For far too long, conversations around blockchain have been dominated by a unique form of Silicon Valley utopianism. We share a vision in which the world becomes more borderless and decentralized, governed purely by code. A world where globalists salivate over seamless transactions and one-world, one-person digital IDs. As a Parisian, I think that there is a negative side to this shiny coin. There is one glaring pitfall that endangers the equity it purports to promote.

This is not technophobe bashing, but rather an honest attempt to probe the prevailing story. It's about asking whether this relentless pursuit of global decentralization is truly in our best interests, or whether it's paving the way for a new form of centralized control, masked by the allure of innovation.

This is contrary to the globalist vision for blockchain, which frequently focuses on one overarching, centralized network. They broadly share the vision of a multi-chain Ethereum-like "world computer" that hosts all applications and data. The issue though? This generation of medical devices has a very large attack surface.

One Chain To Rule Them All?

Envision a world’s conflict—any large-scale war between countries—not fought with bombs, tanks, and airplanes, but by cyber means. What good are your “decentralized” assets when the internet backbone gets blown out? What occurs when governments, in their own (often incorrect) self-interest, choose to close access to these interconnected global networks? All at once, your hypothetically unseizable hoard is out of reach, completely devalued.

We're told that decentralization equals resilience. What is the case when one central global validator set dominates the whole ecosystem? In fact, changing where we place our trust—from banks to a code-obsessed cohort of 20-somethings—isn’t progress at all, it’s just a side-step. We’ve swapped out one set of gatekeepers for a different bunch. This new entity could be a lot more opaque and less accountable.

This “one world government” of crypto is a reactionary dystopian fantasy. It centralizes decision-making power and design single points of failure into the system. It unfortunately misses the more fundamental point that every community is different in its needs, values, and models of trust.

The real promise of blockchain technology is not decentralization—it’s sovereignty. It’s not about the technology at all, it’s about empowering people and neighborhoods to have control over their own data, their own assets, and their own digital destiny.

Sovereignty: The REAL Goal

Decentralization should be a way to achieve those ends, not the goal itself. A tool, not a dogma. We have to change our thinking from creating these big global, kind of monolithic networks, toward these resilient, sovereign systems. Think of it like this: a global city is impressive, but a network of interconnected, self-sufficient villages is far more robust.

What will happen to your new digital identity when the ‘global’ internet goes dark?

France has long valued data privacy and digital sovereignty. We do it thanks to our robust laws, as well as a cultural devotion to protecting individual liberties. The globalist blockchain narrative tends to brush these concerns aside as barriers to innovation. They want to fudge every aspect of the world into their one big world computer.

We want the necessary blockchain infrastructure but built in a way that acknowledges states’ rights and individual privacy. It should work in practice, too, including when the international internet is broken. We need networks that default to local control, allowing individuals and communities to maintain sovereignty even in the face of adversity.

By embracing a "patchwork" of sovereign systems. Now picture all of these blockchains seamlessly connected to one another. To start, each one is completely separate, with its own rules, governance and security assumptions.

It’s not isolationism, it’s resilience. This bending away from globalization shouldn’t be seen as isolationism. Build a more resilient digital ecosystem able to weather future shocks and adapt to new realities. Address their challenges, empower diverse, local innovation, and let individuals and communities shape their own digital destiny.

Building for Local Resilience

Future of blockchain is not one big chain, overseen by a few major players. It's a diverse ecosystem of sovereign systems, empowering individuals and communities to build a more resilient and equitable digital future. We have to begin doing the right kind of building to realize that future starting now. We must resist the soothing demands of globalist blockchains, pretending to give us freedom – only to hand us new systems of control. The French revolution was not fought to replace one set of taskmasters with another, and neither should our digital future be.

This isn't about isolationism; it's about building resilience. It's about creating a digital ecosystem that can withstand disruptions, that can adapt to changing circumstances, and that empowers individuals and communities to control their own digital destiny.

We need to champion projects that prioritize:

  • Privacy by default: Public data cannot be truly owned.
  • Choice of trust model: Let individuals and communities choose their own validators.
  • Conflict-resistant design: Build infrastructure that can withstand attacks, not just hope for the best.
  • Owning your stack: The ability to run your own infrastructure and control your own data.

The future of blockchain isn't a single, global network controlled by a handful of powerful entities. It's a diverse ecosystem of sovereign systems, empowering individuals and communities to build a more resilient and equitable digital future. We need to start building for that future, today. And we need to reject the siren song of globalist blockchains that promise freedom but ultimately deliver control. The French Revolution wasn't fought for a new set of masters, and neither should our digital future be.