In 2025, Zuzalu enters its 3rd year, and likely, its third iteration. The ecosystem has grown insanely fast from only a few pop-up cities in 2023 to over 30 in 2024 - a 1400%+ increase in only a few months. This is a direct consequence from Zuzalu’s decentralization, and, in 2025, the movement is poised to continue this growth. This year, however, the Zuzalu ecosystem is ready for some major changes. The objective of this article is to go over some of these proposed steps forward, as well as educate any decisions that we make with information collected throughout history and similar movements that have both failed and succeeded. So, will 2025 be the year that the Zuzalu community buys land and real estate, or will such a move produce an achilles heel for local governments to shut us down in the future? Will it be the year where sustainable pop-up city business models emerge, or will pop-up cities continue to offer a crypto-native twist to the luxury nomadic lifestyle? Will the tech that was initiated in 2024 actually have the legs to carry and expand this movement to new frontiers and new communities, or do we still need time and additional resources? All these are questions that deserve an answer. To get some of these, we need to look at the sole reason Zuzalu started in the first place - Vitalik. – In the last Zuzalu community call of 2024, Vitalik presented his thoughts on the main questions that the ecosystem needs to solve in the next 12 months. These thoughts echoed his words at the Archipelago in Chiang Mai. In 2025, Zuzalu v3 will focus on fundraising and the search for more permanent locations. On permanent locations - to all who are active in the ecosystem, this poses no surprise. Already in 2024, a few key jurisdictions emerged as main hubs for Zuzalu activity. Chiang Mai, which hosted 15 pop-up cities at the same time in November, is an obvious example. Berlin, which hosted ZuBerlin and Zeler City is another. Buenos Aires, where Crecimiento has taken a 4 year approach, is another hub that will continue to attract web3 talent, startups, investors and pop-up city organizers in the years to come. Switzerland, where the jurisdictional structure is uniquely positioned to support the emergence of the Network Society, is another hub that the ecosystem is looking to expand into. San Francisco, the home of tech and modern tech communes, is another location that seems ready to establish permanent representation of the Zuzalu ecosystem. Finally, Japan also seems like a strong contender for permanent hubs. In a common desire to find our community’s home, the wish to establish these permanent locations is one that existed since the beginning of the movement. But this desire is not the sole reason for the movement’s direction to find permanent homes - real world impact is a goal of equal importance for many organizers. Problem solving is a key trait of all people I’ve met within Zuzalu, and the ecosystem’s pop-ups have had a repeated philanthropic spirit to them. In Montenegro, Buenos Aires and Chiang Mai, multiple actions to unearth and solve local problems have emerged. A recent example would be the work conducted by multiple pop-ups and participants in Chiang Mai post its recent flooding. Actively helping the cleanup was a simple way for the ecosystem to give back, but a web3-supported solution emerged through LottoPGF, a lottery system that helped raise thousands of dollars for the flood cleanup efforts. Many organizers believe, rightfully so, that permanent locations can not only increase the impact of the whole movement, but it can also help establish the ecosystem’s philanthropic efforts and ensure engagement and representation of locals. For all of the proponents of these Network Societies that I’ve met within Zuzalu, giving back to the local community is a substantial part of their long term thinking that will benefit the acceptance of our ecosystem while helping people. A win-win solution that benefits all. However, these feelings are not always echoed, and not all jurisdictions are (or will always be) friendly to Network Societies. — This leads me to Vitalia - one of the shining examples of the pop-up city trend of 2024. Vitalia, which focused on the merge of biotech, longevity and crypto, became a focal point for Decentralized Science (DeSci), a web3-enabled niche that aims to disrupt numerous aspects of modern science. Vitalia focused primarily on the DeSci subsection of Biotech and Pharma. During Vitalia, multiple DeSci projects emerged, multiple decentralized trials were conducted, and, importantly, initial phase 1 trials of Gene Therapies were conducted at a fraction of the expected cost - roughly 1m USD compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to conduct the same trials in the US or Europe. Since Vitalia, and partially because of Vitalia, the DeSci industry exploded in Q4, 2024. During this “DeSci” summer, multiple projects raised millions of dollars in funding, found partnerships with existing established institutions, built ecosystem tools and infrastructure, and started making the dreams explored in Vitalia real - at least more real than ever before. By bringing together some of the world’s smartest people, Vitalia enabled new connections, new partnerships and new friendships. Importantly, Vitalia was uniquely enabled by Prospera, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) that operated primarily on the Caribbean island of Roatan. When most people think of SEZs, they think of China or the UAE, but Prospera is unprecedented. Prospera, alongside a few other organizations, are entirely private in their foundation, funding and operations, and are often characterized as a distinct subset of SEZs named Charter Cities. Besides a few limitations, like criminal law, these private cities are allowed to own land, run a court system, install and remove regulation, collect taxes and act practically as profit-seeking States. In Prospera, this means that you can install regulation from abroad and follow best-in-class laws from around the globe. Do you want to run a Financial company like you are in Switzerland? You can in Prosepra. Do you want to create your own new laws for Pharma? You can in Prospera. Do you want to remain entirely unregulated? You can, in Prospera, as long as you know that you are bound by personal liability. Prospera, which has raised millions in funding, is one of the world’s most innovative experiments in Governance and Economic Policy. It seems like the West’s take into SEZs; the driving force behind the rise of China and the UAE tha lifted more than a billion people from extreme poverty. Prospera is also included in US-Honduran Trade agreements, providing the SEZ with unique additional protections. Yet, in late 2024 and with pressure from the Democratic Socialist government of Xiomara Castro, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that all ZEDEs, including Prospera, were unconstitutional and illegal. This contrasts the support that previous Honduran governments provided these ZEDEs. As of today, Prospera is still operational and active, with ongoing legal proceedings aiming to re-establish the full legality of the Zone in Honduras for years to come. For the zone, 2025’s general election in Honduras will be a key make-or-break point. So, to put things into perspective, Honduras, which is ranked 133th when it comes to GDP per Capita and 89th in Economic Freedom, has almost half of its population living below the poverty line in 2025. Simultaneously, the country, which is ranked 5th in the world when it comes to murder per 100 thousand residents, has a “Level 3” travel advisory by the US, urging travelers to reconsider travel to the country. For the Island of Roatan specifically, which is where Prospera and Vitalia took place, there is no drinking tap water, sand fleas, whose bite can irritate you for months, spread dengue fever left and right, and, stunningly, 1 in 7 residents is HIV-positive. In short, there is nothing in the country as cutting edge and innovative as Prospera and Vitalia - yet the government decided to do everything in their power to shut the zone down and unravel years of progress and investment that would benefit Hondourans and the world alike. This is a warning to all Zuzalians who aim to build permanent, physical assets in the future. Permanence comes with risks, and these risks can be worth millions if we buy land and property and then the related governments turn on the ecosystem - which is as simple as a change in leadership. The more value our network holds in these locations, the bigger the honey pot that we build for all governments in the world. And, let’s not kid ourselves, if the Network Societies grow to be a globally impactful phenomenon, the major governments of the world will become our competition. Are we ready to take on such risks this early in our lifecycle? Should we invest millions across the world to build permanent representations of Zuzalu? Well, without a deep analysis and research, we will never know, so let’s explore. — Movements like Zuzalu may seem young, fresh and uniquely attached to the emerging web3 age, but they are not. This is not the first time that a people with coherent shared identity and ethos meet to form parallel societies with physical infrastructure. These efforts have been around for millenia, and have formed in various degrees of success and failure. Looking into them, and especially what led to their success or failure, is extremely important for the future of Zuzalu. As such, I provide below the summary of my personal explorations in these intentional communities of the past and present, outlining their various goals, tools and degrees of success. This is not a complete analysis of the entirety of sovereign-seeking intentional communities and movements of the past, but only a selected series of examples that I consider relevant for Zuzalu. In fact, in my research I found hundreds of movements that sought similar goals as Zuzalu. If you add communes, these examples add up to thousands, if not tens of thousands, yet the vast majority of them failed spectacularly. Nevertheless, there are learnings spread within the failures of the past, and my analysis will break down these communities on the below verticals: