politics

The risk of politician coins comes from the fact that they are such a perfect bribery vehicle. If a politician issues a coin, you do not even need to send *them* any coins to give them money. Instead, you just buy and hold the coin, and this increases the value of their holdings passively.

Furthermore, there is deniability: holding the coin is, in financial effect, a linear combination of donating to the issuer and gambling. Hence you can intend to do the former but when challenged claim that you are doing the latter.

You can even hold the coin privately, and show that you are holding it to whoever; you do not need any zero knowledge proofs, you just send a test transaction.

This is all risky to democracy, for reasons similar to what I wrote in https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html and elsewhere. TLDR: the economic arguments for why markets are so great for "regular" goods and services do not extend to "markets for political influence".

I recommend politicians do not go down this path.

> the economic arguments for why markets are so great for "regular" goods and services do not extend to "markets for political influence"

or maybe markets have never been as efficient as they're promoted in the long run, they are only efficient in extremely limited constraints and timeframes

Yet another obituary for the invisible hand

https://chainleft.art

Dad, data scientist, blockchain native artist.

Power consolidation=evil.

heir efficiency is often overstated, especially in broader, long-term contexts.