Protocol nations over network states 🤔
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
2
18
Protocols are more basic than networks ontologically. All networks supervene on protocols but not all protocols subvene networks. Supervenience/subvenience is one of my favorite analytical lenses when I bother to tinker with formal philosophy
plato.stanford.edu/entries/superv
2
1
10
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.
1
1
4
Replying to
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
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
1
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
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
1
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
1
6
