The Whack-a-Mole Principle of Parasovereignty Individual parasovereign actors (node operators, relays, channel managers) can always be suppressed. States can arrest operators, seize hardware, block internet routes, or freeze communication channels. Suppression at this level is real and inevitable. Yet suppression at the node level is not capture at the network level. Parasovereign systems persist because new nodes can always be spun up, code can be redeployed, and protocols can be re-instantiated by anyone, anywhere. This creates the whack-a-mole effect: sovereign powers can degrade a network locally, but every act of suppression triggers reappearance elsewhere. The key distinction is between degradation and capture. Degradation happens when suppression reduces efficiency or scale. Capture would mean altering the rules of the system itself. Parasovereign protocols cannot be captured in principle, but they can be captured in practice if their individual operators renege on the responsibility to maintain protocol integrity. Persistence depends not only on design but also on users choosing to uphold the rules. Guarantee: Parasovereign systems survive because they are harder to eliminate than to regenerate, provided their participants remain committed to autonomy. Example 1: Bitcoin Mining Ban in China (2021) China banned all Bitcoin mining in May 2021. At the time, Chinese miners contributed over 50% of global hashpower. The network’s computational strength fell sharply, showing how vulnerable individual actors are to sovereign suppression. But within a year, hashpower fully recovered and exceeded past highs as miners relocated to North America, Central Asia, and elsewhere. No central authority coordinated this recovery. The Bitcoin protocol endured, but only because miners and node operators voluntarily upheld the rules. Lesson: Sovereign power can degrade Bitcoin, but cannot capture it unless operators themselves abandon protocol integrity. Example 2: Nostr Relays and Censorship Nostr relays are easy to suppress: a state could shut down a relay operator, seize servers, or block domains. But because the protocol is so lightweight, new relays can spin up quickly, and users can switch connections freely. The system persists as long as individuals continue to run relays and sign messages. Capture is only possible if users en masse default to using a single corporate or sovereign-dependent relay, thereby centralizing the network. Lesson: Resilience depends not just on code but on the willingness of individuals to keep participation decentralized. Example 3: Tor Exit Nodes Under Fire Tor exit nodes are frequent targets of law enforcement, ISPs, and regulators. Operators face harassment, lawsuits, or worse. Individual nodes vanish all the time. Yet Tor continues to function globally, because new exit nodes regularly appear and traffic reroutes through them. The protocol ensures persistence, but if users and volunteers stopped shouldering the risk of operating nodes, Tor could degrade into irrelevance. Lesson: Tor survives because enough individuals continue to run nodes despite risk. Suppression plays whack-a-mole, but capture becomes possible only if the community abdicates responsibility. Core point across all three: Parasovereign resilience is never absolute. It depends on individuals who uphold the rules voluntarily. Sovereigns can degrade networks, but capture only occurs if participants concede their autonomy.

I’ve been working on a new framework for leaders and entrepreneurs who want to thrive in this world of autonomous consumers. Stay tuned.

The next wave of strategy will not be about controlling consumers, but about serving them on the rails they choose. Entrepreneurs who understand this will build the future.

Debanking. Deplatforming. Surveillance. Each one pushes consumers away from sovereign-dependent systems and toward autonomy-first systems that cannot be uninvented. The lesson for business: adapt or be bypassed.

Consumers are no longer shaped by systems. They are shaping the systems themselves. With new rails for money, expression, and connection, individuals are now in a better position to decide what is best for themselves.