Bhutan placed its national identity system on Ethereum. Its constitution requires AI to serve human happiness. Has anyone thought through what happens when Ethereum governance conflicts with GNH governance?

I've been working on sovereign AI governance architecture for several years. The Bhutan case is the most precise illustration I've found of a problem that affects every small nation building digital sovereignty on global protocols.

Bhutan's Ethereum-based national ID is real. Their GNH constitution is real. Their 2025 National AI Strategy requiring AI to align with GNH principles is real. What doesn't exist is the constitutional command layer that ensures Ethereum protocol changes don't override Bhutanese constitutional governance.

When Ethereum upgrades - which it does - Bhutan's national identity infrastructure changes without Bhutanese consent. That's not sovereignty by any constitutional definition.

We've published the first analysis of this specific gap: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20643395

Genuinely curious - has anyone in the Ethereum governance community ever considered the implications for sovereign nations that have built national infrastructure on the protocol?