## 3 Research Design of the Fieldwork and Results: Comparing Three Paradigms
### Research Results: Comparative Analysis of Three Paradigms
#### 3.2.2 Network Sovereignties [30]  
Here is the definition of _Network Sovereignties_ as interpreted in this article: emerging forms of decentralized governance where communities assert collective sovereignty through blockchain networks and decentralized technologies, challenging the traditional, centralized authority of nation-states by creating fluid, transnational digital jurisdictions. Ideological Layer: Commons-Centric Worldview  
The ideological layer of Network Sovereignties, as conceptualized by [PERSON] et al. [30], is rooted in a commons-centric worldview and [PERSON]. This ideology emphasizes the importance of self-governed communities and the interdependence of individuals within a collaborative governance framework. Unlike the market-driven and individualistic orientation of the Network State, Network Sovereignties focus on the collective management of shared resources and public goods, inspired by the work of scholars like [PERSON] [65] and [PERSON] [66]. Several key principles characterize this ideological framework:  
* Commons-Based Communities: Network Sovereignties are built upon the idea of commons-based communities, where resources are collectively managed and shared by the community members. This approach contrasts sharply with the privatized, market-driven model, advocating for a system where the collective good is prioritized over individual profit. * Interdependent Individuals: At the core of Network Sovereignties is the recognition of the interdependence of individuals. Rather than emphasizing personal autonomy and minimal state intervention, this paradigm highlights the interconnectedness of community members, where individual well-being is tied to the health and prosperity of the collective. * Collaborative Governance: Governance within Network Sovereignties is inherently collaborative. Decision-making processes are designed to be inclusive and participatory, ensuring that all members of the community have a voice in how resources are managed and shared. This aligns with [PERSON]'s principles of collective action and [PERSON] advocacy for P2P governance models. * Public Goods and Commons Stewardship: Network Sovereignties place a strong emphasis on the stewardship of public goods and commons. This involves the responsible management of shared resources, such as knowledge, infrastructure, and digital platforms, to ensure that they remain accessible and beneficial to all members of the community, rather than being commodified or privatized. * Critical of Market Radicalism and Statism: While critical of market radicalism, which prioritizes profit over people, Network Sovereignties are also cautious of traditional statism. They advocate for decentralized governance structures that are neither purely market-driven nor reliant on centralized state control, but rather, focus on empowering communities to self-govern in a way that aligns with their values and needs. * Technological Stewardship and Ethics: In contrast to the techno-solutionism of the Network State, Network Sovereignties adopt a more ethical and responsible approach to technology. This involves using technology as a tool for empowering communities, fostering collaboration, and supporting the sustainable management of shared resources. Technological innovation is seen as a means to enhance collective well-being (including data privacy, ethics, and ownership), rather than merely as a solution to societal problems. Governance Layer: Structure and Legitimacy  
The governance of Network Sovereignties contrasts sharply with that of Network States, emphasizing community-driven, participatory governance that prioritizes collective well-being and the avoidance of negative externalities. The governance structure in Network Sovereignties is designed to be inclusive, ethical, and deeply aligned with the shared values of its members.