Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Was there any geopolitics discussion at the network state conf? Like, "what role should the network state movement have in the context of politics in many major countries worldwide going totally crazy, driving out talent and putting us at risk of an even-more-major war in the next 10 years?" or any similar questions?
11 replies
61 recasts
210 reactions
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
I don’t remember trad politics being a direct subject on stage More about stuff that is infrastructure for a new parallel politics (eg, real estate, education, finance)
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
I wonder if it's right or wrong to eschew trad politics. On the one hand you build a bigger coalition and avoid alienating anyone, but on the other hand you risk failing to discuss real-world issues that the movement needs to react to, and obscuring fault lines that might re-emerge in a more destructive way later
3 replies
3 recasts
26 reactions
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Id be interested what @balajis.eth thinks He actually does engage w politics a bit (prescribes that Gray in US should ally w Red and accept that Blue will never ally, unfortunately). But it wasn’t emphasized at conference I also notice Dan + V not encouraging politics on FC has nourished composability mindset
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Ben
@benersing
It's likely necessary. To operate at scale it will need to be recognized by the Westphalian model for a while. It will be similar to the beginnings of the modern era when empires, monarchies and nation-states all co-existed.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
I dunno, I think if gray plays we’re all friends it’s over before it started. I don’t think that pattern has ever worked for a group of humans over time, it just leaves them open for hostile takeovers
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben
@benersing
Say more. What pattern hadn't ever worked? Diplomatic co-existence?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