Analysis Data Points: Title, Date and Location - Self-explanatory. Principles - What tied these communities and movements together? Currency/Sovereignty - Did any of these movements utilize tokens to support their movement? Success - Were they a successful movement? This is a tough one, because even failed movements can have a long lasting impact on the world and society. Positives - What were the most positively impactful outcomes of these movements? Negatives - What were the most negatively impactful outcomes of these movements? This section will explore a number of religious and political movements, since, unsurprisingly, many of these movements were considered fringe enough at that time to seek out alternative co-living and communal experiences. It is crucial to understand that this review DOES NOT support any of these movements on either ideological or religious matters, but is just an exploration of what has happened in the past. Zuzalu is not a religious movement, and it is not a political movement. It is a social movement, and my analysis and research below DOES NOT aim to connect Zuzalu with any of the below examples of history, their ideologies and beliefs, nor do I believe that Zuzalu is adversarial by nature to the existing institutions, states and nations. All of this research is done by me, in my own volition, and with a clear goal, which is to provide the movement with a succinct analysis of co-living learning from the past. Historical Movements for Co-Living on Principles Utopian Socialist Movements (1800s) Fourierist Phalanxes (1830s–1850s) – USA/France Principles: Communal living in "phalanstères," or large buildings designed for shared life and work. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and financial issues. Positives: Influential in cooperative movements. Negatives: Idealism failed to align with economic realities. Oneida Community (1848–1881) – New York, USA Principles: Perfectionism, shared property, mutual criticism, complex marriage. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Survived for over 30 years; transitioned into a silverware company. Positives: Economic success, innovative governance. Negatives: Controversial practices, including eugenics-like policies. New Harmony (1825–1829) – Indiana, USA Principles: Robert Owen’s vision of a secular utopia based on equality and shared labor. Isolation: Aimed to create a model community away from capitalist society. Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and lack of economic viability. Legacy: Inspired future utopian experiments and cooperative movements. Brook Farm (1841–1847) – Massachusetts, USA Principles: Transcendentalist ideals of individual freedom, intellectualism, and communal labor. Isolation: Self-contained farm and intellectual retreat. Success: ✘ Financial troubles and practical inefficiencies led to its end. Legacy: Prominent contributors to American literature and philosophy. Religious Movements The Mormon Settlements (1830s–present) – Northwestern States, USA Principles: Religious faith, community support, and self-reliance. Currency/Sovereignty: Had temporary currency in Utah; no sovereignty (subject to US government). Success: ✔ Very successful; persists today as a major religious and cultural movement. Positives: Strong social cohesion, economic success. Negatives: Early conflicts with the US government. The Amana Colonies (1855–1932) – Iowa, USA Principles: Pietist, communal living centered on shared work and religious worship. Isolation: Lived entirely separate from broader American society. Success: ✔ Adapted into a cooperative business model (Amana Corporation). Failure Factors: Abandoned communal living during the Great Depression. Anarchist and Political Movements The Paris Commune (1871) – Paris, France Principles: Workers' self-governance, anti-capitalism. Currency/Sovereignty: Temporary control over Paris; no distinct currency. Success: ✘ Lasted only two months. Positives: Inspired future socialist and anarchist movements. Negatives: Violent suppression by the French government. Kibbutzim (1909–present) – Israel Principles: Communal farming, Zionist socialism, and collective ownership. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Israel. Success: ✔ Initially successful; evolved to adapt to modern economies. Positives: Significant contributions to Israeli state-building and agriculture. Negatives: Decline of collectivism with privatization trends. Post-WWII Communities and Movements Counterculture Movements (1960s–1970s) The Diggers (1960s) – San Francisco, USA Principles: Free economy, radical sharing, and community autonomy. Currency/Sovereignty: Gifting economy; no sovereignty. Success: ✘ Short-lived due to lack of scalability and external pressure. Positives: Influenced freeganism and anti-consumerist ideologies. Negatives: Dependency on external systems for sustainability. Why They Failed: Over-reliance on donations; minimal planning for long-term operations. Twin Oaks Community (1967–present) – Virginia, USA Principles: Income-sharing, egalitarian governance, and minimal environmental impact. Currency/Sovereignty: Internal labor credit system but no external currency or sovereignty. Success: ✔ Still active with 90+ members. Positives: Consistent income from hammock and tofu production. Negatives: Limited scalability due to stringent entry requirements. The Farm (1971–present) – Tennessee, USA Principles: Nonviolence, vegetarianism, and communal living. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Sustains a smaller but thriving population. Positives: Early leader in environmental sustainability and renewable energy. Negatives: Decline due to economic strain in the 1980s. Why It Endured: Adapted to market forces while maintaining core ideals. New Age, Spiritual Communities and Intentional Socialist Communities Auroville (1968–present) – Tamil Nadu, India Principles: Universal township for human unity, spiritual growth. Currency/Sovereignty: Internal economy with "Aurocards"; partial autonomy under Indian government. Success: ✔ Grown to 3,000+ residents and internationally recognized. Positives: Innovation in education and sustainable development. Negatives: Struggles with local politics and funding. Arcosanti (1970–present) – Arizona, USA Principles: Sustainable urban living with minimal environmental impact. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Continues as a demonstration site for "arcology" (architecture + ecology). Positives: Early model of sustainable urban planning. Negatives: Limited scalability; remains more of a concept than a functioning city. Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (1956–present) – Spain Principles: Worker cooperatives based on socialism and economic democracy. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Spain. Success: ✔ Thriving cooperative network employing 80,000+ workers. Positives: Scaled economic success; inspired global cooperative movements. Negatives: Balancing cooperative principles with global competition. Tech-Driven and Ideological Movements Silicon Valley Tech Communes (1990s–present) – USA Principles: Co-living to foster collaboration, innovation, and shared resources. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Scaled and popularized globally. Positives: Promotes innovation and networking. Negatives: Often criticized for exclusivity and gentrification. Micronations and Experimental Governance Christiania (1971–present) – Copenhagen, Denmark Principles: Anarchist commune emphasizing self-governance and counterculture. Currency/Sovereignty: Local barter economy; limited recognition by Danish authorities. Success: ✔ Thrives as a tourist and cultural hub. Positives: Model for autonomous zones. Negatives: Struggles with drug trade and legal disputes. The dream of a Utopia, of a promised land, has been a driving force for basically all co-living movements that I’ve researched thus far. It is unsurprising that many of these movements started in France and the United States, both bastions of experimentation and different ideas of how societies should exist and operate. However these movements started long before the 1800s; basically ever since the printing press sparked the proliferation of ideas that emerged during the Renaissance, the Reformation and ultimately the Enlightenment; something I touch upon in a bit. Many of the movements above, like the Fourierists of Brook Farm, the Owenites of New Harmony and the Paris Commune, were based primarily on testing Utopian Socialist ideals. Basically all of them imploded. Others, like the Amana Colonies and the Oneida Community, failed to remain attractive due to their religious nature, pietism and complex social institutions that made it impossible for them to grow. Instead they converted to corporate entities. The Paris Commune of 1871, however, is a particularly interesting example, that goes way beyond coliving. The movement, which was essentially a urban revolution of Prisians during the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71, was spearheaded by various anarcho-communist leaders that emerged from the local working class and disenchanted city militia. It lasted two months, and its existence can be divided into two separate stages; the initial flourishing phase before Federal intervention, and the second, collapsing stage of the Commune which produced an unimaginable level of destruction and violence. For a few weeks, the Paris Commune produced some of the most sweeping social changes in Europe to date. The Commune established 8 separate democratic and public bodies that allowed all Parisians to voice their opinions and propose social programs. These decentralized governance structures proposed a number of decrees, with notable ones producing rent relief for the entirety of the population, the abolition of child labor, the provision of universal suffrage and access to leadership roles for women, the provision of pension fund to unmarried women and children of guardsmen killed in service, the postponement of commercial debt obligations and much, much more. Paris, for a few months in 1871, was the most Progressive society the world has ever seen. These progressions came to a screeching halt once the French federal government was able to regroup, surrender