and others. Even tech luminary Naval Ravikant (co-founder of AngelList) is an investor and supporter. Such names signal strong industry confidence in Enso’s vision.

Enso’s funding history: the project raised a $5M seed round in early 2021 to build the social trading platform, and later a $4.2M round (strategic/VC) as it evolved the product (these early rounds likely included Polychain, Multicoin, Dialectic, etc.). By mid-2023, Enso had secured enough capital to build out its network; notably, it operated relatively under the radar until its infrastructure pivot gained traction. In Q2 2025, Enso launched a $5M community token sale on CoinList, which was oversubscribed by tens of thousands of participants. The purpose of this sale was not just to raise funds (the amount was modest given prior VC backing) but to decentralize ownership and give its growing community a stake in the network’s success. According to CEO Connor Howe, “we want our earliest supporters, users, and believers to have real ownership in Enso…turning users into advocates”. This community-focused approach is part of Enso’s strategy to drive grassroots growth and network effects through aligned incentives.

Today, Enso’s team is considered among the thought leaders in the “intent-based DeFi” space. They actively engage in developer education (e.g., Enso’s Shortcut Speedrun attracted 700k participants as a gamified learning event) and collaborate with other protocols on integrations. The combination of a strong core team with proven ability to pivot, blue-chip investors, and an enthusiastic community suggests that Enso has both the talent and the financial backing to execute on its ambitious roadmap.

Adoption Metrics and Use Cases​

Despite being a relatively new infrastructure, Enso has demonstrated significant traction in its niche. It has positioned itself as the go-to solution for projects needing complex on-chain integrations or cross-chain capabilities. Some key adoption metrics and milestones as of mid-2025:

• Ecosystem Integration: Over 100 live applications (dApps, wallets, and services) are using Enso under the hood to power on-chain features. These range from DeFi dashboards to automated yield optimizers. Because Enso abstracts protocols, developers can quickly add new DeFi features to their product by plugging into Enso’s API. The network has integrated with 250+ DeFi protocols (DEXes, lending platforms, yield farms, NFT markets, etc.) across major chains, meaning Enso can execute virtually any on-chain action a user might want, from a Uniswap trade to a Yearn vault deposit. This breadth of integrations significantly reduces development time for Enso’s clients – a new project can support, say, all DEXes on Ethereum, Layer-2s, and even Solana using Enso, rather than coding each integration independently.

• Developer Adoption: Enso’s community now includes 1,900+ developers actively building with its toolkit. These developers might be directly creating Shortcuts/Actions or incorporating Enso into their applications. The figure highlights that Enso isn’t just a closed system; it’s enabling a growing ecosystem of builders who use its shortcuts or contribute to its library. Enso’s approach of simplifying on-chain development (claiming to cut build times from 6+ months down to under a week) has resonated with Web3 developers. This is also evidenced by hackathons and the Enso Templates library where community members share plug-and-play shortcut examples.

• Transaction Volume: Over **$15 billion in cumulative on-chain transaction volume has been settled through Enso’s infrastructure. This metric, as reported in June 2025, underscores that Enso is not just running in test environments – it’s processing real value at scale. A single high-profile example was Berachain’s liquidity migration: In April 2025, Enso powered the movement of liquidity for Berachain’s testnet campaign (“Boyco”) and facilitated $3.1B in executed transactions over 3 days, one of the largest liquidity events in DeFi history. Enso’s engine successfully handled this load, demonstrating reliability and throughput under stress. Another example is Enso’s partnership with Uniswap: Enso built a Uniswap Position Migrator tool (in collaboration with Uniswap Labs, LayerZero, and Stargate) that helped users seamlessly migrate Uniswap v3 LP positions from Ethereum to another chain. This tool simplified a typically complex cross-chain process (with bridging and re-deployment of NFTs) into a one-click shortcut, and its release showcased Enso’s ability to work alongside top DeFi protocols.

