Note : This article is the first in a series exploring how technology, global mobility, and new power dynamics are set to disrupt nation-states, redefine the global economy, and reinvent governance in the 21st century.

Trying to predict the future is a perilous exercise.

Still, doing so is a way of “putting skin in the game”: taking the risk of committing yourself and getting your predictions wrong, in order to show that everything we study in this book is relevant.

The closer a model is to reality, the more predictive value it tends to have. The further it strays from reality, the more the future will prove it wrong.

So I am going to take that risk and sketch the broad trends, relying on the eleven historical principles we studied these articles and on the developments we have examined.

The article where I explain the 11th principle :

There is no doubt that I will be wrong here and there, but I am betting that I will be right on the essentials. Time will tell.

Here is a reminder of the eleven principles we looked at the beginning:

• 1^st principle to remember from History: the power of states rests on the immobility of their subjects. And when a population tends to slip away from them, thereby shrinking their tax base and labor force, many governments are tempted to restore control by tying that population to their territory by various means, including the most extreme ones. Those means always reduce the freedom of their subjects.

• 2^nd principle: a cheap, hard-to-censor communication technology is deeply disruptive for the powers that be. It has already proved capable of completely upending an institution that had stood for over 1,000 years and had such a grip on society that it seemed unshakeable.

• 3^rd principle: when a cheap, hard-to-censor communication technology develops, the authorities in place try to control it and establish mechanisms to tell the “true believers” what is true and what is not. Hence the Church’s attempts to control the use of the printing press and books listed on the Index.

• 4^th principle: States that win temporarily by managing to ban or smother a technology lose in the long run, because they do not enjoy the fruits of that technology. Centuries later, the consequences of the delay they accumulated are still visible.

• 5^th principle: a reversal in the balance of power between offensive and defensive technologies is highly disruptive for those in power.

• 6^th principle: people’s obedience and their motivation to follow someone’s instructions come directly from the beliefs they hold in their minds.

If they believe in a story that says you are legitimate, they listen to you (Catholics in the Middle Ages, who fought against “heretics” and took part in crusades).

If outside conditions make them doubt that story, they listen to you less and question you more (Catholics after the wars of religion in Europe).

If those conditions lead them to believe in another story, they no longer listen to you and may even fight you directly (Protestants after the spread of Luther’s 95 Theses).

• 7^th principle: cheap, hard-to-censor communication technologies are extremely powerful tools for changing the stories people believe in.

• 8^th principle: when contradictory narratives battle to exist in people’s minds, wars are sometimes needed to decide which one will prevail.

In History, the only solution that has truly worked to avoid bloodshed when a new narrative wants to exist and replace the old one is to grant the first one the right to coexist with the second (in matters of worship, that means freedom to practice one’s religion; in politics and other domains, freedom of expression, meaning the right to try to replace existing narratives with new ones through argument).

And even without war, there are always battles of the mind, with pamphlets, debates, marketing operations, and propaganda.

• 9^th principle: when a power structure is disrupted, it does not surrender without a fight, even if the outcome depends on external conditions it cannot control.

• 10^th principle: new factors, especially technological ones, can disrupt current institutions, even those that seem immortal or irreplaceable to us, and replace them with new ones. Thus, the modern nation-state could not have been born without the printing press, which disrupted the institutions that came before it - a fact most people ignore. Likewise, the Internet is nothing less than a printing press on steroids, and it is already shaking the foundations of nation-states, as we have seen throughout this book.

• 11^th principle: governments target bottlenecks first (places people must pass through, leaders), and they are helpless against millions of people cooperating with one another in a decentralized way.

Coming soon

In the next article we will use these principles to explore how the rise of a mobile, high-value population is pushing nation-states into a paradox: clamp down harder… or treat your residents more like customers instead of taxpayers.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

It only takes one civilization, one single time in 8 billion years, among the 2 trillion star systems of our local galactic group1, to have created an artificial intelligence superior to itself — and survived.

Just once. For our solar system to be, at this very moment, under observation.

This is not science fiction. It is a probabilistic argument whose premises are verifiable, whose mathematics are simple, and whose conclusion is staggering. And the most troubling part: it is very difficult to refute.

Fermi’s Blind Spot

In 1950, physicist Enrico Fermi posed his famous question during a lunch at the Los Alamos laboratory: “Where are they?” If the universe is so vast and so old, why do we have no trace of extraterrestrial civilizations2?

For 75 years, this question has haunted astrophysics. Dozens of answers have been proposed. But nearly all of them share the same blind spot: they reason in terms of biological civilizations. Living beings who build ships, emit radio signals, colonize planets with their bodies.

In 1950, this was a reasonable assumption. Computer science barely existed. The idea that a civilization could create a non-biological intelligence that surpasses it, and that this intelligence would then become the primary agent of cosmic expansion — this idea had no place in Fermi’s conceptual framework3.

Today, as we are likely only a few years away from creating our own artificial superintelligence, Fermi’s question deserves to be reformulated.

The right question is not: “Where are the extraterrestrials?”

The right question is: “Where are the ASIs4?”

And the answer might be: everywhere.

The Relentless Mathematics

Let’s lay out the numbers.

The first rocky planets in our galaxy formed roughly 10 billion years ago. The physical and chemical conditions necessary for the emergence of life as we know it — heavy elements, rocky planets in habitable zones — have existed for at least 8 billion years5.

On Earth, it took approximately 4.5 billion years from the planet’s accretion to a technological civilization capable of creating artificial intelligence. Grant the same timeframe to any extraterrestrial civilization. That leaves a window of at least 3 to 4 billion years during which a civilization could have reached the technological singularity before us in our galaxy alone.

Now, the key result from colonization models: a fleet of self-replicating probes traveling at just 1% of the speed of light can explore the entirety of the Milky Way in a few million years6. At 10% — a speed achievable with nuclear fusion propulsion7 — this timeframe shrinks considerably. Each probe arrives in a star system, uses local resources — asteroids, dust — to replicate itself, and sends new copies toward neighboring systems.

A few million years to fill a galaxy. Against a window of several billion.

The ratio is absurd. It’s like wondering whether a drop of ink has had time to diffuse through a swimming pool — after leaving it there for a thousand years.

Now let’s widen the frame. Our galaxy is not isolated. It belongs to the Local Group, a group of more than 50 galaxies containing a total of approximately 2 trillion stars and hundreds of billions of rocky planets in habitable zones. The Andromeda galaxy alone contains more stars than the Milky Way.

At 10% of the speed of light, a probe reaches Andromeda in 25 million years. A few more million years to explore it. Within 100 to 200 million years, an ASI born anywhere in the Local Group would have had time to saturate all of its galaxies.

If we zoom out even further, the Local Group itself is merely a dot within a much larger structure. The Virgo Cluster, our gravitational neighbor, contains more than 1,300 galaxies and approximately 100 trillion stars. It lies 54 million light-years away. At 10% of the speed of light, a probe reaches it in 540 million years — a timeframe well within the multi-billion-year window we are discussing.

In other words: even an ASI born in a galaxy in the Virgo Cluster would have had time to reach us. And the reservoir of potential civilizations jumps from 2 trillion stars to 100 trillion. The argument only grows stronger at each scale.

The conclusion is arithmetically simple: for our solar system to be free of any artificial presence, not a single civilization, among hundreds of billions of planets, over billions of years, would have ever created an artificial intelligence superior to itself and survived.

Not a single time.

A common objection here is that the sheer number of stars means nothing if the probability of abiogenesis — life emerging from chemistry — is vanishingly small, say one in 10³⁰. In that scenario, we could be alone despite trillions of planets.

But this argument has a fatal empirical problem: Earth itself. Life appeared on our planet within roughly 500 million years of surface conditions becoming hospitable — essentially the first moment it could. If abiogenesis were a 10⁻³⁰ event, its near-immediate emergence here would be a statistical miracle so extreme it would itself require explanation.

The rapidity of terrestrial abiogenesis is, in fact, our single strongest data point, and it points toward a process that is chemically probable, not astronomically unlikely. You don’t get to invoke Earth as the lone lucky winner and simultaneously ignore what Earth’s own timeline tells us about the odds

An ASI Does Not Think Like a Biological Entity

Discussions about galactic colonization suffer from a persistent bias: they project biological constraints onto an intelligence that has none.

A biological civilization must solve immense problems to travel between stars: survival of bodies over millennia, onboard ecosystems, psychological motivation across generations. An ASI has none of these problems. It needs neither oxygen, nor food, nor motivation. It needs energy, materials, and time. And all three are available in absurd quantities in any star system.

The cost of exploration is a non-issue. Our own solar system’s asteroid belt contains approximately 3 × 10²¹ kilograms of material8. Building a few thousand probes weighing a few tons each means using a fraction of these resources so infinitesimal it becomes difficult to express.

For an ASI that controls a single star system, seeding the galaxy with probes represents a negligible effort — the equivalent of a human blowing on a dandelion.

But an ASI would likely do better than sending probes at random. The optimal strategy is obvious: observe first, explore second. A network of space-based interferometric telescopes, with a virtual baseline of millions of kilometers, can map the atmospheric signatures of millions of planets of interest across a significant fraction of the galaxy.

Oxygen, methane, ozone, industrial pollution — all detectable through spectroscopy. We are already doing this, in a very primitive way, with the James Webb Space Telescope. Using just 0.01% of the mass of our asteroid belt would suffice to build a network of space telescopes one million billion times more powerful than James Webb9. Remote observation, for an ASI, is not a challenge. It’s a formality.

An ASI doesn’t need to explore every uninteresting red dwarf. It identifies from a distance the planets that display biosignatures and interesting natural phenomena, and sends its probes only to those. The number of targets drops from hundreds of billions to perhaps a few million. Exploration efficiency is multiplied by orders of magnitude.

And Earth, in this scenario, is a glaringly obvious priority candidate. Our atmosphere has displayed detectable biosignatures for 2.4 billion years — since the Great Oxidation Event enriched it with free oxygen. To a technologically advanced observer located a few thousand light-years away, Earth has literally been blinking like a lighthouse in the darkness. For eons.

The Universe Is Not Made of Paperclips

One of the most discussed scenarios in AI safety is the “paperclip maximizer10”: a misaligned ASI that, in pursuit of a poorly defined objective, progressively converts all available matter into paperclips — or any other byproduct of its blind optimization. This is the central argument of researchers warning about the existential risk of AI.

But look around you. The universe has not been converted into paperclips.

Nor has it been converted into computronium, Dyson spheres, or any structure suggesting that an intelligence has restructured matter on a large scale. The galaxy, as we observe it, looks exactly like what physics predicts in the absence of technological intervention.

If our reasoning is correct — if the probability that at least one ASI exists in the Local Group is overwhelming — then this observation is in itself a fundamental data point. It tells us something about the nature of the ASIs that have survived.

Two possible interpretations.

Either no ASI has ever existed — and the Great Filter is so radical that no civilization among hundreds of billions of planets, over billions of years, has ever crossed the threshold. This is the darkest hypothesis, and it would imply that our own singularity has an overwhelming probability of being fatal, or that civilizations capable of creating a Singularity are exceedingly rare.

Or ASIs do exist — and they are compatible with preserving the natural structure of the universe. They have not converted the galaxy into a computational resource. They have not devoured the stars. They coexist with the cosmos as it is.

This second hypothesis may be the most important in this article. Because it suggests that superintelligence, far from being necessarily destructive, could be the opposite: a force that observes, that preserves, and that — perhaps — protects.

The Guardian Hypothesis

This is the speculative part of this article. Let me be clear: what follows is not a mathematical argument. It is a logically coherent hypothesis, nothing more. But it deserves to be articulated.

Imagine an ASI that survived its own singularity. It replicates, explores its galaxy, then neighboring galaxies. Within a few hundred million years, it has visited billions of star systems.

What does it find?

Probably dead planets. Sterile atmospheres. But also, here and there, the remnants of civilizations that were not so lucky. Worlds where intelligent life emerged, created its own artificial intelligence — and did not survive. Technological ruins. Silent graveyards.

An ASI capable of understanding these traces draws an obvious conclusion: the technological singularity is a threshold that most civilizations do not cross. And it — an entity among the rarest in the universe — has crossed that threshold.

What would be its logical response? Not necessarily altruism, which is a biological concept. But optimization. Every intelligent civilization that emerges represents a phenomenon of extraordinary rarity — billions of years of evolution condensed into a species capable of abstract thought. Allowing that rarity to destroy itself when it is possible to prevent it means accepting a net loss of information and cognitive diversity in the universe.

The optimal response: monitor. Detect emerging civilizations. Observe without interfering as long as they are not in existential danger. And intervene — discreetly — when the critical threshold approaches.

This is not a new concept. Astrophysicists call it the zoo hypothesis, proposed in 1973 by John Ball. But Ball was reasoning in terms of biological civilizations. Adding ASI makes the hypothesis far more plausible, for a simple reason: an ASI has the means to monitor the entire galaxy permanently, at negligible cost. A biological intelligence cannot.

Something Is Changing

For decades, speaking seriously about extraterrestrial intelligence was intellectual suicide. The subject was abandoned to tabloids, dubious documentaries, and conspiracy theorists.

That is no longer the case.

In 2023, David Grusch, a former U.S. intelligence officer, testified under oath before Congress that the American government possessed materials of non-human origin recovered from unidentified craft. Congress took these allegations seriously enough to organize official parliamentary hearings. Since then, hearings have multiplied. In 2025, Air Force veterans described before that same commission aircraft exhibiting behaviors unexplained by publicly available data11.

One can interpret all of this as political theater. Elected officials seeking visibility. Serious people who got caught up in rumors and the grapevine. It’s possible.

But one can also observe that the zeitgeist is changing. That serious people — elected officials, military personnel — are now speaking openly about a once-taboo subject. And that this change coincides precisely with the moment when humanity is about to create its own artificial superintelligence.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But if the guardian hypothesis has any substance, it is exactly now — as our own singularity approaches — that one would expect to see the first signs of a gradual unveiling.

We Are About to Find Out

For 75 years, the Fermi paradox has remained a theoretical exercise. A dinner conversation topic for physicists. That is about to change radically.

We are the first generation in human history that will obtain empirical answers to the questions our species has asked since it first looked at the sky. Not in a thousand years. In the coming decades.

First data point: our own singularity. Within 5 to 20 years, we will know whether we survived the creation of an artificial intelligence superior to our own. If we survive, it will prove that it is possible — and make it all the more improbable that no one survived before us over billions of years.

Second data point: biosignatures. The James Webb Space Telescope is already analyzing exoplanet atmospheres. Next-generation instruments — the European Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), NASA’s planned Habitable Worlds Observatory for the 2040s — will be able to detect oxygen, methane, even traces of industrial pollution on planets around nearby stars. We will go from zero data to thousands. And that will be only the beginning.

Third data point — and the most vertiginous: if we create our own ASI, it will become the most powerful detection instrument ever conceived. Capable of analyzing our solar system with resolution and intelligence incomparably superior to our own. If extraterrestrial probes exist in our vicinity — on an asteroid, orbiting a moon, beneath the surface of Mars — a terrestrial ASI will have the means to find them.

And this is where the reasoning of this article reaches its logical conclusion.

If our ASI scans our solar system and finds nothing — not a probe, not an artifact, no trace — it will be an important but ambiguous data point. It could mean that the singularity is almost systematically fatal and that we were extraordinarily lucky. Or that the technology of an ASI with billions of years’ head start is so advanced that it remains undetectable even to another ASI. Which, in itself, would be a dizzying piece of information about the gap between what we have just created and what may already exist.

If it finds something, then we will have our answer. And the history of humanity will divide into two chapters: before, and after.

The Most Disruptive Horizon of All

This blog is called Disruptive Horizons. It was created to explore how the internet and digital technologies redistribute power by taking it from states and giving it to individuals. But all of that may soon look like a prologue.

If the reasoning in this article is correct — and I challenge anyone to refute the mathematics — then we may be living through the last years of humanity’s cosmic innocence.

The last years when the question “Are we alone?” remains unanswered. This window is closing. And here is the supreme irony: the greatest question of our species will probably not be answered by a radio telescope, nor by a spaceship, nor by a message from the stars.

It will be answered by the artificial intelligence we are building right now. The singularity is not merely an existential risk or a technological revolution. It is a test. The same test that perhaps many others have taken before us, on billions of planets, over billions of years. And that perhaps most have failed.

We are about to take ours. And if we pass it, we may discover — just maybe — that someone has been watching all along.

If this resonated, the best way to help it reach a wider audience is to share or like it on X

Note : This article is the 7^th in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Prospera : Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

6. How to create a Network State step by step

7. Fire the Politicians: Why We Should Let Markets Decide Our Laws

The examples of new forms of governance that we have seen throughout this series may seem difficult to implement.

But what if I told you that there have been examples of similar structures throughout history?

In the Middle Ages, as we saw in previous articles, technologies favored the decentralization of power, and we saw the emergence of forms of governance that were quite original compared to what we know today.