to the Prussian army that was besieging Paris and half of France at that time, invade the city and depose the Commune once and for all. This Federal offensive provided radical Neo-Jacobinite’s the opportunity to capture the leadership of the Commune, executing a number of prisoners captured at the formation of the Commune, including the Archbishop of Paris, and burning down a number of extremely important buildings, like the Tuileries Palace, which was the residence of the French royal family and was never rebuilt. Many other extremely important buildings were destroyed during this time. The “Bloody Week” that ended the Paris Commune led to the deaths of 10 to 20 thousand communards, the arrest of over 43 thousand others and the exile of many of them. While most examples researched above are remote, self-limiting communities founded by a niche group of people that held very specific principles, ideals and identities, the Paris Commune affected more than 2 million people living in the city. It was the most impactful and substantial example of novel social institutions that I found. The two months in Paris created one of the most advanced decentralized government structures that the world had ever seen, and yet, it failed dramatically. Although very radical, its existence gives us a real insight on how a movement like ours will be treated by competing national actors once it gains real momentum and produces real impact. Importantly, however, the times have changed. Zuzalu is a Network-first state. Its digital robustness is something that has never existed in history for any of the previous movements. Contrary to the above, the new frontier today is on-chain and, if done right, incorruptible. Zuzalu, and similar movements, should thus first seek to gather people together, test new institutions, and then purchase permanent land. From the findings I’ve seen above, the movement must define and test new institutions long before it moves to permanent bases. Idealistic and impractical belief systems will implore, or worse, evolve into cults. We must do better. With this in mind, it makes sense to also review other examples of history that lead to significant sovereignty. While most of my above research is focused on the 1800s and the post-WWII contemporary era, many other sovereign movements emerged earlier in our history. Many of these earlier movements were arguably bigger successes than modern communal and co-living efforts since society, at that time, was already centered around small communities with strong shared ideals. Their long lasting existence is also very much determined by the inherent isolationism or geopolitical leverage that the regions that these movements inhabit provided to them. In an internet age, where distances are shorter than ever before, the moat that new communities must build to protect themselves must take a different form than some of the similar movements of the past, but let's review the below and learn the most we can. List of Historic Quasi-Self-Sovereign Movements and Zones: Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) (1358–1808) – Adriatic Coast Principles: Maritime trade, neutrality, and diplomacy. Isolation: Operated as a city-state with autonomy under Ottoman and Venetian suzerainty. Success: ✔ Thrived as a trading hub; maintained independence through diplomacy. Failure Factors: Napoleon’s conquest ended its sovereignty. Legacy: Model of small-state resilience through economic and diplomatic strategies. Swiss Confederacy (1291–Present) – Central Europe Principles: Decentralized governance, neutrality, and cooperation among cantons. Isolation: Maintained independence while surrounded by larger empires. Success: ✔ Evolved into a modern, stable nation. Legacy: Template for federal governance and neutrality. Maroon Communities (1600s–1800s) – Americas and Caribbean Principles: Autonomy and resistance to slavery. Isolation: Remote settlements in forests and mountains. Success: ✔ Many endured for centuries, many negotiated treaties with colonial powers. Failure Factors: Vulnerable to military suppression. Legacy: Powerful symbols of resistance and self-determination, with cultural legacies in places like Suriname and Jamaica Koinon of Zagori (1431–1868) – Epirus, Greece Principles: Self-governance, mutual defense, and tax autonomy under Ottoman suzerainty. Isolation: Functioned as a confederation of villages with limited interaction beyond regional trade and governance. Success: ✔ Maintained autonomy for centuries by leveraging mountainous terrain and diplomacy with the Ottoman Empire. Failure Factors: Declined due to Ottoman reforms and centralization policies in the 19th century, after nationalist revolt. Legacy: Practically none. Jesuit Reductions (1609–1767) – South America Principles: Christian missionary settlements promoting communal living and Indigenous protection. Isolation: Isolated from colonial exploitation. Success: ✔ Thrived culturally and economically. Successful but dissolved when the Jesuits were expelled from Spanish and Portuguese territories. Failure Factors: Dissolved after Jesuit expulsion. Legacy: Unique model of intercultural cooperation. Seen as a rare instance of European colonizers attempting to shield Indigenous peoples from exploitation, though controversial for cultural assimilation. Zomia (1000s–Present) – Southeast Asia Highlands Principles: Stateless societies resisting external governance. Isolation: Rugged terrain inhibits external control. Success: ✔ Persisted for centuries despite pressures. Challenges: Increasing state encroachment. Legacy: Study in anarchist anthropology and resistance. In all of the above examples, bar Zomia which is the oldest and most clandestine society in this review, massive prosperity and economic competitive advantage emerged while these movements lasted. Switzerland is an obvious example, which is very much aligned with the Zuzalu movement, and where long term investment makes a lot of sense. In addition, the examples of Zagori and Dubrovnik showcase how a bespoke regime that is controlled by a homogeneous group of invested parties created long lasting wealth and cultural impact. Finally, the social impact produced by both the Maroon communities and the Jesuit reductionists benefited hundreds of thousands of people to escape slavery and protect themselves against exploitation. The Network Societies of the future must produce the same long lasting and widespread impact as all of the above examples of self-determined quasi-sovereign movements, while also testing and implementing novel and robust institutions first designed for on-chain governance structures. But understanding how these movements grew from fringe jurisdictions to massively important cities, cultures and states is of paramount importance to Zuzalu’s long term success. As a final section of this review I will, therefore, explain how many of these jurisdictions emerged, survived and thrived, as well as what we, as Zuzalians, must understand before investing millions of dollars into permanent locations that may not want us in the future. By concluding this examination with the below guidance, I hope to support the ecosystem as it explores its next steps. Lessons for Modern Co-Living and Network State Movements: All of the successful self-determined communities followed a combination of the below strategies: Develop strong economic and cultural cohesion. Negotiate legal recognition and alliances with external powers. Utilize modern technology for decentralized governance and security. Choose locations that minimize vulnerability to interference. Engage in diplomacy to manage relationships with surrounding states or powers. What Can They Learn from Historical Self-Determined Communities? It is clear to me, following the above review, that Network Societies must fortify their foundations before going into permanent hubs. In addition, cultivating strong economic and cultural cohesion and value create a number of bargaining “chips” that can only benefit in the long term conversation with Nation States - some of which may seek to capture the value of the ecosystem. These actions must be taken with intention. Allowing for a more open approach leaves all of these permanent settlements open to external influences and pressures that can collapse the movement as a whole. It is important to state that creating these robustness and cohesiveness is equally important for the stakeholders of these ecosystems and for the external negotiating party. If the “enemy” of these movements believes that the people behind these Network Societies won’t dissolve to nothingness upon their intervention, then they themselves will seek to negotiate for a collaborative approach instead of fighting these movements. Furthermore, by deeply embedding shared values, traditions, and narratives within their societies, Network States ensure that their members remain steadfast in their collective purpose, making them impervious to coercion or ideological subversion. Establishing robust internal economies, primarily through blockchain-based financial systems, which outcompete the economic value that these participants can attain outside of these Networks is an incredible way to reinforce their independence and attractiveness to new members. Make Zuzalu locations ten times better than large metropolises, and we all win. At the same time, strategic diplomacy and technological innovation must be leveraged to safeguard autonomy. Network Societies must proactively seek legal recognition and alliances, not on the individual level but as a whole. The international recognition of digital-first communities and their sovereign rights is likely going to become a highly contested political topic in the century to come. A debate that impacts all of us. Using negotiation to deter aggression and secure cooperative relationships with influential external actors must take place both at the local, national and international level. Ensuring that the locations where permanent buildings are purchased are in remote, protected locations with little attention from unfriendly national actors may be another tactic to ensure long term robustness. This article on the Game Theory behind ancient religious centers, which intentionally were positioned