• Real-World Use Cases: Enso’s value proposition is best understood through the diverse use cases it enables. Projects have used Enso to deliver features that would be very difficult to build alone:

  • Cross-Chain Yield Aggregation: Plume and Sonic used Enso to power incentivized launch campaigns where users could deposit assets on one chain and have them deployed into yields on another chain. Enso handled the cross-chain messaging and multi-step transactions, allowing these new protocols to offer seamless cross-chain experiences to users during their token launch events.
  • Liquidity Migration and Mergers: As mentioned, Berachain leveraged Enso for a “vampire attack”-like migration of liquidity from other ecosystems. Similarly, other protocols could use Enso Shortcuts to automate moving users’ funds from a competitor platform to their own, by bundling approvals, withdrawals, transfers, and deposits across platforms into one intent. This demonstrates Enso’s potential in protocol growth strategies.
  • DeFi “Super App” Functionality: Some wallets and interfaces (for instance, the Eliza OS crypto assistant and the Infinex trading platform) integrate Enso to offer one-stop DeFi actions. A user can, in one click, swap assets at the best rate (Enso will route across DEXes), then lend the output to earn yield, then perhaps stake an LP token – all of which Enso can execute as one Shortcut. This significantly improves user experience and functionality for those apps.
  • Automation and Bots: The presence of “agents” and even AI-driven bots using Enso is emerging. Because Enso exposes an API, algorithmic traders or AI agents can input a high-level goal (e.g. “maximize yield on X asset across any chain”) and let Enso find the optimal strategy. This has opened up experimentation in automated DeFi strategies without needing custom bot engineering for each protocol.

• User Growth: While Enso is primarily a B2B/B2Dev infrastructure, it has cultivated a community of end-users and enthusiasts through campaigns. The Shortcut Speedrun – a gamified tutorial series – saw over 700,000 participants, indicating widespread interest in Enso’s capabilities. Enso’s social following has grown nearly 10x in a few months (248k followers on X as of mid-2025), reflecting strong mindshare among crypto users. This community growth is important because it creates grassroots demand: users aware of Enso will encourage their favorite dApps to integrate it or will use products that leverage Enso’s shortcuts.

In summary, Enso has moved beyond theory to real adoption. It is trusted by 100+ projects including well-known names like Uniswap, SushiSwap, Stargate/LayerZero, Berachain, zkSync, Safe, Pendle, Yearn and more, either as integration partners or direct users of Enso’s tech. This broad usage across different verticals (DEXs, bridges, layer-1s, dApps) highlights Enso’s role as general-purpose infrastructure. Its key traction metric – $15B+ in transactions – is especially impressive for an infrastructure project at this stage and validates market fit for an intent-based middleware. Investors can take comfort that Enso’s network effects appear to be kicking in: more integrations beget more usage, which begets more integrations. The challenge ahead will be converting this early momentum into sustained growth, which ties into Enso’s positioning against competitors and its roadmap.

Competitor Landscape​

Enso Network operates at the intersection of DeFi aggregation, cross-chain interoperability, and developer infrastructure, making its competitive landscape multi-faceted. While no single competitor offers an identical product, Enso faces competition from several categories of Web3 protocols:

• Decentralized Middleware & Indexing: The most direct analogy is The Graph (GRT). The Graph provides a decentralized network for querying blockchain data via subgraphs. Enso similarly crowd-sources data providers (Action Providers) but goes a step further by enabling transaction execution in addition to data fetching. Whereas The Graph’s ~$924M market cap is built on indexing alone, Enso’s broader scope (data + action) positions it as a more powerful tool in capturing developer mindshare. However, The Graph is a well-established network; Enso will have to prove the reliability and security of its execution layer to achieve similar adoption. One could imagine The Graph or other indexing protocols expanding into execution, which would directly compete with Enso’s niche.

• Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocols: Projects like LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole, and Chainlink CCIP provide infrastructure to connect different blockchains. They focus on message passing and bridging assets between chains. Enso actually uses some of these under the hood (e.g., LayerZero/Stargate for bridging in the Uniswap migrator) and is more of a higher-level abstraction on top. In terms of competition, if these interoperability protocols start offering higher-level “intent” APIs or developer-friendly SDKs to compose multi-chain actions, they could overlap with Enso. For example, Axelar offers an SDK for cross-chain calls, and Chainlink’s CCIP could enable cross-chain function execution. Enso’s differentiator is that it doesn’t just send messages between chains; it maintains a unified engine and library of DeFi actions. It targets application developers who want a ready-made solution, rather than forcing them to build on raw cross-chain primitives. Nonetheless, Enso will compete for market share in the broader blockchain middleware segment where these interoperability projects are well funded and rapidly innovating.

