There are two generally opposite flavors on the spectrum of utopian thinking—authoritarian and anarchist.

The essence of either is a desire for freedom. In the case of authoritarians it's the desire of freedom for themselves or a particular group at the exclusion of others, while actual anarchists want equal freedom for all.

Everything in between is the attempt at the balancing of these opposites with legalistic tinkering in hopes to create a more "perfect union". Since Plato's Republic, using laws for the betterment of society has been the foundational train of political thought influencing every subsequent political theorist. It's come to be the default position accepted by the masses, but in reality it's just as much of an utopia; albeit a very insatiable one where goal posts are constantly moved and conflicts seem never ending.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with utopianism, dreams is what gives society meaning. And innovation whether social or technical, would never be brought to light without the hope of an ideal.

The problem is how one chooses to go about it.

For the anarchist, education and showing how the State is essentially a fiction is the way forward. Authoritarians believe forcing others to submit to their ideal will provide stability in an uncertain world. The believers of republicanism on the other hand think that by just having the right people voted in and the right system of checks and balances will prove to be sufficient.

So far none of these paths have shaped up nicely.

Is there another way?

"The Pragmatic Utopia"

Trade has always been the harbinger for individual freedom, the Phoenicians at one time were a mass commerce-based society sharing ideas throughout the Mediterranean world.

When people come together and cooperate though trade, harmony is established leading to further exchanges of culture between different peoples. It's highly likely that the great works of civilization were only made possible because some simple merchants opened access to new lands and systems of communication.

In our current epoch, digital technology powers virtually all systems which keeps the flow of goods and services functioning enabling global trade. You can't escape it unless you want to be a hermit, so might as well try to use it to your advantage.

Solutions such as bitcoin are starting to revolutionize these technologies and are now being adopted, but of course with some resistance from the State. If you try to understand bureaucracy you'll notice how the systems in place along with being immoral, are highly ineffective and easily made to deter innovations or just generally new ways of doing things.

Bitcoin was created as a means for decentralized financial transactions. The underlying technology however, blockchain, is designed as a way to literally make all technical applications decentralized.

Decentralization by its very nature goes around any politics, movements, or reforms. It's not dependent on any central authority, it's a bottom-up approach. One that even Mr. Jefferson noted as the only stable way to effectively handle the work of governance.

You can say pursuing decentralization as an ideal is a practical mode of utopianism.

Compared to others methods, this one is constructive, it doesn't require any marches, proselytizing, or involving yourself in the insane arena of politics. The discovery feature of cultural and moral competition is also facilitated in a decentralized environment as more choices, transparency, and autonomy make it easier to organize communities on shared values.

It seems apparent looking at the crypto sphere that wth blockchain there's clearly a development of the building blocks necessary for social innovation. How will it be used a different subject, although this is the case for any technology or machinery; only you can determine the utility of the means available.

What's certain is the ideas aren't going away, they will continue to permeate as long individuals build off of them and apply them toward a certain vision.