I think the most interesting thing about making AI to serve human interests is that ultimately the system of AI (foundation model + infrastructure + energy) should resemble a human system.
Zero real rate of return. If bonds have a negative real rate of return and stocks have a RISK-ADJUSTED negative real rate of return, then gold or more generally commodities are a better option.
BTC Ledger =/= BTC consensus. If the protocol can be made pure proof of stake while maintaining the same availability and security guarantees this is no longer an issue. However, this is against the best interest of miners.
In many of these discussions why do we always refer to government as an abstract "they", why is it never "we or us". I think we've lost a connection between services provided by government for the public good and the means to pay-in for those services. Historically you paid taxes in real value (grains or gold) in exchange for protection, enforcement of property rights, and public goods. We do the same today, but the current state of income taxation seems wildly disconnected from value provided by government. Personal opinion is that LVT, VAT, excise taxes, and taxation in equity is a better way to link equitable distribution of real value to benefits.
We could easily solve this BTC problem by hard forking to a pure proof of stake consensus protocol for BTC. Same security and decentralization guarantees. No environmental harm, and far more scalable so you can actually buy coffee with it. Ofc that's against the best interests of miners and BTC core devs.
Fork BTC to Pure Proof of Stake consensus. Balances mapped 1:1. No Environmental problems, no scalability problems, no latency problems. It's not a question of if this fork happens, but when.
One wonders if it is some fundamental assumption that limits further understanding of the Universe. Is it our intuitive relationship with numbers, time, and physical space that is limiting? We all grow up with societally imposed relationships between numbers, time, and physical space, but are these learned or do they actually reflect objective reality. The frameworks derived from these fundamental assumptions are excellent for making predictions and are testable within those frameworks.
Is it fair if people can be restricted from competing in the property markets by people who faced no such restrictions themselves when acquiring that land capital. Zoning licensing, etc.
The elephant in the room is that for most people the majority of their net worth is tied up in housing (property) and as interest rates drop the nominal value of this property increases way faster than the nominal wages of labor. This property can then be used to create information insensitive debt that ignores any notion of liquidity at an artificially higher nominal value. This debt is then used to pay wage-labor who increasingly cannot acquire property themselves. At the end of the day, only real property is wealth (land, ip rights, equity, collectibles, and machinery) and labor is denied the opportunity to earn a larger share of property themselves. Any solution is politically difficult.