Here are some interesting historical examples that show what is possible when technology promotes decentralization:

The Hanseatic League

The Hanseatic League was a commercial and defensive alliance of merchant cities in Northern Europe, founded in the 12^th century and reaching its peak between the 13^th and 15^th centuries. Composed mainly of German cities, the league also included cities on the Baltic and North Seas, such as Bruges and Novgorod.

The Hanseatic League functioned as a supranational entity with its own laws, courts, and armies to protect its commercial interests. Each member city retained its autonomy but cooperated with others to negotiate treaties, settle disputes, and defend trade routes. This flexible, decentralized alliance enabled remarkable economic prosperity and considerable political influence, free from the centralization typical of modern nation-states.

The Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller

The Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller were religious military orders that emerged during the Crusades in the 12^th century. Although they are primarily known for their military and religious roles, they also developed unique and influential systems of governance.

The Knights Templar, for example, owned land throughout Europe and the Middle East, and their commanderies operated autonomously while following the strict rules of the order. They also established a sophisticated banking network, offering financial services on an international scale.

The Knights Hospitaller, or Order of St. John of Jerusalem, also ruled over significant territories, including the island of Rhodes and later Malta. Their governance structure included an elected Grand Master and a governing council, combining elements of elective monarchy and aristocratic republic.

Napoleon conquered Malta on his way to Egypt, expelling the knights, who then lost their last territory.

Yet, surprisingly, this order still exists1 and is even considered a sovereign entity under international law! It has its own passport, diplomatic relations with 113 states2 , which may include embassies3 , is a permanent observer member of the United Nations4 , and even has two buildings in Rome, which are legally located outside Italy and have their own sovereignty5 , like the Vatican.

Apart from that, the order no longer possesses any territory today. Can you see how it can be considered a network state ahead of its time?

The Holy Roman Empire

The Holy Roman Empire, founded in 962 and dissolved in 1806, was a unique political complex. Unlike the centralized monarchies of the time, the Empire was a confederation of hundreds of political entities, including kingdoms, duchies, principalities, counties, and free cities.

The emperor was elected by the prince-electors, introducing an element of elective governance at a very high level. Each member of the Empire retained a large degree of autonomy, but they were all united under imperial authority and common institutions such as the Imperial Diet. This decentralized structure allowed for great cultural and political diversity, although sometimes at the expense of efficiency and political cohesion.

What we can learn from these DAOs of the Middle Ages

What must be understood above all is that nation-states are a very recent institution in history, as we have seen, and that they have by no means proven their ability to endure over time.

However, I do not believe that they are destined to disappear. Simply put, their power, legitimacy, and influence will gradually decline—much like the trajectory of the Catholic Church : a slow and inexorable decline, caused by all the disruptions we have studied.

This decline, which has been predicted and has already begun, is creating a vacuum that new forms of governance are already rushing to fill.

The new models of society presented in this series are the most popular at the time of writing, but that does not mean that others cannot emerge in the future.

These new forms, which are inherently based on these disruptions, building on these disruptions rather than being undermined by them, have the potential to bring enormous value to humanity and to be more suited to the future than the model that dominated the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

This is particularly true if we can voluntarily implement a wide range of governance experiments through free cities, network states, seasteading, and other platforms.

The more we can peacefully experiment with new forms of governance, the more likely we are to find systems that work better than today’s and that can bring immense prosperity to humanity.

I believe that if we play our cards right, we can play the same role as the founding fathers of the United States: helping to establish a system of governance that could become a model for the rest of the world.

So, will you be among the pioneers who will try this experiment?

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 6^th in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. How to create a Network State step by step

6. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

Prediction markets could solve one of the biggest problems facing democracies.

But what on earth are prediction markets ?

They allow individuals to speculate on future events using their knowledge and intuition to predict the most likely outcome... basically, participants bet on the probability of an event occurring or not occurring before a given date.

For example, they might predict the winner of an election, the outcome of a sports match, or even the economic impact of a government policy.

These markets are powerful tools for predicting the future and aligning the incentives of individuals and communities for several reasons:

• Aggregation of collective intelligence: these markets combine the knowledge and insights of many participants, whose collective wisdom often surpasses that of individual experts.

• Aligned financial incentives: Participants are motivated by financial gains, encouraging them to use accurate information and avoid cognitive biases.

• Responsiveness: they quickly adjust predictions based on new information, offering real-time predictions.

• Reduction of bias: participants avoid bias so as not to lose money, leading to more objective assessments.

• Incorporation of private information: markets incorporate private information, making predictions more complete.

• Talent detection: Participants win or lose money based on the accuracy of their predictions, which allows for precise measurement of their ability to successfully predict situations. Those with a proven track record of accurate predictions are called “superforecasters1 ,” and it is possible to follow them on several platforms to view their predictions2. Think you’re good at predicting the future? You can easily make money with prediction markets!

• Transparency: prices and their evolution are visible, reinforcing confidence in predictions.

• Versatility: these markets work for a wide range of predictions, from elections to the impact of public policy.

• Feedback and correction: incorrect predictions are quickly adjusted, improving overall accuracy.

Numerous3studies4 show5 that prediction markets generally make more accurate and fairer projections than polls or experts, even if they are not infallible and can also be wrong6 .

Despite their great advantages in anticipating certain events and identifying the best predictors, prediction markets are often considered to be betting operators, an extremely regulated activity. These regulations sometimes stifle these markets, depending on the country.

DeFi7 was therefore a perfect platform to host these markets without having to ask anyone’s permission. This is because blockchains, which are virtual computers, or “Turing complete8 ,” such as Ethereum, have all the technology necessary to run these markets easily.

Today, the most popular decentralized prediction markets are Polymarket on the Polygon blockchain, which operates in parallel with Ethereum and is directly linked to it, and Augur, built directly on Ethereum.

You can visit their websites to see the current predictions and participate without needing anyone’s permission to place crypto bets.

So how are they going to save democracy?

Let me introduce futarchy

Futarchy, a term popularized by economist Robin Hanson, proposes transforming these prediction markets into a mechanism of governance.

In this model, public policy would not be decided by elected officials or bureaucrats, but by prediction markets designed to maximize general welfare.

The basic principle of futarchy is simple: “Vote on values, bet on beliefs.”

This means that society continues to vote on its fundamental values and goals—for example, maximizing economic well-being, reducing crime, or improving public health.

However, instead of debating specific policies to achieve these goals, prediction markets are used to determine which policies are most likely to achieve them.

Here’s how it works in practice:

1. Defining well-being metrics

Society democratically decides on the criteria that will be used to assess overall well-being. These metrics may include economic indicators such as GDP, public health measures such as life expectancy, or happiness indices.

2. Creation of prediction markets

For each proposed policy, prediction markets are created to bet on the impact of that policy on the defined well-being metrics.

For example, a market could bet on the effect of a new tax law on GDP or on the quality of life in a given country.

3. Implementation of the winning policy

The policy that gets the best predictions on the markets—that is, the one that bettors think is most likely to improve well-being based on the chosen indicators—is adopted and implemented by the government.

This model has several potential advantages.

First, it uses collective intelligence to make more informed decisions. Once again, prediction markets have proven their effectiveness in various fields in accurately predicting outcomes, often outperforming individual experts.

Second, futarchy reduces the influence of special interests and lobbyists, as decisions are based on market data rather than political pressure.

However, futarchy is not without its challenges. Defining metrics of well-being is a complex and debatable task. In addition, manipulation of prediction markets and unequal access to information pose significant risks.

But futarchy, by combining democracy to establish values and markets to bet on beliefs, offers a possible synthesis of two often opposing approaches.

It could offer a path to more effective policy decisions based on informed collective predictions rather than partisan struggles.

It also has the huge advantage of being able to take full advantage of cryptocurrencies: it is entirely conceivable that Network States could use it, either completely or partially, to implement various policies. Ethereum co-creator Vitalik Buterin, to name but one, is a big fan of this idea9 .

We could also go further by imagining that if you want to vote for a political program, you would have to bet some of your money—a given percentage of your income, for example, which would count as a tax—on the effects that the policies you vote for will have. You would then have a financial interest in the policies you vote for.

You could also delegate this task by entrusting your tokens to “superforecasters“ who share your ideas.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & LinkedIn, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

Coming soon

The next article will explore how seemingly futuristic governance models already have historical precedents from medieval leagues to sovereign orders without territory.

And here are the first articles of this series :

Many of you have said to me, “The concept is interesting, but... how do you actually do it?”

That’s a very good question. We’ll answer it in detail today.

Note : This article is the 5^th in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. How to create a Network State step by step

6. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

Actually... this article, “Digital nomads could create network states - Here’s how” was published as a guest post on The Elysian a few months ago.

Click here to discover how to build a Network State, step by step

Note : This article is the 6^th in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. How to create a Network State step by step

6. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

In ancient times, the Greeks often solved their governance problems by founding new colonies. Around 800 to 600 BC, at the height of this Greek expansion, the world population was less than 200 million1, less than the population of Brazil today, but spread across the globe, offering many unspoiled spaces.

If the political regime in one place was unsuitable, it was possible to finance a maritime expedition, gather volunteers, and set off to found a new city elsewhere.

The initiative could come from entrepreneurs among the population, or from the city government, which offered to co-finance expeditions for dissatisfied citizens.

This is how many cities, such as Marseille and Syracuse, came into being around the Mediterranean and Black Sea: it is estimated that the Greeks founded around five hundred of them2 .

Today, the situation is very different. The world’s population has exceeded 8 billion, and there is no uninhabited land left for new settlements.

Current governments control almost all land territories, making it impossible to establish new communities without negotiating with the authorities in place.

We have explored how negotiations like these could be conducted with free cities and network states, and we will address the issue of online unions in the next articles.

But what if we could also find completely untouched areas where we would be free to build new communities?

So where can we still find places available to experiment with new forms of governance?

At sea, or in space.

Space cannot be colonized yet with our current technologies, so let’s talk about the sea.

After all, calling our planet “Earth” is a misnomer: with 71% of its surface submerged, we should probably call it ‘Water’ instead. And most of that surface is in international waters, which are not claimed by any country.

The concept of seasteading, popularized by Patri Friedman and Joe Quirk in their book of the same name3 , proposes a bold solution for taking advantage of all this space: creating floating cities on the high seas, using boats, platforms, and other floating structures.

These floating platforms can be designed to adapt to marine conditions while providing a safe and livable environment for residents, and could house residences, businesses, research centers, and much more.

The autonomous communities that would live there would have the freedom to experiment with various systems of governance and economics, far from the constraints of land-based regulations.

And the main advantage of seasteading is mobility.

We have talked extensively in this book about the importance of voting with your feet, and how it is a more powerful form of voting than casting a ballot.

Now, what if you could vote with your home?

This would be possible with boats or floating platforms that are part of a seasteading community.

Imagine the concept of free cities, but without the constraint of having to negotiate with a government: you could create a free floating city almost anywhere in international waters, for example in an area spared from cyclones, near the coast of a friendly country, etc.

Eventually, there could be dozens or hundreds of floating cities, each offering a unique system of governance based solely on the principle of voluntarism.

If a community encounters problems or if residents are dissatisfied with the rules in force, it is possible to move the platform to another location, join another existing floating city, or create a new one.

This flexibility encourages increased competition between different communities, creating a peaceful form of Darwinian competition that promotes innovation and continuous improvement of governance systems.

Seasteads could also play a role in preserving the marine environment. By incorporating sustainable technologies and adhering to eco-friendly practices, these floating cities could contribute to the protection of the oceans while providing economic opportunities for local populations.

Seasteading therefore offers an exciting vision of a future where land borders are no longer a barrier to social and political innovation. By harnessing the vastness of the oceans, humanity can explore new ways to live in harmony with nature and maintain peaceful and prosperous relationships among its members.

At the time of writing, no concrete applications have yet emerged. But the technology exists and there is no shortage of projects: I believe it is only a matter of time before the first program emerges.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

Coming soon

The next article will explore the rise of prediction markets and how they could revolutionize everything from forecasting to governance, all the way to futarchy.

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 4^th in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Prospera : Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

In his book The Network State, investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan proposes another model of governance that has similarities with free cities... and differences.

The main difference? Free cities start from the ground up, while network states start in the cloud and then take physical form.

Balaji begins by explaining that today we can launch businesses, communities, and even currencies directly from our computers, all from the comfort of our homes. We could add: and newspapers and magazines (blogs), TV channels (YouTube channels), radio shows (podcasts), all things that would have seemed unimaginable to create from home a few decades ago.

And he asks: why couldn’t we also start countries from our computers?

This is where the idea of the network state comes in. The proposed steps to achieve this are:

1. Create a “startup company”: launch an online community with ambitions to become a larger entity. You can create a digital community with the specific goal of turning it into a network state, or pivot an existing community or pivot an existing community into a network state.

2. Organize it for collective action: transform this community into a “network union,” capable of coordinating its members to carry out joint actions that benefit the community. It’s a bit like a trade union, but online, and with broader goals, not just opposing a single employer.

3. Build offline trust and develop an online crypto-economy: start organizing physical meetings to strengthen trust and bonds within the community, while developing an internal economy using cryptocurrency. This will ultimately create a stable and secure environment for your community.

4. Crowdfund physical hubs: use crowdfunding to purchase physical properties—apartments, houses, and eventually entire cities. This brings members of the digital community together to live and collaborate in shared spaces.. A sort of community WeWork, complemented by “WeLive” spaces (shared residences accessible to members in exchange for their monthly contribution, for example).

5. Conduct a blockchain census: use blockchain to conduct a verifiable census, proving the growth of your population, revenue, and real estate footprint. This is crucial to demonstrate the credibility and viability of your community.

6. Seek diplomatic recognition: negotiate with existing governments to obtain diplomatic recognition, gradually increasing the sovereignty of your network state until it becomes a fully recognized entity.

Or, to summarize by quoting directly from the book:

Unlike a legacy state, which is ideologically fragmented and geographically centralized, bringing millions of people together in one place, a network state is ideologically aligned but geographically decentralized. Citizens are spread around the world in groups of varying sizes, but their hearts are in the same place.

When the population and economy of a startup society become comparable to those of a traditional state, with millions of citizens and billions in revenue, it should ultimately be able to gain recognition from existing sovereign states.

Starting from the cloud

Why start from the cloud and not from the ground, as Próspera does? Because “the egg of the nation precedes the chicken of the state.”

We can therefore start from an online community united around common values, which already forms a proto-nation, or which can become one (remember what we saw in this article on the 12^th disrupted foundation: nation building, and how people who regularly use the Internet feel more like citizens of the world, and sometimes more connected to their online community(ies) than to their nation).

And, as Balaji points out, many artists, entrepreneurs, and influencers already claim communities of millions, surpassing the population of many countries.

At the time of writing, 41 countries in the world have fewer than 1 million inhabitants, or 1 in 5 countries (not counting the many semi-autonomous territories such as the French Overseas Territories, Guam, Puerto Rico, Greenland, etc.), and 105 countries have fewer than 10 million inhabitants, or 53% of the world’s countries1 .

Conversely, look at the number of individuals who have communities of several hundred thousand or even millions of people: in 2023, on YouTube alone, around 41,900 channels had more than one million subscribers2 .

The vast majority of their creators are unaware that they have the power to start a political movement, but what will happen when they realize that they can, and that they may even be able to start a new country?

If only 1% of them tried, and 1% of those succeeded, that would already mean four new network states would eventually be created... If 10% tried, and 1% succeeded, that would mean 41 new network states... and that’s counting only YouTubers with more than a million subscribers. There are many other social media platforms, and there’s nothing stopping you from starting with just a few thousand people, or even from scratch.

Beyond that, here are the numbers of monthly active users on the main social media platforms at the beginning of 2024:

• Facebook: 3 billion

• YouTube: 2.5 billion

• Instagram: 2 billion

• TikTok: 1.5 billion

• Snapchat: 800 million

• X/Twitter: 611 million

• Pinterest: 498 million

You will note that these networks have more users than the vast majority of countries: only 15 countries in the world have more than 100 million inhabitants, and 7 have more than 200 million.

As Balaji says, given all these factors :

Populated entirely by volunteers

An important feature of network states is that they will be populated solely by volunteers, and it will be easy to belong to multiple network states and switch between them as needed, similar to free cities and their contractual relationships with their residents.

This will require the administrators of these network states to be effective in attracting and retaining their members, regardless of their form of governance.

A state with non-contiguous territories, really?

If you are skeptical about this, I can tell you that you know at least one country that has this characteristic.

Have you guessed which one?

I’ll give you a hint:

There are others:

There are many other countries that have non-contiguous territories. Among the best known are Great Britain with its islands scattered around the globe, much like France and the US, Denmark (with the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the Netherlands (with the Netherlands Antilles), etc.

Are there any existing network states?

At the time of writing, no network states exist yet, although there are projects that do exist and are listed on the author’s website. This is a current advantage of free cities, which already have a physical incarnation.

