🏛️ Layer2State: who controls the digital Leviathan?
DVA ANALYTICS • FACT -> VERIFY -> RISK -> DECISION
We are used to thinking of blockchain, artificial intelligence, and digital citizenship as technologies of the future. But the questions they raise are far older than the technologies themselves.
Who has the right to govern? Where does power come from? Who controls those who make decisions? And can a system created for freedom itself become an instrument of control?
Political philosophy has explored these questions for centuries. Today, they take on new significance in the context of Layer2State—a project that connects digital infrastructure with the concept of symbiocracy.
📚 FACT: Leviathan was conceived long before blockchain
In 1651, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published “Leviathan,” a work on the origins of the state, the social contract, and sovereign power.
In the famous illustration in the first edition, the ruler appears as a giant figure made up of many small human figures. It is an image of a society united into a single political body.
Hobbes believed that without a common authority, conflicts between people could make social life dangerous. People therefore agree to establish a sovereign capable of setting rules and maintaining order.
However, there is a fundamental difference: Hobbes argued for strong sovereign power, not decentralized digital democracy.
His “Leviathan” is not a ready-made prototype of symbiocracy, but a historical starting point for examining the central problem of politics: how to organize life together and limit the danger of conflict.
⚙️ MECHANISM: technology does not abolish power
Modern digital systems make it possible to organize voting, verify transactions, automate administrative processes, and coordinate communities without a single centralized operator.
But decentralization of technology does not necessarily mean decentralization of power.
Someone creates the software code. Someone sets the rules for updating it. Someone controls access to the system, allocates resources, or sets the conditions for participation.
Even if all transactions are open, that does not guarantee that the rules are fair.
So the key question about a digital state is not: “Does it use blockchain and AI?”
The right question is: who sets the rules, who oversees their enforcement, and who can appeal a decision?
🌱 VERIFY: two concepts of symbiocracy
The term “symbiocracy” is used in different intellectual contexts. It is important not to conflate them.
1. Layer2State symbiocracy
In the Layer2State concept, symbiocracy is associated with the interaction of people, technology, and the environment. The project describes a vision of a digital community in which blockchain and artificial intelligence are intended to play a role in governance and coordination.
This raises questions: how exactly are powers distributed, what decisions can AI make, and who is accountable for mistakes?
1. Glenn Albrecht’s Sumbiocracy
Australian eco-philosopher Glenn Albrecht develops the concept of Sumbiocracy in the context of the Symbiocene—a vision of the future based on the interdependence of living systems.
At the heart of this concept is not only the effectiveness of governance, but also the nature of the interaction between people, other living organisms, and ecosystems.
These approaches share a focus on interdependence, but they are not identical. One emphasizes the digital organization of society; the other, political and ecological responsibility toward living systems.
⚠️ RISK: who controls the digital arbiter?
If artificial intelligence is used in a governance system, that does not eliminate the problem of power. It changes the form in which power is exercised.
AI does not exist apart from the infrastructure, data, rules, and decisions of the people who create and maintain it.
Therefore, assessing Layer2State requires examining six key areas.
1. Legitimacy. Who sets the rules for joining the community? How is the initial social contract formed? Can participants influence how it changes?
1. Human rights. How do freedom of speech, community rules, and restrictions on certain types of expression relate to one another? Who interprets these rules?
1. Distribution of power. Who controls the code, updates, digital identity, and governance mechanisms? Are there independent audits and a process for appealing decisions?
1. Accountability. Who is responsible for an algorithm’s erroneous decisions, wrongful denial of access, or any harm caused? What legal remedies are available to participants?
1. Economic independence. Can a participant exit the system while retaining their assets and access to lawful means of protecting their rights? Is their economic position excessively dependent on the platform’s internal rules?
1. Long-term sustainability. What specific mechanisms account for environmental impacts, inequality, the concentration of resources, and the interests of future generations?
These are due diligence criteria, not claims that Layer2State has already violated rights or lacks relevant mechanisms. Such conclusions require documents, technical data, and independent corroboration.
🔍 The central tension: the right to vote or the right to exit?
Political philosophy sees freedom not only as the ability to participate in decision-making. Protection from arbitrary power is also important.
A person may be able to vote yet have no real influence if a small group of participants sets the rules. A system may call itself decentralized but in practice depend on developers or the largest resource holders.
That is why it is worth assessing not only the right to vote, but also the right to information, to appeal, to independent dispute resolution, and to exit the system.
This is where Hobbes, contemporary theories of democracy, and digital governance meet.
Hobbes asked about the need for a common authority. John Locke asked about natural rights and the limits of government powers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau asked about popular sovereignty and the general will.
These thinkers did not propose a ready-made architecture for a digital state. However, their works help us formulate criteria for evaluating such an architecture.
🧭 DECISION: a digital layer or a new political community?
This is the central question for Layer2State.
If a project is digital infrastructure operating within existing legal systems, its legitimacy and accountability are assessed, among other things, under the laws of those jurisdictions.
If, however, it claims to be a new political community, more complex questions arise: Where does its authority to set binding rules come from? How are participants’ rights protected, and under what conditions does its power lose legitimacy?
These two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A digital community can develop its own mechanisms for participation while remaining within the laws of the states in which it operates.
However, technological innovation alone does not create political legitimacy.
To assess Layer2State substantively, its public statements must be compared with its legal documents, governance rules, technical architecture, and actual decision-making and appeals procedures.
💎 Conclusion
Political philosophy reminds us that every system of governance embodies a particular view of people, freedom, justice, and power.
Blockchain can make transactions more transparent. AI can help analyze information. Digital identity can make interaction easier.
But none of these technologies automatically guarantees fairness, independence, or democracy.
The future will be determined not only by what technology can do, but also by the rules society builds into its foundations.
The main criterion is not how intelligent a system is, but how limited, transparent, and accountable its power is to people.
FACT -> VERIFY -> RISK -> DECISION
DVA — facts without hype.
This material is analytical and informational in nature. It is not a legal opinion or an assertion that Layer2State has committed a violation.