Will blockchains challenge the supremacy of nation states in the international order?

tl:dr; if there’s already a post-national money, is a post-national citizenship based on blockchains far behind? You may have a physical citizenship passport and a digital citizenship passport one day.

Bitcoin is the first post-national, digitally native money.

I wonder if something like Bitnation will be the first post-national, digitally-native state.

Well, it won’t be a “state” in the sense that we know it, based on a physical geographic entity.

The idea that “only a state can provide stability” and that an external balance among states is required in order to achieve some degree of peace was enshrined in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) according to On Grand Strategy, a great book I am currently reading.

This idea formed the foundation of a international system of order and justice that we know and live in today. But the nation-state was always assumed to be bounded by geographic borders.

Is that in the process of changing?

Today, we are already witnessing the birth and existence of post-national identities.

People who are part of a greater entity (i.e. the EU) or self-proclaimed digital nomads who move around.

Yet, the model we hold on to is still one of citizenship and identity based on the nation state.

You can’t travel without a passport issued by a member nation of the UN. So, in effect, the nation-state paradigm constrains the movement of people.

But…what if, in addition to a physical citizenship, you had a verifiable citizenship in a trans-national entity?

What would that look like?

Say you joined Bitnation (or any one of the other entities trying to do the same thing) and acquired “citizenship?”

Perhaps it comes from buying a certain amount of tokens and “staking” them for the betterment of the community.

Perhaps it comes from procuring enough votes from existing members who will use their accrued reputation points to vouch for you as someone who will add value to the digital economy?

Then, why couldn’t a physical state recognize a member of a digital state?

Perhaps, someone from Venezuela could also be a member of Bitnation and, while denied entry to US as a Venezuelan, could be granted entry to the US because the country recognized that Bitnation citizens represent the same level of risk as someone from France (or whatever)?

You could even take it one step further and imagine a world where digital identity and physical citizenship are more fluid than they are today.

Perhaps your digital identity gains you access to a place where you can become a physical citizen based on the fact that you are in the place, consuming services, etc. I mean, if a digital nomad is visiting Singapore for 3 months, why shouldn’t he pay taxes there to help support the infrastructure he is using?

He could. That could facilitate trade, inter-dependencies, relationships, and economic well-being….all things that are critical to prosperity and safety.

Then, his contribution on a physical level could be reflected back onto his digital identity and, with that, impact the perceived value of his digital identity.

In that scenario, it’s even plausible that digital identity and membership in a transnational digital state could do more to maintain peace and stability that physically constrained nation states.

I realize that this is way out there, but it’s worth thinking about.

Blockchains give us a way to create verifiable, secure, post-national, self-sovereign digital identities. It’s already giving rise to a nascent digitally-native identity movement.

That is going to impact the current paradigm which is 370 years old.

It’s just that only until 10 years ago, there was no better way to even think about doing it.

It’s possible that there may be now.