Part 4 of the “Don’t Repeat History Series”
Inheritance: Fair Wealth Without an Elite Class
The Free Republic of Liberland, founded in 2015 on a 7 km² patch of disputed Danube land between Croatia and Serbia, champions libertarian ideals: minimal government, voluntary contributions, property rights, and blockchain transparency. By 2025, Liberland has stabilized governance with blockchain elections, launched a $30 million Danube revitalization plan, and has attracted over 700,000 e-residency applicants, poised for global growth from 1,400 citizens. Yet, scaling risks creating wealth gaps, as seen in historical libertarian experiments like the Hanseatic League (1159–1669), where the elite class divided the society and fractured its decentralized trade network. To avoid an entrenched elite class, the people of Liberland must encourage the creation of voluntary Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) trusts to manage inheritances that people entrust to them and by doing so, ensuring a fair economy without coercive redistribution. Inspired by the League’s failures, this approach balances individual freedom with social incentives, preserving Liberland’s “To Live and Let Live” ethos while fostering equitable prosperity.
The Hanseatic League, a confederation of merchant guilds across Northern Europe, thrived on voluntary cooperation, free trade, and decentralized governance, much like Liberland’s vision. Its cities—Lübeck, Hamburg, Bremen—operated autonomously, pooling resources without a central authority, amassing wealth through Baltic trade. By the 14th century, the League’s merchants controlled commerce from London to Novgorod, with no standing army or mandatory taxes, embodying libertarian principles. However, wealth concentration among elite families, like Lübeck’s patricians, created divides. Inheritance practices—primogeniture and unrestricted bequests—funneled riches to a few, marginalizing smaller traders. By the 15th century, internal rivalries, exacerbated by these disparities, weakened the League. Cities like Danzig broke away, and external powers—Denmark, the Dutch—exploited the fractures, leading to the League’s decline by 1669. This history warns Liberland: unchecked inheritance can breed elites, erode unity, and destabilize a libertarian society, especially as e-residency and diaspora villages like ARK in Serbia expand.
Liberland faces similar risks. Its crypto-friendly economy, reliant on Liberland Merits (LLM) and blockchain assets, could concentrate wealth among early adopters or large investors, especially with Justin Sun’s 2025 U.S. outreach attracting crypto capital. Without voluntary mechanisms to curb disparities, a few citizens could dominate the political and economic landscape, mirroring the Hanseatic elite. Coercive redistribution, like taxation, contradicts Liberland’s ethos, risking the centralized overreach seen in post-Hanseatic states. Instead, DAO trusts offer a voluntary solution: blockchain-based smart contracts that manage inheritance, encouraging fair wealth distribution while respecting property rights.
DAO trusts operate as decentralized entities, automating inheritance rules via code. E-residents can opt into trusts that cap bequests—say, 60% to heirs, 40% to community projects like the Danube plan—without mandating participation. Transparency ensures trust: all transactions are public on Liberland’s blockchain, preventing hidden elites. Quadratic voting within DAOs lets citizens influence trust rules, curbing dominance by wealthy token holders. For example, a trust could fund diaspora village infrastructure, like ARK’s eco-cabins, ensuring broad access rather than elite control. Social incentives—recognition for trust participation, akin to Liberland’s merit system—encourage adoption without coercion, fostering a culture of voluntary fairness.
Historically, the Hanseatic League lacked such mechanisms. Elite families hoarded wealth, alienating smaller guilds and sparking rivalries that fractured the network. Liberland can avoid this by promoting DAO trusts through civics modules, teaching e-residents about the League’s collapse and the value of equitable wealth flow. Unlike coercive systems, trusts align with Liberland’s non-aggression principle, letting individuals choose participation while societal pressure—via community prestige or blockchain rankings—nudges fairness. This mirrors Switzerland’s voluntary social insurance, where cultural norms, not laws, drive contributions.
In practice, DAO trusts support Liberland’s 2025 goals. The $30 million Danube plan can be funded partly by trust allocations, ensuring voluntary contributions benefit all, not just elites. As e-residency scales to 700,000, trusts prevent wealth concentration, maintaining ideological unity among diverse citizens, unlike the Hanseatic League’s divisive patricians. Blockchain automation reduces overhead, unlike traditional trusts requiring bureaucrats, and sunset clauses on trust rules—expiring after 5–10 years unless renewed—keep them adaptable, avoiding permanent elite structures.
Critics may argue DAO trusts complicate inheritance or deter wealth creation, but they enhance freedom by offering choice without force. Participants retain full property rights, and trusts incentivize community investment, boosting economic resilience. Without them, Liberland risks repeating the Hanseatic League’s error: wealth gaps that fracture unity. By encouraging voluntary DAO trusts, Liberland can seal this loophole, ensuring a fair economy that scales without elites.
By learning from the Hanseatic League’s elite-driven collapse, Liberland can craft a voluntary inheritance system that preserves its libertarian core. DAO trusts, backed by social incentives and blockchain transparency, ensure wealth flows equitably, supporting 2025’s elections, diaspora growth, and Danube plan. This approach makes Liberland a beacon of fairness, not another cautionary tale of division.
I want to end this article in an appendix because of how much my opinion on this topic in particular has changed since I began to really dig into how Liberland is to function. It all started after I saw how the Liberland Senate is to operate, when I saw that it is to be essentially a House of Lords style body, I could not in good conscience allow this to happen without stating my opinion on how bad of an idea that is and what needs to be done to curb such power as it is diametrically opposed to true libertarian ideals. After I started doing more digging I found that the more merits you have you also have a magnitude more pull in the voting system and as far as I can see there is no quadratic voting structure in the blockchain that I am aware of and without this component our democracy would be a defacto oligarchy unfortunately.
After doing more research in to how to curb wealth inequality, something that as history has shown us, almost always occurs whether it takes a few years or even a few centuries for a society to get to. I have come to the conclusion that a voluntary way via DAO’s. The potential of DAO’s is massive and must be taken advantage of, however the power must be harnessed in a way so that those with a very large amount of wealth do not overpower those with very little, we must all have voice no matter what and the last thing I want people to think of this article is that is wealth distribution to “equalize” people that could not be further from the truth, what this is to do at least in my mind is to create a strong community of people no matter what your wealth status is.