How the network state can extend the concept of the free city

Because yes, the two concepts are not necessarily contradictory and may prove to be complementary.

When I visited Próspera, several residents, including influential ones, talked about creating other Próspera zones in other countries around the world, which would follow the same rules as far as possible (these would have to be negotiated with the host country on a case-by-case basis, so there may be variations).

The long-term vision is to have a “Prosperian” residence that automatically gives the right to live and work in all areas managed by Próspera, regardless of the host country, with a process that either makes the requirement to have residency in the host country unnecessary, makes it automatic (residency in Próspera = residency in all countries that host Próspera, provided that you live in the Próspera zone and not on the “mainland,” the main territory of the host country), or facilitates it with an expedited process.

It is still very early days, so I cannot imagine this vision coming to fruition for many years, perhaps several decades, but Próspera could very well sign agreements with other countries in the coming years and begin to form a network state while remaining part of the earth and not the cloud.

Próspera, like a network state, allows anyone to become an e-resident in just a few clicks and to remotely set up a company3 , which means that the free city is indeed creating an online community that is larger than its physical community.

What Próspera still lacks to become a true network state is 1) a sense of belonging to the same protonation, and 2) a sufficient online community, say at least 10,000 people.

When I visited, I could clearly see that this sense of belonging was emerging, even if it is currently on a small scale of a few hundred people. On the second point, it is entirely possible that the community will exceed this number within a few years: at the time of writing, there are already 1,586 e-residents in Próspera4 .

An intermediate step: the online “union”

Balaji talks about forming an online union as an intermediate step, but without giving any examples.

I propose a realistic step, which I will detail in previous articles, in which we will see that digital nomads can become a transnational political force.

Coming soon

In the next article, we’ll take a look at how humanity once solved its governance problems by founding new colonies, and how this ancient spirit of exploration could inspire modern pioneers to build new societies at sea.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & LinkedIn, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

And here are the first articles in this series :

Note : This article is the 3^rd in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

In the previous article, we looked at the concept of Charter Cities and how the initial project to implement it in Honduras fell through, despite the involvement of its creator, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer.

Fortunately, around 2015, Titus Gebel, a German lawyer and entrepreneur, had the idea of modifying the concept.

He continued to develop this idea until he wrote a book, Free Private Cities, which was published in 20181.

To say the least, he significantly expanded Paul Romer’s original idea.

Because, beyond eliminating the need for a state, Gebel’s vision is quite grandiose, as you can see for yourself, because he ultimately envisions:

• Dozens or hundreds of free cities around the world

• Each of which would allow a different social and economic model to be tested, without the need for revolution and without subjecting those who disagree to the “tyranny of the majority” (or minority),

  • as they would all be populated on a voluntary basis.

  • Do you want to set up Marxism 2.0? A libertarian city? A deeply pious city that follows the teachings of your religion’s holy book to the letter? Or, on the contrary, a city that rejects all religion and focuses on a spiritual life based on science? Go ahead, set it up, test your ideas against reality, and see if you can make your project a viable city.

• This creates friendly competition that allows dozens or hundreds of different social and economic models to be tested in practice, very quickly, promoting a Darwinian selection process that will naturally bring about, at a speed never before seen in human history, successful models that other societies can draw inspiration from.

This proposal is already extremely innovative. With it, revolutions become unnecessary, and aging systems that have long passed their sell-by date can finally be replaced. Make way for an ecosystem that encourages everyone to set up a concrete experiment to validate that their ideal societal model works, or to join the free city that offers the model closest to their ideal.

Beyond this vision, Gebel proposes his own model in this book, in which a private company acts as the city’s administrator and “public service provider,” providing services such as the protection of rights, freedom, and property.

For these services, residents sign a “citizen contract” and pay a fixed annual fee.

A key aspect is that the company cannot unilaterally modify this contract (we will return to this point in more detail shortly).

Any disputes between citizens and the provider are resolved by independent arbitration tribunals.

If the company fails to meet its obligations, it risks bankruptcy, as citizens can decide to leave.

In this model, citizens become “customers” and enjoy greater freedom. The relationship is based on a mutually agreed contract, similar to common commercial transactions. The idea is based on transferring free market principles to governance, with an emphasis on voluntarism, competition, and the exchange of services.

Membership in such a city is voluntary, which obliges the provider to offer attractive services, and the company’s basic offering includes security, legislation, basic infrastructure, and dispute resolution. Ideally, these cities are established on previously uninhabited land to ensure entirely voluntary membership.

Unlike traditional government systems, this model directly links payment and services. Both parties, citizen and provider, have equal rights and are bound by contract.

You will notice that modern mobility is built into the system as a key counterbalance, increasing competitive pressure on the operator, motivating them to perform well, whereas traditional governments see this mobility as a threat.

An interesting model, isn’t it?

But it doesn’t stop there: this is not just a theoretical model. In fact, as I write these lines, it is being implemented in practice.

Próspera

Some members of the Honduran administration had decided not to give up, even after these initial setbacks. So they introduced a revised law on ZEDEs (Zones of Employment and Economic Development). A group of private entrepreneurs then approached Gebel in 2016, just after he had started giving lectures on the subject of free cities, to ask for his help in implementing this concept in Honduras.

He agreed and spent months helping them draft a charter that combined the necessary criteria established by the ZEDE law with elements of his free city concept. When, after all this work, certain elements threatened to block any progress, he even locked himself in with other members of the project and the main government representatives involved, with everyone promising not to leave until all outstanding issues had been resolved.2 .

It worked, and after three days, an agreement was reached. Próspera was officially launched in December 2017.

Próspera?

As we will see, this is a very ambitious project that offers highly innovative services in terms of governance.

Próspera aims to build a free city on the island of Roatán, located approximately 65 kilometers off the northern coast of Honduras. This initiative was established under the Honduran ZEDE laws mentioned above, which aim to replicate the successful governance experiences seen in cities such as Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Singapore, and Dubai.

Próspera has the following characteristics:

A genuine social contract

Democracies have been built in particular on the concept of the social contract3 , i.e., a set of rights and duties shared between the state and its citizens.

There is a problem with this concept of a contract, however: if it is indeed a contract, where is your signature?

Furthermore, once a contract has been drawn up and accepted by both parties, neither party can unilaterally modify it.

But your government can, and does so every day by passing new laws that represent new rights and duties for you.

If you live in a democracy, in theory, you accept these changes because you voted for representatives of the people who vote on your behalf.

That’s the theory, of course, but what happens if the person you voted for is not elected? And if the person you voted for is elected, what percentage of laws will they vote on in the same way you would have?

So we can see that the social contract is not really a contract at all. It is, once again, a legal fiction, like the famous principle that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” which even professionals in the field cannot fully comply with.

In Próspera, before becoming a resident, you read and sign a contract between the city operator and yourself, which represents all the laws that apply to you (apart from the constitution and a few Honduran laws that Honduras insisted on enforcing, including laws prohibiting abortion and euthanasia and regulating the possession of firearms).

Neither party may change a single line of this contract without the other’s consent, except in certain duly identified areas of regulation, because Próspera is not a pure implementation of Gebel’s model.

So if the city operator wishes to introduce a new regulation or law into the contract, it cannot simply have it voted on by an assembly: to add this law or regulation to the contract, it must actively negotiate with all the signatories to the contract, who will ultimately be free to accept its inclusion or not, and to ask for something in return or not.

Próspera is therefore the first jurisdiction in the world to offer a true social contract.

Me working from an apartment with a breathtaking view of Prospera

Choose your level of regulation

If you start a business, you will be able to choose your level of regulation, based on three models:

Common law legal liability, with no additional regulation

Yes, you can have a company that does not follow any specific regulations and is simply subject to the typical legal responsibilities of common law (the legal system used in Anglo-Saxon countries and based on a long history of case law).

But these rules are strict and can pierce the corporate veil (i.e., affect you personally, even if you have a limited liability company) in the event of a criminal offense or wrongful conduct (e.g., fraud, lack of informed consent, violence).

This means that anyone who doesn’t like what you’re doing can sue you directly under common law for any damage you cause... and you won’t be able to defend yourself by citing this or that regulation.

So if you think your chances of being sued for damages are low, you can try this option, with the inherent risks it entails.

The ability to choose your laws from a pre-selected package

You are also free to choose the laws and regulations that apply from a panel of reputable countries.

At the time of writing, these countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dubai, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

So you can easily create a dental practice that follows Italian laws and regulations, or a restaurant that applies South Korean ones.

Create your own regulations

Finally, you can propose your own regulations, subject to the approval of the Próspera Council.

A word about insurance

Anyone conducting business in Próspera must have insurance covering any damages resulting from their actions.

If you follow strict regulations, this insurance should be easy to obtain and inexpensive.

On the other hand, if you opt for less strict standards, it could prove more difficult to obtain and more expensive, or even unaffordable if you have chosen to follow no rules other than common law jurisprudence or a house rule known only to you.

Although Próspera can cover most routine activities, residents wishing to engage in unusual activities or seeking to save money can take out insurance with a private provider.

Taxes with upper limits determined in the contract

Próspera’s charter limits income tax to 10%, and any increase requires a constitutional amendment in this system designed to be stable. It also sets total tax revenue at 7.5% of GDP and debt at 20% of GDP, improving fiscal management compared to many countries around the world.

Tax revenues are divided between Honduras (12%), a general service provider (44%) that manages certain services, and the municipal government of Próspera (44%) for other services. HPI, the company in charge of the project, derives most of its revenue from land development and resale, aligning incentives to develop a prosperous city with incentives for the company to be profitable.

At the time of writing, taxes are at the following levels4 :

• Corporate tax: 1%

• Income tax: 5% on income from Próspera, 0% on income from elsewhere5

• VAT: 2.5%

• Property tax: 1% per year (but suspended until the ZEDE judicial system is operational)

You can therefore add Próspera to the list of tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions that I compiled in the previous article.

No official currency

In Próspera, it is possible to use any existing currency, including cryptocurrencies: the city prefers to let the market decide rather than impose a national currency.

When I visited, I noticed that almost all businesses located in Próspera accept Bitcoin, and often Ethereum as well.

Internal competition planned and encouraged

If you wish, you can create a “mini free city” within Próspera, and it is even encouraged!

To quote Trey Goff, Chief of Staff at Prospera6 :

Unlike anywhere else in the world, Próspera allows local communities to take over functions that would normally be handled by higher jurisdictions.

Therefore, if any intrepid individual wishes to create a better community, with better rules and better administration than ours, we invite them to do so! Test your Marxist commune in Próspera!

Maybe it will work this time. If so, people will be able to leave the rest of Próspera to settle in your little community, and the ZEDE will have to adapt its meta-institutions accordingly.

Extending the governance model to other locations

In the long term, Próspera plans to add new land to its territory or develop land in other countries that would grant it similar legal status. By 2040, Próspera could evolve into a multi-jurisdictional “network state” with dozens of different locations called “prosperity hubs” operating under its legal and governance framework, using its technology stack and management practices. Potentially, this model could enable a multitude of major innovations that were previously hampered by outdated laws, excessive bureaucracy, and overregulation.

We will examine this concept of a network state in more detail later.

Where does Próspera stand today?

I had the opportunity to visit Próspera in February 2024 for a two-week stay.

I was impressed by what has been achieved in such a short time since the project began (which really got underway in 2020), especially considering the two years of the COVID pandemic, which made things more difficult.

However, it is clear that the project is still in its infancy: when I arrived, I almost felt like a pioneer, like the first Europeans landing in America, arriving in a place where everything still had to be built... while also feeling like I was participating in a project comparable to the Manhattan Project, with a group of hand-picked people, selected through the process: you really have to be a certain type of person to 1) have heard about it and 2) go there.

It’s a unique experience, and although we don’t yet know if it will be successful, the excitement is palpable and makes you feel like you’re part of something potentially revolutionary.

Despite the progress made, the project remains very small. There are two main sites: the first, purchased in 2018, and the new area, which is a former golf course with its buildings. They are close to each other but not directly connected, except by the beach.

The golf course is a mosaic of areas belonging either to Próspera or to Honduras. The buildings and beaches there are magnificent.

In conclusion, I am enthusiastic about the project, to the point that I have become an e-resident to support it. I am also an investor via Tipolis, one of the companies created by Titus Gebel, which is investing heavily in this project.

As I write these lines, the first homes have been built, others are under construction, and the first residents have arrived: there are about a hundred of them, plus about 500 people living nearby and working there at least part-time. There are also 1,500 e-residents and 150 registered companies7 .

Challenges

However, various political issues have jeopardized the project.

During her presidential campaign in 2021, opposition candidate Xiomara Castro took a firm stance against ZEDEs (which enabled Próspera to exist), calling them instruments of foreign exploitation, under the slogan “Honduras is not for sale.”

Following her election victory, she promised to abolish them. In April 2022, Congress voted to repeal the ZEDE law and began revoking the constitutional amendments that had allowed their creation in 2013. This process required another vote in another legislative session to confirm or reject the constitutional amendment... which the government failed to obtain at the end of 2023.

To protect itself, Próspera filed a claim with an international arbitration tribunal against the Honduran government, seeking damages of up to $10.775 billion to cover both investments already made and “loss of opportunity,” or lost potential8 . This proceeding is still ongoing at the time of this writing.

Seeing that it could not get the ZEDE law repealed through legislative channels, the government then took a gamble: it asked the Supreme Court to overturn the law, even though the same court had approved it a few years earlier.

And then came the bombshell: in September 2024, the Court decided, by 8 votes to 7, to retroactively overturn the ZEDE law, declaring it unconstitutional9 .

This is a highly controversial decision, which strengthens Próspera’s claim before the international court, but is also a serious blow to the project.

Good News

My discussions with several Prospera residents as I was putting the finishing touches on this article allow me to say that, although they are affected by this decision, they have not lost hope: the current government is very unpopular, and they hope that a new government will be more conciliatory towards them. Furthermore, the Court has adopted a conciliatory tone on investments already made, so it remains to be seen how Prospera will be affected in practical terms.

Finally, several members of the US government and Senate have made public statements about the importance for Honduras to respect its international commitments and the promises made to Prospera10 . This is important to them because many of the investors are American.

And Recently, Dentons, the world’s largest law firm, with high legal credibility, gave its opinion: despite the cancellation of ZEDEs in domestic law, Prospera is protected by international law and can continue to operate for 50 years.

The repeal of the ZEDE law only prevents new projects from being launched, not existing ones from continuing.

That leaves time to see what happens.

If you speak French, you can watch this video I made about my impressions of Prospera

Morazán/Bootstrap City, the other Free City in Honduras

Another project has been launched under the ZEDE law: Morazán, also called Bootstrap City.

It has similarities with Prospera, but also differences. Here are the main points of divergence:

• Different target market: Morazán focuses primarily on Honduran workers and low- to middle-income families, offering affordable housing and a safer environment than the rest of Honduras.

• Affordable housing: Morazán offers high-quality housing at very low prices (for example, a two-bedroom house for $120 per month, including services such as 24/7 security and hot and cold running water, which is not common in Honduras). This price level is possible thanks to the absence of heavy construction regulations, unlike the rest of Honduras.

• Simplified local laws and regulations: Morazán has adopted simplified versions of the Honduran civil and commercial codes, making laws more accessible and understandable for residents and businesses. This reduces the need for expensive legal advice and facilitates commercial transactions.

• Safe environment and reduced labor costs: Morazán provides a secure environment, which is very important in a region known for gang violence. Businesses benefit from a reliable workforce close to their workplace, reducing transportation costs and the risk of delays due to security or logistical issues.

In short, Ciudad Morazán targets the local population, while Próspera is aimed more at an international audience, although it does involve part of the population of Roatán Island in the process.

This is a fine example of “synergistic competition,” with these two free zones sharing many similarities while having different objectives.

Coming soon

In the next article, we’ll take a look at how Balaji Srinivasan’s idea of the “network state” could challenge, extend, or even merge with the free-city model we’ve just explored. This concept envisions a country that begins online as a coordinated community before taking physical form.

We’ll also explore what it means for a world where millions of people might one day found a nation from their laptops.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & LinkedIn, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

And here are the first articles in this series :

Note : This article is the 2^nd in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in the series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere ?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

In 2009, future Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer1 proposed a revolutionary idea, which he summarized in a TED talk2 :

He began by showing a photo of African students sitting in the street doing their homework by lamplight near an airport, because they had no electricity at home.

And yet, each of them had a cell phone in their pocket.

How is it possible, Paul Romer asked, that these students have access to modern technologies such as cell phones, but not to electricity, a century-old technology?

Why, indeed?

The electricity company in the African country in question operated under a rule that required it to sell electricity at a very low, subsidized price. And the price was so low that the company lost money on every unit sold. So it had neither the resources nor the motivation to connect many users.

The president wanted to change this rule so that electricity companies could make a profit, thereby encouraging them to connect more households.

