Trump & Cronies State

Draft

No president in American history has profited off the presidency the way Donald Trump has—and it’s not close. In his first term, he benefited to the tune of millions of dollars in shady schemes, such as foreign governments using his properties for their events. But his second term has been orders of magnitude worse, as we document in this second installment of our series on Trump’s Top 10 Worst. From the Qatari plane scandal to selling access to purchasers of his meme coin to his family members raking in riches, Trump and co. are openly dangling special treatment for those who are willing to pay. The White House denies any wrongdoing, stating “the American public believe it’s absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency.” Meanwhile, the president has reportedly increased his net worth by over $3 billion so far during the first year of his second term.

Trump & Cronies Top 10 Worst…Presidential Profiteering Scandals by THE CONTRARIAN, NORMAN EISEN, AND GABRIEL LEZRA DEC 13, 2025

Norman Eisen and Gabriel LEZRA paint a picture of the future under technology oligarchy rule with the above article. That system of government relies heavily on cryptocurrency blockchain technology and the transparency inherent in that technology. Those buying into the system are agreeing to abide by algorithms associated with the token cryptocurrency.

I think of it as a Home Owners Association. The developers make certain that their interests are represented and then allow others to buy in. The HOA typically attempts to get waivers from governments and avoid the bureaucracy usual with real estate. The HOA makes its own rules which – if are objected to – leave only the option of moving out. It is rule by exiting, Voting with your feet. Typically control in the HOA is by a few – often the founders – and newcomers have little or no voice for changing things.

Millennials are rejecting home ownership possibly because of HOAs. Very few new homes are built without them. The first Millennial City is the alternative to Trump & Cronies and that will be discussed below. In any case, the Trump & Cronies rejection of rule by many (democracies) for rule by exit is Boomer nonsense for the Millennial City.

Individual stock ownership shares some “exit-based” logic, but it is not, on its own, an example of exit‑based governance in the Trump-Crony (formally called network‑state) sense.

Exit in markets vs exit in governance

In ordinary public markets:

  • Selling a stock is “exit” from investment exposure, not from the company’s governing jurisdiction.
  • Shareholders have limited “voice” via votes on directors, say‑on‑pay, etc., but their primary discipline is financial: sell if they dislike management.
  • Non‑shareholder consumers can also “exit” by boycotting products, but that is market behavior, not formal participation in corporate governance.

So, yes, there is an economic exit dynamic:

  • Investors discipline firms by buying or selling shares.
  • Consumers discipline firms by buying or boycotting products.

But neither of these gives people full “governed subject” status: if someone sells a stock or stops buying a product, they are not exiting a polity; they are just changing economic relationships.

Network states vs corporate / market exit

Network‑state governance borrows some of this logic but goes further:

  • A network state treats membership in the community (residency, token holding, participation) as the core relationship, and it explicitly frames legitimacy as:
    • “If you don’t like it here, you can leave and join another community.”
  • Governance rights are often tied to stake or membership, not equal citizenship.
  • There may be minimal or no external oversight comparable to securities regulators, labor law, or constitutional courts.

Comparing:

  • Corporate / market system
    • Exit by selling shares or boycotting is economic pressure, but state law, regulators, courts, and democratic legislatures still bound what the corporation can do.
    • Governance is ultimately constrained by public law.
  • Network state
    • Exit is framed as the primary protection: if you dislike the rules, move your body, assets, or tokens elsewhere.
    • Founders and core investors often design the rule set, and external constraints (constitutional rights, exchange reporting, national regulators) are intentionally minimized or arbitraged.

So a network state is like a corporation + HOA + token economy where:

  • “Voting with your feet and wallet” is treated as the main check on power.
  • But unlike a normal public company, it aspires to act as a quasi‑sovereign entity, not just an economic one, and to do so with fewer external reporting and legal requirements than listed corporations face.

Trump’s meme coin represents perhaps his most brash self-enrichment scheme, one unlike anything we have ever seen from an American president. According to the website, the token is “intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol “$TRUMP“—and not as an investment or security. But of course this slice of code was listed on various crypto exchanges and immediately surged in price. Since its launch, the coin’s value closely followed Trump’s announcements, with wild fluctuations. The president even hosted an exclusive dinner for meme coin “investors” who spent tens of thousands to buy the digital token. This access auction was a scheme so brazen—even for Trump—that it left ethics experts like us stunned. The White House denies any conflicts of interest.