• Transaction Aggregators & Automation: In the DeFi world, there are existing aggregators like 1inch, 0x API, or CoW Protocol that focus on finding optimal trade routes across exchanges. Enso’s Grapher mechanism for intents is conceptually similar to CoW Protocol’s solver competition, but Enso generalizes it beyond swaps to any action. A user intent to “maximize yield” might involve swapping, lending, staking, etc., which is outside the scope of a pure DEX aggregator. That said, Enso will be compared to these services on efficiency for overlapping use cases (e.g., Enso vs. 1inch for a complex token swap route). If Enso consistently finds better routes or lower fees thanks to its network of Graphers, it can outcompete traditional aggregators. Gelato Network is another competitor in automation: Gelato provides a decentralized network of bots to execute tasks like limit orders, auto-compounding, or cross-chain transfers on behalf of dApps. Gelato has a GEL token and an established client base for specific use cases. Enso’s advantage is its breadth and unified interface – rather than offering separate products for each use case (as Gelato does), Enso offers a general platform where any logic can be encoded as a Shortcut. However, Gelato’s head start and focused approach in areas like automation could attract developers who might otherwise use Enso for similar functionalities.

• Developer Platforms (Web3 SDKs): There are also Web2-style developer platforms like Moralis, Alchemy, Infura, and Tenderly that simplify building on blockchains. These typically offer API access to read data, send transactions, and sometimes higher-level endpoints (e.g., “get token balances” or “send tokens across chain”). While these are mostly centralized services, they compete for the same developer attention. Enso’s selling point is that it’s decentralized and composable – developers are not just getting data or a single function, they’re tapping into an entire network of on-chain capabilities contributed by others. If successful, Enso could become “the GitHub of on-chain actions,” where developers share and reuse Shortcuts, much like open-source code. Competing with well-funded infrastructure-as-a-service companies means Enso will need to offer comparable reliability and ease-of-use, which it is striving for with an extensive API and documentation.

• Homegrown Solutions: Finally, Enso competes with the status quo – teams building custom integrations in-house. Traditionally, any project wanting multi-protocol functionality had to write and maintain smart contracts or scripts for each integration (e.g., integrating Uniswap, Aave, Compound separately). Many teams might still choose this route for maximum control or due to security considerations. Enso needs to convince developers that outsourcing this work to a shared network is secure, cost-effective, and up-to-date. Given the speed of DeFi innovation, maintaining one’s own integrations is burdensome (Enso often cites that teams spend 6+ months and $500k on audits to integrate dozens of protocols). If Enso can prove its security rigor and keep its action library current with the latest protocols, it can convert more teams away from building in silos. However, any high-profile security incident or downtime in Enso could send developers back to preferring in-house solutions, which is a competitive risk in itself.

Enso’s Differentiators: Enso’s primary edge is being first-to-market with an intent-focused, community-driven execution network. It combines features that would require using multiple other services: data indexing, smart contract SDKs, transaction routing, and cross-chain bridging – all in one. Its incentive model (rewarding third-party developers for contributions) is also unique; it could lead to a vibrant ecosystem where many niche protocols get integrated into Enso faster than any single team could do, similar to how The Graph’s community indexes a long tail of contracts. If Enso succeeds, it could enjoy a strong network effect moat: more Actions and Shortcuts make it more attractive to use Enso versus competitors, which attracts more users and thus more Actions contributed, and so on.

That said, Enso is still in its early days. Its closest analog, The Graph, took years to decentralize and build an ecosystem of indexers. Enso will similarly need to nurture its Graphers and Validators community to ensure reliability. Large players (like a future version of The Graph, or a collaboration of Chainlink and others) could decide to roll out a competing intent execution layer, leveraging their existing networks. Enso will have to move quickly to solidify its position before such competition materializes.

In conclusion, Enso sits at a competitive crossroads of several important Web3 verticals – it’s carving a niche as the “middleware of everything”. Its success will depend on outperforming specialized competitors in each use case (or aggregating them) and continuing to offer a compelling one-stop solution that justifies developers choosing Enso over building from scratch. The presence of high-profile partners and investors suggests Enso has a foot in the door with many ecosystems, which will be advantageous as it expands its integration coverage.