in locations that were out of the reach of major regional powers, with a special focus on the Oracle of Delphi, which was shared by my dear friend, James from TrojanDAO, is relevant in this discussion. Simultaneously, the design, testing and implementation of decentralized and automated governance models, smart contracts, and encrypted communication networks should be utilized to enhance security and adaptability. This is already taking place through Zuzalu.city and Zuzalu Tech days, but intentionality must be added to these projects. Finally, profitability and economic viability can only enhance the long term impact of these technological infrastructure. Besides, the easiest way to change the world is to make money doing so. By applying a combination of these strategies, Network Societies can stand resilient against external pressures, shaping their own destiny moving forward. Even with these findings, our movement's most important benefit is time and expertise. Zuzalu’s unique strategy for the last two years allows multiple Zuzalians to test, explore and learn on their own merit what works and what doesn’t. As such, time will tell. So I want to advise caution before a movement wide push takes place for the adoption of permanent physical infrastructure to our nomadic pop-up city movement. — For those who study history, and for those that understand local politics, what is happening in Prospera should not be a surprise - but a warning. If Zuzalians seek to buy permanent land, utilizing strategies stated above can help enhance their long term success, as well as the robustness of the entire movement. We are entering a time of great uncertainty and change. The leaders of the world are very different to most of us - our principles are almost always not shared by them. Let’s not throw dust into our own eyes in hope of permanence. Even if friendly local political supporters seek to attract the human capital that is attached to Zuzalu, when the movement attains long lasting influence and power, these enablers might turn into inhibitors. We must not forget that our nomadism is our most pungent defense against external capture, and a characteristic that we should not rush to discard. The strategies, examples and learning from the past may be helpful in determining our next calculated steps forward, and they should at least be considered by any movement that seeks to impose true innovation and Network Societies into permanence. — This article is the first of three connected documents that I will be publishing in the year to come. This article provides a historic perspective on some important decisions that the ecosystems must make on permanent properties, but there are other things that I also want to test and introduce to anyone who cares to read my articles. In the weeks to come, expect a follow up article that will touch upon regeneration, complementary currencies and Voyager Island. Many interesting things are coming in 2025! If you seek to recap my last articles, you can find my past articles on Zuzalu here, here and here. If you have any comments or questions, post below or contact me directly on Telegram @xenofon. In 2025, Zuzalu enters its 3rd year, and likely, its third iteration. The ecosystem has grown insanely fast from only a few pop-up cities in 2023 to over 30 in 2024 - a 1400%+ increase in only a few months. This is a direct consequence from Zuzalu’s decentralization, and, in 2025, the movement is poised to continue this growth. This year, however, the Zuzalu ecosystem is ready for some major changes. The objective of this article is to go over some of these proposed steps forward, as well as educate any decisions that we make with information collected throughout history and similar movements that have both failed and succeeded. So, will 2025 be the year that the Zuzalu community buys land and real estate, or will such a move produce an achilles heel for local governments to shut us down in the future? Will it be the year where sustainable pop-up city business models emerge, or will pop-up cities continue to offer a crypto-native twist to the luxury nomadic lifestyle? Will the tech that was initiated in 2024 actually have the legs to carry and expand this movement to new frontiers and new communities, or do we still need time and additional resources? All these are questions that deserve an answer. To get some of these, we need to look at the sole reason Zuzalu started in the first place - Vitalik . Vitalik – In the last Zuzalu community call of 2024, Vitalik presented his thoughts on the main questions that the ecosystem needs to solve in the next 12 months. These thoughts echoed his words at the Archipelago in Chiang Mai. In 2025, Zuzalu v3 will focus on fundraising and the search for more permanent locations. In 2025, Zuzalu v3 will focus on fundraising and the search for more permanent locations. On permanent locations - to all who are active in the ecosystem, this poses no surprise. Already in 2024, a few key jurisdictions emerged as main hubs for Zuzalu activity. Chiang Mai, which hosted 15 pop-up cities at the same time in November, is an obvious example. Berlin, which hosted ZuBerlin and Zeler City is another. Buenos Aires, where Crecimiento has taken a 4 year approach, is another hub that will continue to attract web3 talent, startups, investors and pop-up city organizers in the years to come. Switzerland, where the jurisdictional structure is uniquely positioned to support the emergence of the Network Society, is another hub that the ecosystem is looking to expand into. San Francisco, the home of tech and modern tech communes, is another location that seems ready to establish permanent representation of the Zuzalu ecosystem. Finally, Japan also seems like a strong contender for permanent hubs. In a common desire to find our community’s home, the wish to establish these permanent locations is one that existed since the beginning of the movement. But this desire is not the sole reason for the movement’s direction to find permanent homes - real world impact is a goal of equal importance for many organizers. Problem solving is a key trait of all people I’ve met within Zuzalu, and the ecosystem’s pop-ups have had a repeated philanthropic spirit to them. In Montenegro, Buenos Aires and Chiang Mai, multiple actions to unearth and solve local problems have emerged. A recent example would be the work conducted by multiple pop-ups and participants in Chiang Mai post its recent flooding. Actively helping the cleanup was a simple way for the ecosystem to give back, but a web3-supported solution emerged through LottoPGF, a lottery system that helped raise thousands of dollars for the flood cleanup efforts. Many organizers believe, rightfully so, that permanent locations can not only increase the impact of the whole movement, but it can also help establish the ecosystem’s philanthropic efforts and ensure engagement and representation of locals. For all of the proponents of these Network Societies that I’ve met within Zuzalu, giving back to the local community is a substantial part of their long term thinking that will benefit the acceptance of our ecosystem while helping people. A win-win solution that benefits all. However, these feelings are not always echoed, and not all jurisdictions are (or will always be) friendly to Network Societies. — This leads me to Vitalia - one of the shining examples of the pop-up city trend of 2024. Vitalia, which focused on the merge of biotech, longevity and crypto, became a focal point for Decentralized Science (DeSci), a web3-enabled niche that aims to disrupt numerous aspects of modern science. Vitalia focused primarily on the DeSci subsection of Biotech and Pharma. During Vitalia, multiple DeSci projects emerged, multiple decentralized trials were conducted, and, importantly, initial phase 1 trials of Gene Therapies were conducted at a fraction of the expected cost - roughly 1m USD compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to conduct the same trials in the US or Europe. Since Vitalia, and partially because of Vitalia, the DeSci industry exploded in Q4, 2024. During this “DeSci” summer, multiple projects raised millions of dollars in funding, found partnerships with existing established institutions, built ecosystem tools and infrastructure, and started making the dreams explored in Vitalia real - at least more real than ever before. By bringing together some of the world’s smartest people, Vitalia enabled new connections, new partnerships and new friendships. Importantly, Vitalia was uniquely enabled by Prospera, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) that operated primarily on the Caribbean island of Roatan. When most people think of SEZs, they think of China or the UAE, but Prospera is unprecedented. Prospera, alongside a few other organizations, are entirely private in their foundation, funding and operations, and are often characterized as a distinct subset of SEZs named Charter Cities. Besides a few limitations, like criminal law, these private cities are allowed to own land, run a court system, install and remove regulation, collect taxes and act practically as profit-seeking States. In Prospera, this means that you can install regulation from abroad and follow best-in-class laws from around the globe. Do you want to run a Financial company like you are in Switzerland? You can in Prosepra. Do you want to create your own new laws for Pharma? You can in Prospera. Do you want to remain entirely unregulated? You can, in Prospera, as long as you know that you are bound by personal liability. Prospera, which has raised millions in funding, is one of the world’s most innovative experiments in Governance and Economic Policy. It seems like the West’s take into SEZs; the driving force behind the rise of China and the UAE tha lifted more than a billion people from extreme poverty. Prospera is also included in US-Honduran Trade agreements, providing the SEZ with unique additional protections. Yet, in late 2024 and with pressure from the Democratic Socialist government of Xiomara Castro, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that all ZEDEs, including Prospera, were unconstitutional and illegal. This contrasts the support that previous Honduran governments