IBID

How Network States Function

Network states operate as cryptocurrency-backed digital communities that leverage blockchain technology for governance rather than democratic processes. Decision-making occurs through smart contracts and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), where code replaces law. Members use cryptocurrency both as currency and as a voting mechanism. Critically, network states are built on what Srinivasan calls “exit, not voice”—the idea that if residents disapprove of governance, they can simply leave rather than participate in democratic change. There is no mechanism for the majority to alter course through collective deliberation.​

The projects are global in scope. Praxis is establishing nodes in Montenegro, Japan, and other nations. California Forever represents an effort to establish a network state in Northern California wine country. Other initiatives include attempts to establish zones within Honduras, proposals for special economic zones in Morocco, and the Viva City project, which promises governance built around cryptocurrency, AI, and experimental biotechnology. The goal is to gain recognition as legitimate governments.

Definitions of Governance Systems

To understand how network states differ fundamentally from alternative governance models, the following definitions are essential:

Democracy operates on the principle of “voice”—majority rule through deliberative processes. Citizens participate in collective decision-making through voting and public discourse. Power is distributed broadly, and multiple interest groups compete for representation.

Oligarchy is rule by a small elite group, derived from Greek words meaning “rule by the few.” It concentrates decision-making authority in the hands of a minority, typically the wealthy or militarily powerful. Oligarchs derive legitimacy from their wealth, status, or control of resources, not from public consent. An oligarchy may use persuasion and appear to maintain democratic procedures while actual power remains with the elite. Oligarchies exhibit exclusivity—the assumption that not everyone is qualified to deliberate or legislate.​

Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by collective ownership or control of the means of production and distribution, typically managed by a centralized government. Production and distribution decisions are made collectively rather than by private individuals. Socialism aims to create a more egalitarian society by addressing class conflicts and redistributing resources. It can exist in various forms, from Marxist-Leninist to democratic socialism, but all forms emphasize collective rather than private ownership.​

Communism is a classless society in which major means of production are owned and controlled by the community collectively, with no government, private property, or currency. The principle is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Communism represents the endpoint of Marxist theory and involves the elimination of class divisions, hierarchies, and state power.​

Why Network States Constitute Oligarchy, Not Socialism or Communism

Network states are fundamentally oligarchic rather than socialist or communist. They concentrate decision-making in the hands of tech billionaire founders. Yarvin’s “Patchwork” model explicitly envisions governance by corporation-kings who rule unilaterally. The “founder as God” model places absolute authority in a single individual or small group. This structure inherently excludes the majority from meaningful participation.

Network states are explicitly anti-socialist and anti-communist. They are based entirely on private ownership and founder control, not collective ownership. They emphasize the right to private property, cryptocurrency accumulation by founders and early investors, and the creation of exclusive communities accessible only to those with capital to invest. There is no redistribution of wealth or resources; instead, the model amplifies wealth concentration by creating special jurisdictions where the ultra-wealthy can operate without democratic constraints.​

The “exit” principle, celebrated by network state advocates, is fundamentally incompatible with both socialism and communism. Socialism requires collective decision-making about resource distribution; communism requires elimination of class hierarchies. Network states institutionalize class hierarchies and escape clauses for the rich—the ability to exit and create parallel societies where redistribution is never necessary.

Technology Billionaires and Proposals to Replace Democracy with Network Governance

Prominent technology billionaires are actively proposing alternatives to democratic governance, specifically what they call “network states”—a system that fundamentally differs from democracy in ways that move toward oligarchy. This movement represents a sophisticated effort to replace representative democracy with systems controlled by elite technologists and investors.