Roadmap and Ecosystem Growth​

Enso’s development roadmap (as of mid-2025) outlines a clear path toward full decentralization, multi-chain support, and community-driven growth. Key milestones and planned initiatives include:

• Mainnet Launch (Q3 2024) – Enso launched its mainnet network in the second half of 2024. This involved deploying the Tendermint-based chain and initializing the Validator ecosystem. Early validators were likely permissioned or selected partners as the network bootstrapped. The mainnet launch allowed real user queries to be processed by Enso’s engine (prior to this, Enso’s services were accessible via a centralized API while in beta). This milestone marked Enso’s transition from an in-house platform to a public decentralized network.

• Network Participant Expansion (Q4 2024) – Following mainnet, the focus shifted to decentralizing participation. In late 2024, Enso opened up roles for external Action Providers and Graphers. This included releasing tooling and documentation for developers to create their own Actions (smart contract adapters) and for algorithm developers to run Grapher nodes. We can infer that incentive programs or testnet competitions were used to attract these participants. By end of 2024, Enso aimed to have a broader set of third-party actions in its library and multiple Graphers competing on intents, moving beyond the core team’s internal algorithms. This was a crucial step to ensure Enso isn’t a centralized service, but a true open network where anyone can contribute and earn ENSO tokens.

• Cross-Chain Expansion (Q1 2025) – Enso recognizes that supporting many blockchains is key to its value proposition. In early 2025, the roadmap targeted integration with new blockchain environments beyond the initial EVM set. Specifically, Enso planned support for Monad, Solana, and Movement by Q1 2025. Monad is an upcoming high-performance EVM-compatible chain (backed by Dragonfly Capital) – supporting it early could position Enso as the go-to middleware there. Solana integration is more challenging (different runtime and language), but Enso’s intent engine could work with Solana by using off-chain graphers to formulate Solana transactions and on-chain programs acting as adapters. Movement refers to Move-language chains (perhaps Aptos/Sui or a specific one called Movement). By incorporating Move-based chains, Enso would cover a broad spectrum of ecosystems (Solidity and Move, as well as existing Ethereum rollups). Achieving these integrations means developing new Action modules that understand Solana’s CPI calls or Move’s transaction scripts, and likely collaborating with those ecosystems for oracles/indexing. Enso’s mention in updates suggests these were on track – for example, a community update highlighted partnerships or grants (the mention of “Eclipse mainnet live + Movement grant” in a search result suggests Enso was actively working with novel L1s like Eclipse and Movement by early 2025).

• Near-Term (Mid/Late 2025) – Although not explicitly broken out in the one-pager roadmap, by mid-2025 Enso’s focus is on network maturity and decentralization. The completion of the CoinList token sale in June 2025 is a major event: the next steps would be token generation and distribution (expected around July 2025) and launching on exchanges or governance forums. We anticipate Enso will roll out its governance process (Enso Improvement Proposals, on-chain voting) so the community can start participating in decisions using their newly acquired tokens. Additionally, Enso will likely move from “beta” to a fully production-ready service, if it hasn’t already. Part of this will be security hardening – conducting multiple smart contract audits and perhaps running a bug bounty program, considering the large TVLs involved.

• Ecosystem Growth Strategies: Enso is actively fostering an ecosystem around its network. One strategy has been running educational programs and hackathons (e.g., the Shortcut Speedrun and workshops) to onboard developers to the Enso way of building. Another strategy is partnering with new protocols at launch – we’ve seen this with Berachain, zkSync’s campaign, and others. Enso is likely to continue this, effectively acting as an “on-chain launch partner” for emerging networks or DeFi projects, handling their complex user onboarding flows. This not only drives Enso’s volume (as seen with Berachain) but also integrates Enso deeply into those ecosystems. We expect Enso to announce integrations with more Layer-2 networks (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism were presumably already supported; perhaps newer ones like Scroll or Starknet next) and other L1s (Polkadot via XCM, Cosmos via IBC or Osmosis, etc.). The long-term vision is that Enso becomes chain-ubiquitous – any developer on any chain can plug in. To that end, Enso may also develop better bridgeless cross-chain execution (using techniques like atomic swaps or optimistic execution of intents across chains), which could be on the R&D roadmap beyond 2025.

