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 concept of a decentralized Internet is now the hottest topic in policy and social discussions. You might have an obvious question, such as, why is this occurring now? We have three related major reasons that explain this sudden interest.
The first relates to geopolitics and governance. Let us consider the global context as governments gain more control over online platforms. They do this through rules for registration, demands for local contacts, laws to remove content, and even complete shutdowns of certain platforms, which is utterly relatable to the recent Nepal’s context. People believe that these actions are used to hide corruption or scare those who disagree. This situation has led young people (especially those who grew up with the Internet) to look for options that cannot be shut down by a single government office, Internet service provider, or phone company. The protests by young people in Nepal show how shutting down the Internet can become a political issue and lose credibility.
The second relates to technology and economic narratives. In particular, decentralized physical infrastructure networks or DePINs have emerged, which use blockchain technology to reward people for operating hardware. Anyone can set up a device, such as a hotspot, storage unit, sensor, or even a small satellite link. They are verified for their service and earn tokens as rewards. This model offers a different way to connect and obtain services without depending on a few large companies or the government. DePINs and similar projects have transitioned from being described in research papers to being implemented in real networks. Helium and Filecoin are examples of this. Large crypto groups and investors are now funding projects to expand this model worldwide.
Third, real-life experiences of users are considered. Decentralization is popular because it offers three things that people want: stability (networks that keep working even if one part fails), control (communities keep the money instead of giving it to big companies), and free speech (channels that are harder for governments to block). This promise is appealing to young people who already use these decentralized platforms to organize, buy, and make money.
The Consolidated Control of the Internet
Large companies and governments have dominated the Internet. They determine what people post or say online and how they do so. This concentration poses serious risks. When power is concentrated in one place, free speech depends on the mercy of those in charge of it. The recent youth-led revolution in Nepal demonstrates the consequences of strict control. The new Spacecoin satellite network technologies aim to create an Internet that is difficult to censor or control. In this article, we attempted to examine the fine line between free speech and disorder. This article discusses how digital censorship led to protests in Nepal and how new technology may change digital freedom in the future.
The Centralization Dilemma of Control versus Chaos
The centralized Internet model ( Web 2.0) is controlled by single groups, such as companies and governments.
This setup has several weaknesses.
Single Point of Failure:
Centralized systems have a single main control point. This makes them vulnerable to power outages, cyberattacks, and government shutdowns. In Nepal, the government demonstrated how it could turn off important digital systems overnight.
Data Exploitation:
Centralized platforms generate revenue by using user data for targeted advertisements. This raises privacy concerns and encourages the collection of large amounts of data.
Censorship Capabilities:
Centralized systems make it easy to control or block information. This is evident from Nepal’s ban on social media and similar actions by other governments.
The centralized model has some advantages. It is convenient, provides a better user experience, and reaches many people. These are the reasons for its popularity. The challenge is to maintain these advantages while managing the risks of centralized control.
Spacecoin and the promise of a decentralized satellite internet
“Spacecoin” is a project with a simple and strong idea. It uses blockchain, tokens, and small satellites in a low-earth orbit to improve connectivity. This creates a network that does not require permission and cannot be easily shut down by any country. It can reach places where fiber and cellular networks cannot. Supporters claim that this system offers worldwide, censorship-free connections. It also creates new ways to earn money locally, such as hosting a ground station or an antenna to earn tokens. This idea is attractive in areas where regular networks are weak, expensive, or politically limited.
Claims and actual operations are different from each other. To determine whether Spacecoin or any DePIN satellite project can truly change the game, we must consider technical, legal, governance, and social factors.
First, the technical feasibility and performance were evaluated. Satellites can reach places where terrestrial nets cannot; they are resilient to local cable cuts and some forms of censorship. Satellites have some strict limits. Spectrum licensing is required. Low-earth orbit satellites must balance speed and data capacity. They also require many ground stations and methods to connect to the final users. Building, launching, and operating LEO satellite groups require a significant amount of money and many years of planning and upkeep. Tokens can help speed up small projects, such as local gateways and community ground stations. However, tokens cannot replace the cost of sending hardware into space or obtaining the necessary permissions for orbit and signal use. Spacecoin’s DePIN model might lower costs and bring people together, but it still faces significant initial challenges. You can also check this research work to understand the core technical challenges.
Second, regulatory and sovereignty friction exists. Even if a satellite network reaches people in a country, governments can still try to block the devices, make their use illegal, take the equipment, or pressure partners to stop the service. The Starlink experience teaches us an important lesson. Satellite services have been very helpful in Ukraine and other crises. However, they also have some problems. Geofencing, temporary outages, and political pressure can limit the availability of satellite networks are always free. Private companies can stop or limit services for legal, safety, or contractual reasons. The use of decentralized tokens does not change this. Decentralization changes the setting but does not remove the legal boundaries.
Third, governance, misuse, and public benefits are important. Decentralized networks reduce control by one group but make it harder to manage and hold people to account. If a platform cannot be shut down by national authorities, bad actors can use anonymity and resilience to engage in illegal activities, spread false information, or run scams—risks already mentioned. This balance between freedom and misuse was present on older platforms and will continue to grow on networks that cannot be censored. Therefore, effective decentralized networks require multiple governance methods: incentives at the protocol level to prevent misuse, shared moderation, secure identity checks, and strong legal rules that can target wrongdoers without shutting down the entire network. Researchers are still working on these solutions.