Primary Proponents of Network Governance

Balaji Srinivasan, the former CTO of Coinbase and partner at Andreessen Horowitz, is the intellectual architect of the modern “network state” concept. He published his manifesto titled The Network State: How To Start a New Country in 2022, which has become the foundational text for this movement. Srinivasan defines a network state as “a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from re-existing states.” His vision has attracted support from venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder, is perhaps the most influential architect of this movement. He has been deeply disenchanted with liberal democracy and has invested heavily in alternative governance projects, including Praxis and Thiel’s backup company Tlon, which was founded by Curtis Yarvin (also known by his online alias “Mencius Moldbug”). Thiel has referred to technology as “an incredible alternative to politics” and expressed his dream of a system where one could “unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people.”​

Elon Musk represents the most visible and operationally powerful figure in this movement. He spent over $250 million supporting Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and has been granted extraordinary influence in government, including co-chairing the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Through his ownership of X (formerly Twitter), he controls one of the world’s most significant information infrastructure platforms. He also promotes plans for a “self-governing” colony on Mars, which would exemplify network state principles.

Curtis Yarvin (the programmer behind the Mencius Moldbug pseudonym) created the intellectual framework that underpins much of this movement. His concept of “Patchwork” envisions “thousands of independent countries each governed by its own joint-stock corporation, indifferent to the opinions of residents.” Yarvin explicitly advocates for monarchy-style rule by a “CEO-king” and has proposed that if Americans want to change their government, “they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia.” He is now deeply connected to the Trump administration through his influence on Peter Thiel’s circle, which includes Vice President JD Vance and David Sacks, the Trump administration’s AI and Crypto Czar.

Why many U.S. millennials are anti‑Musk and skeptical of network states

Among U.S. millennials there is no monolithic view, but several recurring patterns help explain why a large, politically engaged subset is critical of Elon Musk and hostile to the “network state” idea:

  1. Labor, inequality, and “boss” politics
    Millennials came of age in the 2008 crisis, student‑debt explosion, and gig‑economy precarity. Musk is strongly associated with:
    • Aggressive anti‑union behavior and union‑busting fights at Tesla and SpaceX and Starbucks.
    • Endorsement of mass layoffs and “hardcore” work cultures.
      These positions collide with millennial support for labor protections, workplace democracy, and economic fairness.
  2. Platform power and speech hypocrisy concerns
    Since acquiring Twitter/X, Musk is perceived by many younger users as:
    • Centralizing control of public discourse in one billionaire’s hands.
    • Reinstating extremist accounts while arbitrarily suspending or down‑ranking others.
      This feels less like “free speech” and more like a private sovereign controlling civic infrastructure.
  3. Climate and techno‑authoritarian fears
    Millennials tend to support climate action and clean tech, but many see Musk’s broader politics and alliances (e.g., alignment with far‑right or anti‑regulation figures) as undermining climate, social, and democratic goals.
    The combination of rockets, satellites, self‑driving cars, and X, all under one person’s control, feeds a fear of techno‑authoritarianism rather than democratic innovation.
  4. Why they dislike network states
    The “network state” concept—crypto‑funded, opt‑in enclaves with founder‑centric rule—triggers millennial red flags:
    • Looks like gated, libertarian company towns for the globally mobile rich.
    • Governance tied to capital/stake rather than equal citizenship.
    • “Exit, not voice”: instead of fixing public institutions, the rich leave and build parallel structures.
      For a generation heavily invested in housing justice, climate justice, and racial equity, this looks like a way to opt out of shared obligations rather than improve them.

Are millennials more socialist than democratic?

In broad terms:

  • Surveys consistently show U.S. millennials:
    • More favorable to the word “socialism” than older generations.
    • More supportive of policies like universal healthcare, student‑debt relief, higher minimum wages, and stronger unions.
  • However, most do not support abolishing elections, markets, or private property in a Marxist sense. What they tend to favor is social‑democratic or democratic‑socialist policy within a democratic framework:
    • Stronger welfare state and public services.
    • Robust regulation of corporate power.
    • Progressive taxation and redistribution.

So, it is more accurate to say many U.S. millennials are more social‑democratic than laissez‑faire, not more “socialist than democratic.” They generally want more democracy in the economy and workplace, not less democracy overall. That helps explain skepticism toward network states: these systems concentrate power in founders and investors instead of broadening democratic control.

Are network state proponents recruiting millennials (e.g., through employment)?