• Future Outlook: Looking further, Enso’s team has hinted at involvement of AI agents as network participants. This suggests a future where not only human developers, but AI bots (perhaps trained to optimize DeFi strategies) plug into Enso to provide services. Enso might build out this vision by creating SDKs or frameworks for AI agents to safely interface with the intent engine – a potentially groundbreaking development merging AI and blockchain automation. Moreover, by late 2025 or 2026, we anticipate Enso will work on performance scaling (maybe sharding its network or using zero-knowledge proofs to validate intent execution correctness at scale) as usage grows.

The roadmap is ambitious but execution so far has been strong – Enso has met key milestones like mainnet launch and delivering real use cases. An important upcoming milestone is the full decentralization of the network. Currently, the network is in a transition: the documentation notes the decentralized network is in testnet and a centralized API was being used for production as of earlier in 2025. By now, with mainnet live and token in circulation, Enso will aim to phase out any centralized components. For investors, tracking this decentralization progress (e.g., number of independent validators, community Graphers joining) will be key to evaluating Enso’s maturity.

In summary, Enso’s roadmap focuses on scaling the network’s reach (more chains, more integrations) and scaling the network’s community (more third-party participants and token holders). The ultimate goal is to cement Enso as critical infrastructure in Web3, much like how Infura became essential for dApp connectivity or how The Graph became integral for data querying. If Enso can hit its milestones, the second half of 2025 should see a blossoming ecosystem around the Enso Network, potentially driving exponential growth in usage.

Risk Assessment​

Like any early-stage protocol, Enso Network faces a range of risks and challenges that investors should carefully consider:

• Technical and Security Risks: Enso’s system is inherently complex – it interacts with myriad smart contracts across many blockchains through a network of off-chain solvers and validators. This expansive surface area introduces technical risk. Each new Action (integration) could carry vulnerabilities; if an Action’s logic is flawed or a malicious provider introduces a backdoored Action, user funds could be at risk. Ensuring every integration is secure required substantial investment (Enso’s team spent over $500k on audits for integrating 15 protocols in its early days). As the library grows to hundreds of protocols, maintaining rigorous security audits is challenging. There’s also the risk of bugs in Enso’s coordination logic – for example, a flaw in how Graphers compose transactions or how Validators verify them could be exploited. Cross-chain execution, in particular, can be risky: if a sequence of actions spans multiple chains and one part fails or is censored, it could leave a user’s funds in limbo. Although Enso likely uses retries or atomic swaps for some cases, the complexity of intents means unknown failure modes might emerge. The intent-based model itself is relatively unproven at scale – there may be edge cases where the engine produces an incorrect solution or an outcome that diverges from the user’s intent. Any high-profile exploit or failure could undermine confidence in the whole network. Mitigation requires continuous security audits, a robust bug bounty program, and perhaps insurance mechanisms for users (none of which have been detailed yet).

• Decentralization and Operational Risks: At present (mid-2025), the Enso network is still in the process of decentralizing its participants. This means there may be unseen operational centralization – for instance, the team’s infrastructure might still be co-ordinating a lot of the activity, or only a few validators/graphers are genuinely active. This presents two risks: reliability (if the core team’s servers go down, will the network stall?) and trust (if the process isn’t fully trustless yet, users must have faith in Enso Inc. not to front-run or censor transactions). The team has proven reliability in big events (like handling $3B volume in days), but as usage grows, scaling the network via more independent nodes will be crucial. There’s also a risk that network participants don’t show up – if Enso cannot attract enough skilled Action Providers or Graphers, the network might remain dependent on the core team, limiting decentralization. This could slow innovation and also concentrate too much power (and token rewards) within a small group, the opposite of the intended design.

