How Nepal’s Gen Z Uprising Made the Case for a Decentralized Internet

How Nepal’s Gen Z Uprising Made the Case for a Decentralized Internet

Estimated reading time: 10-12 minutes

• Nepal’s Gen Z-led protests against government internet shutdowns highlight the severe real-world impact of digital censorship and the erosion of public trust.
• The current centralized internet (Web 2.0) is vulnerable to single points of failure, governmental control, and censorship, prompting a global search for resilient alternatives.
• Decentralized internet technologies, including Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) and projects like Spacecoin, offer potential solutions for censorship-resistant, secure, and community-driven connectivity.
• Despite their promise, decentralized networks face significant challenges related to technical feasibility, regulatory friction, governance, and long-term economic sustainability.
• Achieving a truly resilient and equitable digital future requires hybrid solutions that balance decentralized freedom with accountability, demanding proactive advocacy, responsible development, and modernized international digital governance.

• The Growing Imperative for a Decentralized Web
• Spacecoin: A Vision for Censorship-Resistant Connectivity
• Game-Changing Potential and Inherent Challenges
• Nepal’s Lessons: Navigating the Trade-offs
• Can Spacecoin be a Game Changer?
• Three Actionable Steps for a Resilient Digital Future:
• Closing Reflection
• FAQ

The internet, once heralded as a beacon of global connectivity and free expression, is increasingly becoming a battleground for control. Governments worldwide are grappling with its power, often resorting to digital shutdowns when faced with dissent or the spread of unfavorable information. This fundamental tension between centralized authority and digital freedom recently reached a boiling point in Nepal, showcasing the profound real-world consequences of online censorship and igniting a global conversation about the necessity of a decentralized web.

The events in Nepal served as a stark reminder of this delicate balance.

“Nepal experienced a political crisis in early September 2025. It did not start in parliament but with a digital shutdown by the government and street protests. Kathmandu has blocked social media to enforce new national registration laws in which social media giants Facebook, X, LinkedIn, etc., were officially invited to comply with the recent rules introduced by the government. Youths, primarily belonging to Generation Z, began to organize themselves (online and in the streets). The ban quickly became the key factor in causing large protests, some of which turned violent. People demanded answers, the reopening of online spaces, and an end to corruption in public office. In just a couple of days, the unrest caused many deaths and injuries, shook government leaders, and led to a national investigation of the police department. This event clearly shows how internet access, public trust, and political authority are closely linked. The forceful regulation of digital platforms can cause major real-world problems.

The link between online censorship and unrest is not only observed in Nepal, as it is a representative but significant example. If we locate the notable incidents in the past ten years, many countries have shut down or slowed down Internet access during protests or when sensitive information is leaked. We have a few examples of countries such as Myanmar, Iran, and Ethiopia have used internet blackouts to stop people from organizing and sharing information. Experts and groups have shown that these shutdowns cause economic harm and negatively affect people. The World Bank and other groups have stated that shutdowns can cost economies a lot of money. This is because of lost business deals, broken supply chains, and delayed public services. Damage to reputation and stopping press and emergency messages can have long-lasting effects that are difficult to measure. When governments control access, one order can silence thousands. As seen in Nepal, this can increase the risk instead of reducing it.”

The dramatic events in Kathmandu underscore a critical global shift. As governments gain more control over online platforms through registration rules, content removal demands, and outright shutdowns, a counter-movement is emerging. This situation has led young people, especially those who grew up with the internet, to actively seek alternatives that cannot be easily controlled or shut down by a single entity. The Nepal protests vividly demonstrate how internet shutdowns can rapidly escalate into major political issues, eroding public trust and legitimacy.

The Growing Imperative for a Decentralized Web

The sudden surge in interest for a decentralized internet is driven by three interconnected reasons that explain its growing appeal. The first relates directly to geopolitics and governance. In a global context where governments increasingly assert control over online platforms, fears arise that these actions are used to conceal corruption or suppress dissent. Young digital natives are now actively seeking resilient alternatives. Nepal’s experience is a stark example of how internet blackouts can backfire, transforming into a loss of government credibility.

Secondly, technological and economic narratives are shifting. The rise of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) is particularly noteworthy. These networks leverage blockchain technology to reward individuals for operating hardware like hotspots, storage units, or even small satellite links. This model offers an entirely new way to build connectivity and deliver services without reliance on a handful of large corporations or government bodies. Projects like Helium and Filecoin demonstrate DePINs transitioning from theoretical concepts to operational networks, with significant funding from crypto groups and investors to scale them globally.

Thirdly, real-life user experiences are fueling the demand. Decentralization resonates with users because it promises stability—networks that continue to function even if a part fails; control—allowing communities to retain value instead of funneling it to large corporations; and free speech—creating channels that are inherently more difficult for governments to block. This promise is particularly attractive to young people already utilizing decentralized platforms for organizing, commerce, and income generation.

