Thread by @balajis

We do not argue that states are irrelevant; rather, they will be more relevant if they embrace the arrow of history and work with the network, and less relevant if they attempt rearguard actions against it.

Such is the nature of great protocol politics.
foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/11/bit…

A summary.

1. Network proximity > geo proximity
2. Defi matrix → currency competition
3. Remote → market for citizens
4. Bits reshape atoms
6. Property → encryption
7. Rule of code
8. Web3 vs inequality
9. Network layers merge
10. Power decentralizes
archive.md/sYwAL

As context, this is a respectful response by me and @paragkhanna to two thoughtful articles by @ianbremmer and @stephenWalt.

You should read them as well for full context. First, here's Bremmer's piece:
archive.md/RIYYm

Roughly:

- Bremmer argues tech may change the global order
- Walt argues tech will not do so
- And we argue that it already has, and that the internet will be the dominant force above countries and companies

Here is @stephenwalt's piece. Worth a read.
archive.md/Gp0My

The difference in worldviews could be summarized as:

- Is the order mostly stable, with a few wobbles?
- Could it maybe crack?
- Or is it already done, and the chaos is just beginning?

If the last, we'll need new mechanisms to defend civil liberties.
bariweiss.substack.com/p/is-bitcoin-a…

See also this dual review of Packer & Bacevich's latest, which make similar points. Both good books. But without the tech decentralist lens, they feel like depressive summaries of what is, without a positive, constructive vision of what could feasibly be.
archive.md/wB4Il