• Market and Adoption Risks: While Enso has impressive early adoption, it’s still in a nascent market for “intent-based” infrastructure. There is a risk that the broader developer community might be slow to adopt this new paradigm. Developers entrenched in traditional coding practices might be hesitant to rely on an external network for core functionality, or they may prefer alternative solutions. Additionally, Enso’s success depends on continuous growth of DeFi and multi-chain ecosystems. If the multi-chain thesis falters (for example, if most activity consolidates on a single dominant chain), the need for Enso’s cross-chain capabilities might diminish. On the flip side, if a new ecosystem arises that Enso fails to integrate quickly, projects in that ecosystem won’t use Enso. Essentially, staying up-to-date with every new chain and protocol is a never-ending challenge – missing or lagging on a major integration (say a popular new DEX or a Layer-2) could push projects to competitors or custom code. Furthermore, Enso’s usage could be hurt by macro market conditions; in a severe DeFi downturn, fewer users and developers might be experimenting with new dApps, directly reducing intents submitted to Enso and thus the fees/revenue of the network. The token’s value could suffer in such a scenario, potentially making staking less attractive and weakening network security or participation.

• Competition: As discussed, Enso faces competition on multiple fronts. A major risk is a larger player entering the intent execution space. For instance, if a well-funded project like Chainlink were to introduce a similar intent service leveraging their existing oracle network, they could quickly overshadow Enso due to brand trust and integrations. Similarly, infrastructure companies (Alchemy, Infura) could build simplified multi-chain SDKs that, while not decentralized, capture the developer market with convenience. There’s also the risk of open-source copycats: Enso’s core concepts (Actions, Graphers) could be replicated by others, perhaps even as a fork of Enso if the code is public. If one of those projects forms a strong community or finds a better token incentive, it might divert potential participants. Enso will need to maintain technological leadership (e.g., by having the largest library of Actions and most efficient solvers) to fend off competition. Competitive pressure could also squeeze Enso’s fee model – if a rival offers similar services cheaper (or free, subsidized by VCs), Enso might be forced to lower fees or increase token incentives, which could strain its tokenomics.

• Regulatory and Compliance Risks: Enso operates in the DeFi infrastructure space, which is a gray area in terms of regulation. While Enso itself doesn’t custody user funds (users execute intents from their own wallets), the network does automate complex financial transactions across protocols. There is a possibility that regulators could view intent-composition engines as facilitating unlicensed financial activity or even aiding money laundering if used to shuttle funds across chains in obscured ways. Specific concerns could arise if Enso enablescross-chain swaps that touch privacy pools or jurisdictions under sanctions. Additionally, the ENSO token and its CoinList sale reflect a distribution to a global community – regulators (like the SEC in the U.S.) might scrutinize it as an offering of securities (notably, Enso excluded US, UK, China, etc., from the sale, indicating caution on this front). If ENSO were deemed a security in major jurisdictions, it could limit exchange listings or usage by regulated entities. Enso’s decentralized network of validators might also face compliance issues: for example, could a validator be forced to censor certain transactions due to legal orders? This is largely hypothetical for now, but as the value flowing through Enso grows, regulatory attention will increase. The team’s base in Switzerland might offer a relatively crypto-friendly regulatory environment, but global operations mean global risks. Mitigating this likely involves ensuring Enso is sufficiently decentralized (so no single entity is accountable) and possibly geofencing certain features if needed (though that would be against the ethos of the project).

• Economic Sustainability: Enso’s model assumes that fees generated by usage will sufficiently reward all participants. There’s a risk that the fee incentives may not be enough to sustain the network, especially early on. For instance, Graphers and Validators incur costs (infrastructure, development time). If query fees are set too low, these participants might not profit, leading them to drop off. On the other hand, if fees are too high, dApps may hesitate to use Enso and seek cheaper alternatives. Striking a balance is hard in a two-sided market. The Enso token economy also relies on token value to an extent – e.g., staking rewards are more attractive when the token has high value, and Action Providers earn value in ENSO. A sharp decline in ENSO price could reduce network participation or prompt more selling (which further depresses the price). With a large portion of tokens held by investors and team (over 56% combined, vesting over 2 years), there’s an overhang risk: if these stakeholders lose faith or need liquidity, their selling could flood the market post-vesting and undermine the token’s price. Enso tried to mitigate concentration by the community sale, but it’s still a relatively centralized token distribution in the near term. Economic sustainability will depend on growing genuine network usage to a level where fee revenue provides sufficient yield to token stakers and contributors – essentially making Enso a “cash-flow” generating protocol rather than just a speculative token. This is achievable (think of how Ethereum fees reward miners/validators), but only if Enso achieves widespread adoption. Until then, there is a reliance on treasury funds (15% allocated) to incentivize and perhaps to adjust the economic parameters (Enso governance may introduce inflation or other rewards if needed, which could dilute holders).