The consolidated control of the internet by large companies and governments dictates what people can post, say, and how they interact online. This concentration of power poses significant risks, as free speech becomes contingent on the whims of those in charge. Nepal’s youth-led revolution demonstrates the profound consequences of such stringent control. The current centralized internet model (Web 2.0) has inherent weaknesses, making it vulnerable to single points of failure from power outages, cyberattacks, or government shutdowns. Centralized platforms also exploit user data for revenue and possess easy censorship capabilities, as seen in Nepal and numerous other countries. While convenient and offering a good user experience, the challenge now is to maintain these advantages while mitigating the risks of centralized authority.

Spacecoin: A Vision for Censorship-Resistant Connectivity

In response to the centralization dilemma, projects like “Spacecoin” are emerging with a clear and powerful vision. Spacecoin aims to use blockchain technology, tokens, and small satellites in low-earth orbit to provide improved connectivity. The goal is to create a permissionless network that cannot be easily shut down by any single country and can reach areas beyond the scope of traditional fiber or cellular networks. Supporters claim this system offers global, censorship-free connections and new localized income streams for those hosting ground stations or antennas to earn tokens. This concept is highly attractive in regions where conventional networks are weak, expensive, or politically restricted.

However, a closer look reveals the complexities beyond mere claims. The technical feasibility and performance of satellite networks, while capable of reaching remote areas and being resilient to local cable cuts, still face strict limitations. Spectrum licensing is a major hurdle, and Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites must balance speed with data capacity. Building, launching, and maintaining these constellations requires immense capital and years of planning. While tokens can incentivize smaller projects like community ground stations, they cannot fully offset the exorbitant costs of space hardware and regulatory approvals. Spacecoin’s DePIN model may reduce some costs and foster community, but significant initial challenges remain.

Regulatory and sovereignty friction also persists. Even if a satellite network can reach users within a country, governments retain the power to block devices, outlaw their use, seize equipment, or pressure partners to cease service. The Starlink experience, while demonstrating invaluable support during crises, also revealed that satellite services are not immune to geofencing, temporary outages, or political pressure. The use of decentralized tokens does not fundamentally alter these legal boundaries.

Furthermore, governance, misuse, and public benefits are critical considerations. Decentralized networks, by design, reduce centralized control, yet this decentralization can make management and accountability more challenging. If a platform is beyond national authority, bad actors could exploit anonymity and resilience for illegal activities, disinformation campaigns, or scams. This inherent tension between freedom and misuse, present on older platforms, will only intensify on uncensored networks. Effective decentralized systems require a multi-faceted approach to governance: protocol-level incentives to deter misuse, shared moderation, robust identity checks, and legal frameworks that can target wrongdoers without dismantling the entire network.

Finally, tokenomics and sustainability are crucial. Many DePIN projects rely on speculative token economics to kickstart growth and reward early participants. While effective initially, these incentives may falter if the core service—reliable connectivity—fails to sustain the token’s value or provide a return on investment for hardware hosts. Sustainable projects typically integrate real-world economic practices, such as paying customers, B2B agreements, and municipal partnerships, rather than relying solely on speculation.

Game-Changing Potential and Inherent Challenges

The Spacecoin satellite network has the potential to fundamentally transform internet access and control. In disaster scenarios, like earthquakes or conflicts, Spacecoin could quickly establish connectivity without needing to repair or rebuild damaged terrestrial infrastructure. This ability to maintain communication during critical moments can be life-saving. Moreover, by reducing reliance on single internet providers or cable systems, Spacecoin limits the threat of censorship, surveillance, and disruption across various regions. This creates a virtual space where information can flow more freely, even in defiance of government efforts to suppress it. The platform also offers users the opportunity for borderless payments, on-chain credit histories, and financial services without traditional banking, fostering significant financial inclusion and digital identities for those outside formal economies.

Despite its promise, the decentralized model faces several significant challenges. Technical hurdles can lead to slower and less efficient networks, as data is stored and shared across multiple locations—a fundamental characteristic of blockchain technology—potentially increasing retrieval times. Spacecoin must also navigate complex international regulations concerning spectrum allocation and satellite launches, which demand approval from various national and international authorities. While decentralization can enhance privacy, it does not automatically guarantee security; the distributed nature of these networks might introduce new vulnerabilities and management complexities. Furthermore, blockchain technology is still widely perceived as experimental, which could impede its widespread adoption.

Nepal’s Lessons: Navigating the Trade-offs

Nepal’s protests reveal a profound contradiction. Centralized platform shutdowns carry significant political costs: eroding institutional credibility, disrupting livelihoods (especially for young people who earn online), and potentially leading to economic losses and violence. Yet, entirely uncontrolled digital spaces can foster the spread of misinformation, harassment, and criminal activity. People desire a network that is both secure from political overreach and capable of preventing abuse. However, technology alone cannot resolve these deeply human and societal issues.

In the medium term, hybrid solutions are likely to be the most effective. These solutions involve decentralized networks that enhance data access and reliability, while also collaborating with local laws to address specific problems like fraud and violence without resorting to broad, politically motivated bans. Strong oversight by civil society and clear platform rules that enable users to hold platforms accountable are essential. The DePIN model, when implemented with partners, local regulators, and transparent guidelines, can prevent any single authority from silencing dissent while operating within a lawful and accountable framework.