provided these ZEDEs. As of today, Prospera is still operational and active, with ongoing legal proceedings aiming to re-establish the full legality of the Zone in Honduras for years to come. For the zone, 2025’s general election in Honduras will be a key make-or-break point. So, to put things into perspective, Honduras, which is ranked 133th when it comes to GDP per Capita and 89th in Economic Freedom, has almost half of its population living below the poverty line in 2025. Simultaneously, the country, which is ranked 5th in the world when it comes to murder per 100 thousand residents, has a “Level 3” travel advisory by the US, urging travelers to reconsider travel to the country. For the Island of Roatan specifically, which is where Prospera and Vitalia took place, there is no drinking tap water, sand fleas, whose bite can irritate you for months, spread dengue fever left and right, and, stunningly, 1 in 7 residents is HIV-positive. In short, there is nothing in the country as cutting edge and innovative as Prospera and Vitalia - yet the government decided to do everything in their power to shut the zone down and unravel years of progress and investment that would benefit Hondourans and the world alike. In short, there is nothing in the country as cutting edge and innovative as Prospera and Vitalia - yet the government decided to do everything in their power to shut the zone down and unravel years of progress and investment that would benefit Hondourans and the world alike. This is a warning to all Zuzalians who aim to build permanent, physical assets in the future. Permanence comes with risks, and these risks can be worth millions if we buy land and property and then the related governments turn on the ecosystem - which is as simple as a change in leadership. The more value our network holds in these locations, the bigger the honey pot that we build for all governments in the world. And, let’s not kid ourselves, if the Network Societies grow to be a globally impactful phenomenon, the major governments of the world will become our competition. Are we ready to take on such risks this early in our lifecycle? Should we invest millions across the world to build permanent representations of Zuzalu? Well, without a deep analysis and research, we will never know, so let’s explore. — Movements like Zuzalu may seem young, fresh and uniquely attached to the emerging web3 age, but they are not. Movements like Zuzalu may seem young, fresh and uniquely attached to the emerging web3 age, but they are not. but they are not. This is not the first time that a people with coherent shared identity and ethos meet to form parallel societies with physical infrastructure. These efforts have been around for millenia, and have formed in various degrees of success and failure. Looking into them, and especially what led to their success or failure, is extremely important for the future of Zuzalu. As such, I provide below the summary of my personal explorations in these intentional communities of the past and present, outlining their various goals, tools and degrees of success. This is not a complete analysis of the entirety of sovereign-seeking intentional communities and movements of the past, but only a selected series of examples that I consider relevant for Zuzalu. In fact, in my research I found hundreds of movements that sought similar goals as Zuzalu. If you add communes, these examples add up to thousands, if not tens of thousands, yet the vast majority of them failed spectacularly. Nevertheless, there are learnings spread within the failures of the past, and my analysis will break down these communities on the below verticals: Analysis Data Points: Analysis Data Points: Analysis Data Points: Title, Date and Location - Self-explanatory. Principles - What tied these communities and movements together? Currency/Sovereignty - Did any of these movements utilize tokens to support their movement? Success - Were they a successful movement? This is a tough one, because even failed movements can have a long lasting impact on the world and society. Positives - What were the most positively impactful outcomes of these movements? Negatives - What were the most negatively impactful outcomes of these movements? Title, Date and Location - Self-explanatory. Title, Date and Location Principles - What tied these communities and movements together? Principles Currency/Sovereignty - Did any of these movements utilize tokens to support their movement? Currency/Sovereignty Success - Were they a successful movement? This is a tough one, because even failed movements can have a long lasting impact on the world and society. Success Positives - What were the most positively impactful outcomes of these movements? Positives Negatives - What were the most negatively impactful outcomes of these movements? Negatives This section will explore a number of religious and political movements, since, unsurprisingly, many of these movements were considered fringe enough at that time to seek out alternative co-living and communal experiences. It is crucial to understand that this review DOES NOT support any of these movements on either ideological or religious matters, but is just an exploration of what has happened in the past. Zuzalu is not a religious movement, and it is not a political movement. It is a social movement, and my analysis and research below DOES NOT aim to connect Zuzalu with any of the below examples of history, their ideologies and beliefs, nor do I believe that Zuzalu is adversarial by nature to the existing institutions, states and nations. All of this research is done by me, in my own volition, and with a clear goal, which is to provide the movement with a succinct analysis of co-living learning from the past. Historical Movements for Co-Living on Principles Historical Movements for Co-Living on Principles Historical Movements for Co-Living on Principles Utopian Socialist Movements (1800s) Utopian Socialist Movements (1800s) Fourierist Phalanxes (1830s–1850s) – USA/France Fourierist Phalanxes (1830s–1850s) – USA/France Fourierist Phalanxes (1830s–1850s) – USA/France Principles: Communal living in "phalanstères," or large buildings designed for shared life and work. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and financial issues. Positives: Influential in cooperative movements. Negatives: Idealism failed to align with economic realities. Principles: Communal living in "phalanstères," or large buildings designed for shared life and work. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and financial issues. Success: Positives: Influential in cooperative movements. Positives: Negatives: Idealism failed to align with economic realities. Negatives: Oneida Community (1848–1881) – New York, USA Oneida Community (1848–1881) – New York, USA Oneida Community (1848–1881) – New York, USA Principles: Perfectionism, shared property, mutual criticism, complex marriage. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Survived for over 30 years; transitioned into a silverware company. Positives: Economic success, innovative governance. Negatives: Controversial practices, including eugenics-like policies. Principles: Perfectionism, shared property, mutual criticism, complex marriage. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Survived for over 30 years; transitioned into a silverware company. Success: Positives: Economic success, innovative governance. Positives: Negatives: Controversial practices, including eugenics-like policies. Negatives: New Harmony (1825–1829) – Indiana, USA New Harmony (1825–1829) – Indiana, USA New Harmony (1825–1829) – Indiana, USA Principles: Robert Owen’s vision of a secular utopia based on equality and shared labor. Isolation: Aimed to create a model community away from capitalist society. Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and lack of economic viability. Legacy: Inspired future utopian experiments and cooperative movements. Principles: Robert Owen’s vision of a secular utopia based on equality and shared labor. Principles: Isolation: Aimed to create a model community away from capitalist society. Isolation: Success: ✘ Failed due to internal disagreements and lack of economic viability. Success: Legacy: Inspired future utopian experiments and cooperative movements. Legacy: Brook Farm (1841–1847) – Massachusetts, USA Brook Farm (1841–1847) – Massachusetts, USA Brook Farm (1841–1847) – Massachusetts, USA Principles: Transcendentalist ideals of individual freedom, intellectualism, and communal labor. Isolation: Self-contained farm and intellectual retreat. Success: ✘ Financial troubles and practical inefficiencies led to its end. Legacy: Prominent contributors to American literature and philosophy. Principles: Transcendentalist ideals of individual freedom, intellectualism, and communal labor. Principles: Isolation: Self-contained farm and intellectual retreat. Isolation: Success: ✘ Financial troubles and practical inefficiencies led to its end. Success: Legacy: Prominent contributors to American literature and philosophy. Legacy: Religious Movements The Mormon Settlements (1830s–present) – Northwestern States, USA The Mormon Settlements (1830s–present) – Northwestern States, USA The Mormon Settlements (1830s–present) – Northwestern States, USA Principles: Religious faith, community support, and self-reliance. Currency/Sovereignty: Had temporary currency in Utah; no sovereignty (subject to US government). Success: ✔ Very successful; persists today as a major religious and cultural movement. Positives: Strong social cohesion, economic success. Negatives: Early conflicts with the US government. Principles: Religious faith, community support, and self-reliance. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Had temporary currency in Utah; no sovereignty (subject to US government). Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Very successful; persists today as a major religious and cultural movement. Success: Positives: Strong social cohesion, economic success. Positives: Negatives: Early conflicts with the US government. Negatives: The Amana Colonies (1855–1932) – Iowa, USA The Amana Colonies (1855–1932) – Iowa, USA The Amana Colonies (1855–1932) – Iowa, USA Principles: Pietist, communal living centered on shared work and religious worship. Isolation: Lived entirely separate from broader American society. Success: ✔ Adapted into a cooperative business model (Amana Corporation). Failure Factors: Abandoned communal living during the Great Depression. Principles: Pietist, communal living centered on shared work and religious worship. Principles: Isolation: Lived entirely separate from broader American society. Isolation: Success: ✔ Adapted into a cooperative business model (Amana Corporation). Success: Failure Factors: Abandoned communal living during the Great Depression. Failure Factors: Anarchist and Political Movements The Paris Commune (1871) – Paris, France The Paris Commune (1871) – Paris, France The Paris Commune (1871) – Paris, France Principles: Workers' self-governance, anti-capitalism. Currency/Sovereignty: Temporary control over Paris; no distinct currency. Success: ✘ Lasted only two months. Positives: Inspired future socialist and anarchist movements. Negatives: Violent suppression by the French government. Principles: Workers' self-governance, anti-capitalism. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Temporary control over Paris; no distinct currency. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✘ Lasted only two months. Success: Positives: Inspired future socialist and anarchist movements. Positives: Negatives: Violent suppression by the French government. Negatives: Kibbutzim (1909–present) – Israel Kibbutzim (1909–present) – Israel Kibbutzim (1909–present) – Israel Principles: Communal farming, Zionist socialism, and collective ownership. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Israel. Success: ✔ Initially successful; evolved to adapt to modern economies. Positives: Significant contributions to Israeli state-building and agriculture. Negatives: Decline of collectivism with privatization trends. Principles: Communal farming, Zionist socialism, and collective ownership. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Israel. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Initially successful; evolved to adapt to modern economies. Success: Positives: Significant contributions to Israeli state-building and agriculture. Positives: Negatives: Decline of collectivism with privatization trends. Negatives: Post-WWII Communities and Movements Counterculture Movements (1960s–1970s) The Diggers (1960s) – San Francisco, USA The Diggers (1960s) – San Francisco, USA The Diggers (1960s) – San Francisco, USA Principles: Free economy, radical sharing, and community autonomy. Currency/Sovereignty: Gifting economy; no sovereignty. Success: ✘ Short-lived due to lack of scalability and external pressure. Positives: Influenced freeganism and anti-consumerist ideologies. Negatives: Dependency on external systems for sustainability. Why They Failed: Over-reliance on donations; minimal planning for long-term operations. Principles: Free economy, radical sharing, and community autonomy. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Gifting economy; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✘ Short-lived due to lack of scalability and external pressure. Success: Positives: Influenced freeganism and anti-consumerist ideologies. Positives: Negatives: Dependency on external systems for sustainability. Negatives: Why They Failed: Over-reliance on donations; minimal planning for long-term operations. Why They Failed: Twin Oaks Community (1967–present) – Virginia, USA Twin Oaks Community (1967–present) – Virginia, USA Twin Oaks Community (1967–present) – Virginia, USA Principles: Income-sharing, egalitarian governance, and minimal environmental impact. Currency/Sovereignty: Internal labor credit system but no external currency or sovereignty. Success: ✔ Still active with 90+ members. Positives: Consistent income from hammock and tofu production. Negatives: Limited scalability due to stringent entry requirements. Principles: Income-sharing, egalitarian governance, and minimal environmental impact. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Internal labor credit system but no external currency or sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Still active with 90+ members. Success: Positives: Consistent income from hammock and tofu production. Positives: Negatives: Limited scalability due to stringent entry requirements. Negatives: The Farm (1971–present) – Tennessee, USA The Farm (1971–present) – Tennessee, USA The Farm (1971–present) – Tennessee, USA Principles: Nonviolence, vegetarianism, and communal living. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Sustains a smaller but thriving population. Positives: Early leader in environmental sustainability and renewable energy. Negatives: Decline due to economic strain in the 1980s. Why It Endured: Adapted to market forces while maintaining core ideals. Principles: Nonviolence, vegetarianism, and communal living. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Sustains a smaller but thriving population. Success: Positives: Early leader in environmental sustainability and renewable energy. Positives: Negatives: Decline due to economic strain in the 1980s. Negatives: Why It Endured: Adapted to market forces while maintaining core ideals. Why It Endured: New Age, Spiritual Communities and Intentional Socialist Communities Auroville (1968–present) – Tamil Nadu, India Auroville (1968–present) – Tamil Nadu, India Auroville (1968–present) – Tamil Nadu, India Principles: Universal township for human unity, spiritual growth. Currency/Sovereignty: Internal economy with "Aurocards"; partial autonomy under Indian government. Success: ✔ Grown to 3,000+ residents and internationally recognized. Positives: Innovation in education and sustainable development. Negatives: Struggles with local politics and funding. Principles: Universal township for human unity, spiritual growth. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Internal economy with "Aurocards"; partial autonomy under Indian government. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Grown to 3,000+ residents and internationally recognized. Success: Positives: Innovation in education and sustainable development. Positives: Negatives: Struggles with local politics and funding. Negatives: Arcosanti (1970–present) – Arizona, USA Arcosanti (1970–present) – Arizona, USA Arcosanti (1970–present) – Arizona, USA Principles: Sustainable urban living with minimal environmental impact. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Continues as a demonstration site for "arcology" (architecture + ecology). Positives: Early model of sustainable urban planning. Negatives: Limited scalability; remains more of a concept than a functioning city. Principles: Sustainable urban living with minimal environmental impact. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Continues as a demonstration site for "arcology" (architecture + ecology). Success: Positives: Early model of sustainable urban planning. Positives: Negatives: Limited scalability; remains more of a concept than a functioning city. Negatives: Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (1956–present) – Spain Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (1956–present) – Spain Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (1956–present) – Spain Principles: Worker cooperatives based on socialism and economic democracy. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Spain. Success: ✔ Thriving cooperative network employing 80,000+ workers. Positives: Scaled economic success; inspired global cooperative movements. Negatives: Balancing cooperative principles with global competition. Principles: Worker cooperatives based on socialism and economic democracy. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; part of Spain. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Thriving cooperative network employing 80,000+ workers. Success: Positives: Scaled economic success; inspired global cooperative movements. Positives: Negatives: Balancing cooperative principles with global competition. Negatives: Tech-Driven and Ideological Movements Silicon Valley Tech Communes (1990s–present) – USA Silicon Valley Tech Communes (1990s–present) – USA Silicon Valley Tech Communes (1990s–present) – USA Principles: Co-living to foster collaboration, innovation, and shared resources. Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Success: ✔ Scaled and popularized globally. Positives: Promotes innovation and networking. Negatives: Often criticized for exclusivity and gentrification. Principles: Co-living to foster collaboration, innovation, and shared resources. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: No unique currency; no sovereignty. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Scaled and popularized globally. Success: Positives: Promotes innovation and networking. Positives: Negatives: Often criticized for exclusivity and gentrification. Negatives: Micronations and Experimental Governance Christiania (1971–present) – Copenhagen, Denmark Christiania (1971–present) – Copenhagen, Denmark Christiania (1971–present) – Copenhagen, Denmark Principles: Anarchist commune emphasizing self-governance and counterculture. Currency/Sovereignty: Local barter economy; limited recognition by Danish authorities. Success: ✔ Thrives as a tourist and cultural hub. Positives: Model for autonomous zones. Negatives: Struggles with drug trade and legal disputes. Principles: Anarchist commune emphasizing self-governance and counterculture. Principles: Currency/Sovereignty: Local barter economy; limited recognition by Danish authorities. Currency/Sovereignty: Success: ✔ Thrives as a tourist and cultural hub. Success: Positives: Model for autonomous zones. Positives: Negatives: Struggles with drug trade and legal disputes. Negatives: The dream of a Utopia, of a promised land, has been a driving force for basically all co-living movements that I’ve researched thus far. It is unsurprising that many of these movements started in France and the United States, both bastions of experimentation and different ideas of how societies should exist and operate. However these movements started long before the 1800s; basically ever since the printing press sparked the proliferation of ideas that emerged during the Renaissance, the Reformation