Yeah concentration is a big, big worry - sadly decentralized governance hasn't really yielded anything and has just proven how ineffective it is for now. I think shareholder control is not that bad as long as exit scenarios are still available.
As of now I'm not forced to use any of these new sovereigns products, but I am forced to used terrible government products at non-market rates.
But definitely one of the most interesting areas in which to spend mental cycles
Love this piece - but there's a pattern here worth flagging.
You're tracking the dispersal of state power to entities like Tether and Mag7, but it's really a consolidation story - both infrastructure ownership AND decision-making power concentrating into fewer hands. Without different ownership structures, we're just swapping one centralized system for an even tighter one.
The data's pretty wild: extreme wealth concentration consistently precedes social and political instability. We're approaching Belle Époque inequality levels, and that era didn't end well. The bet that educated, digitally-connected populations will accept some sort of neo-feudal arrangements feels... ambitious.
Traditional states were flawed but at least theoretically accountable to citizens. Your "new sovereigns" answer only to founders and shareholders. Zero structural accountability to the people using the infrastructure they control.
Here's the interesting bit for your thesis: distributed ownership models (platform cooperatives, steward ownership, DAOs with real governance) might be the antifragile play. They show better resilience to economic shocks. If your depopulation thesis unfolds alongside rising inequality, these structures could be the ones that actually maintain legitimacy and stability.
Worth exploring how distributed ownership frameworks could fit your investment strategy. History suggests concentrated power without accountability corrections violently.
Yes, this occurred to me reading this too; but the rub is venture maths overall. Venture needs outlier outcomes; distributed ownership (in which I've been a participant and believer at different times, still am in many ways) wants durable legitimacy. Those incentives clash. But depopulation plus inequality means legitimacy isn't a nice to have but potentially the moat, and historically moats built on openness age better than ones built on lock‑in. I keep getting stuck on next versions of education and physical infrastructure though; critical for civilisational progress, historically what we kind of trusted states or governments with, and you have to squint to see who provides this in a post-nation state world
Yeah concentration is a big, big worry - sadly decentralized governance hasn't really yielded anything and has just proven how ineffective it is for now. I think shareholder control is not that bad as long as exit scenarios are still available.
As of now I'm not forced to use any of these new sovereigns products, but I am forced to used terrible government products at non-market rates.
But definitely one of the most interesting areas in which to spend mental cycles
Love this piece - but there's a pattern here worth flagging.
You're tracking the dispersal of state power to entities like Tether and Mag7, but it's really a consolidation story - both infrastructure ownership AND decision-making power concentrating into fewer hands. Without different ownership structures, we're just swapping one centralized system for an even tighter one.
The data's pretty wild: extreme wealth concentration consistently precedes social and political instability. We're approaching Belle Époque inequality levels, and that era didn't end well. The bet that educated, digitally-connected populations will accept some sort of neo-feudal arrangements feels... ambitious.
Traditional states were flawed but at least theoretically accountable to citizens. Your "new sovereigns" answer only to founders and shareholders. Zero structural accountability to the people using the infrastructure they control.
Here's the interesting bit for your thesis: distributed ownership models (platform cooperatives, steward ownership, DAOs with real governance) might be the antifragile play. They show better resilience to economic shocks. If your depopulation thesis unfolds alongside rising inequality, these structures could be the ones that actually maintain legitimacy and stability.
Worth exploring how distributed ownership frameworks could fit your investment strategy. History suggests concentrated power without accountability corrections violently.
Yes, this occurred to me reading this too; but the rub is venture maths overall. Venture needs outlier outcomes; distributed ownership (in which I've been a participant and believer at different times, still am in many ways) wants durable legitimacy. Those incentives clash. But depopulation plus inequality means legitimacy isn't a nice to have but potentially the moat, and historically moats built on openness age better than ones built on lock‑in. I keep getting stuck on next versions of education and physical infrastructure though; critical for civilisational progress, historically what we kind of trusted states or governments with, and you have to squint to see who provides this in a post-nation state world