Conversation

Feels like obsession with network effects is a web2 hangover. Protocol effects are a superset. Eg: picking a convention (left or right) for a side of the road to drive on, and letting a traffic rules/norms culture emerge around it is a protocol effect.
3
26
A protocol effect is the confinement of future evolution and emergence to a well-behaved and tractable (for humans and computers) subspace of a larger design space. A network effect is a specific kind of protocol effect that features > O(n^2) growth of a characteristic graph.
1
18
The other part of my formulation, nation > state is messier. There is no strict supervenience/subvenience. While most modern states are preceded by a core nation, most modern nations are not states, and exist in a space of fuzzy entities that go all the way down to communities.
Replying to
“Network state” is an ambitious formulation and Balaji is an ambitious guy. You want only those protocol effects that include a network effect, and you want to finesse historical nationhood and replace it with the formal values alignment of an intentional community.
1
5
Maybe it can work. I don’t know. But I suspect most people are like me in that we are a) not that ambitious politically, even as part of a collective b) don’t process in terms of legible values/alignment c) have a visceral aversion to kings/great men/great founders.
1
11
The “nation” part of “protocol nation” is the hard part. If you eschew formal values alignment and Great Man reality distortion/charismatic epistemology, you must develop a shared history in mutualist, pluralist ways, with *implicit, loose, emergent, and weak* values alignment
2
6
Even the fastest rate of developing such a history would be too slow to be called “startup”, so a “startup nation” is an oxymoron if you want real history. Conviviality does not move that fast and does not aspire to commandment-driven speeds.
1
2
It’s more “windmills of the gods grind slow, but grind exceedingly fine” pace. Exit/voice impatience does not work because mutualism calls for long-term patience as a group slowly learns to talk to each other without frustrated rage-quitting. Commit first, develop voice later.
1
8
The “source” of the history is mutualist exploration of the affordances and potentialities of a newish protocol. It’s not obvious imperatives that can immediately spur action. It’s not commandments. You have to feel your way into protocol’s potential.
2
8
Haven’t read Balaji’s book, but have read summaries, and it’s clearly not for me. I’d guess about 30% of people have the mindset to be attracted to his playbook. I’d guess another 30% would resonate with “protocol nation,” 20-40% would be anarchists or Westphalian reactionaries.
3
6