Even without explicit “political recruitment,” there are several de facto recruitment channels into the network‑state / crypto‑governance worldview that heavily target millennials and Gen Z:

  • Crypto, Web3, and AI startups
    Startups aligned with Balaji‑style ideas or broader “startup society” / charter‑city visions disproportionately hire younger engineers, designers, and community managers. Recruitment pitches emphasize:
    • “Build the future of governance.”
    • “Help design new countries / parallel institutions.”
      Employment becomes both economic dependence and ideological immersion.
  • Fellowships, residencies, and hacker houses
    Network‑adjacent organizations sponsor:
    • Fellowships and grants for young founders.
    • Co‑living “hacker houses” or startup villages with explicit community norms.
      These environments socialize younger participants into a worldview where:
    • “Exit over voice” is a virtue.
    • Democracy is framed as obsolete “legacy code.”
    • Founder/VC rule is presented as efficient and meritocratic.
  • Influence via tech platforms and thought leaders
    Podcasts, Substack essays, and X accounts popular among tech‑savvy millennials normalize:
    • “Startup societies,” “charter cities,” “special economic zones,” “network archipelagos.”
      While not every listener is a recruit, this is clearly aimed at younger cohorts most willing to move, work remotely, and live in experimental communities.

So, yes: proponents are functionally recruiting millennials—primarily through jobs, funding, and lifestyle communitiesin tech, AI, and crypto—rather than through explicit party‑style membership drives.

Bitcoin ownership by generation (approximate patterns)

Precise, up‑to‑the‑minute percentages vary by survey and market cycle, but the pattern across reputable U.S. surveys is consistent:

  • Gen Z and Millennials are most likely to own any crypto at all.
  • Older Gen X and Boomers have much lower adoption, but those who do own may hold larger absolute dollar amounts because they have more overall wealth.

Illustrative pattern (U.S. adults, rough order of magnitude rather than exact current percentages):

  • Gen Z (born ~1997–2012)
    • A notable minority hold some crypto, but they control a small share of total U.S. household wealth.
    • Thus, their share of total national wealth invested in bitcoin is modest in absolute terms, even if their individual portfolios are crypto‑heavy.
  • Millennials (born ~1981–1996)
    • Highest adoption rate for bitcoin and other crypto among adults.
    • But they still hold a relatively small fraction of total U.S. wealth versus Boomers.
    • As a result, their share of national wealth in bitcoin is substantial relative to Gen Z, but still smaller in absolute dollars than it might be if wealth were more evenly distributed.
  • Gen X (born ~1965–1980)
    • Moderate adoption: fewer owners than millennials but often with higher investable assets.
    • On many estimates, Gen X plus older millennials together hold a large fraction of the dollar value of bitcoin held by U.S. households.
  • Baby Boomers (born ~1946–1964) and older
    • Lowest adoption rates.
    • Many have no crypto exposure at all, preferring real estate, stocks, bonds.
    • A small minority of early adopters may hold significant positions, but as a share of Boomer wealth overall, bitcoin remains very small.

The key takeaway:

  • By headcount, millennials (and to an extent Gen Z) are the most crypto‑engaged.
  • By total wealth share, the bitcoin slice is still relatively small compared with their housing and stock exposure, largely because overall wealth is heavily skewed to Boomers and older Gen X.

Which generation is most likely to be in an HOA?

Homeowner Associations are tightly tied to suburban single‑family homeownership, which strongly correlates with age:

  • HOA prevalence tends to be highest among:
    • People in their late 30s–60s living in newer suburban developments.
    • New construction in many states is almost automatically in an HOA.

By generation, that maps roughly to:

  • Older Millennials and Gen X:
    • Entered peak family‑forming and home‑buying years just as HOAs became standard in new subdivisions.
    • Very likely to be HOA members if they own suburban or Sunbelt homes.
  • Boomers:
    • Many bought homes before HOAs were ubiquitous, especially in older urban or inner‑ring suburban neighborhoods.
    • But a sizable number live in HOA‑governed 55+ communities or condo associations, so there is still substantial HOA exposure.
  • Gen Z:
    • Much lower homeownership rates so far; few are in HOAs except as renters (which usually doesn’t make them voting members).

