yes!! absolutely epic analogy. it unleashed a whole bunch of ideas:
If you decide what counts as real, you don’t need to micromanage behavior. even further, whoever defines reality’s categories doesn’t just hold power, they ARE power.
Its so much more than governance, its ontological control. literal control of reality (of existence; being).
And to your point about Marxism 2.0. how do you construct reality? with data, language, narratives, social media algorithms, new legal grammar....
with biased (marxist leaning) AI that is now UBIQUITOUS (*) across all levels of society. Right if we think about how many people are using these biased LLMs at every layer of society. And about how much these biased LLMs are embedded into business workflows, marketing, policy making, lawfare, etc.
the list goes on and on.
but yea, it is such a great analogy. Instead of seizing factories, the Synthetic Stack seizes the reality engine.
I will say however that its also more than Marxist, which is the concerning part. its also technocratic, manegerial, neo-fuedal, monarchic, anti-human etc.
------------------
now, how you came up with the memes of construction + marginal cost comment is beyond me, brilliant take.
To translate:
'As it becomes cheap to create/distribute new myths, new protocols, new narratives, sovereign ontology becomes viable: individuals and small clusters can author their own reality structures instead of renting (being forced to rent) the global one.'
or further:
'as the cost of creating and spreading new reality memes falls toward zero, it becomes possible for individuals to run their own ontology (Sovereign Stack) instead of renting one from the Synthetic Stack.'
sovereign ontology then is not just moral, its not just about ethics anymore; it’s increasingly economically inevitable (**) as the marginal cost of narrative / code / ritual collapses(***). Sovereign ontology then stops being a philosophy and becomes an infrastructure choice.
from:
“Real person” = ID in a database
“Real money” = CBDC / KYC rails
“Real truth” = what passes AI + policy filters
to
“Person” = sovereign node with keys and voluntary ties
“Money” = self-custodied Bitcoin
“Truth” = independently verifiable
all through the choice of infrasturcutre. and the infra choice being: self custodied bitcoin, nostr, foss, privacy tech, institutions built on the principles of Austrian economics, tech built on top of bitocin/nostr/foss, sovereign myth, p2p, voluntarism, etc, etc etc etc etc etc
----------------
* which is hopefully not seeping through in this post. I think i've done a decent job at getting somewhat sovereign AI
--------------------
** a world where coordination runs on hard constraints + voluntary choice, not on soft illusions + central subsidy/extraction
---------------------
***why does it become increasingly economically inevitable?
Because the Synthetic Stack is extremely expensive reality (data centers, AI training, surveillance grids, compliance architecture, legal staff, monitoring everyone, updating rules, patching exploits, manufacturing consent, narrative management).
As complexity of the world increases, the cost of centrally deciding “what’s real & allowed” grows superlinearly. You’re paying, forever, to keep the map glued over the territory.
On the other hand, with the Sov Stack there may be a high fixed cost (to invent bitcoin, build foss, design protocols, rituals, legal patterns, etc) but a very low marginal cost (sharing code, spinning up nodes, starting new communities, fork narratives).
Open-source + cryptography + global networks = once one person pays to solve the problem, everyone can reuse it almost for free. So Adding the 1,000,001st user to Bitcoin costs almost nothing at the protocol level.
Running another Nostr relay is cheap compared to an entire platform’s moderation, KYC, and regulatory stack. Economically: Sovereign ontology’s core primitives (keys, blocks, open code, memes, rituals) are non-rivalrous and infinitely copyable. That’s a fundamentally different cost curve than “we must surveil and permission every entity in real time.
Historically, central institutions had an economy of scale on reality construction: Printing presses, TV networks, universities, state-approved money. Now that’s inverted: Anyone can spin up a node, anyone can publish globally, deploy a contract or a memetic frame. So the old advantage of “only we can manufacture reality at scale” disappears.
Whats the result then?
Well, if the tools to build new ontologies (new “what’s real” packages) are almost free,
then the economic moat of the Synthetic ontology collapses.
And once the moat is gone, they’re competing with:
Cheaper rails (Bitcoin vs CBDC fees/frictions)
Cheaper verification (math vs bureaucracy)
Cheaper narrative creation (memes vs legacy media)
And cheap, flexible systems tend to win over bloated, rigid ones
unless, of course, maintained by brute force.
BUT, even if some people love the Synthetic Stack, they face pressures:
Sovereign rails remove:
bank fees
arbitrary freezes
friction around cross-border movement
They provide:
stronger property rights (if you hold keys, no one else does)
better long-term store of value vs inflating fiat
censorship resistance
From a pure self-interest standpoint:
If I can get cheaper, more reliable, more sovereign rails,
I have an incentive to route at least part of my life through them.
Even normies will start with “just for savings,” “just for edge-cases.”
That creates gradual economic leakage from the Synthetic stack toward Sovereign rails.
if we look at it from the business perspective:
Businesses want:
predictable rules
lower enforcement/friction costs
stable store of value
What does the Synth stack give you?:
unpredictable policy risk
censorship risk
compliance overhead that eats margins
The Sov stack? Gives you
clear, protocol-level rules
no chargebacks, no arbitrary clawbacks
instant global settlement on neutral rails
So you get profit-seeking behavior slowly pushing firms to:
Hold BTC as a hedge
Use P2P / open networks in parallel
Build dual-stack infrastructures
Again: economic leakage.
And then if we look at the macro economy, we see ceentralization's death spiral.
To keep ontological control as people leak out, the Synthetic Stack has to:
Tighten KYC
Expand surveillance
Raise compliance burdens
Raise extraction (inflation/taxes/fees)
Punish exit more aggressively
Each of those moves:
Increases cost
Decreases trust
Pushes more people to want an alternative
So you get a control → cost → resentment → more control loop.
It doesn’t mean it collapses overnight. It means:
The more they try to centrally manage reality,
the more expensive and resented their ontology becomes
relative to lightweight, voluntary alternatives.
Long-term, that’s economically unstable.
Important nuance however (to end this whole tirade):
When we say:
“Sovereign ontology becomes increasingly economically inevitable”
We’re not saying:
It will dominate 100%; They can’t violently suppress large parts of it; It’s a smooth, linear path
We’re saying:
As a cost structure + incentive pattern,
the world is being reconfigured in a way where:
Centralized ontological control is ever more expensive to maintain, while Sovereign ontological architectures are ever cheaper to spin up, fork, and adopt.
So in the long-run, unless they achieve perfect coercive totality, you should expect:
Parallel, Sovereign ontologies to proliferate
More economic activity routed through them (even if disguised)
States and institutions to be forced to interface with them (or lose relevance)
That’s what “economic inevitability” really means:
The direction of pressure, not a guaranteed end-state.
-----------------------
Long story short. Epic insight. Thanks for the comment that sparked this whole thing, and for the sats man I promise those are and will be well spent on SovStack infra for everyone. Hope all is swell as always.
