## 3 Research Design of the Fieldwork and Results: Comparing Three Paradigms
### Research Results: Comparative Analysis of Three Paradigms
#### 3.2.1 Network State [61]
Identity and Belonging: The Network State fosters a sense of identity and belonging that is centered around a core principle or goal, often described as a _single-issue society_. This soft alignment around a central ideology helps maintain cohesion within the decentralized structure. Development and Economic Layer: Market-Driven and Transactional  
Development within the Network State is characterized by its market-driven, highly financialized nature:  
1. Modes of Development: The Network State develops in a manner that is highly transactional and market-driven. The focus is on efficiency, scalability, and financial viability, with development processes often mirroring those of successful startups. 2. Storage and Exchange of Value: Economic activities within the Network State are facilitated through on-chain monetarism, utilizing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. This on-chain economy ensures transparency, security, and decentralization in the storage and exchange of value. Technological Layer: Relationship with Technology  
The Network State's relationship with technology is central to its existence and operations:  
1. Technology-First Approach: The Network State is built on a _technology-first_ philosophy, where technological solutions, particularly blockchain, are at the forefront of governance and social organization. 2. Techno-Solutionism and Utopianism: As mentioned earlier, the Network State embodies techno-solutionism and techno-utopianism, viewing technology as the primary means to achieve social and political ideals. Territoriality and Legal Layer: Hybrid Boundaries and Strategic Compliance  
The Network State's approach to territory and its relationship with existing nation-states are as follows:  
1. Relationship to Territory: The Network State is bound to a contiguous physical territory that is not necessarily bounded. Instead, it may consist of a distributed network of landholdings, acquired through financial means. This approach allows for flexibility and scalability but may also lead to challenges in addressing local impacts like gentrification and a social divide. * Relationship to Nation-State Laws and Policies: The Network State adopts a dual strategy in its interaction with traditional nation-states: (a) Positive or Compliant--It aims to comply with international legal standards to gain recognition and legitimacy. (b) Creative or Exclosures--The Network State also seeks to creatively exploit existing laws and regulations to carve out autonomous spaces and further its ideals. This approach allows it to operate within the legal frameworks of nation-states while pushing the boundaries of traditional statehood. The Network State represents a radical rethinking of statehood and governance, aligning with the crypto-libertarian ideology of individual sovereignty, market-driven governance, and technological innovation. However, while the Network State offers a compelling vision for the future, it also raises significant questions about inclusivity, equity, and the potential deepening of inequalities within its highly financialized and technologically mediated structure. Consequently, this paradigm might reinforce ultra-liberal ideologies that emphasize market efficiency and personal autonomy over collective well-being. The emphasis on financialization and technology as primary drivers of governance risks creating exclusive, elite-driven communities that prioritize the interests of the wealthy and technologically savvy. As a result, the Network State paradigm could potentially deepen existing social inequalities, challenging the inclusivity and equity that are fundamental to sustainable and just governance. To truly benefit all members of society, any future state model must critically address these issues, ensuring that the governance structures it creates are inclusive, equitable, and reflective of the diverse needs and rights of global citizens. These fixes are probably, at least, considered by the other two (not mutually exclusive) paradigms: Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations.