I've have read swaths of it. I saw nothing 'sovereign' about what's now better called 'the network state'. I see it along the lines of The Zeitgeist who were openly pushing post-state blockchain based Communism. 

- There's nothing 'sovereign' about taking the choice of ledger (or none at all) out of the hands of the trading parties themselves and logging it all in one grand unified public blockchain. 

- There's nothing 'sovereign' about depending on a centrally issued fiat (yes, 21M is an arbitrary number, proving it's fiat nature -- could have just as easily been 42M cos it was decreed into existence) token. 

- There's nothing 'sovereign' about being unable to buy or sell bananas without a electricity and an Internet connection.

Here's a book I highly recommend for you -- "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber is a study of actually decentralized currency; how people traded before centrally issued fiat wannabe-monopoly brands like USD and BTC:

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/64160

Free audiobook version. The 2nd chapter is called "The Myth of Barter". It wasn't that. Each merchant generated their own credit, on their own private ledger, which was destroyed without a trace when they 'broke even'. Your grand unified global public ledger knows nothing of decentralization. 

 So your reading comprehension is nill, this isnt an ad hominem - just a conclusion im forced to make if this what youre focused on, rather than the actual thesis of why a cryptographoc currency is not only viable, but will allow people to more readily vote with their feet.