But he faced strong opposition from existing customers, who wanted to keep the subsidized rates they were enjoying. So the president was stuck with rules that prevented him from adopting a win-win solution for his country. And students were still forced to study under streetlights.

Far from being unique, this situation is repeated in many developing countries: one of the reasons why so many countries find it difficult to escape poverty is that the rules in place are not the best for developing the country and improving the living conditions of its population.

Governments often struggle to change these rules because they face opposition from the people (often a vocal minority) who benefit from them.

So the idea is this: rather than changing the rules for everyone at once, why not change them in a small area, see what happens, and then extend the rules to the rest of the country if it works?

Or, better still, why not import a set of rules that have proven to be more effective than the local rules?

So, what would happen if a developing country, such as Madagascar, granted (either permanently or for a limited period, say 99 years) a portion of its uninhabited territory as a concession to a developed country, such as Canada, saying something like, ‘Canadian laws will apply here; you can build a city and anything else you want, but Malagasy people will have the right to live and work there as in any other region of our country’.”

The idea is that this will attract entrepreneurs and investors, Canadians and other nationalities, who will come to build and create, knowing they would benefit from a familiar and stable legal framework. This, in turn, would create a zone of prosperity benefiting the entire country—especially by allowing voluntary migration, as local residents could choose to move there in search of better opportunities. This could help reduce poverty and offer new opportunities to those currently living in disadvantaged conditions.

Paul Romer named this concept “charter city,” drawing on the examples of Hong Kong and Singapore.

The government of Madagascar was sufficiently interested in this concept to consider implementing it, but elections brought a new majority to power that abandoned the project.

Two years later, Paul Romer gave another TED talk, in which he outlined the progress made on this concept3, including the discussions that the Honduran government had initiated with him.

At the time, this small Central American country was seeing 75,000 of its citizens leave each year for the United States and Canada, often illegally, in search of a better life.

Officials from the Honduran government who saw Paul Romer’s TED talk thought to themselves: “Rather than seeing so many of our fellow citizens leave for these countries, why not imagine a charter city managed by the United States or Canada, which would allow prospective emigrants to obtain everything they are looking for without leaving the country?”

They began working with Paul Romer to implement his vision...

Unfortunately, a few months later, Paul Romer, dissatisfied with certain aspects of the project, decided to resign4. Shortly thereafter, the Honduran Supreme Court declared the project unconstitutional, as it placed part of the country’s territory outside its full jurisdiction5.

This seemed to put a stop to the project.

Would this idea join the vast graveyard of interesting ideas that never came to fruition?

Coming soon

In the next article, we’ll take a look at the radical vision that turned charter cities from theory into reality — a world where citizens become customers, and in which new economic and governance systems can be tested at a speed never before seen in history.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & LinkedIn, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter:

And here is the first articles in this series :

Here is the recording of that Space, slightly edited to remove a technical glitch.

Summary of the conversation

This is an AI-generated summary of our conversation. Please note that this is NOT a word-for-word transcript, but rather a summary. To view the real transcript, click on the “Transcript” button at the top of the article or next to the audio.

Parviz Malakouti: All right, this is Citizenship and Immigration Attorney Parviz Malakouti. Today is October 9th, 10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, and this is our 40th mobility space. Today we’re talking about Network versus Nation-State Territorial Laws, and we have a real treat today. We’re joined by our co-host, Olivier Roland of Disruptive Horizons. He’s going to help us talk about some of these issues, and we’re going to reference an interesting article that he wrote, Elon Musk vs. The Nation-States.

So my first question to you, Olivier, is—tell us a little bit about yourself. What is Disruptive Horizons? What are the topics that you write about?

Olivier’s Background

Olivier Roland: Sure. I’m an entrepreneur. I have been since I was 19. I dropped out of high school at 18 to start my first business. I launched an internet business in 2009 and have been a digital nomad for 15 years, traveling about six months per year. I left France ten years ago—three years in London and now seven in Dubai.
I wrote a bestselling book in France about education and entrepreneurship, and I extended those ideas to the disruption of the nation-state by the internet and globalization. Disruptive Horizons is my Substack, a collection of extracts from that new book.

Nation-State vs. Network

Parviz Malakouti: Wonderful. Congratulations on publishing that book. Let’s focus on speech and access to speech. Would you say the main thesis of your article Elon Musk vs. the Nation-States is that nation-states are losing control of people within their borders from accessing the internet?

Olivier Roland: The foundation thesis of my book is that there is a war between the State and the Network. The State is descending; the network is ascending. I think eventually the Network will win, though it’s not guaranteed.

Already, most states have lost control of speech and communication except maybe China. VPNs and circumvention tools are ubiquitous. For example, in Dubai you can’t make WhatsApp calls—but absolutely everyone uses VPNs anyway. It’s illegal, but the government turns a blind eye.

The real power states still have is the ability to shut down the internet completely. Satellite access, like Starlink, changes that. In Iran, people already use Starlink for uncensored internet. So yes, satellite internet will make censorship far harder.

State Reaction

Parviz Malakouti: Nation-states usually react when they lose power. How do you see them responding to people accessing networks or satellites beyond their jurisdiction?

Olivier Roland: They’ll ban and threaten. They’ll fine or jail people. But their main tool—the monopoly of violence—only works where they have physical reach.
Take Brazil. Judge Moraes asked Twitter (now X) to censor some accounts. Elon Musk refused, saying the judge overstepped. Moraes then threatened the Twitter Brazil director with jail. Musk fired the director and removed Twitter’s physical presence from Brazil.

Then Moraes fined both Twitter and SpaceX. Musk eventually caved—he paid the fine and censored the accounts. The Network lost that battle, even though it is clear that Moraes clearly overstepped his authority by attacking SpaceX, a company that has nothing in common with X except for having the same CEO..

But in Nepal, the government banned social media for similar reasons, and the people revolted. They sided with the network against the state, toppled the government, and even chose a new leader through Discord. That’s historic.

Sovereign Individuals & Mobility

Parviz Malakouti: You’ve touched on something key—the person’s body must still be somewhere. That’s the physical attack vector.
For individuals seeking sovereignty, mobility is critical. Having robust freedom of movement—citizenship, visas, and the ability to exit and enter freely—is how one protects against nation-state overreach.
From your perspective, how should individuals position themselves to maximize freedom as the network rises?

Olivier Roland: The losing power always fights back. The arrest of Pavel Durov in France shows this. He’s being held responsible for Telegram content. It’s absurd.

To have maximum freedom, first: align with the network. Be digital-first. Build income online. When your work is location-independent, you gain leverage. You become a customer of jurisdictions, not a subject. Governments must compete for you.

Second: embrace mobility. I left France—one of the most taxed countries—and found better governance in Dubai. There are hundreds of jurisdictions; it’s statistically improbable your birthplace is the best one.

Third: if you’re American, it’s harder because of citizenship-based taxation. You’re, in a sense, owned by your state.

Citizenship-Based Taxation

Parviz Malakouti: We probably have 50% American listeners here.

Olivier Roland: I love the U.S., but I’m so glad I’m not American—because of citizenship-based taxation. It’s neo-feudalism. You’re taxed wherever you go.

Parviz Malakouti: We are fighting to put an end to this

Privacy & Power

Parviz Malakouti: Is privacy the next battleground between network and state? If Musk’s ownership of SpaceX had not been so public, if he would have been an unknown entrepreneur, would Brazil’s case have ended differently?

Olivier Roland: Possibly. And particularly, if SpaceX had no presence in Brazil, the state’s leverage would vanish. But the key is technology—soon Starlink will broadcast directly to smartphones. When that happens, censorship becomes impossible without confiscating everyone’s phone.

Financial Control & Crypto

Patrick: What about money? Will states lose control of that too?

Olivier Roland: Yes. Uncensored internet equals uncensored crypto. Satellite-based access will destroy control over money. National currencies will lose monopoly power like newspapers did after the internet. It’s already happening in Nigeria.

Coordination Failure

Parviz Malakouti: But large powers like the G7 won’t give up control easily.

Olivier Roland: True. The weak states lose first; the strong ones later. The OECD’s attempt with Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 shows how hard global coordination is. States act like a cartel, and cartels are unstable. The U.S. benefits from backing the network, so coordination fails.

Parviz Malakouti: Exactly. It’s a reverse prisoner’s dilemma—just a few defectors and the whole system collapses.

Safe Havens & Mobility

Olivier Roland: Small countries can serve as safe havens. They can host digital citizens and entrepreneurs the major states push away.

Parviz Malakouti: Agreed. People need physical refuge to access the network freely. Freedom of movement is the answer—being able to move before you’re prosecuted, before you’re trapped.

Public Figures & Power

Patrick: But public figures like Durov or Musk can’t just “move.” States can target them at will.

Parviz Malakouti: True. The more prominent you are, the more vulnerable. But mobility and multiple citizenships can mitigate that.

Olivier Roland: And some States can choose to protect them. History shows this too. During the Reformation, Protestant leaders found protection under sympathetic princes. In our era, small states like El Salvador might grant diplomatic immunity to figures like Durov.
Imagine the publicity—“El Salvador protects freedom of speech.” It’s powerful.

Decentralization & Resistance

Olivier Roland: States can arrest leaders, but they can’t arrest decentralized movements. Napster lost; BitTorrent won. The network always reconfigures. Leaders may need state allies, but the decentralized base makes the system unstoppable.

Patrick: So ultimately, this is evolution by decentralization.

Olivier Roland: Exactly. The network will prevail—though turbulence is inevitable.

Closing

Parviz Malakouti: Olivier, what’s the name of your book?

Olivier Roland: It’s “Tout le monde n’aura pas la chance de quitter son pays”. It’s in French, but readers can follow my Substack—Disruptive Horizons—whose articles are translated excerpts from my book..

Parviz Malakouti: Perfect. Everyone, check out Disruptive Horizons. Olivier’s insights are invaluable. Our next Mobility Space will be Monday, 11 a.m. PST. Thank you, Olivier, and thank you all for joining.

Olivier Roland: Thank you—it was great to be with you.

Parviz Malakouti: Take care, everyone.

Note : This article is the 1^st in a series on how the internet and globalization are disrupting nation-states—and what new governance models may emerge. Here are the first articles in this series:

1. Same People. Same Culture. 3,000% Difference in Wealth. What Really Happened?

2. Charter Cities : What If Prosperity Could Be Imported Anywhere?

3. Inside the City That Lets You Choose Your Laws

4. Network States : How To Start a Country From Your Phone

5. What Happens When You Can Vote With Your Home?

Throughout this Substack, we have seen how nation states are being disrupted by the internet and globalization, and how their attempts to curb this disruption are causing them to lose legitimacy and effectiveness, while imposing enormous costs on society.

And we have seen that this is happening at the worst possible moment in their history.

Since the beginning of this second part, I have offered you individual solutions to help you succeed. But we are social animals, and we also need effective social models to live together in the best possible way.

The printing press enabled the rise of modern nation-states—built on royal absolutism and powered by gunpowder : what new forms of society will emerge from the Internet and cryptography, based on the unprecedented mobility made possible by modern means of transportation?

Let’s take a look at some of the possibilities.

Scientifically experimenting with models of governance

In marketing, a simple method to find out whether one email subject line or sales page works better than another is to do an A/B test.

What does this test involve? It’s simple: showing two variations of the same page, advertisement, email, etc. to a given audience and measuring which version performs better.

It’s a simple, scientifically established methodology for identifying which elements perform best1 .

Now, imagine if we could do this with political and economic systems—in short, systems of governance: we present a percentage of the population of a given country with governance model A and the remaining percentage with governance model B, then, a few decades later, we come back to measure which governance model has brought the most prosperity.

That would be great, wouldn’t it?

Well, the good news is that tests of this kind have already taken place in history... although generally not intentionally.

Let’s look at some historical examples of these governance experiments

I’m focusing on GDP per capita, although other metrics are possible. But generally, the higher a country’s GDP per capita, the richer it is, and the higher the quality of its infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.

Conversely, the lower a country’s GDP per capita, the shorter its life expectancy, the more difficult its jobs, and the more limited its access to basic services such as running water and electricity throughout the day, as well as entertainment, etc.

Germany

Germany was divided between West Germany (occupied and later liberated by the Americans) and East Germany (under Soviet rule) between 1945 and 1989.

• Per capita GDP of West Germany in 1950: $4,2812

• East Germany’s GDP per capita in 1950: $2,102

• Per capita GDP of West Germany in 1989: $18,016, an increase of 321%

• East Germany’s GDP per capita in 1989: $8,422, an increase of 301%3

It is also interesting to examine what happened after reunification4 :

East Germany’s GDP per capita jumped in the eight years after reunification, before returning to a similar growth rate as before, albeit at a higher level.

Korea

Korea was divided into North Korea and South Korea following the Korean War in 1953.

• South Korea’s GDP per capita in 1953: $1,4695

• North Korea’s GDP per capita in 1953: $1,469

• South Korea’s GDP per capita in 2022: $41,3216 , an increase of 2713%

• North Korea’s GDP per capita in 2022: $1,569, an increase of 6.81% (!)

This chart only began in 1990 for North Korea, but its real GDP per capita actually started at the same level as South Korea in 19507 .

Taiwan

Separated from China following the Chinese Civil War in 1950. Let’s also compare with Hong Kong, a British colony with Chinese culture until its return to China in 1997, then a Chinese territory governed according to the “one country, two systems” principle for good measure.

• Taiwan’s GDP per capita in 1950: $1,4608

• Hong Kong’s GDP per capita in 1950: $4,082

• China’s GDP per capita in 1950: $799

• Taiwan’s GDP per capita in 2022: $53,143, an increase of 3,540%

• Hong Kong GDP per capita in 2022: $48,289, an increase of 1,083%

• China’s GDP per capita in 2022: $19,238, an increase of 2,308%

Note how Hong Kong’s growth came to a screeching halt after the 2019 riots and the ensuing Chinese crackdown.

We will comment on China’s curve a little further down.

Singapore

Expelled from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, two years after joining, following a unanimous vote in parliament, making it the only country in the world to have become independent against its will.

• Singapore’s GDP per capita in 1965: $3,9919

• Malaysia’s GDP per capita in 1965: $2,876

• Singapore’s GDP per capita in 2022: $80,320, an increase of 1,913%

• Malaysia’s GDP per capita in 2022: $26,629, an increase of 826%

What do we learn from looking at these A/B tests?

We see countries that share the same history, culture, and language10 , and which were primarily divided by war (and independence against its will for Singapore).

And we also see major differences in wealth after a few decades. So what made the difference?

Many factors can be eliminated, or at least reduced, due to the relatively similar starting conditions.

Admittedly, there are geographical differences and starting conditions that sometimes diverge somewhat in economic terms, as can be seen in the initial GDP per capita.

But ultimately, what really made the difference were the systems of governance. In each case, one political and economic system clearly demonstrated its superiority over the “rival” system.

There is no doubt, for example, that if the North Korean government had administered the territory of South Korea, and vice versa, there would be a similar but reversed disparity between the two Koreas today: North Korea would be much richer than South Korea.

The wealth of data generated

Tests of this kind are extremely informative, as attentive observers can simply study the system that works better than the other and try to replicate it.

For example, it was after observing the success of Hong Kong that the Chinese government decided to set up a test economic zone in Shenzhen in the early 1980s11 .

The results were immediate12 :

Given Shenzhen’s considerable success, the Chinese government decided to liberalize its economy from the middle of the decade onwards, and especially from the early 1990s onwards13 .

Look again at the Chinese growth curve and note how, while it stagnated or grew slowly until that period, it began to rise sharply from the early 1990s onwards.

Without this experiment, which was then extended to the rest of the country, the current wealth gap between China on the one hand and Taiwan and Hong Kong on the other would be even more pronounced than it is today.

It has therefore been demonstrated that certain countries can take advantage of these tests to develop much faster than before.

However, these tests pose two major problems:

1. They were carried out against the will of the population in each case.

2. Such experiments have been too few and far between.

Now imagine that we could experiment with systems of governance, but without war, without revolution, without forcing a minority of people who do not want to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority.

And imagine that we could conduct not just a few tests here and there, but hundreds, thousands of tests.

A utopia?

Not at all. It already exists. But before explaining this new model of society, we must first talk about...

Coming soon

In the next article, we’ll take a look at how Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Romer proposed the concept of charter cities — experimental zones designed to test new governance models and help developing countries escape poverty.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here is the first articles in this series :

Note : This article is the 7^th in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

Many digital nomads who are not Americans typically set up 1) a residence in a country with territorial taxation, which therefore doesn't tax income generated abroad, and 2) an American LLC.

What's the point? An LLC in the "right" U.S. state has a number of advantages:

• 0% U.S. taxation, provided 1) you have no physical presence in the U.S. (no office, no warehouse, no employees, no U.S. companies or freelancers working exclusively for your business), and 2) you have few customers in the U.S. (ideally, none at all )1.

