Blockchain and sovereignty: opportunities and limitations of operational autonomy

Abstract

Since its inception, blockchain has been presented as a technology capable of transforming the exercise of sovereignty by enabling individuals and collectivities to coordinate crucial aspects of their lives with reduced dependence on centralized intermediaries. Recent commitments to “self-sovereignty,” including the Ethereum Foundation’s 2026 mandate, suggest that this ambition remains central to the blockchain ecosystem. However, the relationship between blockchain and sovereignty has been insufficiently theorized. This paper argues that blockchain shapes sovereign capacity through the interaction of technical affordances, design choices, and user priorities. Drawing on science and technology studies, material culture, institutional theory, and political philosophy, it advances a three-part analysis. At the level of technology, the paper identifies operational autonomy as blockchain’s most distinctive contribution to sovereign capacity while showing that it exists in tension with three governance requirements: voice, accessibility, and legibility. At the level of designers, it examines how sociotechnical imaginaries shape the ways these material tensions are interpreted and negotiated, privileging some constituencies while excluding others. This argument is illustrated through a comparative analysis of four onchain identification systems: Holonym, World ID, Proof of Humanity, and Idena. At the level of users, the paper identifies four institutional logics - legalistic, commercial, communitarian, and insular - that shape how actors evaluate when blockchain should be adopted in pursuit of sovereign capacity. While operational autonomy remains significant, sovereignty, in this account, is an outcome continuously built, negotiated, and contested across all three levels.