and ultimately the Enlightenment; something I touch upon in a bit. Many of the movements above, like the Fourierists of Brook Farm, the Owenites of New Harmony and the Paris Commune, were based primarily on testing Utopian Socialist ideals. Basically all of them imploded. Others, like the Amana Colonies and the Oneida Community, failed to remain attractive due to their religious nature, pietism and complex social institutions that made it impossible for them to grow. Instead they converted to corporate entities. The Paris Commune of 1871, however, is a particularly interesting example, that goes way beyond coliving. The movement, which was essentially a urban revolution of Prisians during the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71, was spearheaded by various anarcho-communist leaders that emerged from the local working class and disenchanted city militia. It lasted two months, and its existence can be divided into two separate stages; the initial flourishing phase before Federal intervention, and the second, collapsing stage of the Commune which produced an unimaginable level of destruction and violence. For a few weeks, the Paris Commune produced some of the most sweeping social changes in Europe to date. The Commune established 8 separate democratic and public bodies that allowed all Parisians to voice their opinions and propose social programs. These decentralized governance structures proposed a number of decrees, with notable ones producing rent relief for the entirety of the population, the abolition of child labor, the provision of universal suffrage and access to leadership roles for women, the provision of pension fund to unmarried women and children of guardsmen killed in service, the postponement of commercial debt obligations and much, much more. Paris, for a few months in 1871, was the most Progressive society the world has ever seen. These progressions came to a screeching halt once the French federal government was able to regroup, surrender to the Prussian army that was besieging Paris and half of France at that time, invade the city and depose the Commune once and for all. This Federal offensive provided radical Neo-Jacobinite’s the opportunity to capture the leadership of the Commune, executing a number of prisoners captured at the formation of the Commune, including the Archbishop of Paris, and burning down a number of extremely important buildings, like the Tuileries Palace, which was the residence of the French royal family and was never rebuilt. Many other extremely important buildings were destroyed during this time. The “Bloody Week” that ended the Paris Commune led to the deaths of 10 to 20 thousand communards, the arrest of over 43 thousand others and the exile of many of them. While most examples researched above are remote, self-limiting communities founded by a niche group of people that held very specific principles, ideals and identities, the Paris Commune affected more than 2 million people living in the city. It was the most impactful and substantial example of novel social institutions that I found. The two months in Paris created one of the most advanced decentralized government structures that the world had ever seen, and yet, it failed dramatically. Although very radical, its existence gives us a real insight on how a movement like ours will be treated by competing national actors once it gains real momentum and produces real impact. Importantly, however, the times have changed. Zuzalu is a Network-first state. Its digital robustness is something that has never existed in history for any of the previous movements. Contrary to the above, the new frontier today is on-chain and, if done right, incorruptible. Zuzalu, and similar movements, should thus first seek to gather people together, test new institutions, and then purchase permanent land. From the findings I’ve seen above, the movement must define and test new institutions long before it moves to permanent bases. Idealistic and impractical belief systems will implore, or worse, evolve into cults. We must do better. With this in mind, it makes sense to also review other examples of history that lead to significant sovereignty. While most of my above research is focused on the 1800s and the post-WWII contemporary era, many other sovereign movements emerged earlier in our history. Many of these earlier movements were arguably bigger successes than modern communal and co-living efforts since society, at that time, was already centered around small communities with strong shared ideals. Their long lasting existence is also very much determined by the inherent isolationism or geopolitical leverage that the regions that these movements inhabit provided to them. In an internet age, where distances are shorter than ever before, the moat that new communities must build to protect themselves must take a different form than some of the similar movements of the past, but let's review the below and learn the most we can. List of Historic Quasi-Self-Sovereign Movements and Zones: Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) (1358–1808) – Adriatic Coast Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) (1358–1808) – Adriatic Coast Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) (1358–1808) – Adriatic Coast Principles: Maritime trade, neutrality, and diplomacy. Isolation: Operated as a city-state with autonomy under Ottoman and Venetian suzerainty. Success: ✔ Thrived as a trading hub; maintained independence through diplomacy. Failure Factors: Napoleon’s conquest ended its sovereignty. Legacy: Model of small-state resilience through economic and diplomatic strategies. Principles: Maritime trade, neutrality, and diplomacy. Principles: Isolation: Operated as a city-state with autonomy under Ottoman and Venetian suzerainty. Isolation: Success: ✔ Thrived as a trading hub; maintained independence through diplomacy. Success: Failure Factors: Napoleon’s conquest ended its sovereignty. Failure Factors: Legacy: Model of small-state resilience through economic and diplomatic strategies. Legacy: Swiss Confederacy (1291–Present) – Central Europe Swiss Confederacy (1291–Present) – Central Europe Swiss Confederacy (1291–Present) – Central Europe Principles: Decentralized governance, neutrality, and cooperation among cantons. Isolation: Maintained independence while surrounded by larger empires. Success: ✔ Evolved into a modern, stable nation. Legacy: Template for federal governance and neutrality. Principles: Decentralized governance, neutrality, and cooperation among cantons. Principles: Isolation: Maintained independence while surrounded by larger empires. Isolation: Success: ✔ Evolved into a modern, stable nation. Success: Legacy: Template for federal governance and neutrality. Legacy: Maroon Communities (1600s–1800s) – Americas and Caribbean Maroon Communities (1600s–1800s) – Americas and Caribbean Maroon Communities (1600s–1800s) – Americas and Caribbean Principles: Autonomy and resistance to slavery. Isolation: Remote settlements in forests and mountains. Success: ✔ Many endured for centuries, many negotiated treaties with colonial powers. Failure Factors: Vulnerable to military suppression. Legacy: Powerful symbols of resistance and self-determination, with cultural legacies in places like Suriname and Jamaica Principles: Autonomy and resistance to slavery. Principles: Isolation: Remote settlements in forests and mountains. Isolation: Success: ✔ Many endured for centuries, many negotiated treaties with colonial powers. Success: Failure Factors: Vulnerable to military suppression. Failure Factors: Legacy: Powerful symbols of resistance and self-determination, with cultural legacies in places like Suriname and Jamaica Legacy: Koinon of Zagori (1431–1868) – Epirus, Greece Koinon of Zagori (1431–1868) – Epirus, Greece Koinon of Zagori (1431–1868) – Epirus, Greece Principles: Self-governance, mutual defense, and tax autonomy under Ottoman suzerainty. Isolation: Functioned as a confederation of villages with limited interaction beyond regional trade and governance. Success: ✔ Maintained autonomy for centuries by leveraging mountainous terrain and diplomacy with the Ottoman Empire. Failure Factors: Declined due to Ottoman reforms and centralization policies in the 19th century, after nationalist revolt. Legacy: Practically none. Principles: Self-governance, mutual defense, and tax autonomy under Ottoman suzerainty. Principles: Isolation: Functioned as a confederation of villages with limited interaction beyond regional trade and governance. Isolation: Success: ✔ Maintained autonomy for centuries by leveraging mountainous terrain and diplomacy with the Ottoman Empire. Success: Failure Factors: Declined due to Ottoman reforms and centralization policies in the 19th century, after nationalist revolt. Failure Factors: Legacy: Practically none. Legacy: Jesuit Reductions (1609–1767) – South America Jesuit Reductions (1609–1767) – South America Jesuit Reductions (1609–1767) – South America Principles: Christian missionary settlements promoting communal living and Indigenous protection. Isolation: Isolated from colonial exploitation. Success: ✔ Thrived culturally and economically. Successful but dissolved when the Jesuits were expelled from Spanish and Portuguese territories. Failure Factors: Dissolved after Jesuit expulsion. Legacy: Unique model of intercultural cooperation. Seen as a rare instance of European colonizers attempting to shield Indigenous peoples from exploitation, though controversial for cultural assimilation. Principles: Christian missionary settlements promoting communal living and Indigenous protection. Principles: Isolation: Isolated from colonial exploitation. Isolation: Success: ✔ Thrived culturally and economically. Successful but dissolved when the Jesuits were expelled from Spanish and Portuguese territories. Success: Failure Factors: Dissolved after Jesuit expulsion. Failure Factors: Legacy: Unique model of intercultural cooperation. Seen as a rare instance of European colonizers attempting to shield Indigenous peoples from exploitation, though controversial for cultural assimilation. Legacy: Zomia (1000s–Present) – Southeast Asia Highlands Zomia (1000s–Present) – Southeast Asia Highlands Zomia (1000s–Present) – Southeast Asia