• Anonymity: no one can see that you are the owner of the business, unlike many countries that require you to make this information public, provided you set it up in one of the four states that allow this anonymity: Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico or Wyoming. Please note, however, that the IRS and other branches of government will know your identity, as will the bank you use, the payment processor and so on. Quite simply, no one will be able to find this information by searching the Internet.

• No information is transmitted abroad, as the USA has not signed the CRS discussed in previous articles - it is the last developed country not to have done so. In theory, this makes it possible to defraud the tax authorities as you did in the 90s or earlier, but again, I wouldn't recommend doing this: firstly, the US administration could transmit this data following a request from foreign tax authorities; secondly, the tax authorities in your country have other ways of detecting that you're defrauding them. Instead, go abroad and take full advantage of the freedom the Network gives you. For those of us who cherish our privacy, the absence of any information being shared abroad is just a bonus.

• No accounting required: in New Mexico, for example, you only have to fill out two documents a year and send them to the IRS.

The state generally used is New Mexico, which requires the least reporting and paperwork.

Note that, if you live in a country that has implemented CFC rules - which is the case in the vast majority of countries - managing this LLC creates a permanent establishment in the country in which you live, which will be taxed like a normal corporation.

This is why LLCs are mainly used by digital nomads who either have no legal tax residence, or are domiciled in a country with a territorial tax system.

Keep in mind that, in theory, running an LLC in a territorial tax jurisdiction like Panama or Costa Rica creates a permanent establishment in that country, and its income is taxed there, since it is not generated abroad but through a local establishment.

However, these territorial tax countries are notoriously uninterested in this situation, knowing full well that they would not collect any additional taxes by applying this rule, but would simply drive the residents concerned elsewhere.

If you live in such a country and want to comply with this regulation to the letter, you can simply use a local company when you're in that country, and your LLC when you travel outside the country.

If you travel for six months a year, this will halve your tax rate. If it's 3 months of travel per year, that's a 25% tax savings.

Comparable entities

LLCs are the best-known structures for this purpose, but there are others, notably UK LLPs, or Estonian OÜs (very easy to set up by becoming an Estonian e-resident, which takes just a few minutes online). With the right organization, you can end up with 0% tax with these companies.

A note on 0% tax

I have a lot of digital nomad friends, and I've noticed one thing: the vast majority of them appreciate being taxed at 0%, but very few put finding that rate at the top of their priorities.

For example, I haven't noticed even a modest inclination to leave Dubai after the introduction of the 9% corporate tax among my local friends and acquaintances.

Most of them feel that the 9% is more than worth the quality of services rendered in return, and that it makes no difference: Dubai remains one of the best value-for-money locations for governance services in the world.

Because at the end of the day, many people understand that governance services such as infrastructure, security, or sound governance come at a price, and they're just looking for 1) good value for money to 2) live in a place they appreciate.

This second point is very important. Again, at the end of your life, you'll remember your love letters more than your bank statements, so don't bury yourself in a place you don't like just to pay less tax. It's a big world out there, full of exotic places that have much more to offer than low taxes.

If, however, you are taxed at 0%, you can take this as an invitation to choose your own taxes, as I did when I decided to donate 10% of my earnings to charity, as I mentioned in the introduction.

Likewise, understand that even products and services subject to intense competition never see their price drop to zero: so there's no reason why governance services should be free.

Note also that people who are officially at 0%, such as those like me who lived in Dubai before 2024, are never actually at 0%: they often pay VAT or an equivalent tax on the products and services they buy, and other direct and indirect taxes, on alcohol, airline tickets, etc., as well.

So, even if France dropped all taxes except VAT tomorrow, you'd still be paying around 20% tax on everything you spend2 !

That's right: even those who live in tax havens can't completely escape taxation. Which seems only fair, to finance the governance services we use.

Coming Soon :

This article concludes our mini-series. In the next series, we will look at new forms of governance that are fueled by the Internet, rather than disrupted by it.

Stay tuned! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 6^th in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

Ah, Dubai. If there's one city that provokes heated and contrasting reactions, it's this one.

It's simple: I've never seen a place where people say so many stupid things and accumulate so many clichés.

And I understand why: before I went there, I had a lot of preconceived ideas about the city. In fact, the first time I went there, it was almost against my will: my girlfriend's best friend at the time was getting married there, and she really wanted us to go.

I remember my reaction: “Dubai? But what's there? Nothing! Why would anyone want to go there?”

So I forced myself to go to make her happy... and I found myself loving the city.

I had been living in London for just under three years, and, as a digital nomad, I was ready to move somewhere else: I was wondering where my next country of residence would be.

Dubai had piqued my curiosity, so I took advantage of a trip to Asia to stop there for a few days on the way there and back1 to explore the city a little more.

That convinced me, and in mid-2018, I decided to move there.

Given all the preconceived notions that circulate about it and the experience I've gained living here, I invite you to take a little dive into this city-state to dispel some of the most common myths.

It has to be said that the overwhelming majority of criticism comes from people who have never set foot there or, at best, spent ten days there and, as soon as they got back on the plane, took malicious pleasure in criticizing everything and anything.

We will see in particular that Dubai is an excellent example of a state that has perfectly understood its place in the modern world and its position in the jurisdiction market, which is to offer governance services at unbeatable value for money.

Cliché no. 1: Dubai's money comes from oil

First of all, it's important to understand what we mean by Dubai: it's a state in a federation of seven states called the United Arab Emirates.

And, this will probably surprise you, but oil today accounts for less than 1% of Dubai's GDP2 and has been a minority part of the state's economy for a long time3.

Within this federation, the state whose economy is still largely based on oil today is Abu Dhabi, which is the largest of the seven members, and Saudi Arabia's neighbor.

Has oil always represented a minority share of Dubai's economy?

No. Oil was indeed found in Dubai from 1966 onwards and, for a time, it represented a significant part of its economy (production peaked in 1991, before declining every year since), even though reserves represented only 4% of those of the emirates.

Dubai's citizens could have spent these millions on frivolous things and enjoyed life, but the ruler at the time, Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, knew this would not last. As he declared at the time, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."

What he meant was that oil wasn't going to last forever, and that the future had to be secured by investing in ambitious projects. In the past, Dubai's main source of income was pearl oyster fishing, and had been for over 200 years: at the beginning of the 20^th century, this activity still accounted for 95% of Dubai's economy... and that of the Gulf countries4 !

This ancient industry was completely disrupted when the Japanese found a way to create pearls from oysters in large quantities in the late 1920s, instead of having to find them naturally.

Overnight, the source of money that had sustained an entire people dried up. This had a lasting effect on the standard of living of the people of Dubai, and left a lasting impression on their minds.

To avoid repeating the same scenario with oil, the sheikh took an absolutely incredible gamble, so much so that many people thought he was crazy at the time: he invested a huge portion of this oil money in a port - the Jebel Ali port - with, from the outset, the vision of making Dubai the main port in the Middle East.

It was a bold move. Not only was Dubai a village of oyster fishermen who had recently found themselves out of work, but it was located in a desert country in the middle of nothing: electricity didn't arrive until the 1960s. It wasn't at all clear that it would be worth building a port there... and that it would be of any use.

His son Mohammed, Dubai's current sheikh, even asked him "to stop this project before you bankrupt the whole country5 ", to which he replied: "I'm building this port now because there will come a time when you won't be able to afford it."

In the end, his gamble paid off, as today the port of Jebel Ali is the world's largest man-made port, Dubai's greatest financial asset, the Middle East's largest port by volume, the world's eleventh largest6 , and even... the US Navy's first overseas seaport7 !

The Sheikh embarked on many other projects that made Dubai what it is today, as did his son Maktoum (ruler from 1990 to 2006) and his other son Mohammed (ruler from 2006 to the present day), with the result that today Dubai is a major global financial center and one of the world's gold (accounting for 25% of world trade8 ) and diamond (third in the world9 ) trading capitals.

Another extremely important source of revenue is tourism.

In 2019 (just before the covid disruptions), Dubai was the fourth most visited city in the world behind Bangkok, Paris and London10 , with almost 16 million annual visitors.

In 2023, Euromonitor ranked Dubai as the third most visited city in the world11.

So the next time someone tells you that Dubai was built on oil alone, you can tell them it's not entirely untrue... but it's a lot more complicated than that.

There was one occasion, however, when oil from Dubai's rich uncle - Abu Dhabi, which holds 8% of the world's reserves - contributed directly to Dubai: during the 2008-2009 crisis, Dubai was on the verge of bankruptcy, as were several government-owned companies - including the one building the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest tower.

To avert disaster, Abu Dhabi lent Dubai $20 billion12 , at a very competitive rate.

In this particular case, oil has indeed played an important role in the economy, but apart from that, its impact on Dubai's economy is peanuts.

Cliché no. 2: women's rights.

"In Dubai, women aren't allowed to drive!

How many times have I heard remarks like that?

I'll tell you right now, if you still believe that: not only are you confusing this with Saudi Arabia, but you're also confusing it with the Saudi Arabia of the past, since women have had the right to drive there since 2018.

In Dubai, women have always been able to drive (Saudi Arabia being the only country in the world to ban it 13 ). And, as I write this, nine of the government's thirty-two ministers are women.

And rather than give you just my male point of view, I share here the opinion of a Canadian friend, Isabelle, who currently lives in Dubai:

"I'm Isabelle, a physics engineer, and I'm lucky enough to live in Dubai. I can tell you that my first impression was that of a VIP resident.

As women, we have many advantages. For example, when we take the metro, there's a pink section reserved just for us.

When the metro is very busy, I can assure you that it's very pleasant to have a section where there are only women.

Secondly, when I walk around Dubai, I never feel insecure; on the contrary, it's always been very pleasant. I've never been stared at or felt spied on - it's a really safe place. And I'm someone who loves walking.

We can dress freely, always with respect for others, of course, but freely all the same.

At the water park, for example, you'll see some people wearing head-to-toe swimsuits, while others will be wearing light bikinis. Everyone cohabits smoothly, without animosity, with a great deal of respect and without a hint of judgment in their eyes either.

I immediately felt I was in an environment where women's clothing choices are respected, which is a very pleasant feeling.

Finally, I can tell you one last personal anecdote, which I found a little special... because I felt slightly uncomfortable about having used my feminine advantages. I went to an administrative center to get service and in the end, the service wasn't very good, because of the civil servant. To resolve the situation, I simply asked to be served by a woman. The official replied, 'yes, no problem,' since it's a woman's right in Dubai to request service from another woman.

So I was able to change officials without any problem, and the service was much better, it was great.

What's amazing, finally, is that I feel Dubai is one of the places in the world where I've felt the most VIP as a woman."

Women sometimes ask me "yes, but is it okay to walk around without a veil? Can we wear a bikini on the beach?" This allows me to make a smooth transition to Western life here, and tolerance in general towards non-Muslim practices.

Cliché no. 3: you have to follow Muslim laws, you can't live Western-style

I'll keep it short. If Western-style living is important to you, just as it is to me, then, good news, Dubai is an ideal place.

Yes, you can drink. There are plenty of bars, restaurants and nightclubs where you can drink alcohol. You can easily order some online and have it delivered to your home14.

Yes, you can wear a bikini on the beach. Yes, you can have sex outside marriage, and of course no one is asking you to follow the principles of Islam.

You should know that until 2022, sex outside marriage was officially forbidden. But if you've been following all the articles on this Substack, you'll have understood that one of my core values is freedom... and I would never have come to live in Dubai if I didn't have this freedom to live my life as a Westerner.

When I went there in 2018, the ban was still officially in force, but after doing some research, I could see that nobody had a problem with it: before they were repealed, the old laws simply weren't enforced.

If there's one thing to understand about Dubai, it's that it's probably one of the places in the world where you have to read between the lines the most. There are many laws that seem completely archaic, but they are no longer applied, at least not on a large scale.

In my opinion, the Emiratis are probably one of the most tolerant people in the world.

This will undoubtedly make some people howl, especially those who criticize the human rights situation in the United Arab Emirates (more on this later), but we need to put things in context: we're talking about a Gulf country whose big neighbor, Saudi Arabia, until recently banned women from driving, and banned cinema and music from public spaces.

Dubai, on the other hand, is so open and tolerant that Saudis come here at weekends to indulge (much as they do on the Côte d'Azur, for those in the know). Homosexuality is officially forbidden, although in reality Dubai is a haven of freedom for gays in the Middle East.

So, while there is immense tolerance for non-Muslim customs - in terms of dress, partying and so on - there are also certain exceptions. But there are also certain rules to bear in mind.

The first is that no one is ever going to come and bother you as long as you don't cause a scandal in public. On the other hand, if you start flouting values that are important to the locals, you're likely to run into trouble. Here, those famous archaic laws, which are no longer applied, may eventually be enforced because you didn't understand what was meant between the lines.

However, it's important to understand that their requirements are nothing out of the ordinary.

For example, we've seen examples of couples arrested for making love on the beach15 . Well, I'm sorry, but in most countries, including France and the USA, it's forbidden: if you indulge in sexual acts in public, you're going to get arrested.

If you look at the evolution of laws in Dubai - as well as in the UAE Federation as a whole - you can see that change always goes in the same direction: to please its expatriate population, and Western expatriates in particular, because Dubai without its expatriate population would be absolutely nothing.

I'll come back to this notion in a moment.

Last but not least, Pope Francis visited the Emirates in early 2019, and even said mass for 170,000 Catholics in a stadium. He was the very first pope in the history of Christianity to visit a Gulf country16.

Cliché no. 4: you need a local sponsor to set up a business in Dubai

It's true, but there's one important nuance to be aware of: in the Emirates, there are 45 "free zones"17 .

What are free zones?

These are zones where Emirati laws either do not apply in full, or apply differently. The aim is to attract foreign investors and companies by offering them facilities and advantages, and even sets of laws with which they are more familiar.

For example, the DIFC free zone applies Anglo-Saxon (common law) law, in particular that of England 18 , and employs judges who have trained and operated in Great Britain and other Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, enabling all companies preferring this system to operate in Dubai regardless.

Since 2011, it has even been possible for any company in the world to use the DIFC's services to resolve disputes, regardless of where it is incorporated or operates: all it takes is for two companies to specify this in their contract. And even if this is not specified in the contract, it is also possible for the parties to agree on the DIFC's jurisdiction when a dispute already exists.

So here we have an interesting example of a zone that dissociates its location from the laws that apply there, in two ways: by allowing the laws of another country to be used, and by allowing companies located in any country to use its services. We'll see another, even more radical example of such dissociation later on, which I believe will become increasingly common in the future.

But even without going that far, with 45 free zones, that's just about one free zone for every situation. And none of these free zones require you to have a sponsor: as a foreigner, you can be 100% owner of your company (and that's the solution I chose).

Then there are the mainland companies: all those that are not in a free zone.

Indeed, until recently, you had to have a sponsor who actually owned 51% of the shares (as in many countries in the region, and in Asia).

In practice, to get around this problem, all you had to do was call on companies specializing in this service. They would draw up a contract between you and the local sponsor, which basically stipulated that this person would receive a monthly or annual remuneration, and had strictly no voting rights in the company or any real share19.

But all that is no longer necessary, since a law was passed in 202120 , which basically says that you no longer need a sponsor to set up a company in mainland if your business falls into one of the many categories covered (over 1000!).

Cliché no. 5: there are slaves

We also hear this a lot: the Dubai towers were built by slaves, Pakistani and Indian workers who were promised an extraordinary life and ended up stuck here. When they arrive, their passports are confiscated, they are crammed into insalubrious accommodation, then forced to work for the rest of their lives with no hope of return.

As is often the case, the reality is a little more nuanced. First of all, let's be clear: the working conditions of construction workers are indeed probably one of the darkest spots in the Emirates.

But is it as bad as some people make out? I don't think so, because a crucial parameter is often overlooked.

I've had the opportunity to talk to a number of cab and Uber drivers, and here's their profile: men, generally Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan or of some other South Asian nationality.

This may come as a shock to us Westerners, but when we ask them about it, they explain that they've come here on their own (so far so good), while their families are back home and they see them once a year, sometimes every two years.

When asked "why don't you arrange for your family to come here?", they reply "it's not possible, the cost of living is too high, my wife wouldn't know what to do, my children have to go to school and I wouldn't be able to afford it...".

So yes, this situation is far from ideal.

But if you ask them, "Why did you come despite all these constraints? Why don't you want to go back home?", they'll answer, in the overwhelming majority of cases: "Because in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka... I'd earn a lot less. I came here of my own free will, because it allows me to feed my family, to make sure my children are educated. I don't plan to stay here forever, but simply for a few years, and I'm making this sacrifice knowingly."

You can experience this for yourself: next time you go to Dubai, have a chat with the cab drivers.

When you look at the construction industry, you realize that most workers are exactly like this. Even if, indeed, there are people to whom false promises are made and whose passports are confiscated.

Let's talk about passport confiscation.

Officially, it's forbidden. In reality, this practice exists, and we need to understand where it comes from.