So, Gen X and older Millennials are probably the most likely to live in HOAs today, with Boomers not far behind, and Gen Z much less so simply because of age and affordability.

Putting it together

  • Many U.S. millennials oppose Musk and dislike network states because these models look like elite, exit‑based governance that worsens inequality and undercuts democratic control, rather than fixing shared institutions.
  • Millennials are not “more socialist than democratic,” but many lean social‑democratic: favoring stronger public services and economic fairness within a democratic framework.
  • Network state proponents do target millennials and Gen Z—through employment, funding, and lifestyle experiments in tech and crypto—because these cohorts are mobile, tech‑savvy, and more open to new living arrangements.
  • Millennials and Gen Z lead in crypto adoption, but in terms of total national wealth, bitcoin remains a modest slice compared with housing and equities; Gen X/older millennials likely control a large share of the dollar value.
  • HOA membership is most concentrated among Gen X and older Millennials, reflecting who has actually been able to buy into modern, HOA‑heavy housing stock.

The election of Katie Wilson as Seattle’s mayor in November 2025 marks a symbolic and substantive watershed moment: the emergence of the first millennial-led major American city, one explicitly designed around millennial values—not as a generational novelty, but as a coherent reimagining of urban life fundamentally different from the industrial cities of the twentieth century. Seattle is not merely the first millennial city; it is the only major U.S. city where municipal governance, workplace culture, infrastructure priorities, and civic heritage have coalesced around a vision that values experiences over possessions, community over consumption, and transit accessibility over automobile ownership.kuow+7

Seattle: America’s Millennial City

In Seattle: America’s Millennial City it is Argued that the founding of Starbucks and Amazon in the city are critical to a culture which is rejecting Trump Cronyism and the Network State.

Executive Summary


The November 2025 election of Katie Wilson as Seattle’s mayor marks a pivotal shift in the city’s relationship with its most famous corporate resident, Starbucks. As the first Millennial to hold the office, Wilson’s decisive victory over incumbent Bruce Harrell has been interpreted as a mandate to prioritize labor rights and community stability over corporate legacy. Her administration’s immediate vocal support for the ongoing indefinite strike—launched by Starbucks Workers United on November 13, 2025—signals a new political era where the “Third Place” is viewed not just as a business model, but as a civic right worth defending.


The “Third Place” and the Millennial Mayor


For the Millennial generation that Mayor Wilson represents, Starbucks was never just a coffee shop; it was the original “Third Place”—a concept popularized by Howard Schultz to describe a sanctuary between home and work. For Seattle’s millennials, who came of age during the rise of the gig economy and remote work, these cafes served as affordable living rooms, study halls, and community hubs. The brand’s initial promise was one of connection and human-centric service, a value system that resonated deeply with a generation seeking community in an increasingly digital and disjointed world.


However, the erosion of this concept has become a central grievance in the city’s cultural and political discourse. As Starbucks shifted its strategy toward mobile ordering, drive-thrus, and algorithmic efficiency, the “Third Place” began to resemble a high-stress assembly line. For Mayor Wilson’s constituency, this transformation mirrors the broader economic displacement millennials have faced in Seattle: the hollowing out of community spaces in favor of optimized, transactional efficiency. Her support for the striking workers is therefore not merely a labor dispute; it is a defense of the “Seattle Idea”—the belief that the city should be a place of connection and craft, not just extraction and speed.


Mayor Wilson’s opposition to Starbucks management is fundamental to her election because she articulated what many voters felt: that the company had abandoned the very progressive, community-oriented values that allowed it to conquer the world from Pike Place Market. By standing with the baristas, she is validating the workforce’s claim that they—not the boardrooms in the SoDo headquarters—are the true custodians of the Starbucks culture. Her victory signals that Seattle’s political machinery will no longer automatically align with its corporate giants when those giants drift from the values of the city’s current electorate.

Born between 1981 and 1996, they have been shaped by the digital revolution and economic uncertainty. They tend to value experiences over possessions and are more liberal on social issues5. Millennials have the highest proportion of independents of any generation, but when their partisan leanings are taken into account, they are the most Democratic generation2. In 2022, this generation accounted for 21.67% of the population1. Among voters, the population of Millennials is currently the largest. despite being the largest generation in the electorate, Millennials have not been the largest generational bloc of actual voters.

