I simply looked at your points on the thread and saw a match with the paper as far as how we think about progress. Examples from our thread: ---------------- "where in any given situation somebody might opt for a lazy easy way to solve a problem, piling on technical debt and complications which is a centralizing force as long as it doesnt kill the thing just yet" "its maybe a bit od "epimetheus" vs. "prometheus", where one just does and thinks/learns later but at least makes some visible progress quickly, while the other wants to think it through upfront but takes forever until anything can happen at all. now i just think a bit of both or whatever is one's tendency is okay, but we need actually do something at some point and cant wait forever and then learn and reflect again ... or we need to stop and think to revise at some point and cant be doing forever without ever reflecting at all. So both models are just slightly different versions of a cyclic execution model anyway. The point is, whether one wants to leverage in order to optimize towards centralization and power consolidation or not. ...and this is where motivations to keep thins complicated ON PURPUSE might enter the picture " --------------------- I get it that there are other topics in our thread, like power, complexity, and centralization. I just wanted to see if your ideas around progress were in line with the article, and responded with the paper directly against a comment with that very keyword.