That’s not a slippery slope. That’s just true. And that is the reason, why societies have to redistribute wealth/resources/chances by taxing the ones that have far more than enough and giving it to those that have less than needed. This will never get to totally equal opportunities, but it should be the goal to come as close as possible to them.
And that again is not a slippery slope, but just the very valid point that a one-time redistribution is not nearly enough, but it has to be a perpetual redistribution system benefitting all future generations in the same way.
This, by the way, does not depend in any way on the monetary system used. Redistribution can and must be done, irrespective of whether we use fiat or cryptos. The monetary system right now is not the main problem and another one is not the main solution, in my opinion.
This sets out to be tl;dr. So just to a few of these points:
That’s a hope connected with cryptos as well as AI. And in both cases the empirical backing of this hope is at least mixed. Can we really write algorithms that are fairer? Do the non-desirable decisions of humans in the current state of affairs really all come from arbitrariness and corruption? Being lucky enough to live in a country with negligible corruption, the problem is more one of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies tend to do just what our automated decisions do: Execute rules exactly as they are written down.
Is it? How do they get their first ADA (or Lovelace)? Don’t they still have to buy them with what they were lucky enough to get in the old system? Do we have a plan for that? Is the plan that they have a right to get something or mere charity? What in the protocol guarantees them to get better salaries and easier credits?
How far does that 100% trust carry? We see people bitten by the code, losing funds every day. Funds for which they would have (depending on their resources, access to legal counsel, …) a far better chance of reversing fraudulent transactions in the old system. There are exploited DAOs and smart contracts. There is at least a long way to go.
I should have made clearer that
of course means that it is not necessarily a Ponzi. And even more so not one, where the ones at the top of the pyramid knowingly want to exploit the ones at the bottom.
But it still has some of the qualities of a Ponzi, namely disproportionally higher profits for the ones at the top of the pyramid, the early entries:
Yes, but the point was that the few hundred people already here right now will still have thousands or even millions of ADA and there is nothing in the system that changes that. Why should we have this wealth and associated power over the previously unbanked in that future? Why should they only have a savings account in the Lovelace range, while we still have one with huge amounts of ADA?
It is not just a decimal point if some of the people are on one side of it and the majority on the other.
There still are a lot of nations with medium okayish social welfare systems, there are nations with good minimum salaries, there are at least discussions about basic income grants, … This all has come under some pressure since Reagan/Thatcher/Kohl in the eighties and that development has never stopped, but it is still possible to strive for political solutions, while technology is seldomly more than a tool, while technology cannot solve social problems on its own.