Summary of Risk: Enso is pioneering new ground, which comes with commensurate risk. The technological complexity of unifying all of DeFi into one network is enormous – each blockchain added or protocol integrated is a potential point of failure that must be managed. The team’s experience navigating earlier setbacks (like the limited success of the initial social trading product) shows they are aware of pitfalls and adapt quickly. They have actively mitigated some risks (e.g., decentralizing ownership via the community round to avoid overly VC-driven governance). Investors should watch how Enso executes on decentralization and whether it continues to attract top-tier technical talent to build and secure the network. In the best case, Enso could become indispensable infrastructure across Web3, yielding strong network effects and token value accrual. In the worst case, technical or adoption setbacks could relegate it to being an ambitious but niche tool.

From an investor’s perspective, Enso offers a high-upside, high-risk profile. Its current status (mid-2025) is that of a promising network with real usage and a clear vision, but it must now harden its technology and outpace a competitive and evolving landscape. Due diligence on Enso should include monitoring its security track record, the growth of query volumes/fees over time, and how effectively the ENSO token model incentivizes a self-sustaining ecosystem. As of now, the momentum is in Enso’s favor, but prudent risk management and continued innovation will be key to turning this early leadership into long-term dominance in the Web3 middleware space.

Sources:

• Enso Network Official Documentation and Token Sale Materials

  • CoinList Token Sale Page – Key Highlights & Investors
  • Enso Docs – Tokenomics and Network Roles

• Interviews and Media Coverage

  • CryptoPotato Interview with Enso CEO (June 2025) – Background on Enso’s evolution and intent-based design
  • DL News (May 2025) – Overview of Enso’s shortcuts and shared state approach

• Community and Investor Analyses

  • Hackernoon (I. Pandey, 2025) – Insights on Enso’s community round and token distribution strategy
  • CryptoTotem / CoinLaunch (2025) – Token supply breakdown and roadmap timeline

• Enso Official Site Metrics (2025) and Press Releases – Adoption figures and use-case examples (Berachain migration, Uniswap collaboration).

We're excited to share a transformative opportunity at Altera.al, a breakthrough AI startup that recently made waves with their groundbreaking work in developing digital humans. Recently featured in MIT Technology Review, Altera.al has demonstrated remarkable progress in creating AI agents that can develop humanlike behaviors, form communities, and interact meaningfully in digital spaces.

About Altera.al​

Founded by Robert Yang, who left his position as an assistant professor in computational neuroscience at MIT to pursue this vision, Altera.al has already secured over $11 million in funding from prestigious investors including A16Z and Eric Schmidt's emerging tech VC firm. Their recent Project Sid demonstration showed AI agents spontaneously developing specialized roles, forming social connections, and even creating cultural systems within Minecraft - a significant step toward their goal of creating truly autonomous AI agents that can collaborate at scale.

Why Now Is an Exciting Time to Join​

Altera.al has achieved a significant technical breakthrough in their mission to develop machines with fundamental human qualities. Their work goes beyond traditional AI development - they're creating digital beings that can:

• Form communities and social hierarchies
• Develop specialized roles and responsibilities
• Create and spread cultural patterns
• Interact meaningfully with humans in digital spaces

Who They're Looking For​

Following their recent breakthrough, Altera.al is scaling their team and offering exceptional compensation packages ranging from $600,000 to $1,000,000 for:

• Experts in AI agent research
• Strong Individual Contributors in:
  • Distributed systems
  • Security
  • Operating systems

How to Apply​

Ready to be part of this groundbreaking journey? Apply directly through their careers page: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/altera.al

Join the Future of Digital Human Development​

This is a unique opportunity to work at the intersection of artificial intelligence and human behavior modeling, with a team that's already demonstrating remarkable results. If you're passionate about pushing the boundaries of what's possible in AI and human-machine interaction, Altera.al could be your next adventure.

---

For more updates on groundbreaking opportunities in tech and blockchain, follow us on Twitter or join our Discord community.

This post is part of our ongoing commitment to supporting innovation and connecting talent with transformative opportunities in the tech industry.