DOGE & Competing on Comanche Time, Gatsby

Decision makers, network states, and Trump

Starbucks’ current board includes several figures with technology and digital‑industry backgrounds, such as Marissa Mayer (former Yahoo CEO) and Neal Mohan (YouTube CEO), alongside other global business leaders and Chair/CEO Brian Niccol. Public filings, interviews, and governance documents do not show that Starbucks, as a corporation, has adopted “network state” governance ideas in any formal way, nor that its governance is framed using that terminology. Board and management are clearly familiar with U.S. politics and President Trump as a public figure, but there is no indication in their official materials that Trump or “network states” explicitly shape Starbucks’ corporate governance model.​

Employee terminology: “partners”

Starbucks still officially refers to employees as “partners,” a practice that dates back to the early 1990s and is tied to the Bean Stock equity program that grants restricted stock units and allows eligible workers to own shares. Company‑facing materials and public explanations continue to describe benefits, stock grants, and other programs as “partner” benefits, confirming that the terminology remains in active use.​

Internet connectivity and infrastructure

In the United States, Starbucks provides customer Wi‑Fi primarily through a partnership with Google, which replaced the earlier AT&T arrangement; Google works with Level 3 Communications (now part of Lumen) to deliver and manage connectivity in thousands of stores. This arrangement underpins the Starbucks Digital Network and is designed to provide higher‑speed, free in‑store internet access for customers.​

Musk’s involvement with Starbucks

There is no public evidence that Elon Musk plays any formal role at Starbucks as an executive, director, or strategic partner, nor that his companies provide core services like payments or connectivity to the chain. Available ownership and governance data likewise do not list Musk as a major shareholder or insider in Starbucks.

Amazon Spheres and Biophilic Design: If Starbucks represented the Third Place outside the office, Amazon’s Spheres represent an attempt to bring the Third Place into the office itself—to dissolve the boundary between work and experience by embedding employees in living nature. Opened in 2018 as the centerpiece of Amazon’s Seattle headquarters, the Spheres are three connected glass domes filled with over 40,000 plants, creating a “cloud forest” workspace. The design philosophy is explicitly biophilic: studies show that spaces incorporating nature reduce stress, promote creativity, and improve cognitive function. Rather than the glass-and-steel office parks of the twentieth century—designed for maximum efficiency and visual control—the Spheres represent a fundamentally different workplace ideology: one in which worker well-being, aesthetic experience, and connection to nature are seen as compatible with, indeed necessary to, productivity and innovation.dezeen+2

How crypto payments work at Starbucks

Starbucks has supported crypto‑enabled payments by partnering with intermediaries such as Flexa’s SPEDN app and (previously) Bakkt, which let customers spend Bitcoin, Ether and a few other coins. In these setups, the customer pays in crypto inside the app, the app converts it to dollars, and Starbucks receives a normal fiat payment, so Starbucks itself is not directly managing cryptocurrency on its balance sheet.​

Several 2025 overviews of merchants that “accept crypto” list Starbucks because of this app‑based support, but they consistently describe it as crypto-to-fiat conversion routed into a Starbucks card or QR payment, rather than native on‑chain payments accepted by Starbucks. So from a customer perspective, you can use crypto to buy Starbucks via supported apps, but from the company’s perspective, it still only accepts conventional electronic payments and not cryptocurrency directly.

What to do with the above

If nothing else, the reader is hoped to recognize that democracy is not compatible with network state governance. This means that Trump & Cronies (a rising network state) is not something the President of the United States should be involved with. I look to Trump to formally recognize a Network State as sovereign perhaps by appointing an ambassador and I anticipate that Trump will become the king of his or some other network state after his reign as USA president.

Nonetheless, Seattle’s experience with the largest block of potential voters, who are now energized to actually vote rather than sit on the sidelines, is extremely potent. Millennials will save democracy using the voice granted them by this form of government but also by exiting locals trending toward network state governance.

Please avoid the purchase of Starbucks products until the strike is over.