This week’s episodes on the What is the future for cities? podcast offered a fascinating look at Liberland, a micronation that’s pushing the boundaries of how we might organise societies in the digital age. Episode 369 summarised the Liberland Blockchain Whitepaper, breaking down how this tiny entity between Croatia and Serbia runs its entire government on a public blockchain. Then, in episode 370, we heard directly from Vít Jedlička, Liberland‘s president, in an interview that unpacked the motivations, challenges, and innovations behind building a new country from scratch. Together, these episodes highlight how emerging technologies like blockchain could reshape governance, making it more transparent, efficient, and participatory – all while addressing some of the flaws in traditional systems.

Cities are essentially mini-states, dealing with issues like resource allocation, citizen engagement, and infrastructure management. Liberland’s model, though experimental and small-scale, provides a blueprint that could inspire urban planners and policymakers. Here, we’ll outline five key lessons from the episodes, drawing on the whitepaper’s technical details and Jedlička’s personal insights. These lessons touch on everything from token-based power to hybrid judicial systems, showing how blockchain might help create more accountable and adaptive urban environments.

Lesson 1: Blockchain can enable transparent and decentralised governance structures.

One of the standout ideas from the whitepaper is Liberland’s use of a public blockchain – a fork of the Polkadot framework – to run its three-branch government: legislative, executive, and judicial. This isn’t just a theoretical exercise; it’s operational, with smart contracts handling everything from voting to budget tracking. In the summary, speakers noted how this setup addresses real-world problems like gridlock and opacity in traditional governments. For instance, all state budgets are maintained on the chain, allowing real-time oversight by anyone.

Jedlička echoed this in the interview, explaining that Liberland’s blockchain platform is run by citizens themselves. With 81 decentralised nodes currently active, it’s hard to take down and ensures no single entity controls the infrastructure. He emphasised that this transparency extends to company and land registries, eliminating the need for bureaucrats and reducing friction in transactions. For cities, this could mean streamlined services – imagine a municipal budget where every expenditure is verifiable in seconds, or property transfers that happen without endless paperwork. The lesson here is that blockchain isn’t just for finance; it can foster trust in governance by making processes immutable and accessible, potentially reducing corruption in urban administration.

Lesson 2: Merit-based systems could balance power and encourage long-term commitment.

A core innovation in Liberland is the dual-token system: the Liberland Dollar (LLD) for utility and commerce, and the Liberland Merit (LLM) for political power. The whitepaper describes LLM as capped at 70 million, with each 10 tokens representing one square metre of land claim. To wield influence, citizens must undergo KYC (know-your-customer) verification and lock their LLM in “politic pooling,” where only 10% can be unstaked annually. This acts as a voluntary tax, tying political voice to sustained investment.

Jedlička described this as “direct meritocracy,” where contributions to the state – financial or otherwise – grant shares and voting power. He argued that traditional democracies often lead to majority exploitation of minorities through forced redistribution, citing historical examples like the shift from communism in Czech Republic to Singapore’s prosperity under meritocratic principles. In Liberland, merits reward service, and the system blends elements from democracy (citizen vetoes), republic (limited government roles), and even monarchy (a senate of founders with veto powers). For future cities, this suggests a shift from one-person-one-vote to weighted systems that incentivise active participation. It could mean urban stakeholders – residents, businesses – gaining influence based on their contributions, fostering a sense of ownership and discouraging short-term populism.

Lesson 3: Safeguards against populism and spam are essential in digital democracies.

The episodes highlighted clever mechanisms to prevent abuse in Liberland’s system. In the legislative branch, referendums require every law to pass a direct vote, but with an “anti-pop safeguard”: the approval threshold escalates if turnout is low, making it harder for small factions to hijack decisions. Proposers must pay a fee in LLD, deterring spam. The Congress, elected quarterly via LLM tokens, can initiate “rational referenda” exempt from these rules for efficiency, and citizens can delegate or rescind voting power anytime, keeping representatives accountable.

Jedlička stressed that while democracy allows vetoes, positive decisions require a majority of shares, not just citizens, to avoid “robbing” minorities. He critiqued high taxes in places like Czech Republic (up to 60% of salary) as burdensome, contrasting it with Liberland’s voluntary contributions. This approach could apply to cities facing voter apathy or polarised debates – think participatory budgeting apps where proposals need skin in the game, or escalation rules for low-engagement votes. The key takeaway is that digital tools can code in protections, making governance more resilient to manipulation and ensuring decisions reflect committed input.

Lesson 4: Hybrid judicial systems bridge code and human intent.

Liberland’s judiciary, as detailed in the whitepaper, tackles blockchain’s irreversibility by combining human judges with on-chain enforcement. Courts act as oracles, interpreting contracts too complex for code alone and even reversing transactions in cases of fraud. Disputes follow a simple process (with mediation) or complex one (three-judge panels), and judges can seize staked LLM as collateral, potentially driving balances negative and restricting rights until debts are paid.

In the interview, Jedlička explained how this enables quick justice – unstaking merits for compensation in theft cases, for example. He noted blockchain’s role in automating resolutions, with AI assisting initial disputes before human escalation. For cities, this hybrid model could revolutionise dispute resolution, from property conflicts to contract enforcement. Imagine smart city platforms where AI mediates parking fines, escalating to judges only when needed, with on-chain assets ensuring compliance. The lesson is that technology alone isn’t enough; human oversight is crucial for nuance, but blockchain provides the enforcement muscle.

Lesson 5: Starting small with experimentation paves the way for broader adoption.

Finally, both episodes underscore the value of bold experimentation. Liberland started in 2015 with a flag on unclaimed land, attracting over a million citizenship applications despite minimal infrastructure. Jedlička shared the journey: from media buzz to building a DAO (decentralised autonomous organisation) independent of banks. He envisions exporting this model to free trade zones in places like Tanzania or Liberia, integrating with existing economies.

The whitepaper positions governance as the blockchain’s first use case, solving issues like commitment and enforcement. Jedlička’s optimism about AI integration – even allowing AIs as citizens – points to a future where governance evolves with tech. For cities, this means piloting blockchain in special zones, like eco-districts or innovation hubs, before scaling. The broader lesson is that rethinking governance doesn’t require overhauling nations; micro-experiments like Liberland can test ideas, proving concepts that cities worldwide might adopt for more efficient, citizen-centric systems.

These episodes remind us that the future of cities isn’t just about buildings or transport – it’s about how we govern shared spaces. Liberland’s model, with its emphasis on transparency, merit, and tech, challenges us to question outdated structures. Whether through voluntary contributions or on-chain justice, it shows potential paths forward. If you’re intrigued, check out the full episodes (369R and 370I) for more details.

What might your city look like with a dash of blockchain meritocracy?

---

Next week we are investigating urban experimentation, its history, success and potential future, with Arman Mirzakhani!

---

Share your thoughts – I’m at wtf4cities@gmail.com or @WTF4Cities on Twitter/X.

Subscribe to the What is The Future for Cities? podcast for more insights, and let’s keep exploring what’s next for our cities.