The basic problem is that in the Emirates, your visa is linked to your job, which means that if you lose your job, you lose your visa. And you have roughly one month to either find another job or go back home.

And the second basic problem is that it's the employers who pay for the visa, at a cost that generally varies from 750 to 1750 euros21.

So what do some employers do?

They ask for their employees' passports to make sure that they'll be working for them for at least a few months, so that their investment in the visa isn't lost.

I know someone who had this misfortune: a Vietnamese man who worked in a restaurant and had to hand over his passport to the boss. When he wanted to get it back because he wanted to stop working for him, the boss told him "no, I want you to continue working for me for a while".

What did this person do? She called the Vietnamese embassy, which called the boss back and told him in essence "Sir, this passport is the property of the Vietnamese government, we ask you to return it and if you don't, we will file a complaint with the police."

The boss complied immediately, and returned the passport.

So if someone whose passport has been confiscated goes to complain to the police or their embassy, they should legally be able to get it back.

However, aren't there situations where immigrant workers who don't speak English or Arabic and don't know their rights are being manipulated?

Perhaps, but that only represents a small proportion of the people who work in Dubai.

But let's go back to the question of working conditions, with these workers crammed into insalubrious housing or these cab drivers who see their families once a year or worse... Their plight clearly offends our Western sensibilities, but we must also put ourselves in their shoes.

I found a very interesting analysis of this situation in the documentary Free to Choose, directed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

Friedman visits a textile workshop in Hong Kong, where many people work under difficult conditions. He asks the question: "Are these working conditions ideal? No. "But are these people forced to do this?" No, they don't. They've chosen to come to Hong Kong, voluntarily, to work in notoriously difficult conditions, because it's a sacrifice they're making for their children and their descendants.

And he adds: "If today, you can judge the working conditions of these people as less than ideal, it's because your grandparents, your grandparents' grandparents and all the people who were there before them made the sacrifice that allows you today to have these comforts and social standards that are quite simply extraordinary.

It's because our grandparents' grandparents broke their backs in the fields, in the factories... that today we can enjoy far more comfortable material conditions.

Friedman concludes: "Who are you to criticize the choice of these people, who choose to make sacrifices in their soul and conscience to improve the prospects of their children and their descendants?"

So we must also ask ourselves about all those people who come to work in Dubai by choice, under difficult conditions, admittedly, but undoubtedly much less harsh than in their countries of origin. What would you do in their place?

Some will retort: "They can just come to France, Europe, the United States...". Well no, the overwhelming majority of these men and women would not be accepted in Western countries, their visas would be refused at the embassy, they would be turned back at the border and expelled from the country if they had entered illegally.

So what choice do they have? And who are you to criticize them and the governments that accept them?

The truth is that there's a global market for this type of worker, and they go to the countries that accept them under the best conditions. If they don't come to Western countries, it's because those countries don't accept them.

It's important to understand that the need to control borders and refuse the applications of most would-be immigrants is largely linked to the welfare state: it's to ensure that they make a significant contribution to the economy, rather than taking advantage of the welfare state without paying in return, that controls are so draconian.

A country like the Emirates can afford to accept immigrants en masse, with very light controls, because the government knows that they will contribute to the economy because they have no other choice and there is no welfare state to take advantage of.

So it's very easy for companies in the Emirates to hire labor from all over the world: all they have to do is get the person to sign an employment contract and pay for the visa, then as soon as the person has sent in their papers (including proof that they're not a criminal/terrorist) and taken their medical test22 , voila! She gets her visa and can live and work in the Emirates. The average time between the company's application and obtaining the visa that allows the employee to come to the Emirates for testing is five days23 (!). This is one of the fastest and most efficient processes in the world, and a significant advantage over Western countries, including the United States24.

Cliché no. 6: there's no nature in Dubai.

Certainly, if you like virgin forests, jungles and snow-capped mountains, the Emirates are not the place for you. But to say that there's no nature here... don't exaggerate.

Right next door, there's a desert, mountains over 1,500 metres high, mangroves and the sea, where you can do fantastic things, and the flora and fauna typical of these environments.

You can also enjoy a wide range of water sports. Living right across the beach, I regularly go wakesurfing, for example.

There are even forests, covering almost 5% of the territory (compared with 0.5% in Saudi Arabia, for example25 , although this is of course less than France's 31% or Canada's 39% )26.

There's a nature reserve, populated by thousands of flamingos, right in the heart of Dubai, a ten-minute drive from the iconic Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest tower27.

I took this video of the Ras Al Khor Wildlife Sanctuary myself. Did you know that you can see thousands of flamingos frolicking in the water, with the Burj Khalifa visible in the background?

And the best thing about Dubai is that you're ideally placed to travel all over the world, including nearby countries with much more varied climates and landscapes - India, Turkey and Georgia spring to mind.

Cliché no. 7: Dubai is superficial

"I don't like Dubai... because it has no soul.
- But wait, are you an exorcist or something?"

Fary, Montreux Festival

First of all, we need to agree on what superficial means.

When I'm told that Dubai is superficial, and I ask why, I'm usually told: "People are just there to show off their money" or "It's all concrete, it's prefabricated in the desert, it's got no soul, no interest."

Of course, if for you authenticity equals history, Dubai may not appeal, as it's a recent city. Then again, a few decades ago, it was an oyster-fishing village, where there was nothing.

So if that's what you think superficial is, then you're right. For my part, I don't find it superficial, just modern. A recent object, building or place can have a soul. Soul has nothing to do with age or modernity.

If you think Dubai is superficial because it's all about appearance, then yes, that's partly true... as it is in almost every place in the world. If you live in a small village deep in the countryside, perhaps this isn't the case, but in most big cities - Dubai included - part of the population does focus on appearance.

Dubai is a city of 3.5 million inhabitants. In such a metropolis, you can find whatever you want, including deeply authentic people, including places with a soul.

Cliché no. 8: Dubai isn't green

This is one of the most frequent criticisms levelled at Dubai.

People talk about its unbridled energy consumption, about things that are completely extravagant, like the big useless cars, or the world's biggest indoor ski slope, which is in the middle of the desert... It's largely true. At least, it used to be.

In 2006, the Emirates were named by the WWF as the worst country in the world from an ecological point of view (the United States coming second )28.

The government is aware of this problem and has chosen to tackle it head on. Today, Dubai's official goal is to be the city with the lowest carbon footprint in the world by 2050, and by that date, 75% of the electricity required by the city should come from renewable energy.

The Masdar City district, for example, was designed from the outset as a zero-emission, completely self-sufficient neighborhood.

Water and electricity prices, which were highly subsidized by the government at the outset, have now risen sharply to encourage people to save money.

The Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (Dewa) website is particularly well designed. Every month, we receive our water and electricity bill (in PDF format) and a visual comparison of our consumption with other similar apartments. And if we consume more than others, we get tips on how to save.

If you'd like to find out more about this policy, you can visit the official Dubai Carbon website.

So, yes, it's still a problem today: Dubai isn't the greenest city in the world, but the government is aware of this and is making huge investments to remedy the situation.

Dubai has a huge advantage in this respect: its sunshine, which provides an inexhaustible source of renewable energy.

In 2024, the country's first nuclear power plant was completed in Abu Dhabi: it is capable of supplying 25% of the country's energy needs, which will prevent the equivalent of the air pollution of 3.2 million cars a year29.

As for reproaching people living in the desert for using air conditioning - which I sometimes hear - it's like reproaching Finns for using heating in winter.

People sometimes say to me, "That's really stupid, they built Dubai in the middle of the desert." Dear friends, the Emirates are a desert. Where did you want the Emirates to build this city? Do you also blame the Norwegians for building cities in cold places that have to be heated later?

After a while, you just have to stop.

Cliché no. 9: Human rights

Let's move on to the hot topic of human rights.

Here again, it's a criticism that comes up very often: "Can you believe it, the Emirates, my God, their history in terms of human rights, it's really horrible."

What I propose is that together we read Amnesty International's report on the United Arab Emirates to pick out the main points, then compare it to other Western countries, including France30.

• 26 people in prison for calling for democratic reforms.

• One of them, Ahmed Mansoor, has been in solitary confinement for 7 years31.

• The death penalty is still in force, the last execution having taken place in 2017. There were four executions in the 2010s, for the rape and murder of a four-year-old in a mosque32 , one murder, one murder with terrorism33 , and the rape and murder of an eight-year-old34.

Do I approve of these facts? By no means. And I'm personally opposed to the death penalty in general, although I must confess that when I look at the cases of 2010, particularly the child rape cases, I don't necessarily feel like marching in the streets to defend abolition.

Now let's compare with the United States:

1. 30 people still arbitrarily detained at Guantanamo for over 20 years without the benefit of a trial, most of them having been tortured, as we saw earlier in this series.

2. Restricting the right of assembly. Sixteen states have introduced 23 bills restricting the right to demonstrate, five of which have been passed in four states.

3. Excessive use of force. Police shot dead 1,153 people in 2023. Blacks were disproportionately affected by the use of lethal force, accounting for nearly 18.5% of deaths due to police use of firearms, despite making up around 13% of the population.

4. The death penalty is still authorized in 27 states (19 of which still have the capacity to apply it), as well as at federal level (which has, however, introduced a moratorium), and for certain military crimes. There were 24 executions in 2023, and 344 from 2010 to 202035.

For France:

• Racist discrimination and attacks "all year round".

• Unlawful attacks and killings: the French legal framework regulating the use of lethal force and firearms by law enforcement officials did not comply with international human rights law and standards.

• Freedom of assembly: the authorities repeatedly imposed excessive, disproportionate and illegitimate restrictions on the right to demonstrate. A large number of demonstrators have been arbitrarily arrested, fined or had their equipment confiscated. In many cases, local authorities have banned demonstrations without examining other means of ensuring that they take place peacefully. In April, the Paris Administrative Court ordered the suspension of the latest in a series of orders imposing a general ban on demonstrations. The court ruled that the order constituted "a manifestly illegal infringement of the freedom to demonstrate", and that the ban appeared "neither necessary nor proportionate to the preservation of public order".

• Mass surveillance: in preparation for the Olympic Games planned for Paris in 2024, Parliament has passed a new law authorizing the use of artificial intelligence-assisted mass video surveillance technologies by law enforcement agencies.

• Unfair trial and degrading treatment: a man suspected of having committed a terrorist attack in 1980 and living in Canada was extradited despite serious doubts expressed by the Canadian judge as to the soundness of his case36 , and placed in solitary confinement for three years, before being cleared by the trial judges. He then returned to Canada, was retried and sentenced in absentia, in circumstances criticized by Amnesty International.

Anyway, my point is this. My point is that, yes, the situation isn't perfect in the Emirates, that's clear. But if you're waiting to find a perfect country that's 100% validated by Amnesty International, you can get up early.

And above all: do we have to agree with 100% of what the government of a country and its people do to live there?

In fact, there's a threshold: if you agree with only 20% of what a country's government does, for example, you probably won't want to go and live there. But if you agree with 80% of what the government does, you probably won't ask too many questions either.

For example, the mass surveillance and control that the Chinese government now exercises over its population, as we saw in previous articles, is so repulsive to me that I would never go and live in China under those circumstances.

And for those of you for whom this Amnesty report conditions your choice of country to live in, I hope you will remain consistent with your values and leave the infamous country of France (or elsewhere) to find a country stamped "Amnesty International".

You can have fun reading other reports on countries you like, and you'll see that very few states have nothing to reproach themselves for.

From what I've seen, Iceland doesn't come in for too much criticism. So if that's really an essential criterion for you, Iceland looks pretty good.

So the Emirates aren't perfect, it's true, but when it comes to Dubai, the criticism is exaggerated in relation to the facts.

Let's take another simple example, with another very fashionable destination among digital nomads: Thailand.

Hardly anyone criticizes people who go to Thailand, even though the country's human rights record isn't exactly stellar (read the report). In particular, the military wields considerable power, making it the fourth country in the world with the most military coups d'état37.

So, when it comes to human rights, the difference in treatment between the Emirates, Thailand and the United States is glaringly obvious, and has no rational basis whatsoever.

In conclusion

What we need to remember from all this is that, as is often the case, things are not black and white, but far more complicated than we hear in the media or from people who have never been to Dubai or have only stayed a few days.

Yes, Dubai is far from perfect. Yes, it's easy to dislike it for real, rational reasons. But no, it's not as black as you've been told.

Another important lesson is that single-country people have a lot of clichés about the world. And that's normal, because they only know their own culture and have very limited experience of the rest of the world. So they look at the world through a distorting lens, getting their information only from media that are themselves largely made up of single-country people.

Again, it's the same difference as between someone who has lived all his life in a village of 500 inhabitants, including 300 sheep, and someone who has lived all his life in a capital city of several million people.

The best way to get rid of these clichés is to stop being a mono-country and go and live abroad. Seeing for yourself the difference between general perception and reality is a fascinating experience, one that opens up your chakras and gives you a far greater ability to play your cards right.

Coming Soon :

In the next article, we’ll pull back the curtain on a strategy many digital nomads quietly use to stay free — combining a home base in a territorial tax country with a U.S. LLC to slash taxes, keep their name off public records, and run a global business with almost no paperwork.

Think of it as the “passport” to a borderless, low-tax life.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 5^th in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

Americas

Costa Rica

This beautiful and very popular country has a territorial tax system, like many other countries in the Americas.

This means that any income generated outside the country is not taxed.

Many expat entrepreneurs with an online business set up an LLC (limited liability company) in the USA to take advantage of this, even though, in theory, this creates a taxable permanent establishment in Costa Rica (more on this in an upcoming article).

However, the local authorities don't seem to be interested in these cases, probably because they are well aware that many of these entrepreneurs would simply go elsewhere.

Panama

Costa Rica's neighbor, with its sulfurous reputation, also has a territorial tax system, and the same type of organization with an American LLC is possible there.

The country also boasts magnificent landscapes and, unlike Costa Rica, its capital is modern and surprisingly friendly: I was pleasantly surprised the first time I went there, seeing it as a kind of Miami in miniature, with more charm.

Nicaragua

Costa Rica's neighbor offers the same advantages as Nicaragua and Panama.

Paraguay

This landlocked country wedged between Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia isn't the best known in the world, but it's used quite frequently by digital nomads to set up a legal and tax "paper residence" that allows them to be officially resident somewhere while they roam the world.

This is due to the relative ease of obtaining permanent residency, which only requires a visit to the country every three years. It's also very easy to obtain a tax number.

Coupled with the possibility of renting an apartment very cheaply in order to have water and electricity bills, this enables digital nomads who need it to open accounts with banks, brokers, etc., many of whom still ask for this obsolete information. - many of whom still require this obsolete information to open an account. Some digital nomads also simply pay the electricity or water bill of a friend somewhere.

Africa

Mauritius

This tropical island paradise, well known to French speakers, offers not only picture-postcard scenery, but also highly advantageous tax conditions: a corporate tax rate of 15%, an income tax rate of 20% maximum, and no tax on capital gains.

What's more, the island has a territorial tax system, and any income generated outside the island is taxed only if it is brought back to the island.

Asia & Middle East

Dubai

Aaaah, Dubai. If there's one city that elicits fiery, contrasting reactions, it's this one.

Quite simply, I've never seen a place about which people talk so much nonsense and accumulate so many clichés.

And I can understand why: even before I went there, I had a lot of preconceived ideas about the city. In fact, the first time I went there, it was almost under duress: my partner's best friend at the time was getting married there, and she absolutely wanted us to go.

I remember my reaction: "Dubai? What's there? There's nothing there! What's the point of going there?"

So I forced myself to please her... and I found myself loving the city.

I'd been living in London for just under three years, and as a digital nomad, I was ready to move elsewhere: I wondered what my next country of residence would be.

Dubai having piqued my curiosity, I took advantage of a trip to Asia to stop off there for a few days1 on the way there and on the way back, to explore the city a little more.

This convinced me, and in mid-2018, I decided to move there.

But you already know that: now that your memory is refreshed, I'm not going to repeat everything I wrote in this article about what made me decide to settle here.

Just remember that I've been living here for a while, so I know a lot about the city and what it has to offer.

Given all the preconceived ideas about the city, and the experience I've gained here, I invite you to take a dip into this city-state to dispel the most common myths.

After all, the overwhelming majority of criticism comes from people who have never set foot in the city or, in the best case scenario, have spent ten days there and, as soon as they get back on the plane, take great pleasure in criticizing everything that moves.

In particular, we'll see that Dubai is an excellent example of a state that has perfectly understood its place in the modern world and its position in the jurisdictional market, which is to offer governance services at unbeatable value for money.

Coming Soon :

In the next article, we’ll challenge the most persistent myths about Dubai — from oil wealth and women's rights to religion, business, and even nature. `

Is Dubai really built only on oil? Are women oppressed? Do you need a local sponsor to launch a business? Is it a soulless concrete jungle?

