asking for a friend (me), does the phrase “network state” excite anyone beyond technocrats and crypto bros?

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

it doesn't really excite me because when I try to visualize what it actually physically looks like it I have a hard imagining anything other than walled compounds or private-micro cities at odds with local populations, hostile even. fundamentally set apart. too close to a cult for my tastes.

icebreaker.xyz/0xen |
https://gallery.so/Oxen/galleries | https://opensea.io/collection/farcats

bringing onchain communities together • events.xyz (@event)

At this level it's fun and cool for sure, they also exist today in the form of societal clubs, fraternal orders, Masonic lodges, Club Med, churches. But they're not the 'sequel to the nation state' ... 'with diplomatic recognition' as Balaji describes, and outside of churches they wield little political power.

linksdao is a great example… eventually they might have golf courses all over the world, and members go to them together and do things

here’s how i think of it…

imagine a soho house kind of social club for each of your favorite communities in every major city in the world, that hosts fun activities and has food and space to work and things to do with friends

like a community-themed rec center

surfacing voices, using tools, deleting data, /xxxx ing

balaji mentions land quite a bit, it's a crucial piece of how he sees network states playing out.

but the whole point is it’s not a physical state. it’s a network state