This guest post by Adrian Brinkn, Co-Founder of Anoma and Namada, argues that decentralization is widely misunderstood in the blockchain industry—it has become a mere slogan rather than a meaningful objective. Brinkn emphasizes that decentralization itself is not the end goal; rather, sovereignty is. Sovereignty means individuals and communities can fully control their infrastructure, assets, and data independently, without relying on distant validator cartels or global networks vulnerable to capture, censorship, or failure. This foundational aim underpins the existence of blockchain technology. Currently, global networks like Ethereum and Bitcoin, although designed to be trustless and unstoppable, merely shift trust from centralized banks and governments to a single global validator set. Relying on one global network undermines true decentralization, which should entail having multiple decentralized networks operating in plurality. Brinkn highlights the limits of global networks, warning that, for example, the Bitcoin network would struggle to survive a global conflict like WWIII. Without the ability to run local infrastructure and transact independently amidst network outages or hostilities, users are not truly sovereign—they are effectively renting sovereignty. Sovereign blockchain networks must be resilient enough to run locally when necessary and globally when possible, prioritizing local sovereignty and using global consensus only when appropriate. This approach ensures local communities and economies continue to operate if global networks fail or are compromised. Contrary to some perspectives, Brinkn argues this is not alarmism but a response to real-world scenarios where digital infrastructure can be disrupted by technical failures, governmental interference, or attacks. Relying on a single global network creates a concentrated attack surface and resembles a “one world government” for crypto, which contradicts the vision of diverse communities defining their own trust and governance models. Instead, heterogeneous trust models are essential, as different applications and communities require different validators and governance processes. Sovereignty means owning the entire stack: the infrastructure, governance, and privacy.

The decade of experience shows digital systems are fragile—subject to hacks, regulation, and failures—so resilience by design is essential. Individuals and communities must have the ability to run their own infrastructure and interact with global networks voluntarily without losing control or privacy. Public data is not truly owned; privacy is fundamental to sovereignty. Brinkn questions why a DAO in Buenos Aires or a co-op in Berlin should trust the same validator set as everyone else. They should have the freedom to select or run validators they trust—locally, federated with others, or solo—without external imposition from politicians, foundations, or distant validator cartels. Emerging experiments with local currencies, DAOs, and tailored governance models illustrate the future: a mosaic of sovereign systems that interoperate when sensible but are never forced into a uniform global system. If a global network is down or captured, local economies endure, preserving community control. In conclusion, Brinkn urges the blockchain community to shift focus from worshipping decentralization as an end in itself to building sovereignty. The real future lies not in one global ledger but in a world composed of sovereign actors—individuals and communities empowered to define their own rules and destinies. Decentralization remains the tool, but sovereignty is the ultimate goal. The call to action is clear: build for sovereignty.