Fourth, tokenomics and sustainability are important. Many DePIN projects use speculative token economics to initiate and fund early growth. They also rewarded the participants. These incentives can help growth at first but may fail if the main service (connectivity) does not maintain the token value or ROI for hardware hosts.
Effective projects tend to incorporate actual utilization economic practices (such as paying customers, B2B agreements, and municipal organizations) rather than speculation alone.
📥Game Changing Applications
The Spacecoin satellite network may transform the distribution of Internet access between people and governments. When regular networks go down (in the case of an earthquake or conflict), Internet access can be established in a short time using Spacecoin. It does so without fixing or rebuilding ground infrastructure, as in the case of the traditional Internet. Such power to stay in contact in the moment of extreme need can be life-saving. Spacecoin also limits the threat of censorship, surveillance, and disruption in various regions because it decreases dependency on single Internet providers or cable systems. This establishes a virtual space where information can be easily disseminated, even against government efforts to contain it. The platform also enables users to receive borderless payments, create credit histories by borrowing on-chain, and receive financial services without having to access traditional banking systems. This is a substantial financial inclusion opportunity and the creation of digital identities for people who are not part of formal economies.
The Challenges of Decentralization
We have discussed that the decentralized model shows promise, but we also do not forget to mention that it also faces several challenges. Technical issues can slow down these networks and make them less efficient because data are stored and shared in multiple locations, as is the nature of blockchain technology. This increases retrieval time. Spacecoin must also deal with complex international regulations for spectrum allocation and satellite launches, which require approval from various authorities. Although decentralization can improve privacy, it does not automatically ensure security. The distributed nature of these networks may create new vulnerabilities and management challenges. Additionally, many still view blockchain technology as experimental, which could hinder its widespread adoption.
What the Nepal case teaches us about tradeoffs
Nepal’s protests reveal this contradiction. Closing platforms from the center has significant political consequences. It makes institutions look bad, disrupts jobs (especially for young people who earn money online), and can cause economic losses and violence. However, if digital spaces are not controlled, they can spread lies, harassment, and crime. People want a network that is safe from political control and can prevent abuse. However, technology alone cannot solve these problems.
Hybrid solutions are likely to be the most effective in the medium term. These include decentralized networks that improve access and reliability of the data. They should work with local laws to address specific issues such as fraud and violence without using broad bans for political control. There should be strong oversight by civil society and clear platform rules that allow users to hold the platforms accountable. The DePIN model, if used with partners, local regulators, and clear rules, can prevent a single authority from silencing dissent while remaining part of a lawful and accountable system.
Can Spacecoin be a game changer?
Yes, but only conditionally.
Spacecoin and similar projects can help in three main ways. First, they can improve Internet access for people in rural areas, ensuring that they are not left out. Second, they can offer backup communication during emergencies, so journalists, emergency workers, and activists can stay connected if local networks fail to work. Third, DePIN can give communities a share in the value of infrastructure, which can change the local politics.
For Spacecoin to succeed, it must demonstrate that it can provide a reliable and affordable Internet. It must operate within the complex rules of spectrum licensing and satellite launches. Spacecoin should also create fair rules to prevent misuse without giving too much power to a few people. Tokens should be linked to real business needs, not just speculation. Past big satellite projects and similar efforts warn us that what is technically possible may not always work in practice or be politically accepted.
Policy and civic takeaways
Policymakers and society should view decentralization as a tool, not a cure-all. Governments must be pushed to make rules that protect free speech and stop widespread Internet shutdowns. Simultaneously, society and technology experts should create decentralized systems that prevent misuse, such as strong identity checks, tracking bad activities, and encouraging community moderation. International standards groups and telecom regulators should update the rules for spectrum and licensing. In this way, legitimate decentralized satellite and DePIN projects can work openly. If these projects go underground, they become harder to control and are easier to misuse.
Activists and users should learn that decentralization can make them less vulnerable to surveillance. However, they still need to be organized, use encryption, have backup communication plans, and connect with offline organizing. Nepal is a test for technologists and founders. The success of projects like Spacecoin will show whether they are important infrastructure or just another short-lived cryptocurrency.
Closing reflection
The Internet is more than just a web of cables and servers. It is the new public square, and its control has become the major power struggle of the digital era.The Gen Z movement in Nepal shows both the strength and risks of being connected online. The government tried to limit social media to hide corruption, but this plan failed as it backfired on them. This was the main cause of the youth protests that brought down the government. This remarkable event, which shook the government within a couple of days, shows a fundamental reality. Information control means having power, and attempts to limit online expression will face more opposition.
Technologies like Spacecoin are not just about new technology; they also represent a change in thinking and innovation. They focus on digital freedom and user empowerment because such systems are supported by a decentralized blockchain network. They are constructed to fight the domination of centralized power, such as the government and service providers. They want to transform the Internet into an open resource for all, not a resource for a few people.
It should also be clear that technology alone is not enough. There is still a need for responsible institutions. It is not simply a choice between the regulation of content on large online sites or the freedom of open networks.The challenge for the next few years is to create a decentralized Internet that is strong, legal, community-focused, and safe from both government overreach and crime. If projects like Spacecoin can achieve this balance—being technically possible, legally sound, economically viable, and accountable to the public—they could be very important in the future.
Until then, the protests in Nepal show that when people fight for control online, the effects are not only online. The future of Internet freedom may depend on new systems like Spacecoin, which can withstand pressure from powerful groups. One thing is clear: the modern generation will not quietly accept the closure of their online spaces. In this way, the decentralized Internet may not just be an alternative to the traditional Internet in the future; it can be a necessity to meet the growing demands in the future.