Highlands Principles: Stateless societies resisting external governance. Isolation: Rugged terrain inhibits external control. Success: ✔ Persisted for centuries despite pressures. Challenges: Increasing state encroachment. Legacy: Study in anarchist anthropology and resistance. Principles: Stateless societies resisting external governance. Principles: Isolation: Rugged terrain inhibits external control. Isolation: Success: ✔ Persisted for centuries despite pressures. Success: Challenges: Increasing state encroachment. Challenges: Legacy: Study in anarchist anthropology and resistance. Legacy: In all of the above examples, bar Zomia which is the oldest and most clandestine society in this review, massive prosperity and economic competitive advantage emerged while these movements lasted. Switzerland is an obvious example, which is very much aligned with the Zuzalu movement, and where long term investment makes a lot of sense. In addition, the examples of Zagori and Dubrovnik showcase how a bespoke regime that is controlled by a homogeneous group of invested parties created long lasting wealth and cultural impact. Finally, the social impact produced by both the Maroon communities and the Jesuit reductionists benefited hundreds of thousands of people to escape slavery and protect themselves against exploitation. The Network Societies of the future must produce the same long lasting and widespread impact as all of the above examples of self-determined quasi-sovereign movements, while also testing and implementing novel and robust institutions first designed for on-chain governance structures. But understanding how these movements grew from fringe jurisdictions to massively important cities, cultures and states is of paramount importance to Zuzalu’s long term success. As a final section of this review I will, therefore, explain how many of these jurisdictions emerged, survived and thrived, as well as what we, as Zuzalians, must understand before investing millions of dollars into permanent locations that may not want us in the future. By concluding this examination with the below guidance, I hope to support the ecosystem as it explores its next steps. Lessons for Modern Co-Living and Network State Movements: All of the successful self-determined communities followed a combination of the below strategies: Develop strong economic and cultural cohesion. Negotiate legal recognition and alliances with external powers. Utilize modern technology for decentralized governance and security. Choose locations that minimize vulnerability to interference. Engage in diplomacy to manage relationships with surrounding states or powers. Develop strong economic and cultural cohesion. Develop strong economic and cultural cohesion. Negotiate legal recognition and alliances with external powers. Negotiate legal recognition and alliances with external powers. Utilize modern technology for decentralized governance and security. Utilize modern technology for decentralized governance and security. Choose locations that minimize vulnerability to interference. Choose locations that minimize vulnerability to interference. Engage in diplomacy to manage relationships with surrounding states or powers. Engage in diplomacy to manage relationships with surrounding states or powers. What Can They Learn from Historical Self-Determined Communities? It is clear to me, following the above review, that Network Societies must fortify their foundations before going into permanent hubs. In addition, cultivating strong economic and cultural cohesion and value create a number of bargaining “chips” that can only benefit in the long term conversation with Nation States - some of which may seek to capture the value of the ecosystem. These actions must be taken with intention. Allowing for a more open approach leaves all of these permanent settlements open to external influences and pressures that can collapse the movement as a whole. It is important to state that creating these robustness and cohesiveness is equally important for the stakeholders of these ecosystems and for the external negotiating party. If the “enemy” of these movements believes that the people behind these Network Societies won’t dissolve to nothingness upon their intervention, then they themselves will seek to negotiate for a collaborative approach instead of fighting these movements. Furthermore, by deeply embedding shared values, traditions, and narratives within their societies, Network States ensure that their members remain steadfast in their collective purpose, making them impervious to coercion or ideological subversion. Establishing robust internal economies, primarily through blockchain-based financial systems, which outcompete the economic value that these participants can attain outside of these Networks is an incredible way to reinforce their independence and attractiveness to new members. Make Zuzalu locations ten times better than large metropolises, and we all win. At the same time, strategic diplomacy and technological innovation must be leveraged to safeguard autonomy. Network Societies must proactively seek legal recognition and alliances, not on the individual level but as a whole. The international recognition of digital-first communities and their sovereign rights is likely going to become a highly contested political topic in the century to come. A debate that impacts all of us. Using negotiation to deter aggression and secure cooperative relationships with influential external actors must take place both at the local, national and international level. Ensuring that the locations where permanent buildings are purchased are in remote, protected locations with little attention from unfriendly national actors may be another tactic to ensure long term robustness. This article on the Game Theory behind ancient religious centers , which intentionally were positioned in locations that were out of the reach of major regional powers, with a special focus on the Oracle of Delphi, which was shared by my dear friend, James from TrojanDAO, is relevant in this discussion. This article on the Game Theory behind ancient religious centers Simultaneously, the design, testing and implementation of decentralized and automated governance models, smart contracts, and encrypted communication networks should be utilized to enhance security and adaptability. This is already taking place through Zuzalu.city and Zuzalu Tech days, but intentionality must be added to these projects. Finally, profitability and economic viability can only enhance the long term impact of these technological infrastructure. Besides, the easiest way to change the world is to make money doing so. By applying a combination of these strategies, Network Societies can stand resilient against external pressures, shaping their own destiny moving forward. Even with these findings, our movement's most important benefit is time and expertise. Zuzalu’s unique strategy for the last two years allows multiple Zuzalians to test, explore and learn on their own merit what works and what doesn’t. As such, time will tell. So I want to advise caution before a movement wide push takes place for the adoption of permanent physical infrastructure to our nomadic pop-up city movement. — For those who study history, and for those that understand local politics, what is happening in Prospera should not be a surprise - but a warning. If Zuzalians seek to buy permanent land, utilizing strategies stated above can help enhance their long term success, as well as the robustness of the entire movement. We are entering a time of great uncertainty and change. The leaders of the world are very different to most of us - our principles are almost always not shared by them. Let’s not throw dust into our own eyes in hope of permanence. Even if friendly local political supporters seek to attract the human capital that is attached to Zuzalu, when the movement attains long lasting influence and power, these enablers might turn into inhibitors. We must not forget that our nomadism is our most pungent defense against external capture, and a characteristic that we should not rush to discard. We are entering a time of great uncertainty and change. The leaders of the world are very different to most of us - our principles are almost always not shared by them. Let’s not throw dust into our own eyes in hope of permanence. Even if friendly local political supporters seek to attract the human capital that is attached to Zuzalu, when the movement attains long lasting influence and power, these enablers might turn into inhibitors. We must not forget that our nomadism is our most pungent defense against external capture, and a characteristic that we should not rush to discard. We are entering a time of great uncertainty and change. The leaders of the world are very different to most of us - our principles are almost always not shared by them. Let’s not throw dust into our own eyes in hope of permanence. Even if friendly local political supporters seek to attract the human capital that is attached to Zuzalu, when the movement attains long lasting influence and power, these enablers might turn into inhibitors. We must not forget that our nomadism is our most pungent defense against external capture, and a characteristic that we should not rush to discard. The strategies, examples and learning from the past may be helpful in determining our next calculated steps forward, and they should at least be considered by any movement that seeks to impose true innovation and Network Societies into permanence. — This article is the first of three connected documents that I will be publishing in the year to come. This article provides a historic perspective on some important decisions that the ecosystems must make on permanent properties, but there are other things that I also want to test and introduce to anyone who cares to read my articles. In the weeks to come, expect a follow up article that will touch upon regeneration, complementary currencies and Voyager Island. Many interesting things are coming in 2025! If you seek to recap my last articles, you can find my past articles on Zuzalu here , here and here . If you have any comments or questions, post below or contact me directly on Telegram @xenofon. here here here