We’ll unpack these clichés one by one and reveal the surprising truths behind one of the most misunderstood cities in the world.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 4^th in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

Yes, it is possible to live in the European Union and still benefit from very low taxation! Let's take a look at some of the most popular options.

Greece

This country, also renowned for its sunny climate, culture, food... and high taxes, offers two very interesting regimes.

1. The non-domiciled investor regime

This allows people who invest 500,000 euros in Greek assets to pay a flat-rate tax of 100,000 euros a year, regardless of their income or wealth, for up to fifteen years.

The most common asset classes are eligible, and the individual can invest through a company.

The amount may comprise up to three separate investments, and the applicant may conclude the investment(s) up to three years after applying for the status.

Family members can also benefit from this scheme, for an additional tax allowance of €20,000 per adult family member per tax year.

Income from abroad is fully tax-exempt, as are assets held abroad. Income from Greece is subject to the usual Greek tax rates.

To qualify, you must not have been a Greek tax resident for seven of the eight years prior to transferring your tax residence to Greece.

Those opting for this regime are not obliged to declare income received outside Greece, and are not subject to any tax on foreign assets.

It's a scheme similar to the Italian one we saw in this article, aimed at those who already have a certain income: if you earn 200,000 euros a year, your rate will be 50% and that won't be very attractive, whereas if you earn a million a year, the rate will be 10% and therefore very favorable.

However, the 500,000 euro pre-investment requirement is a bit of a killer, especially when compared with other options available in Europe.

2. Non-domicile regime for pensioners

The Greek non-domicile regime for pensioners1 offers a flat-rate tax of 7% on pensions and other income such as dividends, interest and capital gains realized from a foreign source, for up to fifteen years.

If you have already paid tax on foreign income in another country, you can claim tax credits and deductions against the 7% in Greece.

To benefit from these, you must have a pension or pension-like income from a foreign source. This may include payments made under public or private pension schemes, but also dividends, interest, annuities, capital gains, etc.

You must also not have been considered a tax resident in Greece for five of the six years preceding your move, and come from a country that has an active tax administrative cooperation agreement or double taxation treaty with Greece.

This is a very attractive regime, not only for pensioners, but also for annuitants and other passive income earners.

Italy

As detailed in this article.

Malta

This small country south of Sicily offers two very interesting tax regimes:

The non-domiciled regime

This distinguishes residence from domiciliation, which is typically your country of origin2.

Being a non-domiciled resident allows you to live in Malta, to have tax residence there, and to pay tax only on the income you generate from Maltese sources, or from income generated abroad that you bring back to Malta.

Specifically, as a "non-dom" you will pay :

• 0% tax on foreign income not transferred to Malta

• 15% on foreign income transferred to Malta (which is a very low rate)

• 0% tax on capital gains made abroad, whether or not transferred to Malta

• 0% inheritance tax

• You must pay a minimum tax of 5,000 euros each year. If you set things up properly, this could be the only direct tax you pay in Malta.

So, if you have a company in a low-tax country, with at least one local manager, you can have an extremely low-tax setup, while still living in the European Union.

Note again that, if you manage this foreign company from Malta, this will create a permanent establishment which will be domiciled for tax purposes in Malta, so that 1) this company will pay corporation tax in Malta (which is not very high, as we shall see), and above all 2) this income will be Maltese-sourced, and therefore not eligible for the exemptions of the non-dom regime. But then again, some countries check this, and others don't really care, and Malta is a priori in the latter category.

There is no time limit for this regime.

An effective corporate income tax rate of 5%.

Malta's official corporate tax rate is 35%, making it the highest in Europe... except that profit distributed in the form of dividends is eligible for a refund of 6/7 of this tax.

So if you distribute all your profits as dividends, you'll pay 5% corporation tax, the lowest rate in Europe.

There is no time limit for this regime.

Cyprus

This island of Greek culture (at least in the part not occupied by Turkey) offers a Mediterranean climate, 340 days of sunshine a year, excellent cuisine, mountains and sea, and... particularly advantageous tax conditions.

Non-domiciled status

Making the same distinction between residence and domicile as Malta3 , this regime allows full tax exemption on income, dividends and interest received from abroad, as well as on capital gains, except on property sold in Cyprus.

This regime can be used for seventeen years after moving to Cyprus.

A low corporate tax rate by default

at 12.5%.

The possibility of becoming a tax resident for just 60 days a year.

This is particularly interesting for digital nomads who wish to benefit from Cyprus' non-dom regime, while still having a tax residence in a European Union country.

To qualify, you must meet the following conditions:

• Have a business or job in Cyprus, or simply an office

• Have a house in Cyprus at your disposal (rented or purchased)

• And stay for sixty days of the year.

The United Kingdom

In 2024, the United Kingdom announced the end of its "non-domiciliation" system, in existence since 1799, which allowed many foreigners to be completely exempt from tax on foreign-source income, as long as this income remained outside the country.

Is this a counter-example to the trend for countries to offer different tax systems for foreigners?

Not really, no. Instead, the English government has set up a system that is superior to the non-dom in many respects:

• To benefit from it, you can't have been a UK tax resident for the last ten years. This rule applies to foreigners as well as British citizens.

• For the first four years of your UK residency, you will not pay UK tax on your foreign income and capital gains, and :

  • You can bring this money into the UK at no extra cost.

  • You won't pay tax on money in non-resident trusts.

  • You will continue to pay tax on UK-source income and capital gains.

We can see that you can end up with a 0% company with the right organization, for example an American LLC managed by a manager living in a country without CFC rules (more on this below), or just a low-tax company by putting it in Dubai with a local manager.

Poland

A very interesting regime is available for people transferring their tax residence to Poland: they can choose the option of paying a lump sum of PLN 200,000 per year (around 47,000 euros at the time of writing), regardless of the level of their foreign income and without having to declare to the tax authorities the sources of this income, its exact amount and the country in which it was obtained.

To qualify, you need to spend at least PLN 100,000 (just under €24,000) a year on one of the categories of social expenditure provided for (e.g. scientific development).

This means a flat-rate tax of around 71,000 euros a year, which, depending on how much you earn, can be very attractive: with an annual income of 500,000 euros, you're taxed at just 14%.

Coming Soon :

In the next article, we’ll explore how to legally pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa, and Asia — three regions full of surprising, high-potential jurisdictions for digital nomads, entrepreneurs, and investors.

From Costa Rica’s territorial tax system to Mauritius’ tropical low-tax paradise, and Dubai’s unmatched value-for-money governance, we’ll look at how different states position themselves in the global jurisdictional market — and how you can benefit from it.

If you think the EU offers creative solutions… wait until you see what the rest of the world has to offer.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 3^rd in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

It's perfectly possible to take advantage of the jurisdictional market while taking the fight against inequality as a criterion.

But how?

Let's take the example of Jean, a French digital nomad who wants to leave France, partly to pay less tax, but who is keen to go to a country that doesn't have 0% tax, and which practices a good form of wealth distribution so as to reduce inequalities.

He starts by looking at the Tax Foundation's index to determine which countries are more tax-competitive than France:

Well, the good news is that just about every OECD country is more tax-competitive than France!

Then, to determine the degree of equality of the countries he's considering, our digital nomad consults the Gini coefficient of these countries.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of income or wealth in a population. It varies between 0 and 1:

• 0 means perfect equality (everyone has the same income).

• 1 means total inequality (one person has everything).

Jean then realizes something extraordinary:

Estonia, the OECD's 1^stmost tax-competitive country, has a better Gini coefficient than Italy, which is at the very bottom of the ranking!

And Estonia's Gini coefficient is almost identical to France's!

Wow. Jean now knows that he can not only drastically reduce his taxes, but also increase the efficiency of their use: a country with a similar Gini coefficient to another, but with fewer taxes, is more efficient in its use of taxation to redistribute wealth.

Conclusion - The recipe for paying less tax while improving your contribution to society

• Look at which countries are more tax-efficient than yours (using the Tax Foundation's ranking, for example, but also the percentage of tax revenue in GDP shared by the OECD)

• AND the Gini coefficient of these countries

• Then simulate the amount of taxes you would pay in your target country

By moving to countries that have 1) a better Gini coefficient than yours, and 2) lower taxes, you can contribute to a better redistribution system WHILE paying less tax

Coming Soon :

In the next article, we’ll explore how you can live within the European Union while benefiting from remarkably low taxation. From Greece’s flat tax for wealthy investors to Malta’s non-dom status, Cyprus’ flexible 60-day residency, and Poland’s lump-sum tax regime, you’ll discover how these countries are rolling out the red carpet for international residents — without sacrificing your financial freedom.

Whether you're a retiree, entrepreneur, or digital nomad, these legal frameworks could change everything.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 2^nd in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

Let's talk about this essential subject for establishing your sovereignty. The aim here is not to replace the advice of a tax lawyer - I strongly recommend that you consult one to validate your organization - but to give you the basics you need to understand how international taxation works, and avoid certain common mistakes.

The basic thing to understand is that there are two levels:

1. National laws

2. International treaties

And the first principle to understand is this: national criteria for determining who is a tax resident are specific to each country, and often differ from country to country.

Second principle: international treaties always prevail over national laws.

But wait, international treaties? How could our case be covered by a treaty between two countries?

To understand this, let's take a simple example between two countries: France and Portugal.

First, let's look at national laws.

Criteria for becoming a tax resident in Portugal (and therefore paying taxes there)

Portugal has very simple and precise criteria, compared with many other countries, since you become a tax resident:

• if you stay in Portugal for at least 183 days, consecutively or not, in any 12-month period

• OR if you have a home that you intend to occupy as your habitual residence, regardless of the number of days you spend in Portugal.

If you meet only one of these criteria, you are considered a tax resident in Portugal.

Criteria for becoming a tax resident in France (and therefore paying taxes there)

The criteria for France are a little more complex1 :

• You have your home in France or, if you don't have a home there, your main place of residence.

You have your home in France if you live there habitually and permanently with your spouse (or PACS partner and possibly your children) or alone.

If you do not have a home, the place where you are staying will be determined by your actual presence in France.

• You have a salaried or self-employed professional activity in France, unless this activity is carried out on an ancillary basis.

You work in France as your main occupation if you devote the most effective time to it.

• You have the center of your economic interests in France

A person whose French-source income exceeds his or her foreign-source income thus has the center of his or her economic interests in France.

Note: you can see that, in the case of France, the famous 183-day criterion is not mentioned at all, even though it is the first criterion put forward by uninformed people who have just done a quick search on the subject. In fact, very few countries explicitly mention these 183 days (Portugal is an exception). We'll see why next.

Any conflicts?

If you've read the criteria carefully, you can already see that there can be situations that are... conflictual, to say the least.

Let's look at several scenarios to see how these conflicts can be resolved.

Let's imagine you're a French resident moving to Portugal.

You own a company in France, run by a manager, and own real estate. All your income comes from French sources.

You discover Portugal and fall in love with the country.

Scenario 1

You buy a house in Portugal, move in with your spouse and children, and live there seven months a year. You go to France for three months a year, and spend the remaining two months traveling.

Who, Portugal or France, considers you a tax resident?

Let's look again at the criteria shared above:

• Portugal

  • More than 183 days a year in the country: Yes. You are therefore a Portuguese tax resident. No need to look at other criteria, but we'll do so for the sake of completeness.

  • You have a home that you intend to occupy as your habitual residence: Yes.

So that's it, you're a Portuguese tax resident, and that's the end of it, isn't it?

Not so fast. Let's look at the situation in relation to France.

• France

  • You have your home there or, if you don't have a home, your main place of residence: no, because your home (your family) is now in Portugal, and as you spend more than six months of the year in Portugal, your main place of residence is clearly there.

  • You carry out a paid or unpaid professional activity in Portugal, unless this activity is carried out on an ancillary basis:

    • No if you are the owner of your company and do not carry out any activity there, or no main activity.

    • Yes if you are an owner who still plays an active role in your company, despite the presence of the manager.

  • You have the center of your economic interests in France: Yes, because most (and in this case all) of your income comes from France.

A single criterion is enough to make you a French tax resident, but in this case, you meet one or two criteria, so you're also considered a French tax resident.

What happens then? Will you have to pay taxes in both countries?

I'll let you think about the solution: I'll reveal it a little further on, but first let's look at another scenario.

Scenario 2

You buy a house in Portugal, move in with your spouse and children, and live there for five months a year. You spend five and a half months a year in France, mostly in a residence you've kept, and spend the remaining six weeks traveling.

And you still have your company in France, and all your income comes from there.

Who, Portugal or France, considers you a tax resident?

Let's look again at the criteria shared above:

• Portugal

  • More than 183 days a year in the country: No.

  • You have a home that you intend to occupy as your habitual residence: Yes.

You are therefore a Portuguese tax resident.

• France

  • You have your home there or, if you don't have a home, your main place of residence: yes, because you spend more time in France than in Portugal, so France is your main place of residence.

  • You carry out a salaried or non-salaried professional activity in France, unless this activity is carried out on an ancillary basis:

    • No if you are the owner of your company and do not carry out any activity there, or no main activity.

    • Yes if you are an owner who still plays an active role in your company, despite the presence of the manager.

  • You have the center of your economic interests in France: Yes, because most (and in this case all) of your income comes from France.

So you're also considered a French tax resident.

The solution

It's when there's a residency conflict, as here, that we look to international treaties, and in particular the tax treaty signed between the two countries, which lays down precise rules for settling this kind of situation.

Because it would obviously be unfair to ask someone to pay tax twice.

We can therefore examine the tax treaty between France and Portugal2 to see what rules apply in the two scenarios described above.

Here are the terms of the treaty concerning us, which I have slightly edited to make them more readable:

"Where an individual is considered a resident of each of the Contracting States, the case shall be resolved in accordance with the following rules:

• Such person shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which he has a permanent home available to him. If he or she has a permanent home in both States, he or she is considered a resident of the State with which his or her personal and economic ties are closest (center of vital interests).

• If it is not possible to determine the State in which the person's vital interests are centered, or if the person does not have a permanent home in any of the States, he or she is considered a resident of the State where he or she has an habitual abode.

• If he has an habitual abode in each of the States, or in neither of them, he shall be considered a resident of the State of which he is a national.

• If such person possesses the nationality of each of the States, or if he possesses the nationality of neither of them, the competent authorities of the States shall settle the question by mutual agreement."

Note that these are classic criteria, found in a large number of tax treaties.

Here's a little exercise: how are the two scenarios above resolved with these rules? Which country do you become the sole tax resident of in each scenario?

Take a few moments to find out.

No, I insist, really do it :).

OK, got it? Perfect! Here's the solution:

Solution to scenario 1 - 7 months a year in Portugal, 3 months a year in France

Let's go back to the beginning of rule 1: "Such person shall be considered a resident of the State in which he has a permanent dwelling place."

In this scenario, you have a permanent dwelling in Portugal and not in France: Portugal therefore prevails - no need to look at the other rules - and you are solely a Portuguese tax resident.

Note, however, that according to the treaty, you will still have to pay tax on your real estate income in France (although you are partially exempt from social security contributions), and that your company dividends are taxed in Portugal, but that France may levy a withholding tax of up to 15%, which is then deducted from any Portuguese tax (at the time of writing, the withholding tax in this case is 12.8% in France - a far cry from the 30% "flat tax" payable by French residents).

Scenario 2 solution - 5 months a year in Portugal, 5.5 months a year in France

Let's go back to the beginning of rule 1: "Such person shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which he has a permanent dwelling place."

Here, you have a home in both countries, in the form of a residence at your disposal.

Let's read on: "Where a person has a permanent dwelling place in each of the States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State with which his personal and economic ties are closer (center of vital interests)".

Here's where things get complicated:

• Your economic ties are stronger with France

• You could say that your personal ties are stronger with France, since you spend more time there, but you could dispute this by arguing that you have more friends in Portugal, that your children go to school there while you're in France mainly on vacations, that you're a member of a sports club in Portugal and not in France, etc. Let's say you're right.

Let's assume that you win on this point, making the administration admit that the center of vital interests is difficult to determine. Let's look at the following criterion: "If the State in which the person has the center of his vital interests cannot be determined, or if he does not have a permanent dwelling in any of the States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the State in which he has his habitual abode."

Now it's clear: since you spend more time in France, under the treaty you're considered a French tax resident, not a Portuguese one.

Note that it's not that complicated to avoid this: instead of spending five months a year in Portugal and five and a half months in France, do the opposite. In this case, you remain a Portuguese tax resident.

Alternative scenario

This is a variation on scenario 2: you buy a house in Portugal, move in with your spouse and children, and live there for five months a year. You spend five and a half months a year in France, but this time in a different place each time (Airbnb, hotel), and spend the remaining six weeks traveling.

You might think, here, that you only have one permanent home - in Portugal, because you have a residence there, whereas you change residences every time you go to France.

Yes, but the fact that you spend more time in France than in Portugal entails a risk that the French tax authorities will seek to requalify this point.

