Maybe. I am interested in more and detailed information before agreeing to something like this.
My concern regarding concepts like this is that anything of this sort inherently divides the universe into halves: those who do and those who do not. Any time humans get involved with or conceive such things, they almost automatically become mechanisms for discrimination and segregation (as in Pink Floyd's "Us & Them"), rather than something inclusive and beneficial.
Seminal ideas may have positive value but there is invariably a negative offseting quality that dims the otherwise apparent luminosity of the hope they proffer. I would like to know both sides before joining.

For sure there will be a lot of uncertainties...and it needs time for evolving in something "without shady economy" or "corrupted authorities" (if speaking about 3-rd world countries.)
The "Digital constitution" - will be required.
About "discrimination and segregation" - well, here society needs to elect wise leaders at the beginning and not despots, to accelerate the development process. Afterwards, using a technology similar to "multisig" for taking ongoing in-government decisions might help to eliminate the probability of discrimination and segregation.
If blockchain works with its distributed, decentralized data and low risk of 51% attack (at least for now), the same tools can be used for building an ecosystem with the 200% democracy. It will have nothing in common with corporatocracy or any other types that could be described as "discrimination and segregation" statement.
Either way, it's the first draft...So all suggestions and objective criticism are appreciated.

Sorry. I don't see Blockchain having anything to do with this. The very notion of what you are describing begins with human systems and interactions. Blockchain is only a tool to implement certain things - not a philosophy.
The more I examine human nature and ponder it in the context of societal and political systems, the more I am convinced that Mankind has not evolved (actually evolved, I mean) to the state of maturity where a world government structure might even be pondered, except as a goal to strive towards and achieve in a century. Mankind across all its societies and ethnicities is still far too diverse and dysfunctional for such a thing to work at all, let alone well. Diversity is good, but for a world government type of structure to work, a certain level of congruity/homogeneity/common intererst must be in place for it to simply operate.
Too much disparity destroys this potential, and we are still at that state: too much nationalism, too much religious division, too much "us & them" extant. As cultures, we still see our uniquenesses as ways to separate ourselves rather than the richness such diversity brings to the whole: to "set ourselves apart by our differences" rather than "join ourselves together in tolerance, acceptance and mutual celebration".
No. Technology can connect people and facilitate communication, which can in its turn bring more knowledge and ultimately more undestanding. But technology is a sword that cuts both ways: it mows the grass but can cut off the foot. You are suggesting we seek the first, while national leaders (First World, as loudly and aggressively as any) seek to employ it in the second. Technology is a tool and enabler, not The Solution. What matters is the intent of the hand that wields it and the mind moving the hand that wields.