Can Code Heal Democracy?

Why transparency isn’t enough — and why we might need it anyway.

Author

Scott Kasten
November 13, 2025

There’s an old joke that democracy is the worst system of government — except for all the others. The same could probably be said of the internet.

We built an extraordinary digital civilization: instantaneous communication, infinite knowledge, borderless community. And yet, somewhere along the way, we traded connection for contention, participation for performance, and truth for whatever the algorithm thought we’d click on next.

So much of what Web2 promised in the early-2000s seemed to place the possibilities in the stars.  Social media was a way to connect with long-lost friends and efficiently share the details of your life with those inside your circle.  It was nice while it lasted, but in came politics, polarization, and profit seeking.

It’s hard to say which is in worse shape: our civic systems or our digital ones.

So now, out of the ashes of both, comes a new idea — that maybe the next democracy won’t run on ballots and bureaucracy alone, but on blockchains.

Democracy as Code

That sounds lofty (and maybe a little dystopian), but it’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.
If democracy is about representation, verification, and participation, then those are exactly the kinds of problems software is good at solving.

Blockchain technology — the same infrastructure behind cryptocurrencies — offers a way to record truth without trusting intermediaries, to verify votes without central servers, and to distribute decision-making without bureaucracy.

In theory, that’s democracy’s dream come true: trust without control.

But in practice?

Code doesn’t automatically create community.
Transparency doesn’t automatically create trust.
And voting on-chain doesn’t automatically make people care.

The MPAA DAO learned this the hard way.

The Change.org That Changed Nothing

In 2023, the MPAA DAO launched with a big idea: a blockchain-powered version of Change.org — where users could propose causes, debate issues, vote, and fund campaigns directly on-chain. It sounded like digital democracy 2.0.

But almost on liftoff, its token crashed and participation evaporated. People were intrigued by the idea of civic engagement on-chain, but not enough to actually engage. Sometimes off-chain problems stick around on-chain.

What MPAA built was elegant technology — but without legitimacy, community, or purpose, it became a ghost town with a token ticker.

The lesson? You can’t tokenize your way to trust. Even decentralized systems need something older and rarer: belief.

The Problem With Perfect Transparency

Web3 loves the word transparency.

It’s noble — and necessary. After all, seeing where money flows or how decisions get made is a powerful antidote to corruption.

But transparency is only half the equation, sort of like when G.I. Joe would say “knowing is only half the battle.” Because democracy isn’t just about seeing — it’s about doing.

If people don’t feel capable, represented, or responsible, all the transparency in the world won’t make them show up.

Put another way: if everyone can look, but no one acts, it’s not civic engagement — it’s voyeurism.

Building a Democracy That Belongs to Everyone

What Web3 can do, however, is give us new scaffolding for civic imagination.

Imagine governments where budgets are visible to everyone — not after the fact, but in real time.
Imagine communities that can raise and allocate funds transparently, matching grassroots energy with automated fairness. Imagine public records that are tamper-proof and identities that are verifiable yet private.

These aren’t apps — they’re institutions, rebuilt from the ground up.

The real potential of decentralization isn’t to replace politics, but to remove opacity from public life. To make power legible. To let anyone — not just insiders — inspect the machinery of democracy and, if necessary, fix it.

The Trust Protocol

Can code heal democracy? Not by itself.
But maybe it can make democracy easier to heal.

By encoding fairness, transparency, and participation into our civic systems, Web3 offers something our current systems sorely lack: the ability to verify what we’re told to believe.
It doesn’t make humans less flawed — just more accountable.

At its best, Web3 isn’t anti-government. It’s pro-trust. It’s not revolution — it’s refactoring.

Because the real goal isn’t decentralization for its own sake — it’s decentralization in service of a better center: the citizen.

In my view, AI, web3, and even social media are not things to be afraid of, to loathe, or to love blindly.  At the end of the day all the technologies we create are nothing more than tools with great possibility. The pivot point between evil outcomes and good ones comes down to people. We make the technology, we create the guardrails, and we are the users.  What we do with it and what type of world we create is entirely up to us.

If code can’t heal democracy, perhaps it can at least give it a checkup — and that might be the best place to start.

Help Grow Hashed Out And Get Rewarded With Premium Content & Merchandise

If you believe in a more open, fair internet — help us build it, one reader at a time.

Web3 adoption starts with curiosity. Share Hashed Out with someone who’s ready to explore.

You’re not just sharing a newsletter — you’re inviting someone into the future of digital life.

Refer 3 friends and unlock premium content. The more you share the more rewards you unlock, including Hashed Out mugs or tote bags, and exclusive community memberships.

Stay ahead of the curve with the latest in Web3 culture and innovation. Subscribe to Hashed Out for exclusive insights, case studies, and deep dives into the decentralized future.