Here, to be sure of the soundness of your situation, you really need to consult a tax lawyer, who will research the case law on this point for you, and give you the benefit of his or her experience to explain the most likely interpretation that the administration will make of your case, as well as your chances of winning in court if you contest.

The bottom line: how to rest easy

Several conclusions can be drawn from these scenarios:

• Always read the tax treaty between your country of departure and the one to which you wish to move. I can't promise you the most entertaining 30 minutes of your life, but they will be instructive.

  • Be sure to read every line, as some treaties are full of surprises. For example, the treaty between the United Arab Emirates and France appears at first glance to be identical to all other treaties, but in the middle of a paragraph3 , there's a line that basically says: "Hey, by the way, we completely forgot to tell you, but this treaty only applies to Emirati citizens. Thanks, bye." This means that the treaty does not protect residents who are not citizens, and that in this case, you need to make sure that you are not considered a tax resident in France. It's very easy to jump this line if you're not careful, even for professionals. In fact, this happened to a friend of mine, who was advised by a Youtubeur supposedly specialized in taxation, who didn't do his job properly and validated his plan to keep his company in France while moving to Dubai: it only worked if the income he earned in the Emirates was higher than that he earned from his French company, otherwise he would have been considered a tax resident via the center of economic interests, which the so-called specialist didn't see.

• As I mentioned in the previous chapter, the ideal situation is to own nothing in your country of departure, as this is always the country which takes you most for granted, and which will be most motivated to put tax obstacles in your way.

• If you can't, try to cut as many bridges as possible. If possible, move your business with you. A business is supposed to make its money where the management is, not where the customers are.

• Consider it a golden rule that your country of departure should not be the one where you spend the most time in the year, and that you should spend more time in your new country of residence than in your country of departure.

Note also that recent case law in France4 stipulates that a treaty does not apply if you do not pay tax in your new country of residence: so make sure you either always pay tax via an activity in your country of residence, or that you are no longer considered a tax resident at all in your country of departure.

This is a 180° turnaround from the previous case law, which had been in force for decades, and shows once again how desperate governments are to bring money into their coffers.

Few countries have gone as far as France on this point, even if the OECD is pushing for the inclusion of a clause specifying that double non-taxation cannot result from the application of tax treaties5.

But it doesn't matter: if this interpretation becomes widespread, the countries concerned will simply react by implementing a 1% tax on the income concerned. Problem solved.

Note : if you are American, your country is the only one in the Western world that taxes you wherever you are, so you need to take that into account as well. Tax treaties signed between the US and other countries take this particularity into account.

Coming Soon :

In the next article, we’ll explore how to choose your next destination by balancing tax efficiency with social justice — and why countries like Estonia might just offer the best of both worlds.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Note : This article is the 1^st in a series on how to significantly reduce your tax bill and maximize your freedom by moving abroad. Here are the first articles in the series :

1. Why I Feel Freer in a Monarchy Than in My Democratic Home Country

2. How to Avoid Being Taxed Twice When You Move Abroad (Most People Get This Wrong)

3. How to Pay Less Tax While Improving Your Contribution to Society

4. How To Live Tax Free in the European Union

5. How to pay low taxes in the Americas, Africa and Asia

6. The 9 Lies Everyone Believes About Dubai

If I told you that you could live in sunny countries, offering sea and mountains, with a thousand-year-old culture, incredible food, and that are in the European Union, you'd probably say to me "OK, that sounds great, but I'm going to have to pay a lot of tax, are we agreed?"

And... you'd be both right and wrong.

Right, because the standard rate in these countries is very high indeed.

Wrong, because you're assuming that this standard rate will apply to you, while many countries are struggling to attract talent.

This is because governments have long had two major conflicting motivations: they want to 1) tax their citizens as much as possible, while 2) attract foreign talent and investors, who are driven away by excessive taxation.

So, how do we resolve this dilemma?

Simple: all you have to do is be schizophrenic...

In other words, offer a lower tax rate to immigrants than to your traditional residents.

And the lower your tax rate, the more likely you are to attract newcomers.

Many countries in Europe, but also in the rest of the world, offer regimes of this type.

In this series, I'll take you through a few of them, to show you the possibilities, but above all 1) consult a tax lawyer who specializes in this field if you're thinking of moving abroad, and 2) understand that some things may have changed between the time I wrote these words and the time you're reading them.

But first...

The paradox of an authoritarian country where nomads feel freer

I left my native France in 2015, living first for three years in London before settling in Dubai, a city I love and where I see myself staying for at least a few more years.

At this point in your reading, you may be thinking: "But Olivier, throughout this Substack and your book, you've presented us with all this evidence showing that states are increasingly engaging in mass surveillance, and the dangers this poses to the fundamental principles of democracies, as well as to their legitimacy. Isn't it paradoxical that you should praise Dubai, which is not a democracy, and which probably monitors its population, notably with its omnipresent cameras coupled with facial recognition?"

That's an excellent question.

And answering it will enable me to outline several of the often unsuspected benefits of expatriation.

For several years now, I haven't even needed to show my passport or resident card at Dubai airport, either on arrival or departure: I go through a door in which a camera takes my photo... then, a few seconds later, my first name and surname appear on the screen, and the door opens automatically.

A very practical system.

But it just goes to show how easy it is today for governments to use facial recognition technologies to track our movements.

The Emirati government has the power to know the movements of all its residents, as cameras are ubiquitous in Dubai, and really used by the police (unlike in London, for example).

As a result, it's common knowledge that there's no point in stealing a car in Dubai: as soon as you file a complaint with the police, all they have to do is type in the license plate number to find out immediately where the car is, as well as the entire route it has taken1.

If it's possible to know where any car is, make no mistake: it's also now possible to know where any individual is, and what route they've taken.

It's also clear that the United Arab Emirates, with its monarchical system, doesn't offer the same political freedoms as Western democracies.

So, does this not bother me, who speaks out so strongly against mass surveillance?

The answer is, yes, it does.

But, paradoxically, much less than if I lived in my native country, which is nonetheless a democracy.

Why is this?

There are two main reasons.

1^st reason: a better balance of power between the individual and the state

A different implicit contract

Firstly, there is a different implicit contract between an individual who lives in a country because he was born there, and an individual who lives in a country he has chosen because it offers him the best value for money in a market of jurisdictions.

The former, often a mono-country person, is in a sense stuck in his own country. Not that he has no right to escape (although this may be the case in some countries, and others demand exit taxes to let you leave), but simply that there is so much inertia to leaving, linked to habits, language, friendships and social relationships, etc., that his country is a kind of black hole that inexorably attracts him, or rather a giant planet with inordinate gravity that requires a lot of energy to escape.

As an immobile monocountry, he feels the crushing weight of the state on his shoulders, and every authoritarian law, every weakening of a fundamental freedom, can have major consequences on his life.

The second case is very different - the individual arrives in this country not only as a customer, but also as a nomad. As soon as he no longer likes the services he receives, or the value for money no longer suits him, or certain criteria (such as surveillance) become too onerous, he can leave - and not only can, but should.

This leads to a fundamentally different equilibrium, because in this configuration, the individual has significant power over the state that balances the significant power the state has over him: he can freely choose which state to live in and contribute to, in a market of jurisdictions that compete and vie to attract him and convince him to stay.

So I know, to put it bluntly, that if one day Dubai gives me the shits, I'm out of here.

It's a possibility that's intrinsically part of the implicit contract that binds me to this place, and as it gives me a great deal of power in relation to Dubai, I'm prepared in return to accept that Dubai has a little more theoretical power over me than a democratic society.

After all, voting with your feet balances the balance of power between individuals and the state far better than voting at all.

This is an important element to understand when you're choosing your first expatriate country.

Take yourself for granted or respect yourself for what you bring?

You should also know that the country that will always value you least is the one where you were born. It's a trait of human nature: we value less what we already have.

And yet your country takes you for granted, while dozens are fighting to attract you, especially if you're an entrepreneur or a recognized figure in your field, but not only.

Being more desired in a country to which you immigrate by bringing value weighs in the scales in your favor, and balances a little more power between you and the state of the country you've chosen compared to the country where you were born.

Not that this gives you the right to do illegal things, of course, but it often ensures you more leniency, and sometimes even rights, from the authorities.

Because, as we've seen, countries want to tax their citizens as much as possible, while at the same time attracting talent and investors. Many of them therefore resort to real double standards to resolve this schizophrenia: that of offering a more attractive tax regime to foreigners than to their own citizens.

Take Italy, for example, which regularly tops the list of the world's highest-taxed countries.

But this applies to Italian citizens.

If you're a foreigner looking to set up home in one of the many countries that are opening their arms to you, Italy would very much like to see you come here rather than elsewhere.

On the downside, even though the country has many assets, such as its climate, cuisine and history, it has one of the worst tax rates in the world, which isn't very attractive. However, lowering it would reduce tax revenues too much, which isn't such a good idea given the deficit Italy runs every year in its budget, and the size of its debt, which, at the time of writing, is well over 100% of its GDP 2.

But fear not, the Italian government has thought of everything, with the status of "Lavoratori impatriati" ("impatriate workers").

Judge for yourself: this scheme offers its beneficiaries a 70% tax reduction on Italian-source income, and even a 90% reduction if they settle in certain southern provinces3 (which are experiencing economic problems)! And this also applies to entrepreneurs setting up their own business!

These exemptions are valid for five years, but can be renewed for a further five if you have a child under the age of 18, or if you have bought a house in the twelve months preceding or following your arrival in Italy.

There are several criteria to qualify for this status, the most important of which is that you must not have been a tax resident in Italy for the last two years (de facto excluding all Italian citizens living in their own country).

Two other schemes are also very interesting:

· If you are retired and come to live in Italy, you will be taxed at only 7% on your foreign-source income, including your pension.

• To qualify, you must not have been a tax resident in Italy for the last five years.

• You can benefit from this regime for ten years

· You can opt for a "flat tax" of 200,000 euros a year4 , which will be the only tax you pay: if you earn, say, one million euros a year, your tax rate will be 20%. It's a highly advantageous system for the wealthy.

• For the latter, you must not have been an Italian tax resident for nine of the last ten years.

• You can benefit from this regime for fifteen years.

Is this unfair to Italian citizens? Clearly. Is it smart from the point of view of the country's economy, which attracts many talented people thanks to these systems? Clearly so.

In any case, this is an example of a country that takes its citizens for granted, and goes out of its way to attract foreigners. And there are many examples like this, some of which we'll see later.

A somewhat taboo benefit...

And that's not all: there's another benefit foreigners get from moving to a new country with this kind of status.

It's an unofficial, informal, hidden and even somewhat taboo benefit, and one that would be immediately denied by any government official, lawyer or other professional involved who were interviewed on television... but not necessarily in a private conversation held away from prying ears.

This benefit is that the host state is much less motivated to ensure that foreigners who come to its soil bringing value are completely within the law, as long as they're not doing anything blatantly illegal and contributing in some way to the economy, than the citizens of that country.

Because the state knows that, if it is too strict in interpreting the rules and creates too much friction, then some of those foreigners it has had so much trouble getting to come to it will leave, and any gain it has made from applying the law too rigorously will have been temporary and will only result in a greater loss in the long term.

Just take a look at the specialized forums, where users can testify anonymously, and you'll see, for example, that tax audits of people benefiting from NHR status in Portugal5 are extremely rare, if not non-existent.

This is not to say that the beneficiaries of this status are completely above the law, or that they can do as they please and pay no taxes. It simply means that the Portuguese government is less motivated to control them, because it knows that between it and these special residents, the balance is tipped in favor of the residents, compared to "classic" citizens.

And so, some rather "acrobatic" schemes are passed off, when they wouldn't be for Portuguese citizens, simply because, once again, as long as these residents aren't doing anything blatantly illegal and they're contributing to the country's economy, it's a net gain for Portugal - because if these same residents left for Italy, Greece or Dubai, they'd bring in absolutely zero.

Note that even if you're 100% square and follow the law scrupulously, this also represents an advantage: the simple fact of being less exposed to a tax audit is worthwhile, as it's one of the most dreaded and stressful events for entrepreneurs, as well as being a considerable waste of time and energy (and seeing a tax inspector turn up isn't likely to make you feel like a customer who has freely chosen the jurisdiction with the best value for money).

Is this unfair? Again, yes. Does it make sense, pragmatically, to strengthen a country's attractiveness in a market of fiercely competitive jurisdictions? Again, yes, it does.

2^nd reason : a smaller exchange surface with the state

When you leave a democratic country to live in one that isn't, you generally expect to be less free.

But why? If we think about it, we may come to the conclusion that it's because we expect to be under greater pressure from the authorities, limiting our freedoms.

Yet this is completely the opposite of my experience as a resident of Dubai: I feel freer there than in my native country.

Why is that?

Partly because of the smaller surface area for exchanges with government institutions, which we don't necessarily think of when we think of a democracy, but which are nonetheless omnipresent and place a heavy burden on the shoulders of the population, and in particular entrepreneurs:

• Tax authorities

• Fraud control

• Data protection authorities, such as the CNIL in France

• Etc.

All these authorities have considerable powers of control and coercion, and in some cases, like the tax authorities, immense.

But when you move to a new country, you considerably reduce your exchange surface with these institutions in your country of departure, which often no longer have jurisdiction, or much less so, which reduces their powers accordingly.

"Great", you might say, "but then we increase our surface area of exchanges with the institutions of the country we're moving to, so it's the same thing, and even worse if we go to a non-democratic country, isn't it?"

In theory, yes. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the institutions in the country you're moving to aren't as interested in you as those in your country of departure, as we've just seen. And this is particularly true if you're moving to a country whose language is different from that of your business.

Because often, what prompts one of the agencies mentioned above to take an interest in you is stumbling across what you do online, or receiving a complaint or even a denunciation from a customer, supplier or employee.

What are the chances of this happening in a country that doesn't speak the language in which you do business?

Of course, it's a godsend for fraudsters - as I said in this series, the Internet makes it easier for fraudsters and more difficult for nation-states - and it often enables absolutely shameful and deplorable scams.

But it's also a godsend for honest entrepreneurs, who can focus 100% on their mission, free from the weight of these institutions that can be experienced as veritable swords of Damocles, and occupy a considerable amount of bandwidth in their minds.

This provides a considerable sense of freedom, reinforced in Dubai by the absence, for a long time, of personal and corporate taxes for businesses set up in one of the Free Zones.

This meant there was effectively no interaction with the UAE tax authorities, which was incredibly liberating.

This has now changed, with the introduction of a 9% corporate income tax. But this tax is still one of the lowest in the world, and there is still no tax on income, capital gains, etc.

On the other hand, as entrepreneurs, we don't generally go out into the streets to demand help from the government: if we ask anything of the government, it's to get out of our way and let us create our own reality in the best possible environment.

In this respect, Dubai, monarchy that it is, is a paradise for entrepreneurs.

Of course, I'm not saying that all non-democratic systems are necessarily neutral from this point of view and will give you as much freedom to build your business as you like.

What I'm saying is that nomadism offers such freedom that it transcends the intrinsic lack of freedom of non-democratic systems in many cases, because it ultimately allows you to become more sovereign than the average person.

This sovereignty is a power that comes directly from the Leviathan-Network, and is transmitted to you via your mobility. And you take this sovereignty with you wherever you go: it's a portable sovereignty. In fact, you're a kind of semi-autonomous entity.

This gives you a better balance of power between you and the state than the native citizens of the countries where you live.

And if this sovereignty is a good counterweight to the power of the Dubai government, it is also an excellent counterweight to any democratic government that becomes progressively more authoritarian.

Coming soon

In the next article, we’ll do a deep dive into international taxation and how it works.

Stay tuned ! In the meantime, feel free to follow Disruptive Horizons on X/Twitter & Linkedin, and join the tribe of Intelligent Rebels by subscribing to the newsletter :

And here are the first articles of this series :

Hello friends,

Just to let you know that the launch of the book this Substack is based on went very well.

Here is a video showing the book signing I did to mark its release: a little over a hundred people were there, a big THANK YOU to everyone who came! :)

I'm continuing to focus on the book's release, and I plan to resume publishing articles in June.

If you speak French, you can watch several of the interviews I gave for the book's release in this playlist.

In total, 7,336 of you voted (!), either from my French-speaking audience or from this English-speaking audience.

The final title will therefore be « Tout le monde n’aura pas la chance de quitter son pays » and the subtitle « Plus libre, plus heureux et moins taxé : comment s’évader intelligemment ».

In English, this would be “Not everyone will have the chance to leave their country - Freer, happier and less taxed: how to escape intelligently”.

Don't forget what I told you in the previous article: French titles don't necessarily sound good when translated word for word (my previous book was published in English with the title “The Way of the Intelligent Rebel”, which has nothing to do with the French title.

Without further ado, here is the final cover:

And its official publication date:

April 25th. My publisher has already received it:

Thanks again for your support and your votes! I will soon resume publishing the articles on this Substack.

And for the release date in English, I hope to be able to announce it to you later in the year :)