Why isn't a Network State a DAO?
DAOs are usually built to manage common resources with token-based voting criteria. Societies are built around values and guided by a leader, community, and, in advanced stages, a participatory governance model. In the early stages, members vote as members, not as token holders.
A Network State is designed to manage 1M+ people and have an impact in the physical world. While some Network State founders may envision a token-based voting model, we expect democratic forms of voting to be person-based and contribution-based, rather than token-based. The two concepts share some common elements but are different.
As an analogy, Instagram and Facebook in the early days could have been compared because both are capable of connecting people.
Network States and DAOs are different:
  • DAOs tend to be closer to the concept of decentralized forms of organized activity, such as companies or no-profit associations.
  • Network States are closer to forms of organized social constructs such as States and Nations.
And while DAOs are by definition decentralized, a Network State could begin with centralized leadership with the option to become centralized over time.
Are there differences with Balaji's thinking?
The Jur framework is compatible with The Network State book but more flexible. It supports different views of the Network State concept. The main difference is that for the purposes of this documentation "Network State" is a network with an on-chain social contract, regardless of traditional diplomatic recognition. In Jur we have a thesis regarding the issue of diplomatic recognition that goes beyond what Balaji envisions in The Network State book.