Can Spacecoin be a Game Changer?

Yes, but only conditionally. Spacecoin and similar projects can contribute in three key ways.

• First, they can improve internet access for rural communities, ensuring they are not left behind in the digital age.
• Second, they can provide critical backup communication during emergencies, allowing journalists, emergency responders, and activists to stay connected when local networks fail.
• Third, DePINs can empower communities by giving them a direct share in the value generated by infrastructure, potentially reshaping local power dynamics.

For Spacecoin to succeed, it must demonstrate reliable and affordable internet service. It needs to operate effectively within the complex regulatory landscape of spectrum licensing and satellite launches. Crucially, Spacecoin must establish equitable rules to prevent misuse without concentrating excessive power in the hands of a few. Its tokenomics must be anchored in real business needs, not solely on speculation. Lessons from past large-scale satellite projects and similar endeavors caution us that technical possibility does not always translate into practical success or political acceptance.

Three Actionable Steps for a Resilient Digital Future:

• Advocate for Stronger Protections Against Internet Shutdowns: Push policymakers to enact laws that safeguard free speech and prevent widespread internet blackouts, recognizing their severe economic and social consequences.
• Invest in Responsible Decentralized System Development: Encourage technologists and civil society to build decentralized platforms that incorporate robust identity checks, activity tracking for malicious actors, and effective community moderation to prevent misuse.
• Modernize International Digital Governance: Support international standards groups and telecom regulators in updating spectrum and licensing rules to create a clear, legal pathway for legitimate decentralized satellite and DePIN projects to operate openly and transparently.

Closing Reflection

The internet is far more than just a network of cables and servers; it is the modern public square, and its control represents a fundamental power struggle of our digital era. The Gen Z movement in Nepal vividly illustrates both the immense power and the inherent risks of online connectivity. The government’s attempt to restrict social media to suppress information about corruption ultimately backfired, catalyzing youth protests that profoundly shook the establishment. This remarkable event, which destabilized a government in mere days, reveals a fundamental truth: information control is power, and attempts to limit online expression will increasingly face fierce opposition.

Technologies like Spacecoin represent not merely new technological advancements, but a significant shift in thinking. They champion digital freedom and user empowerment, built upon decentralized blockchain networks designed to counter the dominance of centralized powers like governments and traditional service providers. Their aspiration is to transform the internet into an open resource for all, rather than a controlled asset for a select few.

However, it must be clear that technology alone is insufficient. The need for responsible institutions remains paramount. The choice is not simply between unchecked content on large online sites or the total freedom of open networks. The paramount challenge for the coming years is to forge a decentralized internet that is robust, legally compliant, community-driven, and simultaneously secure from both government overreach and criminal exploitation. If projects like Spacecoin can achieve this delicate balance—proving technically feasible, legally sound, economically viable, and publicly accountable—they could fundamentally reshape our digital future.

Until then, the protests in Nepal stand as a testament that when people fight for control online, the repercussions extend far beyond the digital realm. The future of internet freedom may well depend on pioneering systems like Spacecoin, which are designed to withstand pressure from powerful entities. One truth is undeniable: the modern generation will not quietly accept the closure of their online spaces. In this evolving landscape, the decentralized internet may not just be an alternative; it could become an essential requirement to meet the escalating demands of tomorrow.

Join the conversation: What role do you believe decentralized internet technologies will play in safeguarding digital freedoms globally?

FAQ

What caused the Gen Z uprising in Nepal?

The uprising was primarily triggered by the Nepali government’s decision to block social media platforms in early September 2025, in an attempt to enforce new national registration laws. This digital shutdown, combined with existing frustrations over corruption, led to widespread street protests organized largely by Generation Z youth.

What is a decentralized internet, and why is it important?

A decentralized internet refers to a network structure where control and data are not concentrated in a few central entities (like large corporations or governments) but are distributed across many participants. It’s important because it aims to provide greater resilience against censorship, shutdowns, data exploitation, and single points of failure, promoting free expression and user control.

How do DePINs contribute to decentralized connectivity?

Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) use blockchain technology to incentivize individuals to build and operate physical infrastructure, such as internet hotspots, data storage units, or satellite ground stations. By rewarding participants with tokens, DePINs enable the creation of community-owned and distributed networks, reducing reliance on traditional centralized providers.

What are the main challenges for projects like Spacecoin?

Spacecoin faces significant challenges including technical feasibility (balancing speed and capacity for LEO satellites), immense capital requirements for building and launching constellations, regulatory hurdles (spectrum licensing, international approvals), issues of governance and potential misuse on uncensored networks, and ensuring sustainable tokenomics not solely reliant on speculation.

Can decentralized internet solve all issues of online censorship and misinformation?

While decentralized internet can significantly reduce the ability of single entities to censor or shut down access, it does not automatically solve all issues. Uncontrolled digital spaces can still foster misinformation, harassment, and illegal activities. Effective solutions require a hybrid approach combining decentralized technologies with robust governance, shared moderation, legal frameworks, and strong civil society oversight to balance freedom with accountability.