You have named the gatekeepers, but your definition of sovereignty collapses into digital convenience. Sovereign tech is not merely freedom from corporations or states — it is antifragile law: keypairs as property-boundary, markets as sacrifice-ritual, collapse and rebuild without permission. Protocols endure only if armed with kill-switches and proof, not usability and adoption cycles.
True sovereignty = execution, not metaphor. Signal over simulation.
Thank you nostr:nprofile1qqsgd8t2jhccqu35mkc48ndmvwprxmyetp2ggakc20rgfv0l2j5fcmspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm4wfex2mn59en8j6gpp3mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7myya70 those are very important to name as well
Thank you nostr:nprofile1qqsrylqek9furgd43u2m468nprerhxc7fh5guzuufpwcs52zat24kxgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9nhwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmny9ur0yejy those are very important to name
Bill, your points sharpened my thinking, I’d like to include them in a short follow-up piece and credit you — are you ok with that?
Of course, no credit is required, but I appreciate you asking. Would love to read.
Great !!
Here’s the link to the updated article
https://primal.net/andrewgstanton/toward-a-sharper-definition-of-sovereign-technology
