The Will of D: A d/acc Journey into Sovereignty and Solidarity

Introduction

Hello everyone, I’m mashbean. Originally, I planned to present something quite serious today — a formal research talk. But then I realized: this is a d/acc space. It's meant to be chill, exploratory, a little chaotic. So I changed my topic.

Today, I’m calling my talk "Will of the D." Why? Because I’m a manga nerd. I love One Piece.

If you haven’t read it yet, now’s a perfect time — it's finally reaching its endgame. The story is about Luffy and his crewmates on a wild journey for freedom and justice. In that world, the "Will of D" is a mysterious concept. No one fully knows what it means, except that it's associated with being the "enemy of the gods."

To me, the D in d/acc might be just that: the enemy of digital gods. The enemy of tech hegemony. The enemy of political tyranny. The enemy of injustice, in all forms.

That’s why this talk is called The Will of D — it's my personal journey in exploring and applying d/acc to real-world contexts, especially in Taiwan.

From the State to the DAO: My Work in Paradox

Since Vitalik introduced d/acc in 2023, I've been fascinated by it. The vision of defensive, decentralized, and democratic acceleration felt deeply meaningful. So over the past year, I began working to turn it into practice.

I work in the Taiwanese public sector, where everything is built top-down. In fact, I help shape Web3 policy and lead a national project called the Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet Project. The goal? To turn Decentralized Identity into an everyday civic tool — to realize the vision of Self-Sovereign Identity.

But here’s the paradox: we’re using centralized institutions, people, and resources to implement decentralized technologies. It often feels weird. Is that still d/acc? Or have we twisted the very idea?

I kept wondering: do important tech developments require a "benevolent dictator"? Or can distributed governance really drive critical progress? Maybe we don't even need acceleration. Maybe just the "D" is enough.

To work through this dilemma, I started a side project at FAB DAO, a grassroots local DAO in Taiwan. We launched a campaign called “戍衛轉型指南" — The Digital Transformation’s Guide to the Sovereign & Solidarity.

In Chinese, "digital" (數位) and "defensive" (戍衛) are pronounced the same. So for us, "digital transformation" is also about defensive transformation. And in a geopolitical pressure like Taiwan, we need both. Technology must protect our democracy. Tech and democracy must reinforce each other.

Mapping the Paths to d/acc

Through this project, I identified three major paths toward d/acc:

• Cypherpunk, the center route

• Solidarity tech, slightly to the left

• Sovereignty tech, slightly to the right

I know. This framework already feels a little outdated. Vitalik's 2024 d/acc article added new dimensions: individual vs. collective, digital vs. biological. But my work focuses more on the 2023 version, because I’m still deeply rooted in its original provocation.

The Concept of Decentralization: Confusion and Clarity

At first, I was confused by decentralization. Depending on which layer of the internet you're looking at, the definition changes.

Blockchain distributes control, yet also centralizes data. Decentralized identity disperses databases, but centralizes information in the hands of individuals. Is P2P truly decentralized? Is Web3 really decentralized?

Eventually, I realized: maybe the issue isn’t the technology, but the problem it tries to solve. And these problems are always political, economic, and social.

So I went back to the classics: left vs. right. Ideology still matters. It helps us understand which kind of acceleration we're facing: hegemonic, or anti-hegemonic.

Extremes Are Centralized: The Authoritarian Paradox

Extreme right-wing systems like fascism favor hierarchy, nationalism, and elite control — they need centralized power to "maintain order."

Extreme left-wing systems like hardline communism push for equality and redistribution, but often enforce a single ideology through party control.

Both ends build digital tools of control: censorship, surveillance, internet sovereignty, or platform monopolies. Different masks. Same logic.

When an ideology refuses dissent, excludes diversity, and demands total obedience, it becomes centralized by design.

That’s why the arrow of d/acc can be drawn simply: if a technology resists extremism and empowers pluralism, it's on the side of decentralization. It’s anti-hegemonic. It’s d/acc.

Centered Power Is Always a Threat

Centralized power is hegemony.

On the left, it becomes digital totalitarianism. On the right, it becomes digital feudalism. Either way, the result is control, not freedom.

So what is decentralization? At its heart, it’s resistance against these forces.

Cypherpunk people knew this. They sit in the zone no government or corporation can reach. Whether you see them as libertarians, anarchists, or mutualists, the core is the same: no gods, no masters.

Cypherpunk is where d/acc begins. Not in capital, not in policy. But in protocols and protest. It's the toolkit for fighting both digital dictatorship and cloud feudalism.

The Poster and the Map

From here on, things get comlicated. So if you want to explore further, scan the QR code on the screen. It links to the original poster version of this talk. It's CC0 in public domain. You can remix it, translate it, print it. It’s for everyone.

The Tech Trifecta: Cypherpunk, Solidarity, Sovereignty

Zooming out, the poster maps d/acc on three fronts. First, Cypherpunk arose in response to the 1980s-90s "government-telecom complex." Then, Crypto communities rose in the 2010s-2020s against cloud-financial platform feudalism. What will come next? Another complex? Another resistance? We don’t know. But we know that the Will of D persists.

Solidarity Tech: Democracy as Practice

Solidarity tech is Technology Exploring the Path to Democracy.

The internet created new digital spaces, allowing communication across borders. Over 30 years, collaborative tools, forums, and net-native governance evolved. Digital democracy has begun flowing back into the real world.

Solidarity is its destination.

Sovereignty Tech: Freedom as Survival

Sovereignty tech is Technology Advancing Toward Freedom.

The internet liberated users from geographic limits. Censorship resistance ensured free speech. Mesh networks preserved open communication. Open source guaranteed free knowledge.

Freedom makes resilience possible. It makes survival possible.

Digital Association: The Final Frontier

So where does the Will of D ultimately lead us?

To digital association.

We know how to assemble online. Taiwan proved that in the 318 Sunflower Movement. We had millions of people coming to street via internet. But we still don’t know how to associate digitally — how to build enduring organizations that persist beyond a moment.

Association is the foundation. It’s how we resist hegemony:

• Through unions

• Through user alliances

• Through local cooperatives

• Through DAOs

In Taiwan, we need this more than ever. We live under the shadow of a superpower. But we have a choice: to build dense, distributed, digital networks that defend our democracy.

We are not isolationists. We are not internationalist, because Taiwan is not a formal country. Maybe we are globalists. But we are also realists. And we must govern ourselves with the tools, technologies, and policies that match our reality.

That, I believe, is the true Will of D.

Final Reflection: Two Mashbeans, One Answer

I started this journey with a question.

Can centralized tools create decentralized outcomes? Working in government, I doubted it. But working in DAO spaces, I found some answers.

The Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet Project advances sovereignty. It carries Cypherpunk DNA. But it lacks solidarity tools and governance models. That imbalance matters.

Using this d/acc roadmap has helped me locate myself. And maybe, it can help others do the same.

Whether you're building tools, shaping policy, or writing code, you can ask: Where am I on the map?

The Will of D isn’t a prophecy. It’s a practice. It lives in the choices we make — technical, social, and political. And through those choices, we draw the path toward autonomy, one block, one protocol, one DAO at a time. Thank you.