## 3 Research Design of the Fieldwork and Results: Comparing Three Paradigms
### Research Results: Comparative Analysis of Three Paradigms
#### 3.2.2 Network Sovereignties [30]
* External Legitimacy: Unlike the Network State, which seeks recognition on the global stage by complying with international law and traditional criteria of statehood, Network Sovereignties derive their external legitimacy from their ability to operate without causing harm to others. This approach emphasizes ethical governance practices that minimize negative externalities--such as environmental degradation, social inequality, or cultural erosion--thereby gaining legitimacy not through formal recognition by existing nation-states, but through their positive impact and responsible stewardship of shared resources. * Internal Legitimacy: Internal legitimacy within Network Sovereignties is founded on a strongly consent-based model that aligns with the collective moral standards and values of all members. Unlike the Network State, where internal legitimacy is often tied to financial investment and enforced through social smart contracts, Network Sovereignties prioritize consensus and collective decision-making. Governance structures are designed to reflect the shared values of the community, ensuring that all members have a voice and that decisions are made in a manner that upholds the community's ethical standards. * Power Distribution and Decision-Making: Power distribution in Network Sovereignties is characterized by participatory governance, where power is widely distributed among community members. Unlike the Network State, which centralizes decision-making power in key figures such as a Founder or CEO, Network Sovereignties emphasize a local-first approach with the optional delegation of power to higher levels, a concept known as subsidiarity. This ensures that decisions are made as close as possible to the community members they affect, with higher-level governance only intervening when necessary. This model fosters a more democratic and inclusive decision-making process, where community consensus plays a central role. * Association and Membership: Membership in Network Sovereignties is voluntary and based on alignment with the community's values and goals. In contrast to the Network State, where entry may require a financial contribution and is transactional,Network Sovereignties emphasize the importance of alignment with the community's shared purpose. While entry is voluntary, leaving a Network Sovereignty can be more costly due to the deep interweaving of social, economic, and cultural ties within the community. This interconnectedness creates a strong sense of belonging and makes exit decisions more complex, reflecting the deep commitment required from members. * Identity and Belonging: The identity and belonging within Network Sovereignties are rooted in deep alignment among members, based on shared narratives of the past, present, and future. Unlike the Network State, which may foster a sense of identity around a single issue or goal, Network Sovereignties cultivate a more profound sense of community through shared cultural, historical, and future-oriented narratives. This deep alignment ensures that members not only share a common purpose but also a collective identity that is reinforced through their participation in the governance and stewardship of shared resources. Development and Economic Layer: Commons-Driven and Mutualistic  
Development within Network Sovereignties stands in stark contrast to the market-driven, transactional nature of the Network State. Instead, Network Sovereignties are characterized by their emphasis on commons-driven, cosmo-local, and mutualistic approaches to development and economic activity. * Modes of Development (Commons-Driven, Cosmo-Local, and Mutualistic): Network Sovereignties prioritize commons-driven development, where resources are managed collectively for community benefit, contrasting with the efficiency-focused Network States. The cosmo-local approach ensures that development is globally informed but locally tailored, respecting specific community needs.