We are in a rapid technological explosion on the blockchain. People are actively seeking to solve world problems and they are also seeking to solve problems that arise in the various experiments in trying new things on the blockchain. Yet there is one big hurdle. That hurdle is anonymity. I understand why people want to be anonymous especially with the way the world operates today. If they know who you are they can cancel you, ostracize you, and in a very real sense seek to destroy you. The answer to that seems to be that people should be anonymous.

We then start talking about how we do not want centralized power because that is where the corruption and ability to censor and oppress arise from. The answer we say is to decentralize on a blockchain. This indeed may be the answer. I am increasingly thinking it likely will always be flawed if we demand we remain anonymous.

Why?

If we are anonymous then people can create any number of accounts. If consensus mechanisms are then in place someone with 5 accounts would effectively have 5 votes, while the people with 1 account would have a single vote. This consolidates power in those who create and control the most accounts. Simply tools exist and quickly deployed that enable them to mass control many accounts.

In the rush to make VALUE in supporting platforms the concept of Proof of Stake is then introduced. If we base it off of Proof of Stake then a person with 10 stake has a more powerful vote than a person with 1 stake even if they both only have a single account.

It can be quick to seem like this should be okay. If we are dealing with a market and you are not voting for rules, censorship, etc. and are simply paying for goods with your stake then this largely would not be a problem. However, if that stake is driving the rules then people are NOT EQUAL.

If people can accumulate stake, and they can create multiple accounts that are anonymous then anyone with the will and/or technological knowledge of how to create and control those accounts can rapidly accumulate power.

In a supposedly decentralized environment sold as about equality of opportunity this rapidly changes and is centralized within a centralized system.

If using the system is based also upon your stake and by using your account you gain more stake based upon the amount of stake you already have the power rapidly becomes more and more concentrated in those who began this process earliest.

It certainly cannot lead to an equal environment. It cannot lead to a truly democratic type process. It cannot lead to how it is typically marketed.

---

I am increasingly thinking for something like people are pushing for to work people cannot have multiple accounts. To insure this you would likely need to ditch the anonymous aspect. This is very unappealing to me as well. Yet it is the only thing I can think of at the moment to prevent gaming of the system. Virtually every solution people think of can be gamed as soon as you introduce multiple accounts.

Another thing that would need to go would be voting for democratic type decisions being tied to stake at all. It should be 1 vote for 1 person. If you wish to retain stake in terms of people being able to purchase things you might be able to find a middle ground.

I don't know the actual solution and I am not attempting to build a platform.

I have spent years observing, debating, and thinking and I do not come to these conclusions lightly.

We should be equal as people in terms of our vote.

---

Yet we are not equal as people

We have bodies, we have minds, we have the circumstances we are born into, we have the consequences of our choices, and we also have chance and events that occur that our not in our own hands. All of these things make true equality a delusion. Our goal should be equality of opportunity as we can strive towards that. We can never achieve equality of outcome (i.e. Equity).

That doesn't mean we need to keep developing systems that incorporate intentional mechanisms that lead to consolidation of power and exacerbating any inequalities on a large degree.

Yet we also have the problem where if a single Physicist votes on a physics related issue only to be cancelled out by a mob of people emotionally convinced the Physicist was wrong or a fool... The mob is a very real and very dangerous thing.

When we think of equality and it is pushed in voting there is the very real situation that NONE of us are equal. We all know different things. We all have different levels of education. We all may have self educated and continue to do so. We all have our own psychological problems. Some of us may be narcissists. Many of us may be egomaniacs who see ourselves as the center of the universe. Some of us will be sociopaths and others even psychopaths.

Equality of voting has a cost...

The danger is when some people are permitted to speak and others are not. The danger is when some people are amplified and others are diminished. Through this mechanism the mob can be weaponized.

People like EASY...

They want to do the least amount of effort possible. This typically includes thinking.

At least with how they are being educated these days.

---

Do I think there is a solution?

Yes. Though I think it would require time and a change to education for it to be accomplished. Right now our education system is too focused on not being wrong, obeying authoritarian instructions, and not daring to ask questions that challenge what certain sources say.

That is very dangerous as it creates a ready made mob that can be targeted simply by making certain you are perceived as the authoritarian that must be obeyed.

When I say this would take time. It would take a lot of time.

Do I think there would be resistance to doing what needs to be done? Definitely. Sociopaths are not going to give up their power willingly. They will easily convince others to support them with promise of giving them power and wealth in exchange for their support.

---

This is not a capitalist, communist, Marxist, socialist thing. These issues exist outside of those frameworks.